Does Christianity really necessitate ransom for salvation?

Does Christianity really necessitate ransom for salvation?

A comparative examination of vicarious atonement and repentance in biblical light

 

Question Mark

 

Prelude

 

In the recent past Muslim Apologist and Speaker, Paul Williams engaged in a debate regarding the concept of Sin and Salvation in Islam and Christianity. Because the debate was very successful this made Christian Apologist Sam Shamoun to write “responses” (1, 2 (1.)).

In doing so, Shamoun conveniently ignored scores of biblical passages which raises question whether Christianity actually require alleged death of Jesus (peace be upon him) for forgiveness of sins and subsequent salvation. We would, inshallah, document all of them in this paper for a neutral perusal.

 

Introduction

 

Jews believed in a concept of forgiveness called “Mehilah” which meant merciful cancellation of sins without any need of indemnification or clearance of debts:

 

Mehilah is a technical, legal term that applies when the lender of money forgoes or waives all or part of the debt another person owes him. When applied to the consequence of sin, mehilah is the remission or cancellation of the punishment and any of the legal consequences of the sinful act.” (Forgiving the Unforgivable?)

  

Jews never had the concept of vicarious atonement for their sins, on the contrary, they had a lot of confidence and belief in their “Teshuva” – sincere repentance. They believed that sincere “Teshuva” is never denied by God:

 

“Rabbi Johanan explained:Were it not written in the text, it would be impossible for us to say such a thing; this verse teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, drew his tallit (prayer shawl) round Him like the prayer leader of a congregation and showed Moses the order of prayer. He said to him: “Whenever Israel sin, let them carry out this service before Me (i.e., read these passages containing the thirteen attributes of God’s mercy), and I will forgive them. And Rabbi Judah added that the verse, “Behold I make a covenant” (34:10) recorded just a few verses later, indicates that the revelation of these thirteen attributes actually formed a covenant that guaranteed that the people would never be turned away without forgiveness. This formula is the central theme of the penitential Selihot prayers recited during the High Holy Day season, culminating with Yom Kippur. (Forgiving the Unforgivable?)

 

 From the forgoing, quite naturally, Jews never felt any real need for somebody to be hanged for their sins, contrariwise, they reclined to oft – repentance:

  

Essentially, God is a forgiving God who desires the repentance of sinners. Three times a day during the daily prayers, Jews recite the blessings: Bring us back, our Father, to Your Torah and bring us near, our King, to Your service. Cause us to return to You in perfect repentance. Blessed are You, God, Who desires repentance. Forgive us, our Father, for we have sinned. Pardon us, our King, for we have transgressed. For You pardon and forgive. Blessed are You, God, the gracious One Who pardons abundantly. This theme is repeated again and again throughout the liturgy. The rabbis even saw divine kindness and mercy reflected in God’s Name itself. The Tetragrammaton, YHWH, isused as God’s Name when He manifests His middat ha-rahamim (love, kindness and forgiveness), whereas Elohim is used to designate His attribute of justice.” (Forgiving the Unforgivable?)

 

They derived these teachings from their sacred scriptures. Consider the following biblical verses which stress on the concept of repentance and sub-sequent anticipation of forgiveness:

 

“Return to the LORD your God, people of Israel. Your sin has made you stumble and fall. Return to the LORD, and let this prayer be your offering to him: “Forgive all our sins and accept our prayer, and we will praise you as we have promised. Assyria can never save us. We will never again say to our idols that they are our God. O LORD, you show mercy to those who have no one else to turn to.” (Hosea 14:2)

 

Note assiduously that according to so called biblical prophet Hosea and his community, the prayer – (“this prayer”) – of repentance and guilt was the “offering” to God for forgiveness of sins; the “offering” was not the alleged, vicarious sacrifice of Messiah (peace be upon him).

Jews had no belief that they would be denied forgiveness if they did not believe in Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged death, rather, they believed that if they misuse God’s oft forgiving capacity by repeatedly sinning then their repentances would be repealed and they would not be forgiven:

 

“Nevertheless, despite God’s desire for repentance, His essential capacity for mercy and His identification as a God of forgiveness, He Himself may withhold forgiveness at times. This is so when a penitent has not truly repented or if he uses the future possibility of penitence as an excuse to justify his illicit behavior, as the Mishnah, Yoma 85b, indicates, If one says, “I shall sin and repent, sin and repent,” no opportunity will be given to him to repent.23 [If one says], “I shall sin and the Day of Atonement will procure atonement for me,” the Day of Atonement procures for him no atonement.” (Forgiving the Unforgivable?)

 

While Jews derived their concepts of “Mehilah” – cancellation of debts and “Teshuva” – sincere repentance from Bible, as we would shortly see more of it in this paper, Saul who changed his Jewish name to Gentile Paul – contravened Jewish Scriptures to derive Gentile concepts of forgiveness through offering of flesh and blood of innocent.

Paul preached that sins would not be forgiven unless blood and flesh of Jesus (peace be upon him) is offered to God:

         

“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb 9:22)

Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: (Gal 1:3-4)

 

 

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; (Eph 1:7)

 

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Tit 2:13-14)

 

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. (1 Co 15:14)

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Col 1:20)

(King James Version, e-Sword)

 

In the above passages, Paul assumes that the only way sin of mankind can be forgiven and subsequent salvation can be attained, is through the blood shed of Jesus (peace be upon him).

Nevertheless, Paul by writing the above passages and Christian apologists by appealing to the above verses reject the teachings of multiple Old Testament (OT) Prophets and New Testament (NT) Prophet – Jesus (peace be upon him) himself. As we are going to see, Paul failed to realize that their (OT prophet’s) deity was less an exacting accountant and more a merciful God.

 

Pre – Pauline Teachings on Repentance and Forgiveness

 

For instance, consider the sayings of OT prophet Joel:

 

“But even now,” says the LORD, “repent sincerely, and return to me with fasting and weeping and mourning. Let your broken heart show your sorrow; tearing your clothes is not enough.” Come back to the LORD your God. He is kind and full of mercy; he is patient and keeps his promise; he is always ready to forgive and not punish. Perhaps the LORD your God will change his mind and bless you with abundant crops. Then you can offer him corn and wine. (Joel 2: 12-14)

           

Notice that unlike Paul who nails the forgiveness of sins on the cross, Jewish prophet Joel emphatically states that God is too kind, forgiving and considerate to accept sincere repentance and blot out sins! Joel’s God invites sinners to Himself so that He may forgive their sins! God of the OT does not need any cross to forgive sins, His mere virtue of kindness is enough amalgamated with the fasting, weeping and mourning of sinners.

Observe that God does not instruct Joel’s community to return with belief in the alleged, would-be crucifixion of Christ (peace be upon him) but with (i) fasting (ii) weeping (iii) and mourning!

In fact we do find God forgiving sins by blessing Joel’s community with abundance of crops production:

           

“…Have pity on your people, LORD. Do not let other nation despise us and mock us by saying, “Where is your God?’” Then the LORD showed concern for his land; he had mercy on his people. He answered them: “Now I am going to give you corn and wine and olive-oil, and you will be satisfied. Other nations will not despise you. I will remove the locust army that came from the north and will drive some of them in to the desert.” (Joel 2: 17-20)

 

Observe that God of the OT did not forgive Joel’s community because they believed that one day Messiah (peace be upon him) would be allegedly crucified, but they were forgiven solely on God’s mercy when they pleaded to him for “pity”.

Another noticeable point is that locusts has always been one of the means through which the God of OT has wrecked His wrath on the wrong doers,

           

“You will sow plenty of seed, but reap only a small harvest, because the locusts will eat your crops.” (Deuteronomy 28:38)

“All your trees and crops will be devoured by insects.” (Deuteronomy 28:42)

“I will give you back what you lost in the years when swarms of locusts ate your crops. It was I who sent this army against you.”  (Joel 2:25)

 

Nevertheless, God drove locusts away as a sign of His mercy and forgiveness on Joel’s community:

 

I will give you back what you lost in the years when swarms of locusts ate your crops. It was I who sent this army against you.” (Joel 2:25)

 

However, Paul’s influence makes Trinitarian apologists like Sam Shamoun claim that Christ’s (peace be upon him) vicarious death was the only way their sins can be absolved:

 

“In the first place, the very same Gospels, which these dawagandists pervert in order make them say something contrary to the intended meaning of the inspired authors, are the very same writings which go out of their way to affirm that Jesus’ vicarious death is both necessary and foundational for salvation.(Was Jesus’ sacrificial death necessary for the forgiveness of sins?)

  

However, contrary to what Paul teaches and Shamoun’s claim, God of the OT had entirely different concepts for the forgiveness of sins and subsequent salvation.

For OT Prophets (and their community) Christ’s (peace be upon him) vicarious death was not at all required, let alone, “foundational for salvation”, since their sins were always welcomed to be forgiven as we saw above how Joel’s community was forgiven!

If Jesus’ vicarious death is (really) both necessary and foundational for salvation then how was Joel’s community forgiven without it? Seems it was not so “foundational” for them.

Consider another offer of forgiveness. This time the community of OT Prophet Ezekiel (peace be upon him) was to be forgiven without Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged sacrifice:

 

“Now, mortal man, I am making you a watchman for the nation of Israel. You must pass on to them the warnings I give you. If I announce that an evil man is going to die but you do not warn him to change his ways so that he can save his life, then he will die, still a sinner, and I will hold you responsible for his death. If you do warn an evil man and he does not stop sinning, he will die, still a sinner, but your life will be spared.”

 

Individual Responsibility

 

The LORD spoke to me. “Mortal man.” he said, “repeat to the Israelites what they are saying: We are burdened with our sins and the wrongs we have done. We are wasting away. How can we live? Tell them that as surely as I, the Sovereign LORD, am the living God, I do not enjoy seeing a sinner die. I would rather see him stop sinning and live. Israel, stop the evil you are doing. Why do you want to die?

I may warn an evil man that he is going to die, but if he stops sinning and does what is right and good – for example, if he returns the security he took for a loan or gives back what he stole – if he stops sinning and follows the laws that give life, he will not die, but live. I will forgive the sins he has committed, and he will live because he has done what is right and good. And your people say that what I do isn’t right! No, it’s their way that isn’t right. When a righteous man stops doing god and starts doing evil, he will die for it. When an evil man gives up sinning and does what is right and good, he has saved his life. But Israel, you say that what I do isn’t right. I am going to judge you by what you do.” (Ezekiel 33: 7-11, 14-20)

 

The verses teach the following:

(1)No matter how big the sins and wrongs be, “Life can be saved” or in other words, forgiveness/salvation can be achieved by (2) turning away from sins, doing good deeds and (3) following the “Law that give life”, (in other words “law” is not a “curse” as Paul erroneously assumes (c.f. Galatians 3: 13) but a blessing) and then (4) God “will forgive the sins they have committed”.

If God is/was willing to forgive even heavy burden of sins by virtue of His attribute, sinner’s repentance, acts of good deeds and obedience to Law – then was it required for Ezekiel’s community to believe in any vicarious atonement which was allegedly going to take place thousands of years later? Or, was it required for any person to later “volunteer” himself for crucifixion for sins of others?

It is not surprising that rather than any mention of vicarious atonement, Bible compilers gave the sub-heading to these passages as “Individual Responsibility” – not Christ’s (peace be upon him) responsibility to bear the burden of others!

Another important observation is the stress on refraining from evil and encouragement to do good deeds since (5) God will “judge by what you do” – not what Christ (peace be upon him) did (or would do) for them. This also questions Paul’s self made doctrine of mere faith on cross (c.f. Romans 3: 20, 28). 

Also please observe the stress that sinners should follow the LAW since it gives LIFE. No wonder we found Jesus (peace be upon him) in the New Testament obedient to the Law:

 

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.  Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:17-19, King James Version, E-Sword)

 

Even after the assertions of God through biblical Prophet Ezekiel (peace be upon him) and Jesus (peace be upon him), we find Paul contravening the sacred Laws thereby contradicting Jesus (peace be upon him) also:

 

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. (Gal 3:11)

The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the LAW. (1Co 15:56)

 

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Rom 3:28)

 

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20)

 

For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. (Heb 7:19)

(King James, e-Sword Version)

 

Observe that for Paul, “Law” is not just impotent but that sin gathers its viability from God’s sacred Laws! When a person (Paul) believes that Law provides viability to sins (!) then he would certainly like to do away and water down its benefits and coin a new doctrine of forgiveness through cross – even though God asserts that Law provides “life” (2.).  

Another notable facet, as mentioned earlier, that God will judge mortals according to their deeds, however, Paul again infringes God. Consider the biblical verse where God stresses on personal good deeds:

 

But Israel, you say that what I do isn’t right. I am going to judge you by what you do (Ezekiel 33:20)

 

Compare it against Paul’s words:

 

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Rom 3:28)

 

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20)

 

Hardly did Paul realized that he was even contravening his “lord and savior” since Jesus (peace be upon him) for salvation, (1.) did not place any weightage on cross (2.) gave much importance to deeds. As is illustrated from the following statements of Jesus (peace be upon him):

 

 “And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there isnone good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  (Mat 19:16-19, King James, e-Sword Version)

 

Observe that according to Jesus (peace be upon him), not Paul, salvation can be achieved by (i) not murdering (ii) abstinence from adultery (iii) abstinence from theft (iv) abstinence from false witnessing (v) honoring parents (vi) and loving our neighbor. Al-hamdolillah.

Starkly, Jesus (peace be upon him) did not enlist belief on his alleged cross to attain salvation which for Shamoun is “both necessary and foundational for salvation”. Seems that for Christ (peace be upon him), cross was neither necessary nor foundational for salvation!

Christians need to choose between Shamoun and Jesus (peace be upon him) – I will put my money on Jesus (peace be upon him).

No matter what God ordained, Paul always seems to contravene Him and yet he is ironically purported to be a divinely appointed “apostle”! More on this topic in our future papers, inshallah. However, for the time being we would direct readers to the following related articles:

 

Bible does not stop with biblical prophets Joel and Ezekiel only (peace be upon him) but even Jeremiah taught the concepts of forgiving God through repentance from sins.

In the following verses observe the ghastly sins committed by Jeremiah’s community:

 

But the worship of Baal, the god of shame, has made us lose flocks and herds, sons and daughters – everything that our ancestors have worked for since ancient times. We should lie down in shame and let our disgrace cover us. We and our ancestors have always sinned against the LORD our God; we have never obeyed his commands.” (Jeremiah 3:24-25)

 

Even after the worship of the idol – “Baal”, witness the love, mercy and forgiving capacity of God – Almighty:

 

“The LORD says, “People of Israel, if you want to turn, then turn back to me. If you are faithful to me and remove the idols I hate, it will be right for you to swear by my name. Then all the nations will ask me to bless them, and they will praise me.” (Jeremiah 4:1-2)

 

Notice that even when the Israelites acceded that they have “ALWAYS” sinned against God by worshipping others besides Him and “NEVER” ever obeyed His command, the forgiving God responded by embracing them “BACK TO HIM (SELF)”.  God had no need for Jesus’ (peace be upon him) blood to forgive even the most hideous and perennial sin of worshipping BAAL!

In fact God confirms through Jeremiah that if sinners mend their ways then He would forgive them (without any need of innocent’s blood):

 

“If at any time I say that I am going to uproot, break down, or destroy any nation or kingdom, but then that nation turns from its evil, I will not do what I said I would.” (Jeremiah 18:8)

 

The only ground on which God would not afflict punishment on the sinning nations is when it wouldturn from its evil. Starkly, God did not need the alleged cross to forgive sins.

 

According to yet another biblical figure, Samuel, God – The most merciful will blot out even the most heinous sin if heartily repented for:

 

“Samuel said to the people of Israel, “If you are going to turn to the LORD with all your hearts, you must get rid of all the foreign gods and the images of the goddess Astarte. Dedicate yourselves completely to the LORD and worship only him, and he will rescue you from the power of the Philistines.” (1 Samuel 7: 3-4)

 

Notice that according to Samuel (also), God “will rescue” the Israelites not because they believed Jesus (peace be upon him) would allegedly die on cross someday and subsequently their sins would be forgiven, rather, they would be forgiven if they turned from sins “with all your (their) hearts”. Thus, here again, a strong importance is laid on heartfelt repentance and God’s infinite mercy rather than any alleged cross!

In fact, at one place God explicitly says that to forgive sins He does not need sacrifices but emotions of heart:

 

“I do not reprimand you because of your sacrifices and the burnt – offerings you always bring me. And yet I do not need bulls from your farms…Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats? Let the giving of thanks be your sacrifice to God,” (Psalms 50:8-14)

 

Next we have very important chapter from Psalms where in important OT prophet David (peace be upon him) not only teaches how to repent but he also puts forth the conditions how sins could be forgiven:

           

A Prayer for Forgiveness

 

Be merciful to me, O God, because of your constant love. Because of your great mercy wipe away my sins! Wash away all my evil and make me clean from my sins. I have sinned against you – only against you – and done what you consider evil. So you are right in judging me; you are justified in condemning me. I have been evil from the day I was born; from the time I was conceived, I have been sinful. Sincerity and truth are what you require; fill my mind with your wisdom. Remove my sin and I will be clean; wash me; and I will be whiter than snow. Let me hear the sounds of joy and gladness; and though you have crushed me and broken me, I will be happy once again. Close your eyes to my sins and wipe out all my evil. Create a pure heart in me, O God, and put a new and loyal spirit in me. Do not banish me from your presence; do not take yourholy spirit away from me. Give me again the joy that comes from your salvation, and make me willing to obey you. Then I will teach sinners your commands, and they will turnback to you. Spare my life, O God, and save me, and I will gladly proclaim your righteousness. Help me to speak, Lord, and I will praise you. You do not want sacrifices, or I would offer them; you are not pleased with burnt-offerings. My sacrifice is a humble spirit, O God; you will not reject a humble and repentant heart.” (Psalms 51:1-17)

 

Notice the reasons why David (peace be upon him) expects forgiveness from God:

(1.)  Because   of God’s constant love.

(2.)  Because of God’s great mercy.

 

David (peace be upon him) did not had any third reason of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged, would-be, sacrifice for the forgiveness of his sins. In fact, he pleads God to “close His eyes from his sins.”

Why would David (peace be upon him) request God to “close His eyes from his sins.” if he (David) believed that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) would pay the price for his sins?  If David (peace be upon him) had ransom currency in his hand then he would look into the eyes of God (so to say) rather than pleading to Him for mercy. A request for closure of eyes is positive proof that David (peace be upon him) expected mercy rather than believing that his sins would be re-directed to Jesus (peace be upon him).

The truth of the matter is that David (peace be upon him) never believed in vicarious atonement; for him, his repentance and God’s abundant mercy was enough. As a matter of fact, rather than appealing God through Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged, would be sacrifice, David (peace be upon him) asserted that God does not require sacrifices but He looks out for “humble spirits” in repentance. If David (peace be upon him) believed in Christ’s (peace be upon him) would be, alleged, sacrifice then why did he assert that “my sacrifice is (my) humble spirit”?

It gets no better for apologists like Shamoun because according to ‘Christian’ Scholars of the Bible, not Jews or Muslims, the only way sinners can be saved is, not through cross, but through the forgiveness and mercy of God:

 

“The only hope of a sinner when crushed with the consciousness of sin is the mercy of God; and the plea for that mercy will be urged in the most earnest and impassioned language that the mind can employ. “Accordingly to thy Iovingkindness.” On the meaning of the word used here, see the notes at Psa 36:7.

 

(a) The “ground” of his hope was the compassion of God:

(b) the “measure” of that hope was His boundless beneficence; or, in other words, he felt that there was need of “all” the compassion of a God. (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Psalms 51:1)

 

Notice that the Christian Commentator candidly accepts that the ONLY hope for sinners is mercy of God, not the alleged blood of Christ (peace be upon him). Furthermore, this hope of mercy can be achieved not through the belief in alleged cross of Christ (peace be upon him) but through mercy plea “in the most earnest and impassioned language that the mind can employ.” The candid commentator again repeats his message by stating that the “ground” for the hope of mercy is “compassion of God”, not alleged cross of Jesus (peace be upon him).All of this alludes that the forgiveness of God is indispensable than the purported, alleged cross of Messiah (peace be upon him).

 

Moving on with OT prophets, we find God – Almighty promising prophet Isaiah that He always grants sincere repentance (and thus obviating need of any sacrificial death!):

 

“I am the high and holy God, who lives for ever. I live in a high and holy place, but I also live with people who are humble and repentant, so that I can restore their confidence and hope. I gave my people life, and I will not continue to accuse them or be angry with them for ever. I was angry with them because of their sin and greed, and so I punished them and abandoned them. But they were stubborn and kept on going their own way. “I have seen how they acted, but I will heal them. I will lead them and help them, and I will comfort those who mourn. I offer peace to all, both near and far! I will heal my people. But evil men are like the restless sea, whose waves never stop rolling in, bringing filth and much. There is no safety for sinners,” says the LORD.” (Isaiah 57:15-21)

 

Notice that according to Prophet Isaiah, not “apostle” Paul, God will not abandon sinners, however, he will “heal his people” – “his people” who are “mournful” and “repentant”. If sinners can be “healed” through “mourning” and “repentance” then is Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged death indispensible, as Paul claims?

Observe that the verse says that God will “comfort those who mourn”; it does not says “those who believe in the (alleged) would-be death of Christ (peace be upon him)!

Also notice the phrase where it says that “there is no safety for sinners” – from the context, the sinners are the ones who do not humble themselves in repentance and mourning; the verse does not refer sinners to those who do not accept future (alleged) death of Messiah (peace be upon him) like the Muslims! This yet again obviates any necessity of cross.

Not just Israelites but even Egyptians, a non-Semitic civilization with no expectation of Messiah (peace be upon him), would also be healed or in other words forgiven, if they repent:

           

“The LORD will punish the Egyptians, but then he will heal them. They will turn to him, and he will hear their prayers and heal them. (Isaiah 19:22)

 

Notice yet again that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion was not required for the forgiveness of sins and subsequent “healing”. All that Egyptians needed to do is to “turn back”,that is to repent through “prayers”, not belief in alleged would-be sacrifice of Christ (peace be upon him),and then God will forgive them.

 

The Psalmist also asserts that God – Almighty is merciful and ready to forgive without any need of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) death (!):

 

You are my God, so be merciful to me; I pray to you all day long. Make your servant glad, O lord, because my prayers go up to you. You are good to us and forgiving.

 

Proud men are coming against me, O God; a gang of cruel men is trying to kill me – people who pay no attention to you But you, O lord, are merciful and loving God, always patient, always kind and faithful. Turn to me and have mercy on me; strengthen me and save me because I serve you, just as my mother did.” (Psalm 86:3-5 & 14-17)

 

Here is something very interesting about this Psalmist. Notice that he requests for forgiveness and mercy not on the grounds that he has believed that Jesus (peace be upon him) would be allegedly crucified some day, rather he expects it because of his own good deeds of serving Him alone, as his mother did (!) and due to the merciful nature of God. This is again a positive proof that during OT age, people did not used to rely on vicarious atonement on the contrary, they used to rely on God’s mercy and their good actions much like the Muslims!

 

The people of Prophet Jonah (peace be upon him) – the citizens of Nineveh, deeply rooted in their sins, were also forgiven by God – Almighty, neither on the account of the smallness of their sins nor on the account of their believe in the alleged, would be, death of Christ (peace be upon him) but because of their humbleness, fasting, obedience and repentance shown to God:

           

“Once again the LORD spoke to Jonah. He said, “Go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim to the people the message I have given you.” So Jonah obeyed the LORD and went to Nineveh, a city so large that it took three days to walk through it….he proclaimed, “In forty days Nineveh will be destroyed!” The People of Nineveh believed God’s message. So they decided that everyone should fast, and all the people, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth to show that they had repented. When the king of Nineveh heard about it, he got up from his throne, took off his robe, put on sackcloth, and sat down in ashes. He sent out a proclamation to the people of Nineveh: “This is an order from the king and his officials: No one is to eat anything: all persons, cattle, and sheep are forbidden to eat or drink. All persons and animals must wear sackcloth. Everyone must pray earnestly to God and must give up his wicked behavior and his evil actions. Perhaps God will change his mind; perhaps he will stop being angry, and we will not die!”

 

Notice the actions of the Ninevites when they came to know of their imminent destruction. Unlike Trinitarian understanding, they did not cry out that we have believed that someday Messiah (peace be upon him) would be (allegedly) crucified, thus, they should be forgiven. On the other hand, they prayed earnestly, fasted, humbled themselves by wearing sackclothes so much so that even their king did so and gave up their wicked ways.

Trinitarians would expect God to proclaim that their (Ninevites’) fasting, prayer etc are useless unless they believed in Messiah’s (alleged) death (peace be upon him) since that is the only way He would forgive their sins, however, contrary to this Pauline belief, a merciful God is ready to forgive freely. As He actually did with the Ninevites:

           

“God saw what they did; he saw that they had given up their wicked behavior. So he changed his mind and did not punish them as he had said he would.” (Jonah 3: 1-10)

 

We need to ponder whether the Ninevites were forgiven due to (belief in) Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged, would-be death or due to God’s free mercy shown on their repentance?

 

Jeremiah also accounts that if people would repent then God would change His mind, in other words, forgive them their sins:

 

“Soon after Jehoiakim son of Josiah became king of Judah, the LORD said to me, “Stand in the court of the Temple and proclaim all I have commanded you to say to the people who come from the towns of Judah to worship there. Do not leave out anything. Perhaps the people will listen and give up their ways. If they do, then I will change my mind about the destruction I plan to bring on them for all their wicked deeds. (Jeremiah 26: 1-3)

 

Very ironically, in the above passage God – Almighty goes out of the way to ordain His prophet to instruct people that He (God) is willing to forgive their sins (“change his mind”) if they mend their ways, compatible with Christian believe, God did not say “if they accept alleged blood of Christ (peace be upon him)”.

Also, notice the yearning and initiative in God’s behalf to forgive their sins – God is found to be reaching out to sinners willingly to forgive their sins; even after this, Trinitarians resonate blindly with Paul that the only way sins can be forgiven is through the alleged blood of Christ (peace be upon him)!

A little later, Jeremiah confirms that if people would give up sinning and repent then God WILL (positive affirmative) forgive them:

           

“Then I said, “The LORD sent me to proclaim everything that you heard me say against this Temple and against this city. You must change the way you are living and the things you are doing, and must obey the LORD your God. If you do, he will change his mind about the destruction that he said he would bring on you. (Jeremiah 26: 12-13)

 

Furthermore, in the same book of Jeremiah we find yet another instance where merciful God utterly yearning to forgive Israelites when He found them repentant on their sins:

 

I hear the people of Israel say in grief, LORD, we were like an untamed animal, but you taught us to obey. Bring us back; we are ready to return to you the LORD our God. We turned away from you, but soon we wanted to return. After you had punished us, we hung our heads in grief. We were ashamed and disgraced, because we sinned when we were young.’ “Israel, you are my dearest son, the child I love best. Whenever I mention your name, I think of you with love. My heart goes out to you; I will be merciful. Set up signs and mark the road; find again the way by which you left. Come back, people of Israel, come home to the towns you left. How long will you hesitate, faithless people? I have created something new and different, as different as a women protecting a man. (Jeremiah 31:18-22)

 

Did you feel yearn in God’s heart (so to say) to forgive returning sinners! When Israelites humbled themselves as “untamed animal” and hung their “heads in grief” shame and disgrace, God became extremely compassionate towards this act and called them back over and over again. Being “merciful” towards them with a promise of an entirely new gift and as unique as a “women protecting a man”; no where sinners needed any belief in vicarious atonement to be freely forgiven by God!

 

Through yet another so called OT prophet Amos, God sets easy conditions for His free flowing forgiveness on sinners:

           

“I know how terrible your sins are and how many crimes you have committed. You persecute good men, take bribes, and prevent the poor from getting justice in the courts. And so, keeping quiet in such evil times is the clever thing to do!

 

Make it your aim to do what is right, not what is evil so that you may live. Then the LORD God Almighty really will be with you, as you claim he is. Hate what is evil, love what is right, and see that justice prevails in the courts. Perhaps the LORD will be merciful to the people of this nation who are still left alive. (Amos 5:12-15)

 

It is conspicuous that God would be merciful if the people of Amos were just and upright; yet again there is no need of any vicarious atonement through Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged death.

 

There is even more in the Bible. Trinitarian Apologists like Sam Shamoun who use the book of Isaiah to somehow establish vicarious atonement, conveniently ignores, if not outright discard, the following important passage from it:

 

Turn to the LORD and pray to him, now that he is near. Let the wicked leave their way of life and change their way of thinking. Let them turn to the LORD, our God; He is merciful and quick to forgive. “My thoughts.” says the LORD, “are not like yours, and my ways are different from yours. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways and thoughts above yours.

“My word is like the snow and the rain that come down from the sky to water the earth. They make the crops grow and provide seed for sowing and food to eat. So also will be the word that I speak – it will not fail to do what I plan for it; it will do everything I send it to do. “You will leave Babylon with joy; you will be led out of the city in peace. The mountains and hills will burst into singing, and the trees will grow where now there are briars; myrtle-trees will come up in place of thorns. This will be a sign that will last for ever, a reminder of what I, the LORD, have done.” (Isaiah 55:6-13)

 

It must be observed that God claims that He is MERCIFUL AND ABUNDANTLY FORGIVING (“quick to forgive”), in other words, He wants to copiously forgive returning sinners; all that sinners are needed to do is to “leave their (wicked) way of life and change their way of thinking”. God absolutely does not put any restrictions on his incessant mercy and forgiveness through sacrifice of any innocent Prophet (peace be upon him). We need to ponder that if God is willing to excessively forgive solely on His own account then why will He need cross, blood and an innocent?

In fact, as a sign of this free out pouring forgiveness and mercy, God would grow “myrtle-trees in place of thorns” not to later nail and belittle it on the cross.

Another observable facet to the above passage is that it is human nature not to give things freely but to ask for return, however, merciful God, in the passage, boasts of his free forgiveness by proclaiming that His “ways are different from yours (humans)”.

 

This is an ironical response to Paul – a mortal, who thought that God like mortals would demand blood and flesh of Christ (peace be upon him) to forgive heavy yokes of oft – repeated sins resembling “give and take” policy. However, according to yet another Christian commentator, God was/is ready to forgive freely and abundantly:

 

“For – If any man injure you, especially if he do it greatly and frequently, you are slow and backward to forgive him. But I am ready to forgive all penitents, how many, and great, and numberless soever their sins be.(John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes, Isaiah 55:8)

 

Jewish commentator Solomon Ben Isaac (Rashi) also concurs of the free and unconditional mercy:

 

For My thoughts are not, etc.:My laws are not like the laws of man [lit. flesh and blood]. As for you, whoever confesses in judgment is found guilty, but, as for Me, whoever confesses and gives up his evil way, is granted clemency (Source)

 

It can be deduced that for grant of clemency or forgiveness, unlike the understanding of vicarious atonement, one needs to:

 

  1. Confess his/her sins.
  2. Turn away from sins.
  3. And subsequently, receive clemency/forgiveness of sins.

 

In the above facts, it is hard to insert the concept of vicarious atonement through the alleged death of Messiah (peace be upon him).

From the above cited Isaiah verse, esteemed Christian Commentator Albert Barnes (also) postulates pre-requisites to avail salvation. It would be interesting to observe if he gives place to the alleged blood and cross of Christ (peace be upon him). He comments:

 

Let the wickedIn this verse we are told what is necessary in order to seek God and to return to him, and the encouragement which we have to do it. The first step is for the sinner to forsake his way. He must come to a solemn pause, and resolve to abandon all his transgressions. His evil course; his vices; his corrupt practices; and his dissipated companions, must be forsaken.

 

And the unrighteous man – Margin, “Man of iniquity.” This is a literal translation. The address is made to all people, for all are such.

 

His thoughts – The Hebrew word denotes all that is the object of thought; and the idea is, that the man must abandon his plans and purposes of life. The thoughts, in the sight of a holy God, are not less important than the external deportment; and no man can obtain his favor who is not ready to abandon his erroneous opinions, his pride and vanity, his plans of evil, and his purposes of life that are opposed to God.

 

And let him return unto the Lord – Man, in the Scriptures, is everywhere described as having wandered away from the true God. Religion consists in returning to him for pardon, for consolation, for protection, for support. The true penitent is desirous of returning to him, as the prodigal son returned to his father’s house; the man who loves sin chooses to remain at a distance from God.

 

And to our God – The God of his people; the God of the speaker here. It is the language of those who have found mercy. The idea is, that he who has bestowed mercy on us, will be ready to bestow it on others. ‘We have returned to God. We have had experience of his compassion, and we have such a conviction of his overflowing mercy, that we can assure all others that if they will return to our God, he will abundantly pardon them.’ The doctrine is, that they who have found favor have a deep conviction of the abounding compassion of God, and such a sense of the fullness of his mercy, that they are disposed to offer the assurance to all others, that they may also obtain full forgiveness. Compare Rev 22:17 – ‘And let him that heareth say, Come.’

 

For he will abundantly pardon – Margin, as Hebrew, ‘Multiply to pardon.’ He abounds in forgiveness. This is the conviction of those who are pardoned; this is the promise of inestimable worth which is made to all who are willing to return to God. On the ground of this promise all may come to him, and none who come shall be sent empty away. (Albert Barnes’ notes on the Bible, Isaiah 55:7)

 

It is observable that Barnes felt no need to mention the alleged cross of Christ (peace be upon him) to forgive sins, on the contrary, he states that sinners need to return to God as the “prodigal son” returned to his father. Now, this father exacted no price from his squandered son to forgive him, rather he merely forgave him, accepted him and went out of the way to organize a feast for him!

 

Book of Proverbs also has the criterions for free mercy without any conditions of cross:

 

“You will never succeed in life if you try to hide your sins. Confess them and give them up; then God will show MERCY to you.” (Proverbs 28:13)

 

Once again, to have “success” one needs to (i) Confess his/her sins (ii) Turn away from them (iii) subsequently, God will show “mercy” and forgive sins.

Did you notice if God required any human sacrifice for forgiveness! Rather His forgiveness comes out “freely, fully, without any grudges” or reserves even on the most hideous of sins.

 

Not merely Jewish Rashi but even much celebrated Christian scholars John Gill, who does believe in vicarious atonement, agrees that God does and can forgive sins freely without the need any human sacrifice:

 

In some things there may be a likeness between the thoughts of God and the thoughts of men, as to the nature of them: thoughts are natural and essential to them both; they are within them, are internal acts, and unknown to others, till made known; but then the thoughts of men are finite and limited, whereas the thoughts of the Lord are infinite and boundless; men’s thoughts have a beginning, but the Lord’s have none; though not so much the nature as the quality of them is here intended: the thoughts of men are evil, even the imagination of their thoughts, yea, every imagination is, and that always and only so; but the thoughts of God are holy, as appears from his purposes and covenant, and all his acts of grace, in redemption, calling, and preparing his people for glory: the thoughts of men, as to the object of them, are vain, and nothing worth; their thoughts and sentiments of things are very different from the Lord’s, as about sin, concerning Christ, the truths of the Gospel, the people of God, religion, holiness, and a future state, and in reference to the business of salvation; they think they can save themselves; that their own works of righteousness are sufficient to justify them; their privileges and profession such, that they shall be saved; their wisdom, riches, and honour, a security to them from damnation: however, that their sincere obedience, with repentance for what is amiss, will entitle them to happiness: but the thoughts of God are the reverse of all this; particularly with respect to pardoning mercy their thoughts are different; carnal men think of mercy, but not of justice, and of having pardoning mercy in an absolute way, and not through Christ, and without conversion and repentance; and so this is a reason why men’s thoughts are to be forsaken, because so very unlike to the Lord’s. OR else these words are to be considered as an argument, proving that God does abundantly pardon all returning sinners; since he is not like men, backward to forgive, especially great and aggravated crimes, but is ready, free, and willing to forgive, even those of the most aggravated circumstances.

 

Neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord; the ways which God prescribes and directs men to walk in are different from theirs; his are holy, theirs unholy; his are plain, theirs crooked; his are ways of light, theirs ways of darkness; his are pleasant, theirs not so, at least in the issue; his lead to life, theirs to death; and therefore there is good reason why they should leave their evil ways, and walk in his. Moreover, the ways which he takes in the salvation of men are different from those which they, naturally pursue, and especially in the pardon of sin; he pardons freely, fully, without any reserve, or private grudge, forgetting as well as forgiving.(John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, Isaiah 55:8)

 

 

It is very interesting and ironical to note that John Gill, a proponent of vicarious atonement, firstly defends forgiveness through Christ (peace be upon him), however, he continues to decidedly assert that the verse “proves” God forgives incessantly to all returning sinners (why?) since He is unlike niggardly men “backward to forgive especially GREAT and AGGRAVATED CRIMES” ; He does not pardons on the basis of someone else’s (alleged) sacrificial death but He forgives freely, fully, WITHOUT ANY RESERVE OR PRIVATE GRUDGE, keeps nothing in His mind!

As we saw that a returning sinner is forgiven freely and “FULLY” by the outpouring of a loving and merciful God then is Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged death really required?

In fact Paul alludes that Jesus’ (peace be upon him) (alleged) death is in vain if there is free flowing and unconditional forgiveness of God:

 

“I refuse to reject the grace of God. But if a person is put right with God through the Law, it means that Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:21)

 

The book of Isaiah is far from over. We quote yet another passage from it:

 

“Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities. I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.” (Isa 43: 24-25, King James Version, e-Sword version.)

 

Unlike Christian theology where sins are forgiven because of Christ’s (peace be upon him) alleged death’s sake, in the above passage, God emphatically asserts that He forgives sins of HIS OWN SAKE!

Albert Barnes provides a very unlike Christian commentary on the above verses where he puts no stress on the alleged crucifixion of Jesus (peace be upon him):

 

“I, even I, am heThis verse contains a gracious assurance that their sins would be blotted out, and the reason why it would be done. The pronoun ‘I’ is repeated to make it emphatic, as in Isa 43:11. Perhaps also God designs to show them the evil of the sins which are mentioned in the previous verses, by the assurance that they were committed against him who alone could forgive, and who had promised them pardon. The passage also reminds them, that it was God alone who could pardon the sins of which, as a nation, they had been guilty.

 

That blotteth out thy transgressions This metaphor is taken from the custom of keeping accounts, where, when a debt is paid, the charge is blotted or cancelled. Thus God says he blotted out the sins of the Jews. He cancelled them. He forgave them. Of course, when forgiven, punishment could not be exacted, and he would treat them as pardoned; that is, as his friends.

 

For mine own sake Not because you deserve it, or have any claim, or that it would not be right to punish you. Not even primarily to promote your happiness and salvation, but for my sake;

 

1. To show the benevolence of my character;

2. To promote my glory by your forgiveness and salvation (see Eze 36:22).

 

And will not remember thy sinsThey shall be forgiven. Hezekiah Isa 38:17 expresses the same idea by saying ‘thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back.’ We may learn from this verse:

 

  1. That it is God only who can pardon sin. How vain, then, is it for man to attempt it! How wicked for man to claim the prerogative! And yet it is an essential part of the papal system that the Pope and his priests have the power of remitting the penalty of transgression.

 

     2.     That this is done by God solely for his own sake. It is not,

    (a) because we have any claim to it, for then it would not be pardon, but justice.

    (b) because we have any power to compel God to forgive, for who can contend with him, and how could mere power procure pardon? It is not

    (c) because we have any merit, for then also it would be justice, and we have no merit. Nor is it

    (d) primarily in order that we may be happy, for our happiness is a matter not worthy to be named, compared with the honor of God. But it is solely for his own sake – to promote his glory – to show his perfections – to evince the greatness of his mercy and compassion – and to show his boundless and eternal love.

 

3. They who are pardoned should live to his glory, and not to themselves. For that they were forgiven, and it should be the grand purpose of their lives so to live as to show forth the goodness, compassion, and love of that merciful Being who has blotted out their sins.

 

4. If people are ever pardoned, they must come to God – and to God alone. They must come, not to justify themselves, but to confess their crimes. And they must come with a willingness that God should pardon them on just such terms as he pleases; at just such a time as he pleases; and solely with a view to the promotion of his own glory. Unless they have this feeling, they never can be forgiven, nor should they be forgiven.” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Isaiah 43:25)

 

There are various important details to be noted from the above exegesis. Firstly, the merciful God “blotted out, cancelled and forgave” the heinous sins of the Israelites and by doing so God not only evinced His glory (as a God of mercy), His “compassion, boundless and eternal love” but God also made the sinning Jews His “friends” and awarded them “salvation”. Did you notice the Jews were forgiven, made friends and awarded salvation (!) without so need of belief in cross or vicarious atonement.

Secondly, Christian apologists claim that justice demanded (alleged) death of Christ (peace be upon him) since God is both merciful and just. Through Christ’s (peace be upon him) (alleged) death Christians can claim their salvation. However, God out of his “boundless mercy”, not justice, is willing to forgive sins without any claim on Him: “…because we (do not) have any claim to it, for then it would not be pardon, but justice.

 

Another Christian Scholar accepts that God has no other reason (of cross etc) but of His own goodness He forgives sins (!):

 For mine own sake – In the pardon of sin God can draw no reason but from his own infinite goodness. (Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Isaiah 43:25)

If the Divine God forgives out of his own infinite goodness” then it has to obviate all econcepts of ransom offerings to God otherwise it will belittle and devoid God off his divine attribute of “INFINITE goodness”.

 

Till now we have seen how God shows His merciful and forgiving nature by freely and unconditionally pardoning sinners thereby obviating the eccentric notion of atonement through alleged crucifixion.

In the next section we would see those biblical verses which out rightly negates Christ (peace be upon him) taking on sins of mankind upon himself.

These set of verses teaches, as we would soon observe, that each one has a personal responsibility towards his/her sins; if a person sins then s/he personally needs to repent rather than finding a scapegoat in Jesus (peace be upon him) to pass the burden on.  

 

Personal Responsibility – Not Christ’s (peace be upon him)

 

We read in Deuteronomy, God, not a mortal Paul, providing the following Law:

 

“Parents are not to be put to death for crimes committed by their children, and children are not to be put to death for crimes committed by their parents; a person is to be put to death only for a crime he himself has committed.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

 

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deu 24:16, King James, e-Sword version)

 

No stodgy passages are needed for the above limpidly clear verses. Each sinner is responsible for his own sins; he can either repent or die in that state – God will deal with him accordingly. Son cannot take Father’s sin on himself, even if he wants to! yet Christians claim that son (of man) took sins of others!

We also have a similar message in the so called book of Kings where Prophet Solomon (peace be upon him) is pleading to God:

 

“When a person is accused of wronging another and is brought to your altar in this Temple to take an oath that he is innocent, O LORD, listen in heaven and judge your servants. Punish the guilty one as he deserves, and acquit the one who is innocent.” (1 Kings 8: 31-32)

 

Finally, we have important and famous (3.)  Ezekiel (peace be upon him) verses:

           

“But you ask: ‘Why shouldn’t the son suffer because of his father’s sin?’ The answer is that the son did what was right and good. He kept my laws and followed them carefully, and so he will certainly live. It is the one who sins who will die. A son is not to suffer because of his father’s sins, nor a father because of the sins of his son. A good man will be rewarded for doing good, and an evil man will suffer for the evil he does.

If an evil man stops sinning and keeps my laws, if he does what is right and good, he will not die; he will certainly live. All his sins will be forgiven, and he will live, because he did what is right. Do you think I enjoy seeing an evil man die?” asks the Sovereign LORD. “No, I would rather see him repent and live.” (Ezekiel 18:19-23)

 

Although the verses are lucidly clear, however, very important deductions are to be taken from them.

Notice that (1.) through Prophet Ezekiel (peace be upon him), God defends the notion why SON should NOT be punished for the sins of the FATHER (!) because son is/was righteous and did what was good thus, he should not bear the sins of father.

To further support His divine Law: Punishment to un-repenting guilty and Safety to innocent; God states that He will not pardon bloodshed of innocent:

 

“And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the LORD would not pardon.” (2Ki 24:4, King James Version, e-Sword)

 

If we apply the same principle of “Individual Responsibility” (Ezekiel 18) between son (Jesus) and father (Adam) then Jesus (peace be upon him) should not be afflicted for the so called “sins” of Adam (peace be upon him), especially, when God will not pardon shedding of innocent’s blood.

It is hard to reconcile that God who was resolute not to pardon bloodshed of innocent in OT era all of a sudden He completely changed His methodology to kill an innocent to pardon sins of entire human race! It raises questions whether God changed His ways or human(s) coined new doctrine!

(2.) The verse emphatically asserts that the one who has sinned is responsible; obviating any substitute to bear the sins for other. It will be against the just law of a just God to punish innocent son for the sins of the father.

(3.) However, if father repents and turns back from evil, then ALL his sins will be FORGIVEN! –  it yet again obviates the concepts of substitution for bearing of sins of others. No surprise, Bible scholars and translators sub-headed the passages as “Individual Responsibility”:

To sum up, neither is there any need of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) alleged crucifixion for bearing the sins of others nor can he take sins of others on his head because according to OT books, namely, Deuteronomy, Kings and Ezekiel:

 

  • Every man is responsible for his own deeds – son is not to be held accountable for father; father is not accountable for the sins of son.
  • And, there is room for repenting sinners in mercy and forgiveness of God

 

In fact according to OT scholars, prophet Ezekiel declined any concept of vicarious atonement:

 

“God’s prophet Ezekiel said that each person is held responsible for his or her own sins. The Christian idea of vicarious atonement through belief in the blood sacrifice of Jesus is a moral reversion. Mere belief is not an adequate substitute for following God’s moral and ethical instructions in the Torah. In essence, the Jewish prophet Ezekiel rejected the Christian concept of vicarious atonement.

In rabbinic thought, man does not stand before God, either as acceptable because of what he is. Rather, he successfully stands before God by being good enough. Rabbinic Judaism rejects any need for a vicarious atonement for sin. Man does not have this need. Being made in the image of God, he was never separated from God. Regardless of his conduct, he has the potential of correcting his sins by returning to the proper course of action. Since we can make any needed correction ourselves, we need no mediator. In turn, if man can approach God on his own merit, God coming to man’s aid as a mediator is unnecessary. Worse than that, it would be an interference with human progress and man’s job of perfecting creation.” (Twenty-six reasons why Jews don’t believe in Jesus, Asher Norman)

 

Based on the law of “Individual Responsibility”, God rejected when Moses (peace be upon him) tried to vicariously bear the sins of Israelites:

 

Please forgive their sin; but if you won’t, then remove my name from the book in which you have written the names of your people.” The LORD answered, “It is those who have sinned against me whose names I will remove from my book. Now go, lead the people to the place I told you about. Remember that my angel will guide you, but the time is coming when I will punish these people for their sin.” (Exodus 32:32-33)

 

Yet Paul goes out of the way to coin a new doctrine in which Christ (peace be upon him) was somehow made to bear the sins of others:

 

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (Heb 9:28)

Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: (Gal 1:3-4)

 

By writing so, Paul expects everyone to reject multiple teachings in scores of OT passages from multiple OT prophets, Jesus (peace be upon him) and God-Almighty – teachings which comes naturally acceptable to human cognizance.

We have seen over and over again that God in Old Testament is willing to pardon returning sinners and award salvation purely because of His own self and merciful nature.

Yet Paul contravenes God and claims that there cannot be any forgiveness of sins and subsequent salvation without the alleged blood shed of Jesus (peace be upon him):

 

“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb 9:22)

 

Unlike what Paul taught, a just God – Allah (SWT) warns that it is another sin to commit a transgression and then try to pass the burden on an innocent:

 

And if anyone earns sin he earns it against his own soul: for Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom. But if anyone earns a fault or a sin and throws it on to one that is innocent He carries (on himself) (both) a falsehood and a flagrant sin. (Qur’an 4: 111-112, Yusuf Ali Translation, Al-Alim CD – Rom Version.)

 

Nevertheless, much like OT rendering, Allah – The Most Merciful is always willing to forgive returning sinners:

 

“Say: “O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful. (Qur’an 39:53, Yusuf Ali Translation, Al-Alim CD – Rom Version.)

 

 

Conclusion, Recapitulation and Reconciliation

 

Christians who champion vicarious atonement should explain why Pauline verses is to be blindly believed while rejecting multiple OT verses which teaches that:

 

  1. God is very merciful, willing to forgive (freely) and forget, without any condition or “give and take” policy, entirely for His own sake; if at all, then He wants to see HHis creation feeling guilty and repentant.

 

  1. Moreover, we saw numerous instances rigged in the Bible where sinners were forgiven by God.

 

  1. That there is a law of “Individual Responsibility”, wherein others cannot vicariously bear for others. Thus this law obviates Jesus (peace be upon him) allegedly dying for the sins of others. We saw how God rejected Moses’ (peace be upon him) attempt for vicarious punishment.

 

  1. In fact, if God despises bloodshed of innocent so much so that He would not forgive it, then there has to be strong enough ground and proof to believe Paul who claims that Jesus (peace be upon him), an innocent, was killed to bear the sins of others.

 

  1. Prophet Ezekiel rejected vicarious atonement; Paul wants us to believe in it. It is much safer to put our money on Ezekiel – God’s chosen Jewish Prophet than Paul who never met Jesus (peace be upon him) let alone God; except that he saw some thunder and lightning in sky, converted his Jewish name Saul to Gentile one and incorporated Gentile ideas of vicarious atonement.

 

  1. Based on OT scriptures, traditionally, Jewish sages never harbored any concept of vicarious atonement. They never felt any need for it, given they had knowledge of God’s mercy, their repentance and man’s capability to return back to correct path denouncing sins.

 

Although the above facts are irreconcilable, however, it can be done. All Christians need to do is:

 

 

       I.            Either reject Pauline verses as they contradict verses of multiple Jewish Prophets of OT.

      II.            Or, accept Pauline verses with a condition that Jesus’ vicarious death is neither necessary nor foundational for salvation. Yet Hebrews 9:22 is to be rescinded.

     III.            Or, reject teachings of multiple OT prophets and their practices which, ironically, availed them “life” and salvation.

 

There were numerous other OT verses which we did not quote because already much was quoted, therefore, we request Christians to ponder once again if it is worthwhile to reject vast amount of OT teachings from multiple OT prophets based on Paul’s theology.

 

Foot notes:

 

(1.)  In future installments, inshallah, we would take into account the specific Pauline verses which Shamoun used to defend vicarious atonement. However, it would be interesting to note that most of Shamoun’s arguments are inherently responded in this paper.

(2.) The import of the word “life” is to be saved from consequences of sin, punishment of hell and enjoyment of heaven:

 

To “have eternal life” means to be saved. The happiness of heaven is called “life,” in opposition to the pains of hell, called “death,” or an eternal dying, Rev 2:2; Rev 20:14. The one is real life, answering the purposes of living – living to the honor of God and in eternal happiness; the other is a failure of the great ends of existence – prolonged, eternal suffering, of which temporal death is but the feeble image.” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Matthew 19:16-30)

 

(3.) May Allah (SWT) reward Shaikh Ahmad Deedat for publicizing the verses.

(4.) Emphasize wherever not matching with the original is ours.

(5.) All biblical verses taken from Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today’s English Version.

 

Related Reading: 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Jenifa Oadud Nitu  On July 6, 2012 at 9:42 am

    As I am quiet new in Jewish, looking around for some Jewish information> Got something important here. Nice to get it.
    This piece http://goo.gl/DT6FN of video helped me forgive and let go of my frustration.

  • Jesus  On July 7, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    Great article bro.

    well done ,keep it up.

  • Oliver Elphick  On July 24, 2012 at 2:05 am

    You fail to grasp the basic principle; the New Testament explains the Old Testament in greater detail. The OT shows that God forgives, but it does not reveal how it can be just for God to forgive. Justice demands that sin be punished, and God is perfectly just.

    The OT prophesied the death of the Messiah as an atoning sacrifice (Isaiah 53, for example), but Israel did not understand, and still does not. The NT fully explains why Jesus died and therefore how it was just for God to forgive sins.

    You commit the frequent error of trying to set Paul against Jesus. Jesus was teaching before his atoning death and while the old covenant was still in force. Paul was teaching after the church was born; that makes a big difference, because those who are in Christ have died to sin and been raised with him. Our task now is to walk in the Spirit rather than in the flesh. Trying to obey the law in order to earn salvation is to insult God by rejecting the work he has done for us.

  • qmarkmark  On July 24, 2012 at 11:29 am

    Brother Oliver,

    Thanks for your notes.

    What is problematic to me is, God of OT never claimed that He was forgiving sins because centuries later Messiah (peace be upon him) would be allegedly crucified. On the contrary, He said that He is forgiving sins entirely on Hiw own behalf because of His own mercy – I cited quotes supporting this notion. This also answers your theory that God had to be just while forgiving.

    Talking about Law, Paul and Jesus (peace be upon him); Jesus (peace be upon him) never claimed that after his alleged crucifixion Laws of the OT would come to an end. In fact he said until the heavens and earth would pass the law would not come to an end. Furthermore, the earliest “Church” of Jerusalem headed by James, after the alleged crucifixion, did not consider the OT Laws to be dead – they ardously followed the Law even thereafter and so did Peter and other apostles of the time. In fact the church members of Jerusalem disregarded Paul for his Gentile attitude towards Law! I documented the issues here:

    https://donotsaytrinity.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/what-was-paul-up-to-in-jerusalem/

    https://donotsaytrinity.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/high-octane-faceoff-in-jerusalem/

    https://donotsaytrinity.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/did-earliest-christians-believe-alleged-crucifixion-to-be-indispensible/

    https://donotsaytrinity.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/how-pauls-personal-problem-became-corner-stone-of-christianity/

  • Oliver Elphick  On July 24, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    God’s revelation is progressive; the later parts build on, expand and explain the earlier parts. In the OT God never explains the basis for forgiveness other than his mercy. However, “The LORD passed before [Moses] and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:7)

    Exodus 23:6 You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit. 7 Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.

    Leviticus 19:15 You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbour.

    Job 34:10 “Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding:
    far be it from God that he should do wickedness,
    and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.
    11 For according to the work of a man he will repay him,
    and according to his ways he will make it befall him.
    12 Of a truth, God will not do wickedly,
    and the Almighty will not pervert justice.

    Proverbs 21:15 When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous
    but terror to evildoers.

    God is greatly concerned for justice, and justice means that the innocent are acquitted and vindicated, but the guilty are condemned and punished. Justice is not complete unless there is both vindication and punishment. So how do we reconcile the fact that God forgives with the fact that he will by no means clear the guilty? This conundrum is left unanswered in the Old Testament. Only with the death of Jesus did it become clear what God was doing. Nevertheless there are plenty of hints, when viewed with hindsight.

    If God arbitrarily forgives, he becomes unjust. The guilty do not cease to be guilty merely because they are forgiven; forgiveness means only that their sin is not punished. What is needed is atonement, which means covering; the sins of the guilty need to be covered over so that they are seen no more. The only means of atonement is blood (Lev 17:11 “…the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.”) This is seen right back in Genesis 3, where Adam and Eve attempted to cover their nakedness with fig leaves stitched together; God replaced those inadequate aprons with animal skins. To cover their nakedness properly required a death and the shedding of blood. This is the reason for the whole system of sacrifices, which are unnecessary if sin could be removed merely by asking for forgiveness. The sacrificial system, in its own right, could not remove sins, “for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4), but it foreshadowed the means by which God had chosen to provide atonement. In the same way the sacrificial system in the future temple of the millennial kingdom (Ezekiel 40ff) will look back to the work of Christ, without in any way disparaging it.

    • qmarkmark  On July 28, 2012 at 10:02 pm

      @ Brother Oliver,

      Thanks for your notes. It is very educative to read them all.

      However, I am sorry, I do not agree with all that you wrote. For example, when you wrote that “The guilty do not cease to be guilty merely because they are forgiven; forgiveness means only that their sin is not punished.”

      If forgiveness does not mean cancellation of guilt too then it is not forgiveness! God, as you portray, is just a grudgeful God who is not accomodating enough to do away with the guilt of the sinner. Forgiveness means you see the guilt and yet you cancel it. In fact, I do not find your argument binding with the OT verses since we read in Isaiah 57:16 God cancelling the guilt of sinners:

      I am the high and holy God, who lives for ever. I live in a high and holy place, but I also live with people who are humble and repentant, so that I can restore their confidence and hope. I gave my people life, and I will not continue to accuse them or be angry with them for ever.

      Notice God of OT says that He will NOT continue to accuse the sinners. It can only mean that he has cancelled the guilt. If it would have been that only punishment is cancelled and the guilt remained then it will make no sense that God proclaim that he will not continue to accuse. Note that God also says that He would not be angry with them FOREVER. Now, if guilt still lingered subsequently the grudge will also linger but yet God says that he would not be angry FOREVER implying He has done away with the guilt and the punishment due on the sinners – that is forgiveness in its untwisted form. Thus, Genesis 34:7 has to be construed in this pretext.

      Furthermore, Genesis 34:7 has a variety of rendering many of them does not put your case together:

      the Samaritan, reading לו lo, to him, instead of the negative לא lo, not, renders the clause thus: With whom the innocent shall be innocent; i.e., an innocent or holy person shall never be treated as if he were a transgressor, by this just and holy God. The Arabic version has it, He justifies and is not justified; and the Septuagint is nearly as our English text, και ου καθαριει τον ενοχον, and he doth not purify the guilty. The Alexandrian copy of the Septuagint, edited by Dr. Grabe, has και τον ενοχον καθαρισμῳ ου καθαριει, and the guilty he will not cleanse with a purification-offering. The Coptic is to the same purpose.

      You also said, “If God arbitrarily forgives, he becomes unjust.” I don’t why God would be unjust. On the contrary, I would say that if He does not forgive freely upon sincere repentance and demands for vicarious sacrifices of some innocent then he is not merely unjust but even an exacting accountant who does not wish to do anything except for returns in his pocket.

      You said, “The only means of atonement is blood (Lev 17:11…” Where does it says in the quoted verse that the ONLY means of atonement is blood. In fact, we read in OT that God can forgive merely on the basis of sincere repentance:

      “I do not reprimand you because of your sacrifices and the burnt – offerings you always bring me. And yet I do not need bulls from your farms…Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats? Let the giving of thanks be your sacrifice to God,” (Psalms 50:8-14)

      …continued to the next post.

      • qmarkmark  On July 28, 2012 at 10:14 pm

        The Psalter even says:

        Be merciful to me, O God, BECAUSE of your constant love. BECAUSE of your GREAT MERCY wipe away my sins! Wash away all my evil and make me clean from my sins. I have sinned against you – only against you – and done what you consider evil. So you are right in judging me; you are justified in condemning me. I have been evil from the day I was born; from the time I was conceived, I have been sinful. Sincerity and truth are what you require; fill my mind with your wisdom. Remove my sin and I will be clean; wash me; and I will be whiter than snow. Let me hear the sounds of joy and gladness; and though you have crushed me and broken me, I will be happy once again. Close your eyes to my sins and wipe out all my evil. Create a pure heart in me, O God, and put a new and loyal spirit in me. Do not banish me from your presence; do not take your holy spirit away from me. Give me again the joy that comes from your salvation, and make me willing to obey you. Then I will teach sinners your commands, and they will turn back to you. Spare my life, O God, and save me, and I will gladly proclaim your righteousness. Help me to speak, Lord, and I will praise you. YOU DO NOT WANT SACRIFICES, or I would offer them; you are not pleased with burnt-offerings. MY SACRIFICE IS A HUMBLE SPIRIT, O God; you will not reject a humble and repentant heart.” (Psalms 51:1-17)

        The above quoted passage answers most of your queries.

        Notice that the Psalter is pleading to “wiping away” of sins – does it mean that God would not let the guilt be wiped off. Also notice that the Psalter is accepting that he has been a sinner and deserving of judgment yet he pleades to “wipe away” the sins so that he may be “whiter than snow” – does this sound that God would not let guilt be cancelled. Also notice that “blood” is not the sacrifice for atonement – it is the “humble spirit” which would atone his sins.

        Continuing on the same note you wrote, ““for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4), but it foreshadowed the means by which God had chosen to provide atonement.”

        Thats not true because God in the OT era was forgiving sins merely out of his forgiving capacity not as a “foreshadow” of anything:

        Be merciful to me, O God, BECAUSE of your constant love. BECAUSE of your GREAT MERCY wipe away my sins! Wash away all my evil and make me clean from my sins. (Psalms 51:1)

        Bible expositor Albert Barnes notes on the above verse:

        “The ONLY hope of a sinner when crushed with the consciousness of sin is the MERCY of God; and the plea for that mercy will be urged in the most earnest and impassioned language that the mind can employ. “Accordingly to thy Iovingkindness.” On the meaning of the word used here, see the notes at Psa 36:7.
        (a) THE “GROUND” OF HIS HOPE WAS THE COMPASSION OF GOD:
        (b) the “measure” of that hope was His boundless beneficence; or, in other words, he felt that there was need of “all” the compassion of a God. (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Psalms 51:1)

        Notice that according to Barnes the hope, in fact, ONLY hope for sinners was the “compassion of God” as opposed to some foreshadows of alleged things to happen.

      • Oliver Elphick  On July 28, 2012 at 11:23 pm

        What you have not grasped is the need for God to be just, so as not to violate his character of perfect justice. I already said that the OT does not provide an explanation of how God can be merciful as well as just. God planned his act of redemption from before creation, wanting to be merciful as well as just. This means that the “boundless beneficence” of God (as you quote) was available from creation. Nevertheless, there had to be a means of providing that it should not be unjust.

        God freely forgives, but he can do so because he himself eternally pays the price of it on our behalf.

        Please note that you are trying to set one part of the scripture against another; this is invalid. All the scripture is the word of God, and any explanation of one part must take all of it into account. Lev 17 says that the life in the blood is given for making atonement. You cannot sweep that away just because you do not like it.

      • qmarkmark  On July 29, 2012 at 12:18 pm

        @ Brother Oliver,

        Thanks once again for your wonderful notes.

        Even though you have tomes in the OT yet you claim, “I already said that the OT does not provide an explanation of how God can be merciful as well as just.” Therefore, I would request you to prove your assertion scripturally? Otherwise let me quote you OT where God did gave reasons why He forgives and on what basis He forgives:

        “Be merciful to me, O God, BECAUSE of your constant love. BECAUSE of your GREAT MERCY wipe away my sins! Wash away all my evil and make me clean from my sins. I have sinned against you – only against you – and done what you consider evil. So you are right in judging me; you are justified in condemning me. I have been evil from the day I was born; from the time I was conceived, I have been sinful. Sincerity and truth are what you require; fill my mind with your wisdom. Remove my sin and I will be clean; wash me; and I will be whiter than snow. Let me hear the sounds of joy and gladness; and though you have crushed me and broken me, I will be happy once again. Close your eyes to my sins and wipe out all my evil. Create a pure heart in me, O God, and put a new and loyal spirit in me. Do not banish me from your presence; do not take your holy spirit away from me. Give me again the joy that comes from your salvation, and make me willing to obey you. Then I will teach sinners your commands, and they will turn back to you. Spare my life, O God, and save me, and I will gladly proclaim your righteousness. Help me to speak, Lord, and I will praise you. YOU DO NOT WANT SACRIFICES, or I would offer them; you are not pleased with burnt-offerings. MY SACRIFICE IS A HUMBLE SPIRIT, O God; you will not reject a humble and repentant heart.” (Psalms 51:1-17)

        And,

        “The ONLY hope of a sinner when crushed with the consciousness of sin is the MERCY of God; and the plea for that mercy will be urged in the most earnest and impassioned language that the mind can employ. “Accordingly to thy Iovingkindness.” On the meaning of the word used here, see the notes at Psa 36:7.
        (a) THE “GROUND” OF HIS HOPE WAS THE COMPASSION OF GOD:
        (b) the “measure” of that hope was His boundless beneficence; or, in other words, he felt that there was need of “all” the compassion of a God. (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Psalms 51:1)

        Note that according to the scriptures it is the “compassion of God” and his “constant love” due to which He forgives and not because “God freely forgives, but he can do so because he himself eternally pays the price of it on our behalf.” God did not claim that he was forgiving because he was paying “price”. He mentioned he forgave since He was compassionate and loving. Can you for a moment see out of your “cross” glasses – please.

        Talking of justice: As you wrote, ” Nevertheless, there had to be a means of providing that it should not be unjust.
        God freely forgives, but he can do so because he himself eternally pays the price of it on our behalf.” What justice is this that God will pay the price ON OUR BEHALF. Why should God pay when we were sinners? Going by the term “justice” – the “person that sinneth shall die” (Ezekiel 18:19-23); God didn’t sinned, why do you expect Him to pay!

    • Oliver Elphick  On July 29, 2012 at 9:20 pm

      Your quotes describe the compassion of God — no problem. Because of his compassion, he provided his Son to take the sin of the world on himself>

      The way it works, now that this has been revealed, is that that those who put their trust in Jesus are fully identified with him, just as, previously, we were all identified with Adam.

      1 Corinthians 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

      Romans 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

      It is not merely a matter of Jesus substituting for us; rather he took the penalty of our sins so that we, being identified with him in his death, should thereby have our sins removed and be raised to new life with him.

      • qmarkmark  On July 30, 2012 at 8:45 am

        You wrote, “Your quotes describe the compassion of God — no problem. Because of his compassion, he provided his Son to take the sin of the world on himself>”

        Did you notice how you extrapolated? My quotes show compassion of God AND as a consequence of this compassion He was not merely forgiving but acquitting the guilt also of the sinners so much so that He claimed that he would “NOT remember” the sins. From where did you find in the OT verses I quoted that because of his compassion he gave His son.

      • Oliver Elphick  On July 30, 2012 at 9:42 am

        The quotes you gave did not show it; but the bible as a whole does.

        Isaiah 52:13 Behold, my servant shall act wisely;
        he shall be high and lifted up,
        and shall be exalted.
        14 As many were astonished at you—
        his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance,
        and his form beyond that of the children of mankind—
        15 so shall he sprinkle many nations;
        kings shall shut their mouths because of him;
        for that which has not been told them they see,
        and that which they have not heard they understand.
        53:1 Who has believed what they heard from us?
        And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
        2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
        and like a root out of dry ground;
        he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
        and no beauty that we should desire him.
        3 He was despised and rejected by men;
        a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
        and as one from whom men hide their faces
        he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
        4 Surely he has borne our griefs
        and carried our sorrows;
        yet we esteemed him stricken,
        smitten by God, and afflicted.
        5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
        he was crushed for our iniquities;
        upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
        and with his stripes we are healed.
        6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
        we have turned every one to his own way;
        and the LORD has laid on him
        the iniquity of us all.
        7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
        yet he opened not his mouth;
        like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
        and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
        so he opened not his mouth.
        8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
        and as for his generation, who considered
        that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
        stricken for the transgression of my people?
        9 And they made his grave with the wicked
        and with a rich man in his death,
        although he had done no violence,
        and there was no deceit in his mouth.
        10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
        he has put him to grief;
        when his soul makes an offering for sin,
        he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
        the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
        11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
        by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
        make many to be accounted righteous,
        and he shall bear their iniquities.
        12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
        and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
        because he poured out his soul to death
        and was numbered with the transgressors;
        yet he bore the sin of many,
        and makes intercession for the transgressors.

        This shows that the Lord’s servant (not otherwise identified here) will bear our sins. That this cannot be a man is shown by Psalm 49:

        7 Truly no man can ransom another,
        or give to God the price of his life,
        8 for the ransom of their life is costly
        and can never suffice,
        9 that he should live on forever
        and never see the pit.

        Elsewhere we see that a son will be given to us:

        Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born,
        to us a son is given;
        and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
        and his name shall be called
        Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
        Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
        7 Of the increase of his government and of peace
        there will be no end,
        on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
        to establish it and to uphold it
        with justice and with righteousness
        from this time forth and forevermore.
        The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

        and this is not just a man but “the Mighty God”.

  • Oliver Elphick  On July 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    The law of Moses is part of the eternal word of God. But no man has ever had the power to keep it fully; therefore it has only served to bring condemnation, “for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10) Only Jesus ever kept it perfectly, and in doing so he fulfilled or completed it.

    When we put our trust in him and are baptised in his name, we are identified both with his death and with his resurrection. Through his death we are delivered from the penalty of sin; through his risen life we are delivered from the power of sin. We are, in effect, dead, because we died with him. Therefore we are no longer subject to the law; for us it has been completed in and by Jesus. If we attempt to earn God’s favour by keeping the law, we insult him by rejecting what he has already done for us.

    You say, “Furthermore, the earliest “Church” of Jerusalem headed by James, after the alleged crucifixion, did not consider the OT Laws to be dead – they ardously followed the Law even thereafter and so did Peter and other apostles of the time. In fact the church members of Jerusalem disregarded Paul for his Gentile attitude towards Law!”

    Certainly many of the new Jewish Christians felt it was important to keep the law, as many Messianic Jews do today. But they must understand that they keep the law because they belong to God, not in order that they should belong to him. The Jewish church in Jerusalem decided that the Gentiles should not be required to keep the law of Moses at all (Acts 15), and Peter said of the law that it was “a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10) and also that the Jewish Christians would be saved by the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ, rather than by law-keeping, just like the Gentiles. (v 11)

    It is true that some of the Jewish Christians did not understand Paul, because of their long-standing emotional attachment to the Law (Acts 21:20-21), but the apostles all accepted and approved him and his teaching.(Acts 9:27-28; 15:25-26; Galatians 1:18-19; 2:9; 2 Peter 3:15-16)

    • qmarkmark  On July 28, 2012 at 10:42 pm

      You wrote, “The law of Moses is part of the eternal word of God. But no man has ever had the power to keep it fully; therefore it has only served to bring condemnation, “for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10) Only Jesus ever kept it perfectly, and in doing so he fulfilled or completed it.”

      Paul is an exception to this since he admitted to have kept the Laws perfectly [at par with Jesus (peace be upon him)]:

      “As far as a person can be righteous by obeying the commands of the Law, I was without fault.” (Philipians 3:6)

      So the claim that no man ever kept the Law is perfectly ends with Paul. Furthermore, it would make no rational sense that God would, in the first place give hundred of laws to be followed meticulously with the stringent of conditions that even an iota of breach would void all of them knowing the limitations of his creation. I doubt if God was so stringent without caring for the limitations which He himself imposed on them. With that said, it would be really “unjust” to demand the fulfillment of Laws perfect unless God wanted to harass the Israelites. Thus, it would be much rational to claim that God gave a set of rules to be followed and kept both the limitations of humand and His own magnanimity open.

      You said, “Certainly many of the new Jewish Christians felt it was important to keep the law, as many Messianic Jews do today. But they must understand that they keep the law because they belong to God, not in order that they should belong to him.”

      I am sorry, but who are these “NEW JEWISH CHRISTIANS” – are James, Peter, Barnabas and other “elders of Jerusalem Church” now “NEW Christians”. Why didn’t James and host of Church elders knew that with the alleged death of Christ (peace be upon him) the laws had been brought to an end. Now you are saying that the best Christians, the oldest Christians who walked with Jesus (peace be upon him) should “understand…” your theory.

      In fact Paul contradicted even Jesus (peace be upon him) by claiming that Laws have been brought to an end with the alleged cross. Since Jesus (peace be upon him) said that to hold fast to his commandments (John 14:15) and his commandment was to observe the Laws (Matthews 19:17-19)

      …continued to the next post.

      • qmarkmark  On July 28, 2012 at 10:56 pm

        You further wrote, “The Jewish church in Jerusalem decided that the Gentiles should not be required to keep the law of Moses at all (Acts 15), and Peter said of the law that it was “a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10) and also that the Jewish Christians would be saved by the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ, rather than by law-keeping, just like the Gentiles. (v 11)”

        Who gave the the authority to the “Church” of Jerusalem to acquitt Gentiles from following the Law. In fact when Jesus (peace be upon him) sent his disciples to “all” the different civilizations, he did not proclaim so, on the contrary the disciples were to preach what Jesus (peace be upon him) taught them and we just saw above that Jesus (peace be upon him) taught his disciples to follow the Law.

        The Jerusalem “Church” was not working under any authority is further proved by your quotation from Peter. What Jesus (peace be upon him) upheld as holy has now become “a yoke” and mere burden. In fact, if Peter’s words were indeed divinely inspired then why didn’t he complain to Jesus (peace be upon him) that the Law is “a yoke”. I would have loved to note Jesus’ (peace be upon him) reaction? Or I would request you to conjecture for me the probable reaction Jesus (peace be upon him) would have given.

        Again, the claim that “Jewish-Christian” would be saved by “grace” and not law; Jesus (peace be upon him) never taught this. Some people go along on some nice day in the absence of Jesus (peace be upon him) and connive Laws for themselves – this is an apotheosis of man-made religion.

        You wrote, “It is true that some of the Jewish Christians did not understand Paul, because of their long-standing emotional attachment to the Law (Acts 21:20-21), but the apostles all accepted and approved him and his teaching.(Acts 9:27-28; 15:25-26; Galatians 1:18-19; 2:9; 2 Peter 3:15-16)”

        Oh really, you need to immediately visit my paper on this topic:

        https://donotsaytrinity.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/what-was-paul-up-to-in-jerusalem/
        https://donotsaytrinity.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/high-octane-faceoff-in-jerusalem/
        https://donotsaytrinity.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/addendum-to-high-octane-faceoff-in-jerusalem/

        Let alone law and grace, apostles even differed with Paul with respect to indispensibility of salvation through the cross:

        https://donotsaytrinity.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/did-earliest-christians-believe-alleged-crucifixion-to-be-indispensible/

        I would wait to learn more from you.

      • Oliver Elphick  On July 29, 2012 at 12:03 am

        Paul is certainly not an exception to failing to keep the law. This is what he says of his own condition:

        Romans 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.

        7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

        13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

        21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

        So we see that he certainly did not regard himself as innocent.

        What he says in Philippians 3:6 is “…as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness, under the law blameless.” Being a persecutor of God’s church, and taking part in an illegal lynching (Acts 7:58; 8:1) is not being guiltless. What he is talking about is his devotion to keeping all the outward rules, that the Pharisees derived from the law. He continues:

        Philippians 3:7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith

        Paul declares that the law is holy and the commandment is holy and righteous and good, but that it does not convey the power to keep it. Rather, it merely excites sin. That is why a new covenant is required, as Jeremiah prophesied long before:

        Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

        As to the authority of the Jerusalem church, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:28) Jesus said to his disciples:

        John 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

        The apostles had the same authority as all the prophets of God to declare his word, and were enabled to do so by the indwelling, divine, Holy Spirit.

        Once again, you cannot set one part of the scripture against another. All of Paul’s letters are equally authoritative with the rest of the scripture. If you think one part of scripture contradicts another you do not understand one or both parts.

      • qmarkmark  On July 29, 2012 at 12:41 pm

        Regarding Paul and Law you wrote, “Paul is certainly not an exception to failing to keep the law. This is what he says of his own condition:…” and “So we see that he certainly did not regard himself as innocent.” Besides you also quoted some of Paul’s letters.

        The issue was not whether Paul was sinless before. The query was whether Paul was able to keep the laws perfectly or not and Paul declared that he kept the law “faultlessly”. You are mixing the changing views of Paul; as a Pharisee he never expected law to be unbeneficial let alone sin arousing. But when he tried to become the leader of the Gentiles who were against following the Law, he changed his views. Now the law which was so beneficial to him, so beneficial to multiple OT prophets become “sin arousing”. I am not concerned how Paul – the Christian views Law. I asked whether Paul – the Jew, kept them perfectly or not. It is immaterial if Paul, as a Christian, felt that there is no charm, spirit or grace in the Law so let us become Christian and the leader of then gentile pagans.

        You also need to address if that Law cannot be kept perfectly then what is the purpose of God revealing such laws and later asking them to be followed perfectly when he knew the limitations of humans too. In fact, I did find God forgiving much like He should in the OT passages that is not an exacting, Law obcessed God for me – so you need to prove what you claim.

        You further helped my case by writing, “What he is talking about is his devotion to keeping all the outward rules, that the Pharisees derived from the law.” Notice the change in he mindset of Paul with the change in his belief system. What was and what has been spiritual law for multiple OT prophets and Paul himself, had now become mere “outward rules”. Let it be called “outward rules” but the issues remained that Paul did observed the “outward rules” faultlessly.

        And you merely conjectured that a new covenant was required when you quoted Jeremiah. Prove it to me that because Laws merely excited sins thus, a new covenant was required. And my enquiry is legitimate since except for Paul, OT personalities were quite contend with the providences of the Law; for them it was by no means sin-exciting. Consider the following:

        “And so I led them out of Egypt into the desert. I gave them MY COMMANDS and taught them MY LAWS, which brings LIFE to anyone who obeys them.” (Ezekiel 20:11)

        “But your (God’s) people rebelled and disobeyed you; they turned their backs on your Law…In your great mercy you sent them leaders who rescued them from their foes. When peace returned, they sinned again, and again you let their enemies conquer them. Yet when they repented and asked to save them, in heaven you heard, and time after time you rescued them in your great mercy. You warned them to OBEY YOUR TEACHINGS, but in pride they rejected your LAWS, ALTHOUGH KEEPING YOUR LAW IS THE WAY OF LIFE. Obstinate and stubborn, they refused to obey.” (Nehemiah 9:26-29)

        “How can a young man keep his life pure? By obeying your commands. With all my heart I try to serve you; keep me from disobeying your commandments. I keep your law in my heart, so that I will not sin against you…I will repeat aloud all the LAWS you have given. I delight in following YOUR COMMANDS more than in having great wealth. I study your instructions; I examine your teachings. I take pleasure in your LAWS; YOUR COMMANDS I will not forget.” (Psalms 119:9-16)

        “Help me understand YOUR LAWS, and I will meditate in your wonderful teachings…Keep me from going the wrong way, and in your goodness teach me YOUR LAW…I will eagerly obey your commands, because you will give me more understanding. Teach me, LORD, the meaning of your Laws, and I will obey them at ALL TIMES. Explain your law to me, and I will obey it; I will keep it with all my heart. Keep me obedient to your commandments, because in them I find happiness. Give me the desire to obey your laws rather than to get rich. Keep me from paying attention to what is worthless; be good to me, as you have promised…how wonderful are your judgments! I want to obey your commands; give me new life, for you are righteous. (Psalms 119:27-40)

        Did you notice how the Psalter used to find DELIGHT, PLEASURE, HAPPINESS in following the Laws. The Laws didn’t stirr sin in the Psalter at least as it did in Paul – which law was Paul following?

        Your appeal to Acts 15:28 to did not provide authority to comments of Paul and Peter with regards to Law. Firstly because, as you quoted John 16 claims that the “Holy Spirit” would SPEAK with disciples – show us where did the “Holy Spirit” conversed with disciples, if he at all can converse with humans. Secondly, Jesus (peace be upon him) claimed that he will glorify me; in other words he would not and cannot be contravene him. Even the standard trinitarian position claims that the 3 “persons” do not act contradictory to each other. Now, Jesus (peace be upon him) upheld the OT Laws but Peter and Paul disparaged by banishing it as a burden and a YOKE – this cannot be the 3rd “person” of godhead authorizing the connivances of Paul and Peter!

      • Oliver Elphick  On July 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm

        As a devoted student of Torah, Paul thought he was keeping the law. I already pointed out that taking part in an unjust trial and lynching was contrary to law, so objectively he did not keep it perfectly. Once God had turned him around, he understood the inadequacy of his previous attitude.

        The Psalms rightly praise the Law, which Paul calls holy and good. Anyone who kept the law fully would live thereby, but no one did except Jesus. Nobody could, which is why it was a yoke that could not be borne. A perfect man would delight in it; we can delight in it, but we cannot keep it. (If you think you can or do, you are deluded.)

        Your attitude reveals how inadequate a view you have of sin “Law obcessed God” you say. God is perfect and will not allow anything to mar his perfection. He hates sin with an intensity that we cannot imagine. Obsession would be a good word except that it has pejorative overtones. For him to forgive a sinner without dealing with his sin would be unthinkable. That is why no man can save himself from the results of his own sin and why only God was able to deal with it.

        The Holy Spirit lives within each believer, and speaks internally, so there are few instances recorded of what He says. One is Acts 8:29

        Finally, you again try to set one part of the bible against another part, which shows that you don’t understand either.

      • qmarkmark  On July 30, 2012 at 8:56 am

        You wrote, “As a devoted student of Torah, Paul thought he was keeping the law. I already pointed out that taking part in an unjust trial and lynching was contrary to law, so objectively he did not keep it perfectly. Once God had turned him around, he understood the inadequacy of his previous attitude.”

        Brother Oliver, what you did not take note is that by “lynching” Christians he was providing proof for his zeal to follow the law; by his action he was showing his extreme loyalty to the OT Laws for he was merely stamping out what was heretic according to the Jewish Saul. So, for a Jewish Saul, and as he himself claimed, he was obeying the Laws faultlessly. As Saul it must have been “objective” to him in every sense unless you knew his mental state better than him.

        You wrote, “Nobody could, which is why it was a yoke that could not be borne. A perfect man would delight in it; we can delight in it, but we cannot keep it. (If you think you can or do, you are deluded.)”

        If “Nobody could” follow the Law then why did God revealed it to be followed in the first place. How just, logical and merficul was it for God of OT to reveal an unattainable task and ask humans to attain it – this is not just (either), logical and merciful.

        Furthermore, did you notice Psalter’s extreme longing to OBEY the law and take delight in it while constantly asking for mistakes committed therein. Now the Psalter was inspired by God Himself. Thus, there was nothing like Law cannot be kept perfectly amongst OT generation. It was a Pauline invention to circumvent the Jewish customs once and for all; simply claim that Laws are too difficult to be followed perfectly, Jesus (peace be upon him) did away with the Law with his alleged death – that makes a lot of sense to be as a non-Christian.

        You wrote, “For him to forgive a sinner without dealing with his sin would be unthinkable.” I would request that rather than writing Pauline philosophies you please respond to the OT verses I quoted where God merely forgave but he also dealt with the sin by cancelling it per say.

      • Oliver Elphick  On July 30, 2012 at 9:49 am

        You write, ‘If “Nobody could” follow the Law then why did God revealed it to be followed in the first place. How just, logical and merficul was it for God of OT to reveal an unattainable task and ask humans to attain it – this is not just (either), logical and merciful.’

        God revealed his own standard — perfection. He will not tolerate anything that would mar it. It is absolutely just. Justice takes no account of weakness. Logic depends on the premises used, and yours are false; you must use God’s. As for mercy, God showed his infinite mercy by giving his own Son to meet the demands of his justice.

        You must not try to separate Paul’s letters from the rest of the bible> All of the bible is the inspired word of God and all of it must be taken into account together.

        It is sad to note how you hang on to your pride so as to refuse the provision God has made for your sin.

      • Oliver Elphick  On July 30, 2012 at 10:38 am

        You wrote, “You also need to address if that Law cannot be kept perfectly then what is the purpose of God revealing such laws and later asking them to be followed perfectly when he knew the limitations of humans too.”

        Galatians 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made…

        The purpose of the law is to reveal the sinfulness of men. It is designed to rub our noses in the fact that we cannot keep it and that we need God to give us a new heart. It demonstrates to us how far short we fall of God’s requirements.

        But men try to minimise those requirements in order to justify themselves. The Pharisees, who prided themselves on keeping all the law and held themselves up as an example, concentrated on the minor details of the law, while ignoring its demands for justice:

        Mark 7:6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
        “‘This people honours me with their lips,
        but their heart is far from me;
        7 in vain do they worship me,
        teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
        8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
        9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honour your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God)— 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

        Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

        The law is also required to restrain evil. To the extent that men try to keep it, life for everyone will be better. Between Adam’s fall and the flood there was no law, and men became so evil that God wiped out all air-breathing life on earth by the flood.

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 25, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    “The law of Moses is part of the eternal word of God. But no man has ever had the power to keep it fully; therefore it has only served to bring condemnation, “for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10) Only Jesus ever kept it perfectly, and in doing so he fulfilled or completed it.”

    You can’t help being naughty and god sent the law to help, but it didn’t, meaning you have to die, so he sent his son to die in your place because god couldn’t just send functional laws or change his mind or know what he was doing in the first place.

    THERE is NO RECORD of jezuz KEEPING THE law “perfectly” only christian records trying to big up jesus or showing that jesus was law breaker.

    did torah ever say that if you break one law then u are “guilty of all”

    let the jews explain:

    It really is funny that the answer of Christians is G-d made all these eternal promises and told us what to do knowing ALL THE TIME we could not do them and so He set everyone up to fail including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, etc. Some loving god, the Christian god!

    So many missionaries claim that Jews cannot “keep all the laws” and thus we need a pagan human sacrifice to somehow go against everything G-d taught us to wipe away our sins. The sins G-d knew would happen because we can’t perfectly keep His laws. Wow. As my son would say, “Major FAIL.”

    smiley: laugh

    No where does the Jewish bible state we have to be perfect or keep the mitzvot “perfectly.” G-d MADE us imperfect just as He created good and evil — so that we could choose the right path and learn. If we do not sin (if we were perfect) we would not grow — and G-d would not even have made us!

    From a post quoting R’ Yisroel Blumenthal (in response to a missionary, Michael Brown):

    The missionary assumption is that unless one attains absolute perfection (which he cannot), all is lost. Brown should read the verse again. It says,

    “There is no RIGHTEOUS person..who never sins.”

    The person who does a sin is still righteous!

    One of the verses most devastating to Original Sin is Genesis 4:7, where G-d tells Cain that he can overcome temptation. Cain is envious of Abel because G-d accepts only Abel’s sacrifice. Cain is tempted to murder Abel. G-d says,

    “if you do not do good, sin crouches at the entrance. Its desire is for you, but you can rule over it.”

    G-d’s majestic statement of man’s ability to overcome evil is brushed aside by Dr. Brown, and his answer is terrible:

    “But it is one thing to overcome a particular sin. It is another to be free from the grip of sin in general” (p. 193).

    If Cain can free himself from this sin, why can’t he free himself from any sin? Also, what is meant by “the grip of sin in general”? If he means that no one is 51% righteous, this is manifestly not true. Must one be 70% righteous (or 80%, or 90%) to transcend “the grip.” Perhaps Dr. Brown believes that a 99% righteous person is under “the grip of sin”, but would he justify a teacher who failed a student with a 99 average?

    This belief that absolute perfection is required is the real backbone of Original Sin, as Dr. Brown admits that people can do much good. What is the Scriptural proof that only perfection earns G-d’s favor? There is none whatsoever. It can be asserted only by a faulty reading of Deuteronomy 27:26. It says,

    “Cursed is one who does not uphold (yakeem) the words of this Torah to do them.”

    Since no one fulfills Torah with total perfection, all are damned and require “salvation.” This missionary interpretation cannot make sense of the eleven curses (applied to eleven specific sins) that appear before this verse. If 27:26 sets a curse for any single violation of Torah, the eleven prior curses are totally superfluous (Samuel Levine).

    Missionaries also make a subtle but devastating grammatical error. While y’kayaim means to fulfill, yakeem is a different construct meaning “cause to stand up”, “confirm”, “uphold”. This verse is not saying that unless one fulfills Torah flawlessly, he is cursed. One who does not accept the mitzvot, in whole or in part, fails to “uphold” the Torah, but the commission of a specific sin is not the subject here. This reading is faithful to the grammar and is totally consistent with Torah’s frequent injunctions to choose good and make amends for wrong behavior. The missionary viewpoint paints G-d as an anti-Semite who curses Israel with commandments they cannot obey (Samuel Levine).

    At no point does Dr. Brown attempt to integrate the verses he cites with the many hundreds of verses that stress free will, the opportunity to do good and amend wrongs, and descriptions of righteous people who earned G-d’s favor. Let us cite only one of them:

    “It is not in heaven, to say ‘Who will go up for us to heaven, and acquire it for us, and teach it to us, and we will do it?’ Nor is it across the sea, to say Who will cross the sea, and acquire it for us and teach it to us, and we will do it?’ For the matter is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do it (Deuteronomy 30:11).”

    Dr. Brown provides not a single verse to support Original Sin. There is also no support that one must be a perfect individual to earn G-d’s favor. Original Sin was unknown before Christianity, not because ancient Jews did not read carefully but because Original Sin is not in the Hebrew Bible at all.

    Pay particular attention to the mistranslation that lets missionaries think perfection is required: Missionaries also make a subtle but devastating grammatical error. While y’kayaim means to fulfill, yakeem is a different construct meaning “cause to stand up”, “confirm”, “uphold”.

    This verse is not saying that unless one fulfills Torah flawlessly, he is cursed. One who does not accept the mitzvot, in whole or in part, fails to “uphold” the Torah, but the commission of a specific sin is not the subject here. This reading is faithful to the grammar and is totally consistent with Torah’s frequent injunctions to choose good and make amends for wrong behavior. The missionary viewpoint paints G-d as an anti-Semite who curses Israel with commandments they cannot obey (Samuel Levine).

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 25, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    “When we put our trust in him and are baptised in his name, we are identified both with his death and with his resurrection. Through his death we are delivered from the penalty of sin; through his risen life we are delivered from the power of sin. We are, in effect, dead, because we died with him. Therefore we are no longer subject to the law; for us it has been completed in and by Jesus. If we attempt to earn God’s favour by keeping the law, we insult him by rejecting what he has already done for us.”

    NOAH saved himself FROM DEATH. HE SAVED himself and the torah says that god said that noah saved himself with his righteousness.

    – At Ezekiel 14:14, the phrase is יְנַצְּלוּ נַפְשָׁם (y’natsLU nafSHAM).
    – At Ezeloe; 14:20, the phrase is יַצִּילוּ נַפְשָׁם (yaTSIlu nafSHAM).

    NOAH ,according to the hebrew, saved his own skin via his righteousness.

    now the ones who drowned PERISHED/DIED/ FINNISHED/ IN HELL
    noah saved himself through his trust/OBEDIENCE/WORKS/ EFFORTS.

    noah didn’t die with jesus, he saved himself not with jesus’ DEAD blood/flesh/meat /suffering , but his own EFFORTS/DEEDS/ TRUST in Gods mercy .

    THERE IS no proof in the text that noah saw IN HIS IMAGINATION/THOUGHT that he BURNED gods flesh to god in his burnt offering. there is no proof in the text where it says that god thought about what he was going to do to his created flesh before he saved noah. there is no proof in the text that noah was waving around SOMEBODY elses SELF ABUSING deeds to appease himself and his father god. no where does the text say that god cooled down because noah had thoughts of god thrashing himself to himself to appease himself so then he can forgive people after he thrashed himself via roman and his fathers hands.

    through followingv the prophets we are SAVED , not through jesus murder /ressurection.

    God never told us to depend on dead body of your god to cool him down/appease him, he said always that following his prophets will do the job for humanity.

    WHAT DOES THE TORAH SAY ABOUT THE LAW?

    Mal’achi 3:22(JPT) – Keep in remembrance the teaching of Moses, My servant-the laws and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel.

    Deuteronomy 5:1- 3(JPT) – (1) And Moses called all Israel and said to them, “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, and learn them, and observe [them] to do them. (2) The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. (3) Not with our forefathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, we, all of whom are here alive today.

    so lets see, jesus, your god in flesh/blood, did a “sacrifice” to himself to appease himself and he made that “sacrifice” important to europeans like u. but for the jews the christian god made sure that the laws HAVE A HIGHER RANK /higher status and must be OBEYED for all times because they are PERFECT, SO whats the game here?

    more on the law

    “The Israelites are to observe the
    Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as an enduring
    covenant” (Exod 31:16); “The secret things belong to Yahweh our
    God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forev-
    er, that we may follow all the words of this law (Deut 29:29).

    by your own pagan logic christians every day break the ” do not…” commandments in the torah and DO NOT do the ” do…” commandments in the torah, so by your pagan logic ALL LAWS are crap and useless moral and dietry and punishment.

    but does the torah say this? jeremiah says the socieity isn’t UTOPIAN, when it will become utopian pppl will AUTOMATICALLY know about God and won’t need reminder or TEACHING , ppl will know God immediately, but before that THE LAW MUST BE IN FULL FORCE because of non-utopian society

    jeremiah Jer 31:32

    there is no proof that ANY PROPHET was imagining gods suicide to himself or imagining that when they burnt thier animals they were burning god to god or that the god who said he punished and destroyed the pagans would one day get KOED by the pagans.

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 25, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    “What is needed is atonement, which means covering; the sins of the guilty need to be covered over so that they are seen no more. ”

    god does a self abusing “sacrifice” to his 100 percent created FLESH and covers his eyes with his human actions so that he can vetoe your sins via his actions/ “sacrifice” to himself? so simply god blinded himself his justice and his wrath because all u got to do is wave is PAGAN thrashing of himself in the flesh and continue to sin in thought and action

    u tell yourself

    ” god i can’t repent sincerely and u died for insincere repentance, remember u died for all sins, so cover me with what u did in your humanity ”

    lol

    “The only means of atonement is blood (Lev 17:11 “…the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.”)”

    i can’t believe this BS. i posted a video which addresses this crap u r repeating

    1. what has animals DEAD BLOOD GOT ANYTHING to do with 100 percent human blood ? is the TEXT IN ANY WAY linking it to jesus “sinless” blood?
    NO IT ISN’T . did jesus have animal like features like the ones talked about in lev 17?

    NOTICE in lev 17 it does not SAY THAT BLOOD IS THE ONLY WAY for atonement?

    why is this the only passage christians can bring up?

    when the temple is restored ,according to the jews, the prince/messiah will MAKE sin sacrifice forhimself and the people LOL.

    http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/topic/3535/t/Yet-another-challenge-to-Christians.html%3Fpage3D3&usg=AFQjCNHmqZyMT4AGIyapx91t19i5bYqwmQ

    ” This is seen right back in Genesis 3, where Adam and Eve attempted to cover their nakedness with fig leaves stitched together; God replaced those inadequate aprons with animal skins.”

    LOL , well aprons could fly off and expose the parts , little common sense will help polythiest mind u have. animal skin would have a tight fix to hide private parts. did the animal skin also have blood on it? lol , god covered them not with blood to hide thier parts but with skin . was jesus a skin offering?

    ” To cover their nakedness properly required a death and the shedding of blood. ”

    why couldn’t your powerless god simply MAKE skin? i mean he made adams skin, why could he make fresh skin to cover , instead of terminating animal to cover thier bodies?

    “This is the reason for the whole system of sacrifices, which are unnecessary if sin could be removed merely by asking for forgiveness. The sacrificial system, in its own right, could not remove sins, “for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4),”

    no jews believes that the animals skin /blood atoned for sins, they believe it is the LIFE of the animal which is IMPORTANT. not the stuff which can be seen. the loss of LIFE would create GUILT in hearts, INNOCENT LIFE and bring a person to think about his own life which is full of sin, so LIFE was important not the material of the animal.

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 25, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    ” This is seen right back in Genesis 3, where Adam and Eve attempted to cover their nakedness with fig leaves stitched together; God replaced those inadequate aprons with animal skins.”

    this is all addressed here

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 25, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    “Justice demands that sin be punished, and God is perfectly just.”

    JUSTICE DEMANDS FAIRNESS.

    1. RECOGNISE THAT HUMAN IS NOT PERFECT
    2. RECOGNISE WHERE THE HUMAN IS BORN
    3.RECOGNISE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HELPING SIN AND FIGHTING GOOD.

    ur god doesn’t see this poi nt.

    • Oliver Elphick  On July 29, 2012 at 12:17 am

      This is the standard Jesus set: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48) This is quite obviously unachievable. It needs the work of God for anyone to be able to meet it.

      All your ranting amounts to saying that you refuse to accept what the scripture says, just as the unbelieving Jews you quote refuse to accept it. Human pride will not accept the need to depend on someone else for salvation, but Jesus is the only way to the Father. Those, who accept that, receive forgiveness of their sins; those who refuse cannot obtain forgiveness.

      • Wharfe Dale  On July 29, 2012 at 2:15 am

        don’t tell me about the “standard” jesus set when the “standard” is pathetic and IMPOSSIBLE . u see jesus GOT a filling like donner kebab gets filling with sauce and salads. Gods work is THROUGH HIS creative act and it proves his perfection, god doesn’t create BEEF , hide in it and then butcher it, that isn’t perfection that is ancient PAGAN god standard of COOLING down .jesus isn’t the only way because jews and muslims don’t NEED to cover thier bodies with jesus’ sinful flesh and blood, they WAIT for God to put his “holy spirit” in thier hearts so they can give up everything for him. we are talking about millions of moslims jews throwing jesus’ “covering” in the dustbin

        God creator of the universe and everything in it cleans you just by his command ” be and it is”

      • qmarkmark  On July 29, 2012 at 12:42 pm

        Oops, one of my paper is just out on this topic of “perfection”; if you please care for it:
        https://donotsaytrinity.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/more-gods-in-christianity/

        Thank you for bringing it up. It has some nice implications.

  • Oliver Elphick  On July 25, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    The scripture is clear. You do not receive the word of God. All of the bible that we now have is the Book that your Koran says we should have read – http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/onbible.htm – therefore you cannot pick one bit of it and ignore another. Paul’s letters explain how the law and the prophets are completed in Jesus and how his blood pays the price of sin.

    • qmarkmark  On July 28, 2012 at 10:58 pm

      Brother Oliver, Green has merely followed Shamoun to write the article which you love to use against Islam and Qur’an. There is not a single valid proof which can stand scrutiniy in Green’s article which would help establish you case that Qur’an validates Bible.

      In fact, I invite you into the discussion; please.

      Sincerely,
      Q.M.

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 29, 2012 at 2:09 am

    lets all admit and come to agree that if the qur’aan supports the book called the bible which was bastardized by different minds, then the qur’aan is WRONG . but why would Qur’aan endorse a pagan book like the bible when it says that BLOOD AND MEAT DON’T REACH GOD BUT PIETY DOES? SO WHY WOULD IT BE endorsing bible which says that yhwh loves blood and likes the smell of BURNT meat and jesus also in nt seems to be a blood obsessed jew who must tell his followers to make symbol out of his DEAD blood + flesh ?

  • Oliver Elphick  On July 29, 2012 at 2:30 am

    The Quran contradicts the bible and is therefore wrong.

    • qmarkmark  On July 29, 2012 at 12:44 pm

      Brother Oliver,

      I was seriously thinking how a knowledgeable person like you commented above the way it is commented. Because, any Muslim can well argue that because the Bible contradicts the Qur’an so the Bible must be wrong.

      And anyway, I recall you, if you really have confidence in the paper Samuel Green wrote regarding the veracity of Bible thorugh Qur’an then let us have a discussion over it – please.

      • Oliver Elphick  On July 29, 2012 at 10:26 pm

        The later revelation cannot contradict the earlier one.

      • qmarkmark  On July 30, 2012 at 8:59 am

        Who considers Bible to be a “revelation” persay in the first place. Furthermore, there is a concept of abrogation in Islam. Plus, the Qur’an is also called as a watcher over so-called previous revelation. So Qur’an will contradict Bible wherever it will find fallacies in the later.

      • Oliver Elphick  On July 30, 2012 at 9:50 am

        The bible is the revealed word of God. No part of it can be abrogated. The fact that the Quran contains the concept of abrogation demonstrates that it is not of God. Is God so incompetent that he could not say what he meant in the first place?

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 29, 2012 at 2:40 am

    “just as the unbelieving Jews you quote refuse to accept it. ”

    unbelieving jews WEre right because when they witnessed your god offering himself to himself and crying out “god, why have u forsaken me, u saved by bacon when u rescued me from HEROD , u saved my bacon when the jews attempted to STONE me, why have u forsaken me ” so pharisees with all thier ORAL traditions going BACK to moses (what they would have said) and thier torah saying that false prophet would do WONDERS and signs and god is TESTING thier faith, i guess jesus’ termination fit well with the verse in deuteronmy which described FALSE liar prophet which was put to death. unbelieving jesus are using TRADITIONS PREDATING jesus, remember ur arguments that qur’aan is 600 years later, well pharisees argued the SAME against jesus HAHAHAHA. WHEN pharisees had terminated jesus , christian CLAIMS about “spiritual messiah rescuing from sin” would have had them laughing thier a sses off lOL. ” he thought he was going to be able to save us from the roman occupiers, but we turned him in to a “spiritual messiah ” because he failed to do his job” can u blame the jews, yhwh did not reveal himself at sinai and according to the text over a million jews alledgely WITNESSED yhwhs REVEALATION TO MOSES BUT DID NOT SEE HIM. and yhwh tells them if one FROM thier brothers tempt them to worship idols/men gods/ spirits/ ghost then they must STONE the tempter TO DEATH. christianity sold to pagan greeks because greeks liked the idea of gods having thier backsides kicked and the idea of being DEFEATED was a good thing , not bad. many pagans PRAISED defeat and loss and thought it was a good thing . why do you think john covers his defeated jesus with “willingness” to go to death and destruction, u need to read GREEK literaure mate and see that new testament belongs to its time of creation.

    • Oliver Elphick  On July 29, 2012 at 3:07 am

      “…but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:3)

      • Oliver Elphick  On July 29, 2012 at 3:07 am

        24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 12:45 am

    first of all i would like to apologise to mr elphick for angry tone because 1) in my area we grew up with slang english 2) not much vocab. second i would like to ask brother Question mark to write DEFENSE OF TAWHEED and how one EARNS JANNAH. akhee, the starting point of any missionary conversation is ” are you saved” so if we can drill the Islamic position with short and sweet wording i think we will be in good start. one brother told me jannah never was created for PEFECT human being ” “For them is forgiveness and a great reward”. Forgiveness precedes the granting of the reward of Paradise, alluding to the fact that perfection is not a condition of Paradise and never was. In other verses, this same idea is alluded to with man being purified of any enmity he had towards others, meaning even people who do not like each other, when they enter Paradise their grievances will be removed. The point is, Paradise is made through sincere effort, which includes sacrifices on this path, to overcome one’s own weaknesses. To understand this issue even better, we simply need to go to the core philosophy of the Quran, which is life is a test to see what we do, without actually observing with our own eyes reward and punsihment. The development of reason and intellect would be pointless if man could see the fruits right before him. Man is faced by situations where he has to act with either taqwa or sabr, the foremr alluding to protecting one’s self from the ‘charms’ of this world, while the latter refers to being steadfast in the face of the ‘hardships’ of this world for the sake of a truth he does not see, but believes in the core of his heart exists.” there is lotmore but i thought u get the idea akhee.

    • Oliver Elphick  On July 30, 2012 at 2:54 am

      I don’t understand some of the specifically Muslim terms you use, but the gist is clear: that men should earn their own salvation.

      This is the fundamental difference between biblical Christianity and all other religions. The scripture shows us that it is not only impossible to earn or deserve anything from God, but that to try to do so is to insult him, by despising the work he has done for us to achieve our salvation. But every other religion degrades God and exalts man, by making man’s destiny dependent on his own efforts. They all have a completely inadequate view of sin, not understanding at all how appalling and disgusting to God it is.

      In God’s eyes, even our righteous deeds are like filthy rags:

      We have all become like one who is unclean,
      and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. (Isaiah 64:6)

      The Hebrew uses the word for a used menstrual cloth. Trying to make out that any good thing we do can make up for the sins we have committed is like pushing that filthy cloth in God’s face.

      God offers his grace freely to every man, but the only way to receive it is to trust in Jesus and in the work of redemption he performed on the cross. GRACE is God’s Riches At Christ’s Expense.

      • qmarkmark  On July 30, 2012 at 9:08 am

        You wrote, “The scripture shows us that it is not only impossible to earn or deserve anything from God, but that to try to do so is to insult him, by despising the work he has done for us to achieve our salvation. But every other religion degrades God and exalts man, by making man’s destiny dependent on his own efforts. They all have a completely inadequate view of sin, not understanding at all how appalling and disgusting to God it is.”

        If salvation cannot be earned, or if it is “insulting to God to try to earn it, then what was Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Psalter doing by observing the Law. Moreover, what was God doing by revealing the Law which brought salvation with itself.

        Will it not be more appropriate that people follow what God commanded (laws) – mistakes would take place for which mercy of God is to be sought.

        Therefore, the fundamental difference between Islam and Pauline Christianity is that while there is a lot of reason and objective in Islam and as it readily said that life on earth a test; while in Christianity I hardly find any objective and as Paul readily said – it is faith-only (cross) philosophy.

      • Oliver Elphick  On July 30, 2012 at 10:01 am

        The law was to be followed; but no man could or can keep it perfectly. I am not saying that they should not have tried to keep the law. What no one must do is to present his feeble attempts as anything deserving of any kind of merit. Perfection is the standard and no one meets it.

        Luke 17:7 “Will any one of you who has a servant ploughing or keeping sheep say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and recline at table’? 8 Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink’? 9 Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? 10 So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”

        and no one does “all that you were commanded”.

        Even in secular life, it is seen that an otherwise blameless life does not take away the guilt and penalty of one crime. A blameless man who breaks the speed limit is fined in spite of his life.

        Islam is another man-imagined religion, which exalts man as his own saviour. Faith in Christ is the only way to be reconciled to God and delivered from the penalty of sin.

    • qmarkmark  On July 30, 2012 at 9:12 am

      You see brother Dale, except Paul nobody solely relied on the cross. No wonder James and other Churcheons of Jerusalem even after the alleged crucifixion of Christ (peace be upon him) continued to follow the OT laws meticulously while Paul was trumpeting Laws have been brought to an end with cross. I asked Brother Oliver his views on it, he never gave any. All he said that James (Peter and Barnabas) were “NEW Jewish-Christians” passaionate about OT Laws.

      Islam is a far more practical and pragmatic way of life. Where mere belief in some incident (cross) does not give you ticket to salvation.

      I earnestly take heed of your suggestion to write something about Islamic salvation, inshAllah, I would do it – bi’idhnillah

      • Oliver Elphick  On July 30, 2012 at 10:16 am

        You attempt to make a division between the apostles and Paul which did not exist. Peter described Paul’s letters as scripture.

        It is arguable whether the Jews are still required to keep the law of Moses, insofar as that is possible (since the destruction of the temple makes a large part of it impossible to keep). Since I am not a Jew it is not a question that directly affects me. It is certain that the Gentiles were not required to keep the law of Moses, and Paul’s letters were all written to churches with Gentile members. It is clear that Jews were to put fellowship with their Gentile brothers above strict observance of the law (Galatians 2:11-14).

        The fact that the law of Moses no longer applies does not mean that there is freedom to sin; we are under the law of Christ. The difference is that we are now given the means to be able to obey God, if we will use it. The Holy Spirit, who is given to every believer, creates a new nature in us. We have a choice at every moment whether to walk in that new nature or in the old sinful nature.

        “Islam”, you say, “is a far more practical and pragmatic way of life.” In other words, it rejects God’s provision and tries to invent its own and to force God to accept man’s solution. Certainly, the scripture reveals a way of salvation that is abhorrent to man’s pride, but pride is the sin of the devil and is the most hateful sin of all to God.

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    “This is the fundamental difference between biblical Christianity and all other religions.”

    your religion is pagan mate. your god had to do his SHODDY PAGAN atonement works/deeds to please/COOL/ appease his wrath so then he doesn’t apply it to his creatures.

    “The scripture shows us that it is not only impossible to earn or deserve anything from God, but that to try to do so is to insult him, ”
    Islam teaches that we are earning from God because of His mercy and forgiveness . he says that He will DISTINGUISH from the disbelievers and believers from the obedient and disobediant. Islam says that God is the Only perfect being. You think god created humanity so that we can dump our EARNING on what jesus earned to himself? You think we bypass hard work through jesus’ SHODDY works on the cross? Are you feeling alright? Is not the one who APOLOGISEs for his WRONGS better than one who CONSTANTLY GOES WITHOUT APOLOGY? .ISLAM NEVER SAYS THAT human works ARE GREATER THAN GODS MERCY, GODS MERCY IS GREATER AND HAS HIGHER STATUS . you can clap your hand , cover yourself with you gods flesh and blood , I will continue to seek God and do works WITH HIS GUIDANCE in mind. Tell me something , what is wrong with CONTINUALLY ASKING GOD TO GUIDE to the straight path EVERYDAY? DOING YOUR WORKS WITH GOD INVOLVED in them, u r telling HIM TO HELP YOU ACHIEVE THE GOAL. Do you see that your god achieved his satisfaction by filling his flesh with his 3rd person of trinity , in islam we tell God to put the “holy spirit” in our HEARTS FOR GUIDANCE AND INVOLVE GOD IN EVERYDAY LIFE.

    human beings can rise above sin without man god myth.

    “by despising the work he has done for us to achieve our salvation.”
    WHAT work? he created 100 percent flesh, put himself in his created flesh, applied his wrath unto himself then REWARDED himself when he flew back to heaven and now chilling in heaven . the 2 other members of trinity were either playing tiddly winks while the father was punishing his son or both were punishing the son with full power. But don’t worry , the son didn’t FORSAKE/GIVEUP /abandon any of his attributes like omnipresent /omniscience, he didn’t DIE in the sense athiests understand it , he simple transferred himself from one place to another , knew there would be a happy ending even though who wouldn’t want to be crucified if you retained ALL your powers lol? Your god DEGRADED AND INSULTED himself by depending on jesus’ HUMAN works , because like a catholic he vetoes your sins by LOOKING @ his human works and an all powerful god cannot feel how WRATH of the romans tasted like because he was all powerful.

    “But every other religion degrades God and exalts man, by making man’s destiny dependent on his own efforts.“
    Look @ a basic islamic prayer BOOK before you talk gibberish. ISLAM TELLS MAN TO INVOLVE GOD NO MATTER WHAT WORK WE DO . ISLAM TALK ABOUT SINCERETY . ISLAM SAYS ULTIMATELY IT IS GOD WHO IS THE REAL REASON WHY WE ENTERED THE HEAVEN , OUR WORKS ARE NOT ABOVE HIM. Why do you think it is said GOD IS THE GREATEST?

    “They all have a completely inadequate view of sin, not understanding at all how appalling and disgusting to God it is.”
    IF it is disgustting why didn’t he poof it out of existence like he poofed it into existence? And does your god get happy only when he EXPERIENCES what it is to feel like human? For example does your god FIGHT aids by GETTING aids or can he do something about AIDS other than getting aids?

    Well yes he can, he puts himself and fills you with his holy spirit so he could have done that before he killed himself and then bobs your uncle . see, all he had to do was give the jews his holy spirit and throw the laws in the dusbin, but he choose ETERNAL and PERFECT laws instead of holy spirit lol

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    the ot says that the jews brought animal sacrifices to appease/please yhwh. the ot says that god is SICK AND TIRED of thier blood offerings and wants them to DO…

    NOTICE “TO DO”
    ?
    NOW with all the sacrifices to yhwh , the ot tells us that the jews had hookers, turned thier temples in to pagan hore house, sacrficed their children to other gods ect ect.

    “stop DOING wrong says the ot, do this and do that and yhwh will do this for you”

    now lets look @ jesus atoning WORKS to himself

    christians deliver lecture about jesus’ “salvation” and then the preacher is found with couple of hookers on saturday lol

    christians do sins WORSER than the israelites because they have allowed people to get tempted by idolaterors who live in thier midts “freedom of religion” they call it

    but yhwh says

    quoting a jew

    Moreover, God commands us in His Torah to loathe and despise all idol-worshippers (and, again, that includes chrstians)….

    Burn the carved statues of their gods in a fire; don’t desire the silver or gold that decorates them and take it for yourself in case it entraps you: it is disgusting to Adonai your God. Don’t bring anything disgusting like that [i.e. like the precious metals that decorate the gentiles’ idols] into your house or you will become ḥérem like them [i.e. like the idol-worshippers] — you are to feel total revulsion and utter disgust for each of them because they are ḥérem.” (D’varim 7:25-26)

    and I repeat that this includes chrstianity, which IS idolatry (whether chrstians like to admit it or not).

    end quote

    christian BREAK the “do not” commandments everyday so to be honest with u jesus’ flesh and animal flesh didn’t help people live better lives , it is simply like this

    “god you know i am dirty sinner who is INFECTED with original sin, i have original sin DISEASE god and my works in your eyes are like period blood on cloth, i am crap in your eyes god and i cannot repent or have genuine guilt because u DIED for insincere repentance and little guilt, so let me DUMP all my sins on your body like u dumped it when i was UNCONCIOUS of my sins , u dumped my sins unto your created flesh when i wasn’t even born , so let me AGAIN dump my sins unto your flesh and COVER your heart and eyes with your sacrifice to yourself”

    god says ,

    ” your forgiven , sin somemore”

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    “Islam”, you say, “is a far more practical and pragmatic way of life.” In other words, it rejects God’s provision and tries to invent its own and to force God to accept man’s solution. Certainly, the scripture reveals a way of salvation that is abhorrent to man’s pride, but pride is the sin of the devil and is the most hateful sin of all to God.”

    have u even READ A BASIC book on what islam SAYS ABOUT PRIDE? haveu read ANY QURANNIC VERSES ON pride?
    The other dimension, the highest one, is ihsan, which is excellence or doing what is beautiful. As in the Gabriel hadith:
    ” To worship God as if you see him, and if you see him not, know that He sees you”
    THIS IS THE ISLAMIC MODEL , your model is to DEPENDANT on your gods works he done to his flesh and then U confirm to yourself that your BELIEF gave u guarantee in heaven. Talk about pride.

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 6:42 pm

    “You attempt to make a division between the apostles and Paul which did not exist. Peter described Paul’s letters as scripture.”

    why did pete need a vision when he SPENT time with post ressurected god? post ressurected god didn’t tell THEM in the 40 days he was with them, that circumcision, dietrt laws WERE all finnished because of his death? the judaizers WERE CLEARLY HAVING more success than paul (galatians 1:6) it is interestING to note that not one christian said the following , ” hey, jc eat with the bacon consumers so why can’t we ” or ” hey , while the post ressurected jc was with US he told us that is is fine to chill with the pagan gentiles ” but what do we find in ACTS 15? THEY HAD TO DEBATE the matter and it wasn’t even straighforward LOL. they needed visions to tell them it is okay lol. THE AUTHOUR OF ACTS SPILLS MUCH INK RECORDING THE SERMONISING OF HIS FAVOURITE PLAYERS IN THE JUDAIZERS DEBATE IN ACTS 15 , BUT HE ONLY RECORDS LESS THAN TWO SENTENCES REPRESENTING THE JUDAIZER POSITION. WHAT DOES THAT TELL U? and don’t forget jc of the matthew and mark AVOIDS gentiles LIKE THE PLAGUE. his behaviour towards the ILL gentile girl is ENOUGH proof that jc was very ritualistic . u have no law we have law. it is not GOOD to give childrens BREAD TO THE DOGS. why DOG? because DOG HAS NO STATUS, EATS ANY thing ( like pagans who eat anything) and have no PURITY laws/rituals.

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    “The Holy Spirit, who is given to every believer, creates a new nature in us. We have a choice at every moment whether to walk in that new nature or in the old sinful nature.”

    lol, but instead of creating ” new nature” in jews god thought he walk them through laws/rituals LOL

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    “I earnestly take heed of your suggestion to write something about Islamic salvation, inshAllah, I would do it – bi’idhnillah”

    please include about ihsaan, tazkiyaah, tawfeeq, taqwa to walk these people through islamic concepts. please also talk about the FACT that God being INVOLVED in our works in our sincerety is the REASON why one makes it to the END of the STRAIGHT PATH. Like the father who holds his child hands we make ALLAH our FRIEND WHO HELP US WALK THE PATH. Why these ppl are absolutely IGNORANT of islamic theology is beyond me. JUST A BASIC book will help them on why muslim ask GOD TO “GUIDE US TO THE STRAIGHT PATH”

    akhee, do you notice the double standards in the following, when they drink jesus’ blood or eat his flesh we clearly see this as RITUAL. but they GIVE murder a different defintion and say that we do it because it has meaning to us. when we say that we do wudu we also say that wudu has meaning to us and tells us to approach the PURE ONE in pure and humble state.

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    “Even in secular life, it is seen that an otherwise blameless life does not take away the guilt and penalty of one crime. A blameless man who breaks the speed limit is fined in spite of his life.” how is he BLAMELESS when he could have PUT OTHER PEOPLES LIFE @ risk by BREAKING the speed? he got the TICKET because his vehicle could have taken a LIFE. he cannot be BLAMELESS. but what is TICKET price got to do with GOD PURIFYING SINNER AND FORGETTING THE SIN?

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    why does Gods justice involve him creating his flesh and murdering it to himself to cool down? he has the holy spirit which can CHANGE nature REMEMBER

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    “Islam is another man-imagined religion, which exalts man as his own saviour.”

    just a quick question 4 u , can you show me where the words ” save” “TO SAVE” “SAViour” “salvation” “saving” is used inthe christian sense in the torah?

    can u show me where yhwh said that murder of himself would save from the fires of hell? the jews say that the WORDS have always been used to mean that the person saves PHYSICALLY via fighting .

    • Oliver Elphick  On July 30, 2012 at 8:28 pm

      The bible is progressive revelation, that builds on what was revealed before. In the OT we see only Sheol as the place of the dead. Jesus reveals that it is a place of eternal punishment. Those Jews who rejected their Messiah have a distorted view of the OT as well as ignoring the NT.

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    “Islam is another man-imagined religion, which exalts man as his own saviour.”

    This is because you are ignorant of the INGREDIENTS OF ISLAM. If u knew the terms IHDIY , YAHDIY , HIDAAYAH you would not repeat what your european brethren told you in Sunday church.One ,in each RAKAH ,asks The GOD to GUIDE! GUIDE ME! GUIDE ME! GUIDE ME! GUIDE ME! AMR
    IHDEENA GUIDE US! One can imagine a father walking with his CHILD. THE child is USING HIS FEET TO WALK THE PATH ,BUT USING HIS fathers HAND AS A SUPPORT SO HE CAN CONTINUE TO WALK THE PATH. AND WHEN HE IS ABOUT TO FALL THEN COMES THE HAND of the father TO PREVENT THE CHILD FROM LOSING BALANCE.

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    “Even in secular life, it is seen that an otherwise blameless life does not take away the guilt and penalty of one crime. A blameless man who breaks the speed limit is fined in spite of his life.”

    Next time you see a copper, why don’t you say that jesus drove an enzo ferrari and never got a speeding ticket? Why don’t you say that speeding ticket is fullfilled because jesus never got a speeding ticket in his enzo ferrari? Why don’t you dump all your speeding sins on jesus’ deeds in his enzo ferrari and present that as an argument to avert speeding fine? You use fullfilled claim when u break “ ETERNAL AND PERFECT “ commandments of the torah when you enjoy your pork and bacon sandwich, i guess you can do that with speeding ticket also.

    • Oliver Elphick  On July 30, 2012 at 8:32 pm

      I haven’t bothered to reply to most of your posts, WD, because your tone clearly shows that you do not want to understand.

      The key thing to be aware of is the desperation of the sinner in the face of the perfect Creator God. Islam (and rabbinic Judaism) consistently fail to understand this. Any sin is sufficient to cut a man off from God for ever, and every man has sinned. God has provided a means for every man to be reconciled to him, in spite of sin. Those who reject that means, who is Jesus the Messiah, will be condemned.

  • Alms  On July 30, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    Mr Oliver, I solicit to have your answers on few questions of mine so that I can get you well on this issue. Before these few questions, rest assured that I will never ask you concerning Islamic system of Salvation/ Forgiveness which I observed through your comments on this thread that you practically know nothing of, hence the crap you wrote about it. The post underdiscussion is not on the Islamic doctrine of salvation/forgiveness and hence your friends (Qmark & Dale) will not adequately elaborate on it for your thorough understanding here in the comment box. Suffice it to say that you seriously need to study the doctrine of sin and forgiveness in Islam (and then compare it with yours) – study well to know that Islam shows that there are differrent grades of sins and thus different means of forgiveness for sins, and how Islam prescribes certain conditions to be fulfilled by a sinner before his sin is forgiven which adequately fulfils God’s justice to grant His mercy of forgiveness. I am glad that Qmark is considering writing an article on it. Now, my most important question concerning the concept of your vicarious salvation is: scripturally, who was he that was killed/ executed by the pagans on the cross, the same that you took to be the sacrifice that atoned your sins – was he only HUMAN or was he the very GOD? Just a simple sincere answer. The reason for the question is that, the Bible teaches that only God Almighty is absolutely perfect and absolutely immortal (Ezekiel 28: 9, Romans 1:23, 1 Timothy 1:16-17 etc). Thus if you need an absolutely perfect being to be killed for your salvation then he has to be only the very God who is but IMMORTAL. Or could mortal HUMAN, who is undeniably other than the absolutely perpect God Almighty, do the job?

    • qmarkmark  On July 31, 2012 at 11:48 am

      Salamalaikum brother Alms,

      You are welcome in the blog. You made an interesting post.

    • Oliver Elphick  On July 31, 2012 at 2:52 pm

      Jesus is the eternal Son of God, who is with the Father and the Holy Spirit from eternity. He is the Word of God and the creator. As prophesied long before, he became a man, taking manhood into himself, without ceasing to be God, and he is fully man and fully God. Therefore he is qualified as a man to redeem man, and as perfect God to be a perfect sacrifice.

      • mansubzero  On July 31, 2012 at 6:31 pm

        oliver, did jesus’ PERSON DIE i.e was his PERSON ROBBED of his powers WHEN he was TERMINATED on the cross? or was the powers KEPT WITH him even when he DIED , IF yes then DIVINE LAW CANNOT BE SATISFIED because jesus WENT unpunished because his powers were not forsaken. to make it easy WAS THE PERSON of god KILLED, if yes then was omnipotence and omniscience KILLED with him/taken AWAY? divine LAW MUST be SATISFIED WHEN punishment is APPLIED ON 100 PERCENT HUMAN PERSON, any human WHO BECOMES POWERFUL WHILE CONSUMING MAGICAL FOOD cannot SATISFY THE DIVINE LAW BECAUSE stregth would AVERT FEELING of punishment.

      • Oliver Elphick  On August 1, 2012 at 11:51 am

        It is misleading to use non-biblical terminology. The bible does not talk of someone’s “person” but of his soul and spirit. Nor is death defined in terms of loss of power.

        Jesus emptied himself in order to become a man (Philippians 2:7); he did not use his own eternal power but the power of the Holy Spirit, who came down on him at his baptism and remained on him (John 1:32).

        Jesus died spiritually on the cross when his spirit was separated from God because he was bearing the world’s sin. He died physically when he gave up his spirit and his soul was separated from his body and went down to Sheol. The punishment for sin is death, therefore the penalty for all the sin of the world was laid on him and borne by him.

        But death could not keep hold of him and God raised him to new life on the third day. Anyone who will may come to God through him — and only through him — and receive new life now. The condition is that he must repent of his sins and believe that Jesus Christ is the one that God appointed as the sin-bearer; that he died and was raised for our sake.

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    your god is eating up your sins by reinstalling another nature in your sinful heart and forgetting about your sins because of holy spirit living in your heart but at the same time LEAVING U in your sinful and polluted state, why can’t ISLAMS God ALSO PLACE holy spirit in the heart and tell the humans to ask Him to LEND THEM A HAND AGAIN AND AGAIN? you say any sin is a problem for God, but not according to the torah . getting angry DID NOT RECEIVE A PUNISHMENT , but MURDER of someone did receive a punishment so there is a difference. u believe your god cooling himself through killing himself eats up your sins, we believe our ALL POWERFUL AND OMNISCIENT GOD cleans us through His mercy . in the islamic hell there are LEVELs , the lower levels would not be severe as the higher levels. so what we see is that GOD CAN FORGIVE and punish to completely CLEAN THE INDIDUAL. . here justice is done and the guy who sinned paid for his sin. your god needs to give himself a good drubbing before he could cool down, i think you need to ? what u worship. is this really god or a heathen who likes suffering /pain? think about it

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    where is the proof that ANY SIN is enough to cut off a man from god FOREVER? who told u this bull s? so i have 1 % sin in my account and that is enough to have my soul and flesh in hell? yet a christian can cover himself with jesus’ blood and bath in it and eat it and go to church stare at christian girl clevage and bath in blood , eat it and on and on.
    pastors can preach and then get caught with hookers. but all they got to do is tell god to VETOE their sins via his sacrifice to himself . man , if there was a religion that would lead you to HELL FIRE with 1st class ticket it would be christianity

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 9:55 pm

    and what u must understand IS that god CREATED PUNISHMENT. who did he create it for? for the human. we are talking about a human who lacks omnipotence and omniscience for if a human has these then he is not human but super human. so you must admit that jesus gave up all his powers like christopher reeve does in superman 2. reeve got floored in a cafe in superman 2 and thought would be genuine suffering, but if reeve kept his powers than you might as well ask what the hell does suffering mean

  • Wharfe Dale  On July 30, 2012 at 10:01 pm

    “Even in secular life, it is seen that an otherwise blameless life does not take away the guilt and penalty of one crime. A blameless man who breaks the speed limit is fined in spite of his life.”

    when laws get influenced by christianity what would u expect? in the u.k crimes done 10 years ago are kept on your record, but the torah says that god cleans the rocord and forgets about the crime only if people CHANGE thier ways and do good to others.

  • mansubzero  On July 31, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    a jewish person wrote:
    Isaiah 1:16-18 – (16) Wash, cleanse yourselves, remove the evil of your deeds from before My eyes, cease to do evil. (17) Learn to do good, seek justice, strengthen the robbed, perform justice for the orphan, plead the case of the widow. (18) Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord. If your sins prove to be like crimson, they will become white as snow; if they prove to be as red as crimson dye, they shall become as wool.

    Verse 18 employs almost most the same words that appear in Psalm 51:9, and there’s no talk about requiring a blood sacrifice to have sins forgiven. In fact, if you read this chapter from the beginning, you will note how God doesn’t want the sacrifices; Verses 16-17 express what He wants the people to do in order to have their sins removed.

    wharfedale : oliver , look @ verse 18 , what STEPS ARE required for the SINS TO BE converted? by HOW much % do the DEEDS help in CONVERTING THE SINS ? look @ verses 16- 17 and see that DEEDS clearly have a MAJOR ROLE in CONVERTING the sins. i don’t understand how christians cannot SEE this fact.

    • Oliver Elphick  On August 1, 2012 at 11:32 am

      As I have said so often, the bible is a progressive revelation and you must look at all of it together. All parts must be integrated to get a true picture. God freely forgives those who repent, because, in his love and mercy, he planned from eternity that the Son of God should bear the sins of man in order to enable him to have mercy without violating justice.

      The purpose of all history is that God should be glorified, and he is glorified in that his all-sufficiency and the total incapacity of man are both made clear. Man cannot either please him or do anything good without him, and Jesus is the only way to him.

      The consequence of repentance and faith is that one becomes able to do things that please God. Without faith in Jesus, nothing one does, however objectively good, is of any value, because it proceeds from a sinful heart.

      Isaiah 1 — to complete that quotation:
      19 If you are willing and obedient,
      you shall eat the good of the land;
      20 but if you refuse and rebel,
      you shall be eaten by the sword;
      for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

      This is part of the Mosaic covenant between God and the people of Israel, whose rewards are enjoyment of peace and prosperity in the land of Israel. The national breach of that covenant resulted in the expulsion of the nation from its land for 70 years. Certain principles can be derived from the Old Testament, but it can be misleading to take the provisions of the Mosaic covenant between God and the nation and to apply them to individuals now. The New Testament makes it absolutely clear that for an individual to be saved, whether Jew or Gentile, he must trust in Jesus Christ and the work he has done on the cross for our salvation.

  • Alms  On July 31, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    @ Brother QMark, thank you for the remarks. May Allah guide and help your noble effort. Jazakal Lahu khairan. @ Mr Oliver, thank you for the zig-zag response to my rather direct question. In matters of religion, I usually prefer undisputable scriptural position rather than subjective human philosophical reasoning. You know, I am not asking whether or not your ‘God’ is made up of three individual ‘Gods’. My question is simply whether the one whom you alleged to have atoned for your sins by his being killed by pagans was a mere mortal or the very God. Your indirect answer above seems to be that he was both human and God when he was killed. You wrote: “He is the Word of God and the creator. As prophesied long before, he became a man, taking manhood into himself, without ceasing to be God, and he is fully man and fully God. Therefore, he is qualified as a man to redeem man, and as perfect God to be a perfect sacrifice.” First, it seems that this concept of God Almighty Himself (and not His Word-created thus figuratively Word-identified mighty servant) becoming fully man is against God’s indisputable attribute of Immutability. I think that a human being that took ‘animalhood’ unto/into himself and became fully human and fully animal at the same time did undeniably undergo real change. After that, he definitely ceases to be properly human and neither was he properly an animal. This could not happen with God because indisputable passages of the scriptures declared that God cannot change (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 1:12 etc). However, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the one killed on the cross was ‘fully man and fully God’ as you said. So, are you saying that God together with the manhood that he took into himself DIED on the cross for your salvation? If I can refer to your comment in this very thread of 30th July 2012 at 9:42 am you seem to say that it was the Mighty God that died when you declared concerning the crucified one “and this is not just a man but the Mighty God”. But I could not find any passage in the Bible that says God can die. On the contrary, the Bible says “He ALONE is IMMORTAL. He lives in the light that no one can approach. No one has ever seen him. To him be honour nd eternal might! Amen.( 1 Timothy 6:16, emphasis mine), “To the eternal king, IMMORTAL and invisible God, THE ONLY GOD – to him be honour and glory forever and ever! Amen.”( 1 Timothy 1:17, emphasis mine). Since it is not the nature of God to experience death (any kind whatsoever, if death could be of many kinds) as He is IMMORTAL , then you and I and everyone else should not believe that it was the same IMMORTAL God that was KILLED on the cross. This leaves us with the proposition that the one killed on the cross was just the ‘manhood’ which you alleged God toook into himself, i.e ‘fully mortal man’. To be continued…

  • Oliver Elphick  On July 31, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    Jesus was both God and man. He died. This is what scripture tells us, and man-made ideas about what is or is not possible for God must give way to what he reveals. God the Father and the Holy Spirit never died.

    That being understood, death does not mean extinction but separation. Physical death is the separation of the soul from the body, but there is also spiritual death, which is the separation of the spirit from God. Jesus certainly suffered physical death; which is not a problem, since he had a normal physical body. On the cross he suffered spiritual death, because he bore the sin of the world in himself and therefore was cut off from God, who will not tolerate any sin. For that reason, darkness came over the whole world for three hours, as Jesus, the light of the world, was “put out”. Because he was cut off from God, for the only time in his life he did not address God as his Father but as God: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”, which is a quote from Psalm 22, a prophecy of the crucifixion. That spiritual death lasted for the three hours of darkness and then was finished, because at the end he again addressed God as his Father. Following his physical death, his soul went down to Sheol until the time for his resurrection, when he received a new resurrection body, which is eternal, and is the model for the bodies which we will be given.

    Does the incarnation mean that God changed? I think not, because it was planned from before creation and therefore is part of God’s eternal plan.

  • Alms  On July 31, 2012 at 11:06 pm

    @ Mr Oliver, as I concluded in my previous comment, the scriptures preclude any assumption that it was God that died on the cross. So, we could only surmise that it was a fully human being/nature that died on the cross. But how could you square that with the scriptural declaration that no man can ransom another: “Truly no man can ransom another or give God the price of his life. For the ransom of thier life is costly and can never suffice. That he should never live on forever and never see the pit.” (Psalms 49:7-9). Therefore, no ANY human can ransom another. Besides, one can clearly see that Jesus Christ the historical MAN is presented as quite an imperfect human in the Bible quite like all other imperfect human beings. The scriptures take Jesus Christ to be a literal seed of Prophet Abraham through Prophet David ( Genesis 12:3 compared with Acts 3:24-25, Acts 2:29-30, Romans 1
    .2-3). He was conceived by a mortal woman – St. Mary – who was undeniably a human descendant of Adam (Hebrews 4:4) and could not be clean in the sight of God (Job 15:15-16, 25: 4). Job 14:4 says “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one.” Job 25: 4 says: “How then can man be righteous before God? How can he who is born of a woman be clean?” And it is observable that the Torah prescribes a SIN-OFFERING for any woman that gives birth (Leviticus 12: 7-8) which St. Mary dutifully observed when she delievered the baby Jesus Christ, her firstborn, thus not seeing herself as sinless (Luke 2: 22-24). The baby Jesus developed in wisdom and knowledge like all other imperfect humans (Luke 2: 40, 52), fed by the breast of imperfect woman ( Luke 11:27). He felt hunger (Matthew 4:2), thirst (John 19: 28), took food and drink (Luke 24: 43-44), felt tired and thus needed rest (John 4: 6-8), could not helped being in the arms of Morpheus – and thus at the time not knowing what was there even around himself (Matthew 18: 8), could not help being in anger or agony (Mark 3:28) and even wept (John 11: 35). He declared that he did not know the day and hour of the Last Day and that THE FATHER ( a title of the One-God among the monotheistic Jews and immediate followers of Jesus) has put the knowledge of times and seasons within his authority (Mark 13: 33 and Acts 1:17). All these are obviously hallmarks of imperfection, the same features that made you and me imperfect beings. Therefore, if it was this imperfect man that died on the cross, how could you even contemplate of him atoning for your own personal and allegedly inherited original sin?

    • Oliver Elphick  On July 31, 2012 at 11:17 pm

      @Alms: “…the scriptures preclude any assumption that it was God that died on the cross…”

      On the contrary, the scriptures insist that Jesus, who died on the cross for our sake and was raised to new life, is both fully a man and also the creator God.

      Per Psalm 47, no man can ransom another man’s life — only God could do that. On the other hand, only a man could be a substitute for men — Jesus was both God and man.

      The problem with man is that he is a descendant of Adam and therefore inherits from Adam the propensity to sin, and in fact every man has sinned. But Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit in Mary, and therefore did not inherit from Adam (for in that sense inheritance is only through the male).

      A woman’s uncleanness in childbirth is because it is accompanied by a flow of blood, as is menstruation. Therefore both require a cleansing offering. It is not tha a woman is unclean in herself.

      Felling hungry or tired or emotion is a normal part of being human, and would have been felt by Adam before he sinned and lost his perfection. These go with the body and do not imply imperfection.

      Jesus’ knowledge was limited by his voluntary choice to give up his divine attributes while he was on earth and to depend instead on the Holy Spirit, whom he received permanently at his baptism. Again, this is not an indicator of imperfection, but of his perfect submission to the will of the Father.

      As so many others, you are attempting to set one part of the bible against another. This is perhaps not surprising, but it is futile to argue with me on that basis.

  • mansubzero  On August 1, 2012 at 12:42 am

    test

    • qmarkmark  On August 1, 2012 at 10:50 am

      Salamalaikum wa rahmatullah wa baratakahu,

      I would like to apologize to you brother Manzubzero as I did not moderate you comments earlier. I have moderated them now, please feel free to give your comments – we would be honored by them.

  • wharfedale  On August 1, 2012 at 12:51 am

    bbbbbbb

  • wharfedale  On August 1, 2012 at 1:05 am

    bro how come u r not letting my comments through?

    • qmarkmark  On August 1, 2012 at 10:48 am

      Salamalaikum brother Dale,

      I am not withholding any of your comments, let me check any way.

  • Alms  On August 1, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    Mr Oliver wrote: “Jesus was both God and man. He died. This is what the scripture tells us.” What a desperate argument! Where is it stated in the scriptures that God Almighty died on the cross? It is obvious that this rather dogmatic statement of yours is a clear case of setting your inherited human formulated assumption against the clear teaching of the scriptures that God cannot experience death (physical or spiritual) because He is self-same alone Immortal. You wrote: “Does the incarnation mean that God change? I think not, because it was planned before creation and therefore is part of God’s plan.” Are you arguing that the effect of a pre-planned cause is not an effect at all just because the cause was pre-planned? If, for instance, a man pre-planned to take animal nature and become fully man and fully animal at the same time in a future time and it happened as he pre-planned and thus he bacame not only man as he had been before but fully man and fully animal at the same time, can you argue that he experienced no change at all just because he pre-planned it?! You wrote: “Per Psalms 47, no man can ransom another man’s life – only God could do that. On the other hand, only a man could be a substitute for men – Jesus was both God and man.” So, the IMMORTAL God ransomed men (by being KILLED on the cross) as only ‘God’ could do that, while man became substitute for men?! What a mumbo jumbo! You wrote: “But Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit in Mary, and therefore did not inherit from Adam – for in that sense inheritance is only through the male.” In the Torah, inheritence concerning material properties is through the male. How could you think that sin is sex biased? Was St. Mary not a descendant of male and female parents? So she is undeniably a sinner according to your concept of the original sin. Then could God, who is spiritually cut off from sinner and absolutely clean, be conceived and delievred up by a sinner? The scriptures say: “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one.” (Job 14:4), “How can then man be righteous before God? How can HE WHO IS BORN OF A WOMAN BE CLEAN?” (job 25:4, emphasis mine). You wrote: “A woman’s uncleanness in child birth is because it is accompanied by a flow of blood, as is menstruation. Therefore both require a CLEANSING OFFERING. It not that woman is unclean in herself”(emphasis mine). Another clear case of setting your assumptions against the scriptures. These are the plain words of the scripture: “These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring doves or two young pegeons one for BURNT OFFERING and the other for A SIN OFFERING. In this way the priest will make ATONEMENT for her and she will be clean”(Leviticus 12:7-8, R.S.V, emphasis mine). Note well that two distinct offerings are required: burnt offering and SIN OFFERING! And this is exactly what St. Mary did after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:22-23). The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, vol. 7, pages 378-381) admits: “The Immaculate Conception is not taught explicitly in the scriptures…The earliest church fathers regarded Mary as holy but not as absolutely sinless….It is impossible to five a precise date WHEN the belief was held as a matter of faith.” To be concluded….

    • Oliver Elphick  On August 1, 2012 at 7:54 pm

      @Alms: “Where is it stated in the scriptures that God Almighty died on the cross?”

      The Word of God was with God in the beginning and is himself God (John 1:1-2) and creator. (John 1:3) That Word is Jesus, who became flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1:14,17) Therefore Jesus is both God and man, and Jesus died on the cross. (Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30; Acts 2:23; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 7:52; 10:39; 13:28-29; etc)

      As far as we know, there is a complete unity between the human and the divine nature of Jesus. In at least one sense, then, God died on the cross; yet God did not die, because the Father and the Holy Spirit did not die, but only the Son. The nature of that death was that Jesus was separated from the Father for a time, while he bore the sins of the world. His soul was separated from his body for a time, until his resurrection.

      @Alms: “Are you arguing that the effect of a pre-planned cause is not an effect at all just because the cause was pre-planned?”

      I think this is the case with God, because God is outside time, which he created. God does not change, for “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8) Yet God (and Allah, in your belief) does things in history, and doing something is itself a change. But, since God is timeless and eternal, everything he does in time is an expression of his eternal unchanging character and therefore is not a change at all. If this were not so, it would be impossible to say that God was changeless, unless one held that God did and does nothing, which is obviously untrue.

      @Alms: ‘The New Catholic Encyclopedia …admits: “The Immaculate Conception is not taught explicitly in the scriptures…”‘

      The bible does not regard Mary as sinless, whatever tales the Catholic church may have invented. She herself acknowledged her need of a saviour. (Luke 1:47)

      Death came because of sin (Romans 5:12), and Adam was the one whose conscious sin brought death to the world. “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Timothy 2:14) Inheritance of sin and its penalty is through the male: “as in Adam all die” (1 Corinthians 15:22) Therefore the virgin birth meant that Jesus was born without the inheritance of sin that comes through the male. His mother inherited sin from her father, but could not herself pass it on. In all other cases, someone born of woman is conceived by a man.

      In any case, God made it absolutely plain what was happening: ‘And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. “‘ (Luke 1:35)

  • Alms  On August 1, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    Mr Oliver wrote: “Felling hungry or tired or emotion is a normal part of human, and would have been felt by Adam before he sinned and lost his perfection. These go with the body and do not imply imperfection.” Inherent limitations and weaknesses of man are not indications of his imperfections?! You wrote: “Jesus knowledge was limited by his voluntary choice to give up his divine attributes while he was on earth and depend instead on the Holy Spirit.” This is just a round-about way of proving my case that Jesus Christ was without divine attributes and was quite imperfect as to depend wholy on another person. You concluded: “As many others, you are attempting to set one part of the Bible against another. This is perhaps not suprising, but is futile to argue with me on that basis.” But the fact is that, like many others, I am only to present what the Bible plainly states. Your complain should be against the Bible itself if one part of it plainly contradict another part of it, not against me or any other person that points it out. The concluding remarks of yours seems to show that you gave up this amicably healthy discussion with me on this very important topic even though I have some other very important areas to discuss with you concerning this very doctrine, such as the issue of transferability of sin, inheritance of sin, collective responsiblity of sin, scriptural conditions for offering a sacrifice, role of a sacrifice in the atonement of sin etc. However, my conclusions concerning the article underdiscussion and the comments that transpired are: (1) You utterly failed to address the issues I raised which means serious repercussions on your doctrine of salvation. (2) Brother QMark has soundly proved his point in the article underdiscussion with clear-cut citations from the scriptures. Your only objection worth mentioning was that he was setting part of scripture against another, which is not a valid argument as I pointed out above. This is another problem for your doctrine of salvation. I am thankful for the exchanges and wish that I have not offended you or anyone else.

  • Oliver Elphick  On August 1, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    @Alms: “Inherent limitations and weaknesses of man are not indications of his imperfections?!”

    Precisely. They are part of the design of a physical body. You appear to have taken on the Greek Gnostic idea that the physical is itself imperfect, but this is not biblical. If something fulfils its design function perfectly, as all creation did before the fall, it is itself perfect: “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31)

    Imperfection is when something does not work as it should. Jesus was perfect in all respects, since he did exactly what the Father wished.

    The bible does not contradict itself. There are things that are apparent contradictions to those who cannot understand, because they do not have the Holy Spirit, and also because they do not know all the bible and put it together. I

    God does not reveal himself to those who are not willing to obey him:

    Psalm 18:25 With the merciful you show yourself merciful;
    with the blameless man you show yourself blameless;
    26 with the purified you show yourself pure;
    and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous.
    27 For you save a humble people,
    but the haughty eyes you bring down.

    I Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

    I am quite willing to discuss these and other matters, but the effort to find supposed contradictions to persuade me to change my thinking is futile, because they merely demonstrate how you fail to understand.

  • wharfedale  On August 1, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    “Jesus emptied himself in order to become a man (Philippians 2:7); he did not use his own eternal power but the power of the Holy Spirit, who came down on him at his baptism and remained on him (John 1:32).”
    I’ll be honest i don’t understand the nonsence u are talking about because it is complete and utter nonsence/gibberish. Did jesus’ person/spirit/soul or whatever RECEIVE POWERS not from himself but from another soul/person/spirit/god? So it is like he was getting CHARGED from EXTERNAL source not from his INTERNAL person. So was the holy spirit GIVING to the person of jesus knowledge and kept on switching ON AND OFF, because we find in the gospels that jesus didn’t know if tree had figs on it WHEN he was @ a distance.

    “Jesus died spiritually on the cross when his spirit was separated from God because he was bearing the world’s sin.”
    Did jesus “spirtually” or person/soul CONTAIN omnipotence and omnipotence ? did those attributes ABANDON /leave jesus?
    SIMPLE YES OR NO WILL DO.

    “ He died physically when he gave up his spirit and his soul was separated from his body and went down to Sheol.”
    SO was jesus 100 PERCENT human nature in SHEOL? Or was he 100 % human and 100 percent god even in sheol? Did he become a marcionite in sheol? If jesus’ human person was in sheol then where was his divine person? Was his divine person omnipresent i.e EVERYWHERE
    WITH the holy spirit and father? So while human jesus was in sheol the 3 persons were 3 omnipresents and 3 omniscients . now try to understand that how in hell was god punishing himself when in reallity he didn’t GIVE up jack? If he did, then he was relased from his powers like a battery is and would be in sheol ROBBED of his attributes . only when your god is ROBBED OF his attributes can he make SATISFACTION to divine justice or to the justice his father HAD SET UP in the beginning . why is this so difficult to understand?
    “ The punishment for sin is death, therefore the penalty for all the sin of the world was laid on him and borne by him. “
    BUT he DIDN’T die but transferred himself from 1 place to the other and then rewarded himself with his own reward, this is NOT PUNISHMENT in any bloody dictionary , it is a freakin JOKE AND MACHOCIST. How can u define TRANSFER from 1 place to other place AS DEATH WHEN U SAY your god retained OMNIPRESCENCE @ THE SAME TIME?
    THE POWERS VETOE THE FEELINGS OF SUFFERINGS, OR god is CATHOLIC AND depends ON his HUMAN activities which were NOT DIVINE.
    “Anyone who will may come to God through him — and only through him — and receive new life now.”
    I WOULD RATHER DIE FOR MY OWN SINS AND NOT BE A FREAKIN COWARD THAN depend on “sacrifice” of a god. AND IF I HAD TO DIE TEMPORARY LIKE jesus DID, I WOULD SACRIFICE MYSELF 1 MILLION TIMES KNOWING THAT I WOULD GET MY LIFE BACK GUARANTEED ON EARTH. I’M NO COWARD AND DEPENDANT PAGAN!

  • wharfedale  On August 1, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    WHEN jesus was in SHEOL/hell was he 100 % HUMAN being who was BEING PUNISHED or was his divine soul/spirit/person ALSO being PUNISHED? was his omnipotence/omniscient being punished/affected? do you believe that god EMPTIED himself and handed his attributes to the father to keep in a safe/locker?

    • Oliver Elphick  On August 1, 2012 at 10:34 pm

      @wharfedale: I’ll be honest i don’t understand the nonsence u are talking about because it is complete and utter nonsence/gibberish. Did jesus’ person/spirit/soul or whatever RECEIVE POWERS not from himself but from another soul/person/spirit/god? So it is like he was getting CHARGED from EXTERNAL source not from his INTERNAL person. So was the holy spirit GIVING to the person of jesus knowledge and kept on switching ON AND OFF, because we find in the gospels that jesus didn’t know if tree had figs on it WHEN he was @ a distance.

      As I pointed out in a previous post a few minutes back, those who do not have the Holy Spirit are unable to understand spiritual things, so it is not surprising that you find this nonsense. Nevertheless it is true.

      Philippians says Jesus emptied himself and humbled himself to become a servant in the shape of a man. To retain the powers of his eternal godhead would hardly be consistent with that. The scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit descended on him at his baptism and remained with him. In believing Christians, the Holy Spirit is given to each at his conversion and remains with him. This is the biblical definition of a true Christian: someone to whom God has given His Holy Spirit. Jesus was tempted (tested) like us in every way, yet without sin, so he had to be like us or this could not have been so. The way in which the Christian is able to obey God and do any works of power that God gives him to do is through the Holy Spirit living in him. Since Jesus made himself like us, he always depended on God the Holy Spirit in exactly the same way as we should. In our case, we all too frequently fail to do so, but he never failed.

      Therefore Jesus was always attentive to the wishes of the Father communicated to him by the Holy Spirit, just as we should be. He was given the power needed for what the Father wanted him to do at the time he needed it. He knew things supernaturally when the Father needed him to know them, but not otherwise.

      @wharfedale: “Jesus died spiritually on the cross when his spirit was separated from God because he was bearing the world’s sin.”
      Did jesus “spirtually” or person/soul CONTAIN omnipotence and omnipotence ? did those attributes ABANDON /leave jesus?
      SIMPLE YES OR NO WILL DO.

      Jesus gave up those attributes on becoming a man. He resumed them after his resurrection. Had he wished, he could have resumed them at any moment, but that would not have been consistent with his purpose in the incarnation.

      @wharfedale: “ He died physically when he gave up his spirit and his soul was separated from his body and went down to Sheol.”
      SO was jesus 100 PERCENT human nature in SHEOL? Or was he 100 % human and 100 percent god even in sheol? Did he become a marcionite in sheol? If jesus’ human person was in sheol then where was his divine person? Was his divine person omnipresent i.e EVERYWHERE

      Jesus is always one person, with two natures united from the time of his conception. Therefore he is where he is. That makes an interesting philosophical point, which the bible does not answer: how his experience in time with a location-limited body goes along with his eternity and omnipresence. Jesus keeps the universe running from moment to moment (Hebrews 1:3), so in some sense he must always have been doing so, even when he was on earth and limited in location and in time. God has not revealed how that works. We can speculate, but speculations without biblical evidence are not binding on anyone.

      @wharfedale: WITH the holy spirit and father? So while human jesus was in sheol the 3 persons were 3 omnipresents and 3 omniscients

      From the Athanasian creed:
      …we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
      4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
      5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
      6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
      7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
      8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
      9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
      10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
      11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
      12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
      13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
      14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
      15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
      16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
      17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
      18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
      19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
      20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

      Be sure no one would have invented this doctrine had it not been forced on them by scripture. It has always been difficult to understand.

      @wharfedale: BUT he DIDN’T die but transferred himself from 1 place to the other and then rewarded himself with his own reward, this is NOT PUNISHMENT in any bloody dictionary , it is a freakin JOKE AND MACHOCIST. How can u define TRANSFER from 1 place to other place AS DEATH WHEN U SAY your god retained OMNIPRESCENCE @ THE SAME TIME?
      THE POWERS VETOE THE FEELINGS OF SUFFERINGS

      The three persons of the Trinity are distinct from one another, even though they are also one God. Jesus truly suffered the penalty of sin, which is death. While on earth, he did not exercise divine powers, except at the will of the Father. He suffered an inconceivable horror when he took sin into himself and then also suffered separation from the Father, which he had not experienced in all eternity. Even though that was for just three hours, there is also a sense in which it can be regarded as eternal, since God is eternal. The cost of our redemption was unimaginably great.

      @wharfedale: WHEN jesus was in SHEOL/hell was he 100 % HUMAN being who was BEING PUNISHED or was his divine soul/spirit/person ALSO being PUNISHED? was his omnipotence/omniscient being punished/affected? do you believe that god EMPTIED himself and handed his attributes to the father to keep in a safe/locker?

      Sheol is the place of the dead beneath the earth; before Jesus’ resurrection it was divided into 2 parts, one for the righteous (Abraham’s bosom; also called paradise) and one a place of punishment by fire for the wicked (Luke 16:22) After his death Jesus went to paradise (Luke 23:42), not to the place of punishment. Jesus completed his work of bearing sin before his physical death, for his last words on the cross were, “It is finished. Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” Since he again addressed God as Father, we can see that he was no longer spiritually separated from him. Also he was not punished (which would imply his own guilt) but he gave his life as a ransom for our sins. He rested in Sheol-paradise for the three days and nights and when he was raised he brought the righteous dead with him. Thus paradise was transferred from Sheol to heaven at his resurrection, and only the wicked dead now go to Sheol. (Sheol is called Hades in Greek. It is not the same as the lake of fire, which is the ultimate fate of the devil and his angels and of all men who refuse to trust in Jesus.)

      @wharfedale: I WOULD RATHER DIE FOR MY OWN SINS AND NOT BE A FREAKIN COWARD THAN depend on “sacrifice” of a god

      If you persist in that attitude until your death, then that is what you will get.

  • wharfedale  On August 1, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    “Jesus gave up those attributes on becoming a man. He resumed them after his resurrection. Had he wished, he could have resumed them at any moment, but that would not have been consistent with his purpose in the incarnation.”

    when he GAVE THEM up he was ordinary MAN.

    so the man jesus was PUNISHED in sheol, right? or the man jesus who GAVE up his attributes WAS PUNISHED in sheol, right?

    • Oliver Elphick  On August 1, 2012 at 11:25 pm

      The Son of God emptied himself in the process of becoming a man. The result of the incarnation was a complete union of God (the Son) with man. Jesus was a single person, who did not exercise his own divine power on earth at all from his conception until after his resurrection, and all of him was involved in everything that he did or suffered.

      But, he was not *punished* in Sheol. He went to paradise, which was the section of Sheol for the righteous. He bore the penalty of our sin, which was death; which means the separation of the soul from the body and the separation of the Spirit from God; death completed the payment of the penalty. As a result of that, his soul went to Sheol (paradise section).

      • Wharfe Dale  On August 2, 2012 at 1:25 am

        jesus = HUMAN being . not 80 % human being 100 % human being

        jesus = diety. 100 % diety. the diety = spirit dwelling in 100% human body

        so you have 2 SEPERATE ITEMS

        human = soul/mind , spirit BODY

        god = SPIRIT

        2 SEPERATE items fixed together in christian religion.

        did your god SEPARATE* himself/his spirit from his flesh BODY?
        *was this god who seperated himself OMNIPRESENT?

        DID your god SEPERATE jesus 100 % CREATED soul/spirit
        From jesus created FLESH body?

        Did god SEPARATE himself from himself and have power DRAIN/LOSS?

      • Wharfe Dale  On August 2, 2012 at 1:30 am

        “went to paradise, which was the section of Sheol for the righteous. ”

        so he must have had it easy applying his own luxury unto himself lol.

        this is getting a bit funny for me

        did the 2nd persoN in the trinity have his POWERS when he was seperating himself from ?

      • Oliver Elphick  On August 2, 2012 at 1:45 am

        100% God + 100% man = 100% Jesus. This is what is to be received in obedience to the scripture. Philosophical speculations about the internal economy of God are futile.

        Now I think I have said enough, since you are merely repeating yourself. You seem to want to have God be something you can understand. How could that be possible?

  • wharfedale  On August 1, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    you believe jesus GAVE up his attributes. may i ask to whom? could they have been transferred to another person and made him god? when jesus gave up his attributes do they float in space INACTIVE? so its like an ON and off thing isn’t it? can jesus’ attributes he gave up turn on without notifying jesus that they have switched on? this is quite interesting.

  • wharfedale  On August 1, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    “Jesus is always one person, with two natures united from the time of his conception”

    i don’t understand. you say one person and you say jesus gave up, but if he is one person then he is having his divine nature punish his human nature in the one person jesus in sheol, so where is the giving up ? lets make it simple, did god give up BEING GOD?

  • Oliver Elphick  On August 2, 2012 at 1:39 am

    To give them up means not to use them; that’s all. I had better make it clear that this is my interpretation. Maybe there was more to it than that, but the bible does not tell us. All the bible tells us is that he emptied himself; precisely what that involved is not revealed. But it seems to me that God cannot be deprived of his power, but he can decide not to use it.

    @wharfedale: i don’t understand. you say one person and you say jesus gave up, but if he is one person then he is having his divine nature punish his human nature in the one person jesus in sheol, so where is the giving up ? lets make it simple, did god give up BEING GOD?

    To the last question: No. God is always God.

    The persons of God are distinct; yet he is one God. Since they are distinct persons, the Father laid a burden on the Son (which the Son accepted willingly) for our sake. “The LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:6) It is true that God decided that Jesus should bear the penalty/pay the ransom for our sins. This is a matter of complete agreement between the three persons. So it was eternally done by each of them and by all of them/him.

    Acts 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

    But Jesus, as a person existing in time, willingly suffered what was laid on him.

    Luke 18:31 And taking the twelve, he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. 32 For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. 33 And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise.” 34 But they understood none of these things. This saying was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said.

    Luke 22:41 And he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and knelt down and prayed, 42 saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” 43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground

  • Wharfe Dale  On August 2, 2012 at 2:45 am

    “So it was eternally done by each of them and by all of them/him.”

    LOL, look at your language . you use PLURAL pronoun then use SINGULAR pronoun. them . him 1 him 2 and him 3

    so your monethiesm INCLUDES THE PRONOUN THEM

    i assume u worship 3 of THEM?
    thats better.

    “But it seems to me that God cannot be deprived of his power, but he can decide not to use it.

    PLEASE TELL ME what kind of language this is for God? if u say GOD IS ALL KNOWING then he can be at A point in time NOT all knowing because he DECIDED not to use his ALL knowing? what kind of language is this? IF ALL KNOWING IS PART OF HIS NATURE THEN PLEASE WHAT PLANET R U LIVING ON? PLEase why insult the Almighty like this?

  • Wharfe Dale  On August 2, 2012 at 2:47 am

    i assume u worship 3 of THEM?

    and 3 hims

  • Wharfe Dale  On August 2, 2012 at 2:50 am

    “The persons of God are distinct; yet he is one God. Since they are distinct persons, the Father laid a burden on the Son (which the Son accepted willingly) for our sake. ”

    are all 3 persons in trinity capable of laying burden? so does that mean the son laid is OWN burden on himself ? lol.

  • Wharfe Dale  On August 2, 2012 at 2:58 am

    so lets see

    father all knowing + all powerful
    spirit all knowing + all powerful
    once up on a time,son choose not to be all knowing . so not all knowing + powerful once upon a time

    “To give them up means not to use them; that’s all.”

    so god decided not to use his all knowing and power? YET THEY were still PART OF him LOL?

  • Wharfe Dale  On August 2, 2012 at 3:04 am

    “To give them up means not to use them; that’s all.”

    i gave up on my glasses, but if glasses are permanently ATTACHED to my face , how in the hell can i give them up? do u believe that power and all knowledge is not 100 percent PART of God?

  • Wharfe Dale  On August 2, 2012 at 3:10 am

    “…not to use them”

    so he put them away like you would put away your glasses? this means like marcion u believe your god detaches himself from his attributes, know it make sense ” elai elai why have u forsaken me”

    meaning why have my attributes forsaken me. so i think u should become marcionite christian.

  • Wharfe Dale  On August 2, 2012 at 3:13 am

    “100% God + 100% man = 100% Jesus.”

    what? you mean 200% . 50 *2 = 100% simple mathematics

  • Wharfe Dale  On August 2, 2012 at 3:15 am

    “To give them up means not to use them; that’s all.”

    so lets see. god DIDn’t use his POWERS when he was on EARTH. he was USING the SPIRITS powers to guide him? 🙂

  • Wharfe Dale  On August 2, 2012 at 3:27 am

    siyanarah

  • Wharfe Dale  On August 2, 2012 at 3:32 am

    if i am all powerful and decide not to use my power does that mean i am 100 % human? so do you believe jesus was not 100 % human?

  • Wharfe Dale  On August 2, 2012 at 3:38 am

    “34 But they understood NONE of THESE things. This saying was HIDDEN from them, and they did not grasp what was said”

    SO they didn’t know about jesus blood atoning for sins because it was hidden from them lol

    lets go back to SALVATIONT VERSION 1

    12 And having gone forth they were preaching that men might reform, 13 and many demons they were casting out, and they were anointing with oil many infirm, and they were healing them.

    SALVATION VERSION 1 is clearly different from blood atoning for sins in SALVATION version 2

    you really think that the deciples would switch from salvation version 1 (mark 6) to salvation version 2 i.e blood of god?
    I Know that you ppl are READY to swallow the idea that human flesh of jesus was sinless, but how easy would it have been to sell this idea to the jews whom the DECIPLES had contact with in mark 6:12?

  • Oliver Elphick  On August 2, 2012 at 5:47 am

    Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man
    who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
    nor stands in the way of sinners,
    nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
    2 but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
    and on his law he meditates day and night.

    You have become a scoffer.

  • Wharfe Dale  On August 2, 2012 at 9:15 am

    i have Not become a scoffer, you have become a blasphemour. you’re telling me that god did a DIFFICULT A LEVEL exam and turned off his all knowledge before he did it.

    u say god can STOP USING his POWERS, does that mean if all 3 persons in the trinity simultaneously STOPPED using thier powers man could trump them?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: