I hope that you the reader are enjoying this back and forth discussion between brother McElhaney and I. He says he is not a pastor so I will just refer to him by name or what ever title that is deemed appropriate as I do know him on a personal level and just wished to be more formal.
I hope others are profiting also...but even if no one else is being helped I am. It is always good to examine ones viewpoints and see if they hold up against honest questioning.
Mr. McElhaney says,
“One of the common debates was whether or not “the Messiah” was actually two people (or twins) since it seemed impossible to them that one person could accomplish both of the Messiah’s “goals” (Isaiah 61:1-3). See the whole article at http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/m_prohecies.shtml
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 called True 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
“No and and more questions come up. What Hebrew - to English translation arte you using? Can you provide the Title and publisher, please?”
The translation that I am using is the following found here: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
A Hebrew - English Bible
According to the Masoretic Text
and the JPS 1917 Edition
I think Jewish believers in Judaism are quite capable of coming up with their own translations into English free of Christian theology. Others may disagree with this point.
I would agree except with the caveat that not all Jews agree. Some of them indeed see the text the way you do. However, I would say that 1st Century Jews and Jews who are persuaded by their own scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah see the texts the way I do. Do you as a Muslim agree that Muhammad taught that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah?
God , Jesus or Man who can forgive sins?
Mr. McElhaney says,
“Remember God alone can forgive sins and Jesus forgave sins.”
I replied by saying, “Well I would like to see the pastor quote the scripture that says Jesus forgave sins.”
To which Mr. McEhlaney says,
“Easy to do: Mark: 2:1-12
1A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home.2So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them.3Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them.4Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on.5When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves,7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
8Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things?9Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"
My comments: I wonder why the pastor quoted the version In Mark over the version in Matthew 9:1-8?
Let's have a look shall we?
1Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town.2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
4Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?5Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'?6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home."7And the man got up and went home.8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.
Now note that Matthew says the people praised God, who had given such authority to men plural. However, Mr. McElhaney says, “Remember God alone can forgive sins and Jesus forgave sins.” However, we can see that 'men' plural can forgive sins. So there is no problem here.
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 thought Jesus 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.
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.
The Lord's prayer is about us forgiving those who sin against us personally. 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:
Joseph understood that he would not just be wronging his earthly master but God Himself! And there are many other examples.
The Lord's prayer is about us forgiving those who sin against us personally. 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.
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 standard and deserve to go to hell.”
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.
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
I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins."
And in verses 31-42
31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." 33 They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" 34 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father. " 39 "Abraham is our father," they answered. "If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the things your own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself." 42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 standard and deserve to go to hell.”
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.
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.
McElhaney asked the following,
“Do Muslims believe in original sin?”
Holy Qur’an chapter 35 verse 18
"And no burdened soul can bear anther's burden. And if one weighed down by a burden calls another to carry his load, naught of it will be carried, even though he be near of kin. You warn only those who fear their Lord in secret and keep up prayer. And whoever purifies himself, purifies himself only for his own good. And to Allah is the eventual coming."
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: very man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Muslims do not teach 'original sin' we teach original forgiveness.
Holy Qur'an chapter 2 verse 37
“Then learned Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful”
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.
And in your theology too, Lucifer was the first to rebel against God because 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.
McElhaney says,
“Where does the Bible or the Koran say who isn't held accountable for their sin? I agree that babies who die and the handicapped are not held to the same standard as those who are able to understand what they are doing. But just because they get more grace than someone who voluntary rebels against God does not mean that they are guiltless.”
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.
Jonah and the Whale/Fish
The pastor remarks,
“Um...Fish. Sorry, its a pet-peeve of mine.”. Ah Yes pet-peeves! Well, it is a very remarkable story.
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.
More on Jonah and the um. 'fish'.
McElhaney says,
“I'm sorry but you are reading a lot into the text that isn't there. No where does it say that Jonah died in the fish. And I don't think after being vomited up Jonah was "dandy". He was scared and how do we know that he was breathing freely...I bet it was hard to breathe. I also think that his clothes and skin could have been slowly digested. I doubt Jonah was not comfortable at all. He was on "time-out" for disobedience.”
First off McElhaney makes a non counter point. No where did I in my previous did I say Jonah died! If McElhaney can show that I will concede this whole exchange to him and immediately admit that I have been wrong on every point.
My point was the opposite that if we go back and read what I wrote in the previous post you will see that we would expect Jonah to die in this scenario. After all McElhaney himself admits “I bet it was hard to breath” and 'his clothes and skin could have been slowly digested” and “was not comfortable at all”.
My point was the opposite that if we go back and read what I wrote in the previous post you will see that we would expect Jonah to die in this scenario. After all McElhaney himself admits “I bet it was hard to breath” and 'his clothes and skin could have been slowly digested” and “was not comfortable at all”.
So 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 people asking 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 people asking 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.
More on Jonah...
McElhaney says,
“Jesus was not referring to Jonah being a perfect parallel. He was saying that Jonah was like him only in burial not death. Look at what Jesus said. It was clear.”
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.
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.
But let's think about it the Jews are coming and asking Jesus for a sign (miracle) and Jesus says that no sign(miracle) would be given it except the sign (miracle) of Jonah. Now what is so amazing about saying hey Jonah was entombed for three days and three nights and I will be too! If I was a Jew standing near Jesus I would have looked at him and said.... “And....?” I mean that is rather uneventful! But notice Jesus did say something to the Jews that McElhaney didn't choose to focus on and we wonder why.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 and proves 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 and proves that Jesus was pierced through the heart and He didn't swoon...He was "grave yard dead".
But it does not say that. It is a simple embellishment. However, if McElhaney is going to appeal to John he will have even more problems.
If we look at the context it says, “But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knows that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done. That the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. (John 19:34-36)
First of all who is this 'he' that is being spoken of? And who is writing about this 'he'. The whole idea of someone being an eye witness to this event seems to tumble to the ground here. Next maybe McElhaney can look at his Bible and find the cross reference that shows us the scripture 'A bone of him shall not be broken.' Where is this prophecy at?
The "he" is the writer of the gospel. The author is claiming to be an eyewitness. And the prophecy is from Psalm 34:20
Next McElhaney says, “ but I will say that it's a historical fact that Jew from Nazareth was crucified under Pontiius Pilate circa 30 AD”
Maybe McElhaney can give us the exhaustive list that shows proves it's a historical fact that Jesus died. I am not too interested in Bart Ehrman or what he believes on this. Why? Well, Bart Ehrmans research concerning the New Testament is considered to be quite in depth none but the most shrewd would deny this. The end result was that he became an agnostic. He certainly believes the evidences cannot prove that Jesus rose from the dead. However, Christians vie with him about this. If that is the case than certainly I can contend with any one who says that Jesus death is a 'historical fact'. By the way I would love McElhaney since he brought Erhman to show me where Erhman says we know for a fact that Jesus died. Erhman in his debate with Mike Licona says, “Historians can show what probably did happen.”
I think McElhaney would agree that his faith doesn't rest upon a 'probably'.
Ehrman disagrees with the resurrection but not fact of the crucifixion. Most scholars agree that Jesus really died on a cross. Bottom line. Not all believe in the resurrection but almost universally they agree he died on that cross. If you are real interested I will be making a list of these cases soon. And those who disgree about the existence and/or crucifixion admit that they are on the fringe and going against consensus.
Ehrman disagrees with the resurrection but not fact of the crucifixion. Most scholars agree that Jesus really died on a cross. Bottom line. Not all believe in the resurrection but almost universally they agree he died on that cross. If you are real interested I will be making a list of these cases soon. And those who disgree about the existence and/or crucifixion admit that they are on the fringe and going against consensus.
McElhaney than states,
“I think my point was lost. The point is that translating the verbs in the past tense does not mean that Isaiah 53 is not talking about the future.”
My response: That is fine I will not wrangle about that all day. However, I think both our points can be made after all McElhaney quoted research that says,
“Biblical Hebrew is not a "tense" language. Modern grammarians recognize that it is an "aspectual" language. This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as either past, present, or future depending on the context and various grammatical cues.”
So there is no need for me to be uncharitable.
Can you find a single Hebrew Scholar who says that Isaiah 53 was fulfilled before Isaiah spoke this prophecy?
Can you find a single Hebrew Scholar who says that Isaiah 53 was fulfilled before Isaiah spoke this prophecy?
McElhaney says,
“I agree that there is nothing wrong with "was:". I'm saying that does not mean that the events are about the past and Hebrew scholars bear that out. For centuries Jews interpreted this text as being fulfilled in the future. Remember this prophecy was given 700 years before Jesus was born. That is why I think your contention is no contention at all. Some Jews changed their interpretation so that they could side-step Jesus.”
My response: Could you please tell me which Jews changed their interpretation and provide documentation? Which Jews? What was the original interpretation that they had that they changed?
"(Jewish doctrine, by definition, did not change w/ Jesus, though they did counter Christian typological readings of their Scripture in their own commentaries.)
http://www.protevi.com/john/S/PDF/MedievalJewishChristianRelationships.pdf
"(Jewish doctrine, by definition, did not change w/ Jesus, though they did counter Christian typological readings of their Scripture in their own commentaries.)
http://www.protevi.com/john/S/PDF/MedievalJewishChristianRelationships.pdf
Was Jesus Popular Or Not?
McElhaney says,
“If you look at the texts you are using to say Jesus was popular you have to look at why Jesus was popular. People were not really following Jesus they just wanted what He could give them. Here is an example - Jesus tells us he knew why some followed him and it wasn't because of what He came for.”
My response: I'm glad McElhaney finally admits that Jesus was popular in spite of what Isaiah 53:3 says. However, the reason I choose not to pursue the point is that again being charitable I could see McElhaney's point of view. I think the issue of rather or not he is popular can be a bit subjective.
That is not what I argued at all. You left a lot of the argument out. I was pointing out that there were times when people flocked to him but not because they wanted to follow him or support his Ministry. That was the point of Isaiah 53. They weren't following him for the right reason and when the going got tough they all left at best, agreed to his execution at worst.
I mean look at the situation on the earth today. Half the planet uses a calendar that says 'A.D.' and Christmas Is a world wide phenomenon. I don't know of any other holiday that matches it. Jesus is believed in by close to 2 billion Christians and believed in by 1.5 billion Muslims. If that is not popular heck I don't know what is. Again this is subjective but if McElhaney wishes to capture a point on the matter than by all means.
But do they submit and obey Jesu? Do they make him Master of their lives? Nope. Not the majority. That's not popular because people are going after the Jesus they want not the Jesus He is. Same thing while Jesus was planet side.
But do they submit and obey Jesu? Do they make him Master of their lives? Nope. Not the majority. That's not popular because people are going after the Jesus they want not the Jesus He is. Same thing while Jesus was planet side.
McElhaney says,
“The word being disputed is "chalal" and "pieced" is one of the translations. I have a Hebrew interlinear Bible and it translates the word "being - pierced". If you want to see all the possible translations for the words and how often it shows up in the OT go to this link: Chalal”
My response: I didn't see the link however, here is a link that Is useful to us both from a Christian source.
This link allows McElhaney and other Christians to capture their point about the word being translated as pierced and for the Jews to capture their point about the word being translated as wounded.
You can't be pierced without being wounded.
You can't be pierced without being wounded.
McElhaney states regarding Isaiah 53:5,
“I see no difference. Jesus died because of our sins. If it were not for us, He wouldn't have to die. A guilt offering means that there is guilt and need a to pay for it.”
Comment: I can not help McElhaney if he does not see the difference between dying FOR someone's sins and dying BECAUSE of them. For would indicate in place of and can be argued for substitution death. There are subtle theological differences in the way that the Jews and Christians differ in the translation of this verse.
Let me say that the difference is that if a person dies because of something it's because that something leads to that death. I think that another way to put it is that the death follows necessarily. Dying for us means that Jesus did not have to die but chose to do it. If this is what you mean, then we need to look to see if we have other scriptures that say Christ died because of us or for us. I think the New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus voluntarily gave up his life and picked it back up.
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. - Hebrews 12:2
McElhaney states,
“Again verb tenses in Hebrew ain't enough to base a theology on and the vast number of Jews see Isaiah 53 as a Messianic prophecy with a time of fulfillment in the future after Isaiah spoke.”
My comments: I have no way to dispute this. Unless I was to have a consensus of what all Jews (reformed, Orthodox, and others say on the matter.) Maybe McElhaney can tell us how he arrived at the conclusion that the 'vast number of Jews' see it as such. Maybe he actually wished to write it like this “a vast number of Jews” than this could be o.k a vast number could be anything like 1000 Jews to 10000 Jews and I guess that numbers could be subjective. However, when you say, “the vast number of Jews”it indicates as If the majority of Jewry believes this and some people might see it as a bit deceptive.
I'm not being deceptive at all. I'll be more clear...I can find no example of Jews, Christian or otherwise...secular or orthodox who interprets Isaiah 53 as being fulfilled before Isaiah gave the prophecy. I do have a link to share listing various rabbinical interpretation summaries over past centuries! http://www.hearnow.org/isa_com.html
I'm not being deceptive at all. I'll be more clear...I can find no example of Jews, Christian or otherwise...secular or orthodox who interprets Isaiah 53 as being fulfilled before Isaiah gave the prophecy. I do have a link to share listing various rabbinical interpretation summaries over past centuries! http://www.hearnow.org/isa_com.html
McElhaney also says in his previous post,
“Not my words at all. There can't be a contradiction because this is the word of God. Muhammad said so too. Therefore if you have an interpretation that causes logical contradiction than you r interpretation can't be right.”
My response: McElhaney says “Muhammed said so too” I was wondering if McElhaney could show what he is talking about? Perhaps elaborate a little?
'
I'm saying that Muhammad testified that the Hebrew Bible was the word of God and Muslims should respect it. That means Isaiah has no contradictions.
I'm saying that Muhammad testified that the Hebrew Bible was the word of God and Muslims should respect it. That means Isaiah has no contradictions.
Next there is also a logical flaw in the way that McElhaney gives his case. He says that it cannot be a contradiction because 'Muhammed said so too'. Well there is another possibility. The other possibility is that Muhammed (pbuh) made a mistake and he was wrong and the Bible too is wrong. Therefore we are both in a pickle. So I hope that McEhlaney thinks through his statements before he makes assertions.
AS a Muslim are you really prepared to admit that Muhammad was wrong about the Hebrew scriptures being the Word of God? Can you still do that and be a Muslim? I agree with Muhammad regarding this point. Therefore if there is a contradiction then that means I did not understand what I read. I'm missing something. The Hebrew scriptures are inerrant. We should at least both agree on that.
AS a Muslim are you really prepared to admit that Muhammad was wrong about the Hebrew scriptures being the Word of God? Can you still do that and be a Muslim? I agree with Muhammad regarding this point. Therefore if there is a contradiction then that means I did not understand what I read. I'm missing something. The Hebrew scriptures are inerrant. We should at least both agree on that.
McElhaney states,
“I still agree with my statement you can't make verse 8 and 10 say that the servant is going to have literal children and skip verse 9.”
This has all ready been responded too above.
Ditto
Ditto
I wrote in my previous post,
The word rendered here as "death" should actually read "deaths." The Hebrew word here is "b’motav," which is a conjugated plural word. It is not death it is 'death'
McElhany replied by saying,
“How does this bolster your point?”
This is a good point by McElhaney to spot the mistake above. Actually I wanted to say this, “The word rendered here as 'death” should actually read “deaths.” The Hebrew word here is “b'motav,” which is a conjugated plural word. It is not death it is 'deaths'.
The point being is that deaths are in the plural and this doesn't refer to someone singular.
Is this an attempt to use the revisionists interpretation that Isaiah 53 refers to Israel as a nation and not Messiah? Please go back and look at what that list of respected Jewish teachers taught.
Is this an attempt to use the revisionists interpretation that Isaiah 53 refers to Israel as a nation and not Messiah? Please go back and look at what that list of respected Jewish teachers taught.
I said in my previous post,
Not only this but the word 53:9 "His grave was assigned with wicked men." See Ezekiel. 37:11-14, wherein Israelis described as "cut off" and God promises to open its "graves" and bring Israel back into its own land
Again that is a stretch Isaiah and Ezekiel are not talking about the same time and the same context.
McElhaney responds by saying,
“Are you really trying to argue that Isaiah, who ministered almost 300 years before Ezekiel were saying the same thing in the same context? I don't think so.”
My response: No I am not going to say that Ezekiel said the same thing or even in the same context. I am going to note however as are people who read this how quickly you brushed the point aside. I know it maybe uncomfortable for you to look at the facts but to try and dodge the point doesn't help your case.
I didn't brush aside anything. I want you to show why you can say that you can connect them like that. There is no reason to. I'm saying that you would have to say that both men ministering almost 300 years apart are talking about the same thing in the same context in order for you to be right. And you can't do that.
McElhaney says,
“It's about context. How does your interpretation better fit the context than the basic Christian interpretation?”
My response: I offer no interpretation I only offer Jewish translation of the Hebrew scriptures. Again if a person wants to know what the Jews think the interpretation is they should probably write to them. (www.jewsforjudaism.org)
I think the Jews are quite capable of coming up with their own understanding of their scriptures.
I agree but again not all Jews agree with them. And when you say that Ezekiel is talking about returning Israel from exile that Isaiah is saying the same thing you are offering an interpretation and I disagree with that because it can't be supported.
McElhaney ask,
“What translation are you reading to get "disease" out of verse 10?”
This is answered above at the beginning.
It's not in my Hebrew Bible. I'll look up yours.
McElhaney ask,
“Are you really arguing that both matters of speaking doesn't convey the understand that the servant dies in English? Ar you saying that there ins't more than one way to say that?”
My response: McElhaney I am not a follower of Judaism nor am I Jewish. I am simply pointing out the way that they would translate it over the way that Christians would translate it. Now being a former Christian I can tell you why I would love the translation of the word 'life' over the word 'soul'.
Why would I like that translation? Because If I was still a Christian arguing or having a discussion with Muslims I know that Leviticus 17:11 says,For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that make an atonement for the soul. This would help me to advance the argument that Jesus sacrifice was a bodily one and that he gave his blood for all of us.
That is how my argument would proceed with a Muslim. That is why I would prefer life over soul.
Because in Jewish theology there is such a thing as spiritual death. This is indicated by the passage citation of Ezekiel above. In fact if you research the Torah you will be hard pressed to find any mention of the afterlife at all. Imagine that McElhaney that Moses and the gang were running around the wilderness with no concept of an afterlife. This after coming from Egypt!
Jesus disagrees. When the Saducees who denied Resurrection and After lives went after Jesus....He pawned them.
29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you, 32 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching. - Matthew 22:29-33
McElhaney says,
“I'm sorry but I disagree my response was to the point: "One will find nothing in the OT scriptures about a risen Messiah, period!”. My contention was that this is wrong. And Isaiah proves it. 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. or Resurrection. Saying that it was it taking my argument further than it was intended. You are beating a dead horse.”
My response: I believe that you felt the contention was this according to your words.
“Contention 1: No where in the Old Testament is there a dying and rising Messiah inferred or referred.”
Now note: that Farrel Till did not say that if we use the power if inference that we could not conjure up a Messiah risen from the dead. Farell Till also did not even say if we use our imaginations and power of interpretation we would not find a risen Messiah from the dead. He did not say that. He said that, “One will find nothing in the OT scriptures about a risen Messiah, period!”
This is why I wondered why you had to add 'inferred or referred'.
I will concede the point to you that after looking back at that post you are not trying to vindicate the state attributed to Jesus in Luke 24: 46 “And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day” Frankly speaking I am happy to see Christians distance themselves from this.
However, you are introducing an embellishment that help to establish your premise.
It wasn't an intentional embellishment. I just stated what I was going to write about. I moved the goal post to try to make it a harder thing to prove and ended up confusing you. My apologies.
It wasn't an intentional embellishment. I just stated what I was going to write about. I moved the goal post to try to make it a harder thing to prove and ended up confusing you. My apologies.
My attempt at making Bible prophecies and McElhaney's thoughts on it.
McElhaney says,
“You mean like some Muslim Apologists who argue that Jesus prophesied Muhammad's coming in John 14:15-31 instead of the Holy Spirit?”
My response: Yes exactly like that! Ignore context and use creative imagination isn't that right! You see even you can admit that it's not hard to do!
Of course it's easy to do. But that is not what the writers of the New Testament did.
McElhaney says,
“See what you have done. You have reworded scriptures in the New Testament and the wrangled Old Testament verses out of context to fit what you are saying. I understand that you are accusing Christians of doing that. But can you show how i have done that in my exegesis?”
My response: Well I didn't know that there were Christians who felt that the 'Old Testament' consisted of 'wrangled' verses!
I didn't say that. I said that you have to twist verse out of context to do what you are accusing Christians of doing.
How could a person possibly take a 'wrangled' verse out of context if it's already 'wrangled'?
According to Jews, Christians, and Muhammad, the verses of the Old Testament are inerrant and perfect - not wrangled.
As far as showing where you have taken things out of context in your exegesis I have shown where your exegesis is not consistent. When we look back at how you understand the word offspring which the Jews understand to be literal descendants.
Not all Jews do. Just some of them you read.
I didn't say that. I said that you have to twist verse out of context to do what you are accusing Christians of doing.
How could a person possibly take a 'wrangled' verse out of context if it's already 'wrangled'?
According to Jews, Christians, and Muhammad, the verses of the Old Testament are inerrant and perfect - not wrangled.
As far as showing where you have taken things out of context in your exegesis I have shown where your exegesis is not consistent. When we look back at how you understand the word offspring which the Jews understand to be literal descendants.
Not all Jews do. Just some of them you read.
However, if you want me to show you where New Testament writers took passages of the 'Old Testament' out of context to fit what they wanted them to say I would be more than happy to do that. I don't expect you to take me up on it but I just thought I would throw that out there for what it's worth.
Sure...let's hash them out. And see if you are right. IF you think that it's true then you must not accept the New Testament as the word of God, right? If the Injil is not the New Testament, what is it? And where can I read it?
Sure...let's hash them out. And see if you are right. IF you think that it's true then you must not accept the New Testament as the word of God, right? If the Injil is not the New Testament, what is it? And where can I read it?
McElhaney says,
“I never made the argument that the Messiah would "rise in 3 days" came out of the mouth of any prophet other than Jesus - who applied the prophecy to himself.. Islam says Jesus was a prophet. When a prophet speaks for God he cannot lie or be wrong. If Jesus was a prophet (and we agree that he was) then when he said that he was going to die and be resurrected then that means that He was. However the Qur'an says he wasn't. Jesus and the Qur'an can't both be right. So who is wrong?”
My comments: First off we as Muslims do not assume that everything attributed to Jesus is necessarily said by Jesus. I am sure you know the difference. As you are aware Christians were led to believe for quite some time that Jesus said things attributed to him in John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:9-20 that are now in dispute. So I don't blame you for accepting at face value something you see in a red letter Bible attributed to Jesus. When I had my KJV I believed everything in the red letter edition were the words of Jesus. Than along came the RSV and the NIV and boy how that shook up things.
I'm aware of textual variants but I believe everything that we can know that Jesus said really was said by him.
I'm aware of textual variants but I believe everything that we can know that Jesus said really was said by him.
Even we as Muslims have a collection of secondary information in Islam called “ahadith” and we grade them according to what the Prophet (saw) said, did not say, probably didn't say and is an outright fabrication. So even we look at things from a critical perspective. We as Muslims don't even accept at face value everything that someone has attributed to Muhammed (saw) as saying.
How do you know? And from what I know not all Muslims agree with you. Do you accept the Qur'an as inerrant and infalliable?
How do you know? And from what I know not all Muslims agree with you. Do you accept the Qur'an as inerrant and infalliable?
However, there could be another argument advanced. Maybe Jesus was indeed a liar. Maybe he did lie.
That would make the Qur'an wrong.
Now this may seem shocking to you for me as Muslim to bring forth the point but consider what the following Christian web site had to say on the matter.
That would make the Qur'an wrong.
Now this may seem shocking to you for me as Muslim to bring forth the point but consider what the following Christian web site had to say on the matter.
It's important to realize that this spirit was also allowed to be a lying spirit in Micaiah's tongue as well. But, why would God allow one of His own prophets to speak a lie, for we can be sure that Micaiah was not on God's crap list. No, this is where we need to realize that God will work ALL things according to the counsel of HIS will.
Micaiah was one of God's true profits. The lying spirit was not in his mouth. He even told Ahab the truth but Ahab did not listen! He listened to the others with the lying spirits.
God wanted Ahab to fall, so he allowed a lying spirit to cause a great deception. As a result, Ahab went to Ramothgilead, and fell.
Is there an allegory here? Nay, but only one of God's sovereignty.
I agree that God used the lying Spirit but this isn't something that God forced Ahab to be stupid. He knew he should have listened to the good prophet.
So if Christians can think like this maybe I could assume that Muslim theological assumptions about prophets being faultless and sinless is a wrong assumption. This would lead me as a Muslim not to question my faith but to question the theological formulations of my scholars. However, there would be the interesting question of why would God allow his prophets to lie or say things that do not come true.
They really were not God's prophets - the ones that lied.
I honestly have no readily available answer on that.
I do. Read Deuteronomy 13
I could only assume that maybe God let Jesus lie to allow Christians like yourself to realizes that he is not infallible? Maybe we could see the sovereignty of God at work here too.
Jesus did not lie.
They really were not God's prophets - the ones that lied.
I honestly have no readily available answer on that.
I do. Read Deuteronomy 13
I could only assume that maybe God let Jesus lie to allow Christians like yourself to realizes that he is not infallible? Maybe we could see the sovereignty of God at work here too.
Jesus did not lie.
I mean what am I to do McElhaney it does present a pickle! I mean here we have Jesus saying in Luke 24: 46 “And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day” .
Jesus would only be a liar if Jesus did not rise the third day. But He did. And false lying Prophets under the law were supposed to be executed immediately.
Jesus would only be a liar if Jesus did not rise the third day. But He did. And false lying Prophets under the law were supposed to be executed immediately.
So I could conclude that Jesus is a liar and the sovereignty of God is at work. Or because of my theological supposition that Jesus is not a liar I could also assume that someone interpolated this statement in the mouth of Jesus. This way I wouldn't have to sacrifice Jesus I would just sacrifice my trust in the reporter.
Your thought that the old testament denies Jesus' 3 -day burial is the faulty presupposition.
Your thought that the old testament denies Jesus' 3 -day burial is the faulty presupposition.
I mean who is right and who is wrong? Is Luke right making Jesus out to be a liar? Or is Islam right in saying that the prophets don't lie? Islam and the 'Luke' can't both be right. So who is wrong?
Prophets do sin...If I understand Islam it's not just that prophets can't lie they can't sin. And Jonah was a prophet and he rebelled against God...showing that a prophet can still be used of God and still be a sinner. So Islam is wrong. As for Luke you haven't shown Jesus lied. Ever consider why Jonah had to be in the fish 3 days? Why not 1 day? Wouldn't you have been ready to repent in under 5 minutes?! Why let Jonah twist in the wind 3 days! I believe so that Jesus could use him as a sign of his own burial centuries later.
Prophets do sin...If I understand Islam it's not just that prophets can't lie they can't sin. And Jonah was a prophet and he rebelled against God...showing that a prophet can still be used of God and still be a sinner. So Islam is wrong. As for Luke you haven't shown Jesus lied. Ever consider why Jonah had to be in the fish 3 days? Why not 1 day? Wouldn't you have been ready to repent in under 5 minutes?! Why let Jonah twist in the wind 3 days! I believe so that Jesus could use him as a sign of his own burial centuries later.
Lastly McElhaney says the following:
“This is a great interaction and I thank you. I have a question about Islamic theology. You obviously don't agree with the terrorist who believe that they are automatically heaven bound if they kill Jews and Christians while killing themselves, so how do you know your sins are forgiven? How do you know that you are pleasing God? How do you know that you are going to escape judgment? What assurance do you have? How do you measure God's grace to you? What is your guarantee that God loves you and won't cast you aside?”
My response: These are all very good questions from Mr. McElhaney. I also want to thank him for the great interaction.
I want to say that I do believe that Muslims who kill 'Jewish' and 'Christian' soldiers that rape and kill their children (Bosnia, Afghanistan, Palestine) and definitely going to heaven. It is an honorable duty upon all human beings to defend the honor and dignity of their family. To defend the blood of ones kin and innocent and to die fighting for this cause is a very noble adventure.
How could I say they do not get heaven when Allah clearly states:
169.Think not of those who are slain in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord;
170.They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah. And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve.
171.They glory in the Grace and the bounty from Allah, and in the fact that Allah suffers not the reward of the Faithful to be lost (in the least). (Holy Qur'an 3:169-171)
However, I do not believe that people who blow up buses with children on board or pregnant women, civilians, airplanes and so forth are going to heaven. My guess would be hell. If it was my decision that is where I would send them. Than again I am not God. You don't find a verse like 1st Samuel 15:3 in the Qur'an brother McElhaney.
I will give you an link to my blog “Salvation through repentance” that explains the nature of sin in Islam. You can find that here:
Thank you for the link and I agree that you don't go to hell for protecting what God has given you. I will give the link a good read through to get my questions answered.
However, I must say McElhaney I have to ask you what assurances do you have? Anyone familiar with the ongoing controversy of Arminian vs Calvinist and the OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) conflicts in Christianity knows that the days are over where the Christians used to come to the Muslims and say “How do you know if you die right now you will go to heaven”. I'll have to admit that is a pretty hard hitting curve ball! I mean what a sales pitch!
Do you know what the New Testament teaches about how you get right with God?
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. - Romans 10:9-10
This is the Gospel. This is the main and plain thing. Notice it says nothing about the TULIP or you have to accept libertarian free will, or you have to believe or not believe that you can loose your salvation. None of that matters when it comes to going to heaven and avoiding hell. I'm not saying that none of these issues are not important. They are but you hold either one of these and still be a Christian. WE are promised in Scripture that this is all that is required for salvation.
Let me give you an example. I believe that Truth is absolute. However, our understanding of truth can be false or subjective. This of course gets into philosophical discussion that is probably not helpful for our immediate dialogue.
I agree.
12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, ""Abba," Father." 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. - Romans 8:12-17
Let me give you an example. I believe that Truth is absolute. However, our understanding of truth can be false or subjective. This of course gets into philosophical discussion that is probably not helpful for our immediate dialogue.
I agree.
I believe as it stands that you are a sincere Christian who believes in the deity of Christ his bodily resurrection, in the Trinity and that he died for you.
That is the definition of what a Christian believes.
I have no idea if you believe you are 'one of the elect' or if Jesus really did die for everybody meaning 'everybody as in the whole entire population of this planet'.
That is the definition of what a Christian believes.
I have no idea if you believe you are 'one of the elect' or if Jesus really did die for everybody meaning 'everybody as in the whole entire population of this planet'.
One who believes those things is elect. There is no way you can believe those things and not turn your back on it and not be elect.
Any how let's say that after investigating some of the blogs between Calvinist and Arminian you believe that the Arminian position is more sound. So you switch sides. I wouldn't call your loyalty to God and your belief into question.
Neither would I. Only those who are way legalistic would and loose sight of what the Gospel says.
So now you start investigating the claims of Roman Catholicism and you believed truth to be on their side. So you became a Roman Catholic. Well all the beliefs above are still there.
Plus some more. I wouldn't say anyone is going to hell if they believe the Gospel and holds to it - no matter what their church or denomination is.
However, now according to many Christians your an apostate. Amazing! Even though your same energy, passion and love for Christ Jesus is there.
Yes and they are wrong according to the scriptures.
Neither would I. Only those who are way legalistic would and loose sight of what the Gospel says.
So now you start investigating the claims of Roman Catholicism and you believed truth to be on their side. So you became a Roman Catholic. Well all the beliefs above are still there.
Plus some more. I wouldn't say anyone is going to hell if they believe the Gospel and holds to it - no matter what their church or denomination is.
However, now according to many Christians your an apostate. Amazing! Even though your same energy, passion and love for Christ Jesus is there.
Yes and they are wrong according to the scriptures.
Than let's say you wake up and say you know what Islam makes more sense! It all adds up and you become a Muslim. You know what everyone will say? Oh that McElhaney he never knew the Lord. You know if he knew Jesus he never would have left Jesus.
John Calvin might have the following to say about you...
And they'd be right. There is no way to be a muslim and still believe in the deity of Christ his bodily resurrection, in the Trinity and that he died for you
John Calvin might have the following to say about you...
“... Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness (so does the Lord give them a false sense of security? This is my question.) as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption .... there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith .... Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent.... there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which after wards proves evanescent” (3.2.11, Institutes).
This is very scary stuff! How do Christians ‘know’ for sure that they are saved and are not just under some false sense of security that God has put into them as mentioned by John Calvin? Why would God do that any way? People who have sincerely repented turned to God and searched for truth and enduring hardships their whole life would be given a false sense of security by God? So the only way you really 'know' is if you die and find yourself on golden shores beyond the pearly white gates next to Jesus!
This is very scary stuff! How do Christians ‘know’ for sure that they are saved and are not just under some false sense of security that God has put into them as mentioned by John Calvin? Why would God do that any way? People who have sincerely repented turned to God and searched for truth and enduring hardships their whole life would be given a false sense of security by God? So the only way you really 'know' is if you die and find yourself on golden shores beyond the pearly white gates next to Jesus!
That isn't the only way to be sure. If you never turn aside and always profess the Truth and keep seeking it and keep working at what God has given you to do...that is how you know you have something. You can't fake the funk forever. Sooner or later people who aren't for real will fall off even if they thought that were real at some me point.
I also want to understand what you mean by God and God's love. Before I answer that question I need to have an understanding of how you define these things.
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Part 3 Continued Discussion with Marcus McElhaney
By "God" I mean the God of the Bible. By "love" I mean the concept that is described as "Hesed" in the Old Testament and "Agape" in the New Testament"
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Part 3 Continued Discussion with Marcus McElhaney
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_t3ak-rk8QHF5PmKr4-bJ4NqxLdHLAHS8sjdwj9aYAuseZDRlx3SSGi2S92VFGBq_U7oREApztA_OY7GQ4nDmJlVoQAu13Wo7OkhQ2FF4nDdol488MUdG9tmLEVbaP4uawVl2PvmYG1qaKkJbk7rlxz=s0-d)
With the name of God. Peace be unto you.
ReplyDeleteYour ball....
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/04/part-4-reply-to-brother-mcelhaneythe.html