Here is my response to the latest round in my ongoing discussion with thegrandverbalizer. I really appreciate him taking the time to discuss these matters with me. My past words. he responds to are in red and my response follows his in bold black font with my current response in red. I also think that there has been some confusion I will attempt to try to clear them up. I will also try to make my links clearly because they are being missed.And I will be addressing thegrandverbalizer directly.Because these posts are getting too big I'm breaking this into two parts.
I agree with you. That is why I believe scripture is the great equalizer. Holding on to the truth is how we avoid our biases. I'm glad you provided the link. I think that we need to be clear that although orthodox Judaism does not accept Jesus as Messiah, that there has been a remnant that has accepted and followed Jesus since the beginning. ALL of the first Christians were Jewish and there are people today that are both Jews and Christians. Dr. Michael Brown comes to mind as an example. The link I gave earlier in the discussion concerning verb tenses in Hebrew is from a website ran by Jewish Christians. Not all Jews agree that the Christian interpretation is wrong.Another great source is my friend, Mariano's blog calledTrue Free Thinker and one of his latest articles is Jewish / Judaism : Does Christianity Corrupt the Old Testament? And: On the Memra, part 1 of 5
My response: I disagree that 'ALL' of the first Christians were Jewish. Certainly there were people who were not descendants of the tribe of Judah who embraced Christianity. You had the tribes of Levi, Gad and Dan among others.
During Jesus' times and as well as now, the term "Jew" is used to describe all descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Seccondly when McElhaney says 'Not all Jews agree that the Christian interpretation is wrong'. Really? Could McElhaney provide for us a singleJew whom is not a Christian who agrees with his assertion that Isaiah 53 is talking about a Messiah who will die and rise from the dead. Just one.
I gave a list of Jewish teachers and what they taught. Here is the link again. Here are several non-Christians agreeing with that Isaiah 53 is not just Messanic but describes events future to Isaiah. I'd like to know why you didn't comment on the link. http://www.hearnow.org/isa_com.html
Let's not be hasty. There is still a problem. In Matthew 9:3 Jesus opponents thought that that Jesus was blaspheming. Why? Mark is more explicit, but not contradictory. They thought Jesus was blaspheming because they believed that only God can forgive sin. If the Bible is trying to teach that all men have the authority to forgive sin why did Jesus have to validate his authority with a miracle? It might be argued that Matthew did not have to say why the teachers of the law thoughtJesus was blaspheming because Matthew was written to Jews and that audience needed no explanation while Mark was written for Romans so the explanation was necessary. So what about the authority to men? I think it's going beyond the text to assert that we can forgive anyone's sin to the point that they are now justified and found faultless in God's eyes.I believe that is the kind of forgiveness Jesus was referring to. Were the people praising God because Jesus forgave the man's sin or because Jesus healed the man? I think they were praising God because they recognized that miraculous healing was possible through human agents. The Bible is full of such accounts.
My response: There are several things here that brother McElhaney needs to realize in order to be consistent. Some Jews who lived in that time had a false understanding that anyone who was born with a handicap had either committed a sin or their parents committed sin.
Jesus completely refutes this in John 9:1-3
I agree but what does this have to do with forgiveness of sin?
I agree but what does this have to do with forgiveness of sin?
Also we have to be consistent. We can't pick and choose what we like from Jesus Jewish opponents where it suits us and than ignore the rest. For example as Christians and Muslims we are not ready to believe that Jesus did blasphemy. However, the Christians are ready to accept the claim of Jesus enemies that 'Only God alone can forgive sins'. If the Jews are wrong that Jesus was committing blasphemy than it stands to reason they were also wrong with their notion that 'God alone forgives sins'.
Why? I agree with them: Only God can forgive sin. Because all sin is an affront to God. Can you commit a sin against anyone and it not be slight against God's character and holiness? No. It's because of our sin we go to hell for the fact that it's just punishment.
This is a very consistent understanding when we look at the Lords prayer which admittedly McElhaney says is 'about us forgiving those who sin against us personally.' Why did Jesus validate his authority with a miracle well as he says to show the people that he had the power to forgive sin.
Why? I agree with them: Only God can forgive sin. Because all sin is an affront to God. Can you commit a sin against anyone and it not be slight against God's character and holiness? No. It's because of our sin we go to hell for the fact that it's just punishment.
This is a very consistent understanding when we look at the Lords prayer which admittedly McElhaney says is 'about us forgiving those who sin against us personally.' Why did Jesus validate his authority with a miracle well as he says to show the people that he had the power to forgive sin.
It's significant because the people knew that God alone can forgive sin.
McElhaney says,'I think it's going beyond the text to assert that we can forgive anyone's sin to the point that they are now justified and found faultless in God's eye.'
I also think it's going beyond the text to assert that just because Jesus forgave sin he was on the same level with God. When Matthew says they glorified God who gave power such power to men and Mark says they glorified God who gave such power to a man there is no contradiction. However, asserting that Jesus forgives sins in a special way that 'men' do not that is is 'going beyond the text'.
If I forgive you for wronging me, how does that help you? Why should God not punish you just because I forgive you? No, God has to forgive you so that your sins are not counted against you. Without Jesus you and I are justly condemned with out His forgiveness. Jesus was accused of blasphemy because they understood that Jesus was claiming this divine prerogative for Himself. If you disagree, can you explain why they accused Jesus of blasphemy. One more thing, the text says that Jesus knew their thoughts. How could he "guess" that was what they were thinking?
Anyone familiar with the lords prayer can testify to this. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” Or the word trespass can be debts. Depending upon Matthew or Luke but still the understanding is there.
I explained that the trespasses/debts can only be forgiven against us by us. The prayer asks for the forgiveness of personal sins and tells us that we must forgive things committed against us. Trespasses/debts are sins. When we sin we are trespassing on God's law - going where we ought not go. Sin is also a debt. We owe God our lives in payment for sin. "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). That is what we earn by what we do and what we are. Who can ultimately absolve us of this...only God. By Jesus claiming that He could do such, He claimed something that only God has the right to claim.
I explained that the trespasses/debts can only be forgiven against us by us. The prayer asks for the forgiveness of personal sins and tells us that we must forgive things committed against us. Trespasses/debts are sins. When we sin we are trespassing on God's law - going where we ought not go. Sin is also a debt. We owe God our lives in payment for sin. "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). That is what we earn by what we do and what we are. Who can ultimately absolve us of this...only God. By Jesus claiming that He could do such, He claimed something that only God has the right to claim.
The Lord's prayer is about us forgiving those who sin against uspersonally. Not setting aside wrath and judgment. I'm saying that I can forgive you for stepping on my toe, but I can't forgive you for stepping on a third party's toe because the offense was not against me. Jesus can forgive any sin because all sin is an affront to God. When you sin against a person you also sin against God. Let's take an example when Joseph had a chance to have adulterous sex:
8 But he refused. "With me in charge," he told her, "my master does not concern himself with anything in the house; everything he owns he has entrusted to my care.9 No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?"10 And though she spoke to Joseph day after day, he refused to go to bed with her or even be with her. - Genesis 39:8-10
Joseph understood that he would not just be wronging his earthly master but God Himself! And there are many other examples.
My response: I think what brother McElhaney has to understand is that there are three types of sins. Sin against our self in which we must forgive ourselves. Sin against our fellow man in which we must seek forgiveness from them. Sin against God in which we must seek forgiveness from God. However, I am not saying there are times in which there is not over lap. For example you can sin against yourself, fellow man and God all at the same time. The example McElhaney gave above assuming it were true would be a good example. Remember it says forgive us as we forgive those who sin against us. I would encourage brother McElhaney to take a look at the Greek word 'hosper' or as.
Could you please bring out your point more. I don't understand what you are arguing or how it shows that man can forgive sin the way God does. If you are not arguing this but instead saying that Jesus does not forgive sin on the same level as God, then you have to show that He wasn't claiming the He could. I am claiming that Jesus did make that claim and validated it with a miracle.
Mr. McElhaney says,
“Isaiah 53: 8 says that the servant has no descendants that is why I was saying that if the passage was the nation of Israel and not a single Jew that would mean that there would be no Jews after this scripture was fulfilled. I understand your viewpoint as a Muslim but I have a question:Do Muslims believe in original sin? The idea is that all are indebted to God because of our inability to perfectly follow His standardand deserve to go to hell.”
I responded by saying, “Jews and Muslims and Jesus did not believe in original sin. Unfortunately this is a doctrine that Paul seems to be fond of. The foundation of Christianity is built around this doctrine.” I than quoted a proof text to answer McElhaney from the Torah, and the Qur'an. That Jews and Muslims and Jesus did not believe in the original sin. However, for some reason in his reply McElhaney felt it appropriate to completely leave that portion out. One does wonder why.
However, this is what McElhaney did say in response to his question, “Do Muslims believe in original sin”.
Jews and Jesus did believe that we as human beings are slaves to sin. The whole reason for the sacrificial system was to atone for the sins of Israel because no one was able to keep the Torah perfectly! I think I may have confused the issue using the term "original sin". I defined it as the inability of people to live perfect and submitted lives to God. Jesus taught that he was the only way out of this condition. Jesus said in John 8:24
My response: Notice now that he changes the issue from asking if I believe in original sin to stating that Jews and Jesus 'did believe that we as human beings are slaves to sin'. He brings this up as if it was a matter of dispute to begin with. Again it's a nice smoke screen but when we have written exchanges people can see who is trying to do what. If you are going to confuse the issue with original sin than why bring it up? So now let me ask McElhaney does he believe in the 'original sin' doctrine that the bulk of Christianity holds to be classical and orthodox?
Before we go on discussing "Original Sin" I think we need to agree about what we mean. I think you are saying that it refers to the blame of Adam's disobedience is on everyone and we are being judged by God according to Adam's sin. I know a lot of Christians use the term this way. I don't. I also don't believe that this is what Paul was referring to in Romans 5. He was saying that we are all under a curse of not being able to live sinless and perfect lives. All sin is basically disobedience against God. Adam's was just first - Original sin. This is an example of how I think in some ways our discussion has become confused.The issue is not distinct from"Original Sin". Do you you need a savior or not is the issue? Do you need a Messiah like the one promised in Isaiah 53? If there is original sin then we need deliverance because we cannot deliver ourselves.
If I am a computer programmer the programs can only do what I program them with the ability to do. So why would God program human beings with the ability to sin if it was something that he hated so much?
McElhaney responds
When God made Adam, he was perfect - sinless. When he fell, he took all of us down with us. Genesis 3 says this...not just Paul. Many Christians would say that it was because of Adam's free will he was able to sin and God was not responsible. I agree, but then they try to apply that to us living today and it does not work because we are not perfect like Adam was. We can't choose not to sin and to be perfect all the time. He was free when he was created and we are not. There is a virus in that computer program called sin. We have to let God reformat and re-image our hard drives.
When God made Adam, he was perfect - sinless. When he fell, he took all of us down with us. Genesis 3 says this...not just Paul. Many Christians would say that it was because of Adam's free will he was able to sin and God was not responsible. I agree, but then they try to apply that to us living today and it does not work because we are not perfect like Adam was. We can't choose not to sin and to be perfect all the time. He was free when he was created and we are not. There is a virus in that computer program called sin. We have to let God reformat and re-image our hard drives.
My response: There is allot wrong with this response. If Adam was made perfect wouldn't' that perfection include the ability to obey God without fail? What do you mean by perfect? Where did the virus come from? It seems the question is still not being answered so I will repeat it. 'why would God program human beings with the ability to sin if it was something that he hated so much?' Makes you wonder why God just doesn't reformat and re-image our hard drives from child birth? I can understand the Christian argument if we are saying that hard drives are being made faulty. Or made with an inherent defect with in them. Than once this is found out the thing causing the defect is dealt with. However, McElhaney's argument is that no we just let these defective hard drives enter into the market place and let the buyer reformat and re-image them themselves! This analogy also does not work and it also only improves the strength of the Islamic argument. I myself work in the I.T line and I know that hard drives do not come formatted. Hard drives are clean just like babies when they are born into the world.
I would not argue that God programmed us the desire to sin and do things that He abhors. That's not logical and I would not say that in the slightest. Adam was perfect and by that I mean sinless, but that does not mean that he could not choose to sin. Adam is the only one of us who had free will other than Jesus. He could have chosen not to sin but he did or like Jesus. We don't have free will like he did because we enslaved to sin. Our harddrives do not come clean. Look at Psalm 51:4-6
4 Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are proved right when you speak
and justified when you judge.
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
6 Surely you desire truth in the inner parts ;
you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.
This isn't just the psalmist but all of us. We can't reformat ourselves. Only Jesus can. I'm a computer programmer myself so I understand what you are saying, but we are aftermarket. Been in circulation for a while and not started from scratch. So why does God allow it? If he wiped out all of the hard drives and trashed them he would have to trash all of us.
I have also noted that McElhaney is now wanting to move away from Isaiah 53 and start bringing a few red herrings for me to pursue.
No trick No Red herring. I see nothing moving away from Isaiah 53.
McElhaney says in response,
I'm not trying to distract from Isaiah 53 at all. I was merely trying to expand the discussion because all of this has to do with Jesus' death and resurrection.
I'm not trying to distract from Isaiah 53 at all. I was merely trying to expand the discussion because all of this has to do with Jesus' death and resurrection.
Notice the inconsistency with McElhaney, if you go back to a previous post of his he says the following,
“As for offspring,it can't be referring to literal children because that would destroy verse 8.”
When I wrote that I was talking about reading literal children as the "offspring" in verse 10 would destroy the meaning of verse 8.
When I wrote that I was talking about reading literal children as the "offspring" in verse 10 would destroy the meaning of verse 8.
My response: It seems to me that McElhaney is not sure which verse would 'destroy' the other. So does verse 10 destroy verse 8 if it's literal children or does verse 8 destroy verse 10 it it's literal children? Seems to me that we can't have a consistent understanding because what does get destroyed is Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53!
I disagree. Understand what I'm saying. Verse 8 is talking about literal children. Verse 10 is not talking about literal children. Isaiah 9:6 tells us the messiah will be called "everlasting father". This squares with verse 10. The same man in the same book in the same context. So I see nothing wrong with understanding the verse literally because verse 10 is talking about offspring but not children born of natural births.
I would suggest that we interpret verse 8, 9 and 10 all as allegorical and not literal that way no one has to get destroyed and we don't have to be inconsistent in interpretation.
Inconsistent? I don't think so.
Now I know McElhaney would love to have his cake and eat it too but in this case things get a bit messy for him. How is that you are going to say that Isaiah 53:8 says there are no descendants. I don't know what part of no does he not quite get? Than, he wishes to turn around and say oh but in verse 10 those are spiritual descendants. Remember it is his assumption that it can't be a contradiction because hey! That would be a contradiction! So maybe he can care to explain to us how No descendants is transformed into 'oh wait there are descendants they are just spiritual ones'. Of course if the whole passage is taken metaphorically or even allegorically my arguments still remain. Where as McElhaney's arguments run into a boat load of problems.
I think we have a misunderstanding. You were arguing that the servant has children because of verse 10 and I was saying that he couldn't because of verse 9. I'm not arguing that there is a contradiction. Are you? If there is a contradiction then Isaiah was not a profit and we can't trust the text. We know that Isaiah could not be talking about the same thing in verse 8 "descendants" and verse 10 "offspring". They ain't the same word.No contradiction. Verse 8 refers to physical Children. Verse 9 refers to all those who would believe because we will all be resurrected just as Jesus was.
I think we have a misunderstanding. You were arguing that the servant has children because of verse 10 and I was saying that he couldn't because of verse 9. I'm not arguing that there is a contradiction. Are you? If there is a contradiction then Isaiah was not a profit and we can't trust the text. We know that Isaiah could not be talking about the same thing in verse 8 "descendants" and verse 10 "offspring". They ain't the same word.No contradiction. Verse 8 refers to physical Children. Verse 9 refers to all those who would believe because we will all be resurrected just as Jesus was.
My response: Than I would suggest brother McElhaney to calm down. If the word for 'descendants' in verse 8 and the word for 'offspring' in verse 10 are not the same word than relax. The interpretation that the Jews give still holds. However your understanding of offspring in verse 9 does not seem to be grounded in the Hebrew language, it is obvious to anyone that it is shrouded in your theological interpretations. So we have a few options as I see it. Maybe we can come to a common understanding about it.
We can have inconsistent interpretation where some parts are taken literal and some parts or taken allegorically to fit out theological presuppositions.
We can have a consistent interpretation where all parts are taken taken literally.
We can have a consistent interpretation where all parts are taken metaphorically.
I don't know about you but I'm just trying to find consistent standards.
If we are to talk about 'original sin' than Christians need to get the theology correct according to their own understanding. If sin means rebellion against God than the first one to actually commit a sin was 'Lucifer' in their own theology.
McElhaney says,
And in your theology too, Lucifer was the first to rebel against Godbecause he would not worship Adam when Allah told him to - well, according to the Qur'an. In Christian theology, if I go to hell it's not because Adam rebelled against God, it is because I did. The Bible says everyone has rebelled - sinned and fallen short of the standard of Holiness God expects from us. If I go to hell it's because I deserve it and did not put my faith in Jesus - choosing to die in my sins.
My response: First off McElhaney Muslims do not have a doctrine of 'fallen angels'. I don't know where you got the idea from that Lucifer was the first to rebel against God in the Qur'an? Muslims do not believe that angels rebel against God.
Have you ever read Surah 7?
Has everyone sinned come short of the glory of God?
The answer to the first question Is no where. The Bible and the Qur'an both state people are held accountable for their actions. However, the statement that 'just because some get more grace does not mean they are guiltless' is wrong. Yes it does mean they are guiltless! Babies and mentally handicapped are guiltless! McElhaney needs to bring forth the scriptures he has to show that they are guiltless.
Guiltless does not equal innocent. Because handicapped people sin just like normal people, God would be in his rights to send them to hell too...He could have chosen to do that for EVERYONE. But Jesus' message was that God has chosen to extend grace. We are all guilty and deserve death...but Jesus paid the penalty. According to the effectual and substitutional atonement , the reason why babies and mentally handicapped people are given grace is because Jesus died for them and I believe that God applies the credited righteousness to them. As for "normal" people, "much is given so much is required", We have to make a purposed repentence and put our faith into Jesus.
Guiltless does not equal innocent. Because handicapped people sin just like normal people, God would be in his rights to send them to hell too...He could have chosen to do that for EVERYONE. But Jesus' message was that God has chosen to extend grace. We are all guilty and deserve death...but Jesus paid the penalty. According to the effectual and substitutional atonement , the reason why babies and mentally handicapped people are given grace is because Jesus died for them and I believe that God applies the credited righteousness to them. As for "normal" people, "much is given so much is required", We have to make a purposed repentence and put our faith into Jesus.
My response:I would kindly advise you McElhaney to take a look at a few English dictionaries and we will readily find that guiltless is synonym for innocent.
Upon looking back on the guiltless/Innocent equivocation, I could have explained it better. We are not declared innocent. Through Jesus we are not declared "innocent" we are declared "not guilty". That is the difference. I'm sorry I was not clearer thanks for pointing it out.
If you continue to take Paul and his theological constructions literally you will continue to get in trouble Romans 3:23 obviously does not mean 'All'. Otherwise this would mean Jesus too. Do you believe Jesus sinned? If Jesus was sinless than 'not ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God'. I have also made my point that babies and the mentally handicapped do not commit sins and are innocent and guiltless. For you to continue to rail against this point your defending a sinking ship.
Upon looking back on the guiltless/Innocent equivocation, I could have explained it better. We are not declared innocent. Through Jesus we are not declared "innocent" we are declared "not guilty". That is the difference. I'm sorry I was not clearer thanks for pointing it out.
If you continue to take Paul and his theological constructions literally you will continue to get in trouble Romans 3:23 obviously does not mean 'All'. Otherwise this would mean Jesus too. Do you believe Jesus sinned? If Jesus was sinless than 'not ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God'. I have also made my point that babies and the mentally handicapped do not commit sins and are innocent and guiltless. For you to continue to rail against this point your defending a sinking ship.
Paul was not talking about Jesus.You cannot get that out of the context of the passage. If you are going to say that Paul was wrong then you should be able to name another human being who never sinned. In several letters, Paul said Jesus was sinless. Therefore he could not have been lumping Jesus into Romans 3:23. I do think that mentally handicapped and babies are included but they are forgiven because God would not hold them accountable. But for you and me we are accountable.
Now you try to allow yourself some wiggle room by stating, “Because handicapped people sin just like normal people”. So why would I argue against this? A person who was born with a deformed arm, hand or leg can still grow up to be a very mean and wicked person no doubt. However I was not talking about handicapped in general. Anyone following the exchanges between us can see that plain as day. I said 'mentally handicapped'.
"Mentally Handicapped " people sin too. Would you like to try to argue that they don't?
Jonah and the Whale/Fish
I didn't touch on the unlikely scenario of this happening. Maybe McElhaney could tell us what species of fish (not whale remember his words not mine) is capable of swallowing a human being whole. I'll give McElhaney a hint: “google Grouper”. Could you also explain how it is that a person is protected from the fish's digestive process and how Jonah actually breathed inside of the fish seeing that fish breath through their lungs?
Is there anywhere in the Hebrew Bible and most translations where it says "whale" and not "fish". As near as I can tell they all say "fish" and I'm sure God knows the difference between a "fish" and a "whale". I'm not sure if you trying to argue that the story is just a story and did not happen, but I would argue that the Tanak says it happened so it did. I don't have all the answers of how God pulled this out but if He can whip out all of reality out of nothing - creating all that was, is, and ever will be, sustaining Jonah inside the fish belly alive is a small feat.
My response: Fair enough!
Agreed.
I could say about 'Jesus on the cross' “I bet it was hard to breath” and “I bet he lost allot of blood” and “I doubt Jesus was not comfortable at all!” Jonah went through a great ordeal and he did not die!
What you said was: "Well again going back to the book of Jonah we find that he didn't die when he was in the whale. So how this foretells the alleged resurrection of some future Messiah is anyone's guess." Therefore I was responding to the part of your discussion saying that in order to parallel Jonah with Jesus, Jonah had to be dead in the belly of the fish. I disagreed and still do. That is not what the sign was about. The peopleasking for a sign from Jesus believed that Jonah was in the fish for three days so Jesus was only saying that he was going to be buried for the same comparable amount of time. This is why I was saying you were taking things too far.
What you said was: "Well again going back to the book of Jonah we find that he didn't die when he was in the whale. So how this foretells the alleged resurrection of some future Messiah is anyone's guess." Therefore I was responding to the part of your discussion saying that in order to parallel Jonah with Jesus, Jonah had to be dead in the belly of the fish. I disagreed and still do. That is not what the sign was about. The peopleasking for a sign from Jesus believed that Jonah was in the fish for three days so Jesus was only saying that he was going to be buried for the same comparable amount of time. This is why I was saying you were taking things too far.
My response: Where does it say in the New Testament that the people 'believed that Jonah was in the fish for three days'? I still only find Jesus saying that 'As Jonah was in the belly of the whale for 3 day and 3 nights so shall the son of man be'.
When Jesus said that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for 3 days, if the people disagreed, why didn't anyone correct him? That would have been something that they would have loved...finding Jesus misquoting scripture. No they believed that Jonah was in the fish for 3 days and 3 nights because that is what the book says.
Well it was not very clear because Jonah didn't die but Christians say he did die. Jonah was not buried and neither was Jesus when you think about it. Just to help McElhaney in his future encounter with Muslims it maybe more proper for you to use the word 'entombment' that will probably help advance your argument. Friendly advice take it or leave it.
I have never met a Christian who said that Jonah died in the fish. And all four Gospels and the Talmad says that Jesus was buried. Its usually understood that being laid in a tomb is being buried. "Entombment" is the same as being buried to most American English speakers, but thanks for the friendly advice.
My response: McElhaney is correct that Christians do not believe Jonah had died. This was a typing over sight on my behalf that I meant to correct before publishing it. So I am thankful for the correction. However, McElhaney says that the Talmud says, 'that Jesus was buried'.
Really!?! Which Jesus? The one you are calling me to accept as my lord and savior or just any plain run of the mill Jesus?
I don't understand your question.
Brother McElhaney continues..
Uneventful? As you pointed out one would have expected Jonah to have died no matter what swallowed him...or drown. The amazing thing about Jesus is that he was only buried for a small finite time. They understood what he was talking about because He said that the people of Ninevah repented and the folks of the temple would not although Jesus is greater than Jonah. Jesus answered their question but it wasn't what they wanted.
My response: Yes it's uneventful. It definitely doesn't make for pay per view television.
Can you more clearly explain what you find so unremarkable? and why?
Let's look at what Jesus is reported to have said,
“0For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” Matthew 12:40.
But let us recount the event according to the Christians. Jesus taken down from the cross/tree/tau on Friday evening and put in the tomb. Let's assume he was there all day Saturday. However, Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb Sunday morning and surprise surprise no one is there. So what do we have?
Friday Saturday Sunday
1 night 0 days 1 night 1 day 0 days.
However, let's say I am gracious and say maybe Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb around 10:00 a.m but Jesus already skipped town at 9:00 a.m o.k that's fair. However add it all up and there are no 'three days and three nights'.
McElhaney is going to have allot of fun looking at the great acrobatic lengths Christian apologist go through to cover up this embarrassing little detail.
Ahhh...the timeline paradox. The "go to" arguments to show contradictions among the Gospels. Now who's throwing red herrings? This has been discussed much and I've been meaning to do a whole blog post on Jesus' crucifixion timeline but I will save it for another time. With your permission I would like to reccommend a website that deals with these. I wrote a post on it several months ago.101 Bible Contradictions Refuted. Read number 69. I posted most of the page into my blog post.
Ahhh...the timeline paradox. The "go to" arguments to show contradictions among the Gospels. Now who's throwing red herrings? This has been discussed much and I've been meaning to do a whole blog post on Jesus' crucifixion timeline but I will save it for another time. With your permission I would like to reccommend a website that deals with these. I wrote a post on it several months ago.101 Bible Contradictions Refuted. Read number 69. I posted most of the page into my blog post.
My response:Again I am not showing any 'contradictions' in the Gospels. I don't know where you got that from. Does one Gospel say that Jesus was going to be in the fish for three days and three nights and another say seven days and seven nights? No! I simply brought out the fact that who ever put the words 'three days and three nights' in the mouth of Jesus makes him out to be untruthful. However, this is something that you will 'save for another time'.
I'm talking about presenting a post about the timeline for the events. How was Jesus wrong? Are you saying he was wrong because Jesus did not spend three 24-hour days in the tomb? If so, then I think you need to be aware of the fact that to first century Jews,a part of a day is reckoned as a full day. He was in the tomb part of Friday and part of Sunday by our time keeping standards so according to Jewish culture at the time it was three days.
I'm talking about presenting a post about the timeline for the events. How was Jesus wrong? Are you saying he was wrong because Jesus did not spend three 24-hour days in the tomb? If so, then I think you need to be aware of the fact that to first century Jews,a part of a day is reckoned as a full day. He was in the tomb part of Friday and part of Sunday by our time keeping standards so according to Jewish culture at the time it was three days.
Remember that McElhaney himself says at the bottom,
“I then used what Jesus said to show that Jesus taught that the reason why Jonah was in the fish for three days was to foreshadow Jesus' three day burial - not his death or crucifixion”
Final point on Jonah. No mention of a Messiah in Jonah. No death and resurrection! Finally no three days and three nights for Jesus.
McElhaney says,
You do realize that neither of those things were my point...only what Jesus said about Jonah and that Jesus' death,burial, and Resurrection do not depend on Jonah, right? Good.
I'm more than happy to see that Jesus 'death' 'burial' and 'resurrection' do not depend upon Jonah because if they did it sure wouldn't meet your own criteria. As you said about Ezekiel different time different context and not even the same thing!
Jonah was just as sign of the burial and nothing else.
McElhaney says,
Jonah was just as sign of the burial and nothing else.
McElhaney says,
“The problem with your scenario is that you are pushing the parallel too far. Jesus was dead on the cross. Recall that the spear thrust proves it.Blood and water poured out of the wound showing that the spear had gone into Jesus' heart. Even people like Bart Ehrman agree that Jesus really was crucified and that he really died. I know that Muslims differ much on this question so I will not assume where you come down on but I will say that it's a historical fact that Jew from Nazareth was crucified under Pontiius Pilate circa 30 AD. As a rule...there is only one recorded example of a man surviving that experience. Jesus didn't survive, He died. And rose 3 days later.”
My response: The spear thrust doesn't prove anything. All that McElhaney does is exactly what Christians have tried to do over the centuries, show their frustration with the gospel writers by introducing novel embellishments. McElhaney would love for John to have said 'pierced him in the heart'.
Don't you know of basic human anatomy? Blood and water poured out of the wound. That means the sack of fluid that looks like water that surrounds the heart was ruptured by the spear thrust. Jesus' heart was indeed pierced. It's not a "novel embellishment" but a fact of physiology andproves that Jesus was pierced through the heart and He didn't swoon...He was "grave yard dead".
Don't you know of basic human anatomy? Blood and water poured out of the wound. That means the sack of fluid that looks like water that surrounds the heart was ruptured by the spear thrust. Jesus' heart was indeed pierced. It's not a "novel embellishment" but a fact of physiology andproves that Jesus was pierced through the heart and He didn't swoon...He was "grave yard dead".
My response: McElhaney what if I responded that I do not know the basics of human anatomy. Are you trying to say that you do? Could you please for the benefit of everyone tell us about your extensive medical background, degrees and doctorates if any? I know you would like it to be 'indeed' and 'a fact' and 'proves' but I'm sorry those embellishments only come off as desperate.
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Part 4: Reply to brother McElhaney..the saga continues..
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2c0ce53a-3aab-44eb-909d-26d5b497dd5b)
No comments:
Post a Comment