I recently responded to a post asking the question why the disciples did not know Jesus was going to be resurrected. thegrandverbalizer19posted the original post and has been gracious enough to write a response! I am grateful because it helps me understand what Muslims believe. My responses are in red and bolded.
Last week I posted an article done by a former Christian now skeptic Farrel Till entitled 'Why Didn't The Disciples of Jesus Know This'.
Seen here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-didnt-disciples-of-jesus-know-this.html
The respected Pastor Marcus Mcelhany has given a reply to the article here:
Before I began my reply to his thoughts about the article I just want to say that I think the web sitehttp://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com entitled “What Had Happened Was” is very interesting and useful for all. The respected Pastor has lots of videos of articles on the issue of polemics, apologetic and of general interest to all. His web site by the way is also much more beautiful and organized than my own! The links given at the bottom of every article are very well selected to help the reader to navigate to other post of interest. I would like to say to the respected Pastor Mcelhany that I hope that he is able to work across Christian denominational lines as well as working with Muslims on issues of common concern to us all.
Many of these issues concern but are not excluded too illegal immigration, inner city crime, youth development programs, racial harmony, environmental awareness, educational development and any such programs that produce fruits that everyone can benefit from. So with that I wish the respected Pastor Mcelhany his wife and family a blessed ministry and future.
I appreciate the kind words and respect thegrandverbalizer19 have for my blog. I like his blog too and I think it's very important. I just need to make a correction at this point. I'm not a pastor. I have a wonderful pastor and attend church regularly. I've also gotta be honest the links at the bottom of the post are auto generated. The software just does a great job. I'd suggest thegrandverbalizer19 add it to his blog. It's free! I am more than willing to work across denominational lines and with other faiths whereever I don't need to compromise the Gospel.
I appreciate the kind words and respect thegrandverbalizer19 have for my blog. I like his blog too and I think it's very important. I just need to make a correction at this point. I'm not a pastor. I have a wonderful pastor and attend church regularly. I've also gotta be honest the links at the bottom of the post are auto generated. The software just does a great job. I'd suggest thegrandverbalizer19 add it to his blog. It's free! I am more than willing to work across denominational lines and with other faiths whereever I don't need to compromise the Gospel.
Now on to my observation about his comments concerning my post.
“Contention 1: No where in the Old Testament is there a dying and rising Messiah inferred or referred. I think everyone would have to admit that if i can fine one reference not referenced to in the article I've killed the argument. Wait for it. Isaiah 53 states!”
It seems to me that the pastor is trying to make a case around a non existent point. For example if one carefully reads the original article no where does it say that the Messiah is not even 'inferred or referred' to.
What was actually stated in the article was this,
“One could search the OT scriptures until doom's day, and he would find nothing written about a Messiah who would rise from the dead on the third day. One will find nothing in the OT scriptures about a risen Messiah, period!”
It is a curiosity why the pastor would postulate the two words inferred or referred. This seems to indicate that the pastor understands that the arguments for a Messiah that would rise from the dead on the third day are indeed weak; therefore one needs the ability to 'infer' and 'refer'.
I'm glad thegrandverbalizer19 brought this up because I want to be clear and if is thought that I think arguing for Old Testament proof of a Messiah that would rise from the dead then I have been less than clear. I was merely trying to say that the original article in question was saying that there is no proof in the Old Testament of Messiah rising from the dead.
I'm glad thegrandverbalizer19 brought this up because I want to be clear and if is thought that I think arguing for Old Testament proof of a Messiah that would rise from the dead then I have been less than clear. I was merely trying to say that the original article in question was saying that there is no proof in the Old Testament of Messiah rising from the dead.
Again when we look at the claim of the pastor that, “I think everyone would have to admit that if i can fine one reference not referenced to in the article I've killed the argument” it doesn't seem to hold.
My argument was that the article said that there are no references to the Messiah dying and rising again. I was only attempting to point to one such case that shows that the Messiah would die and rise again contrasted to the idea that there are none. Contention 1 dies because there is more than no reference to Messiah dying and rising.
My argument was that the article said that there are no references to the Messiah dying and rising again. I was only attempting to point to one such case that shows that the Messiah would die and rise again contrasted to the idea that there are none. Contention 1 dies because there is more than no reference to Messiah dying and rising.
I was only picking one such example. thegrandverbalizer19 gives us 2 more. . Jesus himself points out that Jonah being in the belly of the fish for 3 days was a sign of his burial - therefore Jesus was saying that Jonah's experience really happen.
However, when we look at Isaiah 53 the 'Suffering Servant' passage. It seems we have some difficulties to address.
Here is where the rubber really meets the road. Does Isaiah 53 really talk about Messiah dying and rising? Let's walk through the text with thegrandverbalizer19. He used the King James Version but let's compare "problem verses" it with Hebrew, Septuagint, NIV, and NASB.
Here is where the rubber really meets the road. Does Isaiah 53 really talk about Messiah dying and rising? Let's walk through the text with thegrandverbalizer19. He used the King James Version but let's compare "problem verses" it with Hebrew, Septuagint, NIV, and NASB.
2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Comments: First off it should be noted that the word Messiah is no where to be found any where within the text of this passage. It it was you can guarantee the Christians would have already advanced this claim. It simply is not there. Next you can see the word 'WAS' peppered throughout the text. This shows that what ever incident is being referenced is in the past tense 'was'.
Sometimes it is claimed that the messianic prophecies cited by Christians are in the past tense. Therefore, it is said, they cannot refer to a future, coming Messiah.Read the full article Hebrew Tenses
This is an invalid argument. There is no such thing as "tense" in biblical Hebrew. (Modern Hebrew, on the other hand, does have tenses.) 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. The most well known grammatical cue is the "vav-consecutive" that makes an imperfective verb to refer to the past.
Therefore it is wrong to say that Isaiah 53 or other prophecies are in the "past tense." Biblical Hebrew has no tenses. There are many examples of what is wrongly called the "past tense" form (properly called "the perfective" or "perfect") being used for future time.
This fact was recognized by the medieval commentators as well as by modern grammarians, as shown by the following citations.
Here are some problems that Jews have pointed out to the Christians about the Isaiah 53 passage.
Isaiah tells us that the Servant will be universally despised and rejected (53:3). While this has certainly been true for the Jewish people, the Christian Bible describes Jesus as immensely popular (Luke 2:52, 4:14-15, Mark 3:8-9, etc.).
What about John 6: 60-71? Jesus went from more than 5000 followers to 12 and one of them would be a traitor!
Jesus popular? What about Matt 27:20-26
20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.
21"Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" asked the governor.
"Barabbas," they answered.
22"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
They all answered, "Crucify him!"
23"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"
24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"
25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"
26Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
What about John 6: 60-71? Jesus went from more than 5000 followers to 12 and one of them would be a traitor!
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."
70Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)
I find it interesting that all of Isaiah 53:5 was not fully quoted
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
The future course of history only saw a rise in Jesus’ stock. Isaiah’s Servant is to be rewarded with long life and many children (53:10). This was certainly not the fate of Jesus who died young and childless.
Not only that but please have a very good look at verse 8 of the passage and the deception that is involved with it.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
Not only that but please have a very good look at verse 8 of the passage and the deception that is involved with it.
So what about vs 8-10?
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
If you read verse 10 the way thegrandverbalizer19 is suggesting then you have a conflict with verse 8. And since verse 9 refers to the servant's death and guilty of no wrong, it doesn't makes sense to understand verse 10 without a resurrection - rising from the dead. Verse 10 also uses the term "guilt offering". As for offspring, it can't be referring to literal children because that would destroy verse 8.
The missionary’s greatest difficulty is posed by Isaiah’s declaration that the suffering Servant is actually a group of people, and not an individual ("…as a result of the transgression of my people, they were afflicted." 53:8).
By the way I am well aware that many Jews says that the chapter refers to the nation of Israel and not a single man. I reject this because if it were a nation and this already took place then there would be no more Jews - no descendants. No human being - Jew, Gentile, or Muslim is not guilty of violence or deceit. This can't be the right interpretation.
53:8 "From dominion and judgment he was taken away." Note the correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslates, since - by Jesus' own testimony - he never had any rights to ruler-ship or judgment, at least not on the "first coming." See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.
I'm not sure what is meant here. I agree that Jesus chose not to exercise his kingly prerogatives but not that he had none. None of those scriptures cited that Jesus did not have the right or Judgment. Remember God alone can forgive sins and Jesus forgave sins. Verse 8 is referring to the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus.
I'm not sure what is meant here. I agree that Jesus chose not to exercise his kingly prerogatives but not that he had none. None of those scriptures cited that Jesus did not have the right or Judgment. Remember God alone can forgive sins and Jesus forgave sins. Verse 8 is referring to the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus.
53:11 "With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just." Note again the correct translation: the Servant will cause many to be just, he will not "justify the many." The Jewish mission is to serve as a "light to the nations" which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true God, this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God's Law (Isa. 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3).
Again what about the whole verse!
After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [a] and be satisfied [b] ;
by his knowledge [c] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
He will bear our sins! This is special more than just showing the way to God....Jesus carried our sins and served as our guilt offering so that we don't have to bear our own sin. We can't.
Again what about the whole verse!
After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [a] and be satisfied [b] ;
by his knowledge [c] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
He will bear our sins! This is special more than just showing the way to God....Jesus carried our sins and served as our guilt offering so that we don't have to bear our own sin. We can't.
Christian mistranslation of Isaiah 53:8
Really? Let's examine it.
Really? Let's examine it.
8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Jewish translation of Isaiah 53:8
8By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.
I like the Jewish translation. It says that Jesus died for God's people and we deserved the strike. Not the servant.
I like the Jewish translation. It says that Jesus died for God's people and we deserved the strike. Not the servant.
Christian mistranslation of Isaiah 53:5
5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Jewish translation of Isaiah 53:5
5 But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.
Christian mistranslation of Isaiah 53:11
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Jewish translation of Isaiah 53:11
11Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear.
My sincere advise to everyone reading this is to read a good Jewish translation of the TNCH what the Christians call the 'Old Testament'. Do not rely upon the Septuagint which is the Holy Spirit's favorite. Instead rely upon the original Hebrew text.
I agree that looking at the Hebrew is good. And we should! I just don't see what the mistranslations are? The text says the same thing no matter what translation (if it is a good one) we look at. I hope that thegrandverbalizer19 will make this part of his post clearer. Where are discrpancies that he sees.
I agree that looking at the Hebrew is good. And we should! I just don't see what the mistranslations are? The text says the same thing no matter what translation (if it is a good one) we look at. I hope that thegrandverbalizer19 will make this part of his post clearer. Where are discrpancies that he sees.
I just want to know on what consistent basis do we take some passages of Isaiah 53 literally and some passages we don't take literally? For example the fact that it clearly states that he shall see his seed. Than this is taken to mean spiritual children? On what consistent basis do we do this?
I answered this one above. Verse 10 happens after the resurrection so it can't be talking about literal children - and don't forget vers 8 says that erhe will be no children.
I answered this one above. Verse 10 happens after the resurrection so it can't be talking about literal children - and don't forget vers 8 says that erhe will be no children.
For example even if the passage did contain the word Messiah how do we know all the words that speak about suffering, and death are not to be taken literally.
Example:
1 Corinthians 15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
Context...Context...context....is how you know.
Context...Context...context....is how you know.
Again on what consistent basis do we interpret some text of Isaiah 53 in a literal way and some we do not.
Finally I do not think the respected pastor made his case because again the challenge that the skeptical laid forth was this,
“One could search the OT scriptures until doom's day, and he would find nothing written about a Messiah who would rise from the dead on the third day. One will find nothing in the OT scriptures about a risen Messiah, period!”
So even if we were able to find a scripture that says that a messiah will die, or that he will die and be raised in one day or even 2 days (which there are not any), this still does not disprove the clear challenge 'a Messiah who would rise from the dead on the third day'. The challenge still stands.
I think the challenge falls because the argument was that there are no texts that talk about a messiah dying and rising and I've demonstrated that Isaiah 53 does. I'd welcome the opportunity to look at more texts and further at Isaiah 53.
I think the challenge falls because the argument was that there are no texts that talk about a messiah dying and rising and I've demonstrated that Isaiah 53 does. I'd welcome the opportunity to look at more texts and further at Isaiah 53.
Next the respected pastor attempts to justify the reason why the disciples didn't know. The pastor says,
“Just because the disciples did not get it before they saw Jesus after the Resurrection does not invalidate the Bible. How does that follow. admittedly after 2000 years of hindsight it is difficult to understand why they did not see it since Jesus told them in lots of different ways at different times. I mean it wasn't a secret. we can't fault Simon Peter and the boys too much.”
I think what a person needs to do when they re-read the article that I posted from the skeptic is his very valid points. Why did the women understand why did the enemies of Jesus understand why did everyone understand except the disciples themselves? It's just plain odd.
Keep in mind that these are the same people who saw Jesus raise people from the dead, and feed 5000 people with a few loafs of bread and water, calmed the storm, walk on water, slay demons with his word among others. I mean he seems to have a pretty impressive track record. And as the pastor says above, “admittedly after 2000 years of hindsight it is difficult to understand why they did not see it since Jesus told them in lots of different ways at different times.”
Odd? yes...a contradiction? No. They were so fixated on who they thought Messiah was supposed to be they missed it until God revealed it to them. The same is true today. They thoought that it was over. They were depressed and dejected. Had I been in their shoes I doubt I would have seen it either. A better question is why do you believe or not believe? Saying "if it were true, they should have been waiting at the tomb Sunday morning" hides a question. Where are you waiting? Are you at the tomb like the women or did you go back to your day job? I want to point out that the women when they went to the tomb did not expect to find it empty....they expected to give Jesus the last burial rites that they could not do before the Sabbath.
Keep in mind that these are the same people who saw Jesus raise people from the dead, and feed 5000 people with a few loafs of bread and water, calmed the storm, walk on water, slay demons with his word among others. I mean he seems to have a pretty impressive track record. And as the pastor says above, “admittedly after 2000 years of hindsight it is difficult to understand why they did not see it since Jesus told them in lots of different ways at different times.”
Odd? yes...a contradiction? No. They were so fixated on who they thought Messiah was supposed to be they missed it until God revealed it to them. The same is true today. They thoought that it was over. They were depressed and dejected. Had I been in their shoes I doubt I would have seen it either. A better question is why do you believe or not believe? Saying "if it were true, they should have been waiting at the tomb Sunday morning" hides a question. Where are you waiting? Are you at the tomb like the women or did you go back to your day job? I want to point out that the women when they went to the tomb did not expect to find it empty....they expected to give Jesus the last burial rites that they could not do before the Sabbath.
I will let the respected pastor post his comments here or give his reply on his web site and than insh'Allah (Allah-willing) I'll post the link of his rebuttal to the material above.
Thanks, I'll do the same.
Thanks, I'll do the same.
In the end if Christ Jesus is what the Christians claim and say he is I pray that the God of Abraham open up our hearts to it and that all Muslims and Jews are lead to believe it. I also pray that if Jesus is as what the Qur'an claims I pray that the Jews and Christians have their hearts opened to accept it as the truth. In the end if no one budges from their respective positions I just pray that we all continue to work together, respect one another and strive to have a more just and harmonious society. Amen!
|
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Reply to Marcus Mcelhany: "Why Didn't They Know"
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sXUXC5HuC6eUWmhbkz9U8hG_Dk5tM20_PqFzxdKbaghna0_u_6X79J2tv0Tg3jyPp2_Ry0DeSsspiEUbGe0DOihgXpggMdUP6imp-0cnceuGhkRwQdrlnd1a7wS4k5-7EJ73UwQ0tuiUxQy3nDCP46=s0-d)
With the name of God. Peace be unto you.
ReplyDeleteMy rejoinder is here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/04/rejoinder-to-pastor-part-2.html
With the name of God, just to let you know I updated the rejoinder due to my numerous spelling mistakes and made slight changes. So before you respond in all fairness to you I just want to make it known.
ReplyDelete