Note to Peter Lumpkins: It is Hard to Lie Openly When the Videos are Posted On Line

Now this is how you respond to people lying about you and quoting you out of context. You prove it! Bravo to Dr. James White.

Note to Peter Lumpkins: It is Hard to Lie Openly When the Videos are Posted On Line

Apologetics 315: Craig Evans vs. Bart Ehrman Debate: Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus? MP3 Audio

I really like this debate. This is very important. I have never really listened to Dr. Craig Evans before but I think we need to hear this. In case you are tired of yet another Ehrman debate this is good, Craig Evans is an important scholar. There is a great comment that explains why this debate is important and in the the post's descriptions.

Apologetics 315: Craig Evans vs. Bart Ehrman Debate: Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus? MP3 Audio

Iron Sharpens Iron: Phil Johnson: The John Piper-Rick Warren Controversy: A Balanced Response

I hadn't even heard that John Piper had invited Rick Warren to a conference. I think the controversy is overblown. I think the charge that may be Warren could be more gospel centered instead of being more attractive to people but I don't see how he is preaching error. He has been charged with teaching people to care more about their purpose and getting what they want but I read Purpose-Driven Life and that simply isn't true. The book presented the Gospel and taught that it's only in god can you find your purpose and that purpose is ultimately to glorify God...not you. We all accomplish this goal in different ways. Could Warren been more "hellfire and brimstone"? Yes. But then it wouldn't be a "best-seller". Give a listen to the discussion it was very interesting.

Iron Sharpens Iron: Phil Johnson: The John Piper-Rick Warren Controversy: A Balanced Response

How to Alienate a Nonbeliever in 10 Easy Steps

Godlessgirl who is a Tweeter I follow has posted an interesting article about the 10 best ways to turn off people when you witness to them. I think it is important to read her article so you can see how we are failing to reach people. Unfortunately, she makes some presuppositions that are not right. My comments are in red.

Dedicated to proselytizers everywhere, especially of the Born-Again Christian stripe.

Hey proselytizers! Ever been confronted with a stubborn unbeliever who just won't listen to your witnessing? Pump up your efforts to convert them by adopting these 10 simple steps! With this guide to witnessing technique, you'll have them eating from the Lord's hand in no time!

Sarcasm...how original.

Step 1: Don't actually listen to them.

You're on a mission: your job is to spread the Good News. You should be concentrating on leading them to the Lord, not enjoying the pleasures of a chat with another interesting human being. Don't quite talk to them - talk past them. Don't take anything they have to say seriously. It doesn't matter what they bring up: their personal history, their own opinions, logical arguments, probing questions - an unbeliever just doesn't understand God the way you do, so they don't know what they're talking about. Don't listen to what they believe or think, tell them yourself! (See Step 5.) Besides, if you listen too closely to what your intended victim has to say, you might be led astray from your own belief in God - you might start to rely on your own intellect, which is a sure road to arrogance (and, eventually, apostacy). Don't let the devil tempt you into thinking for yourself!

Unfortunately, many Christians do fail to listen and we should not. be like that.  When Christians don't listen we disobey God.

¹⁵But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, ¹⁶keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. - 1 Peter 3:15-16

Step 2: Blame them for their unbelief.

If an unbeliever tries to explain their lack of faith, dismiss their reasons out of hand. Keep in mind that your god is perfect, belief is a choice, and faith is an act of free will. If they refuse to convert, accuse them of hating God. If they were once a believer but gave it up, accuse them of never having truly believed in the first place, or of still believing but not admitting it, or of not having enough faith. If they are happy with their life as an unbeliever, accuse them of being a selfish hedonist living only to rebel against God, and loving their life of sin. Remember, someone's lack of belief is never the fault of your all-powerful deity. Use holy scripture to back you up, where necessary.

We are to give an answer and not dismiss their reasons. I disagree that "faith" is an "act of free will". I agree some Christians hatefully lay blame against the unbeliever as if we are better than they because we believe and they don't. This is wrong.  The Bible does not teach that. We are all sinners and went astray. The goal of witnessing is letting people know that you can have better than what you have right now. No one can get credit  for believing so why should I blame you because you don't. I can give you the truth and hope that God moves 0n you as He has moved on me.


Step 3: Do everything you possibly can to dismiss their reasons for their unbelief. (See Step 1.)

Just because an unbeliever is standing there telling you highly personal things about why he or she does not believe your religion does not mean that they actually know what they're talking about. After all, it isn't as if people know themselves better than anyone else. Even if they did, your god knows even better, and as his agent, so do you! So when nonbelievers provide you a list of reasons why they don't believe, just put a knowing smile on your face, and remind yourself of their real motivations. Heck, tell them about it, while you're at it. Cite your holy scriptures where possible to back up your assertions.

The bottom line is we don't have ny real good reason for unbelief.  And we don't know ourselves better than God. The Bible tells us why we disbelieve. But we who now believe were in the same boat. I don't know anything but what scripture says.  If you want to argue that the the scripture is wrong that's fine. And we should be ready to explain why it's not without being arrogant or dismissive.


Step 4: Slam them with every tired, overused apologetics argument you can think of.

When nonbelievers tell you that they've heard every apologetics argument in the book, don't believe it! You've got god on your side, remember? Rely on god to help you find the one argument that they haven't heard yet. Who knows, you just might be special enough to find it. If the unbeliever gets irritated with you, it's all part of being persecuted for your faith. They're not really mad at you, anyway, they're mad at god. (See Step 2.)

Nothing is wrong with using the Apologetics arguments any more than is using the tired and refuted atheists ones.  It's human for both side to become irritated. It's the Christians that must remain respectful and gentle no matter how stupid the argument seems.  They don't know any better.

Step 5: Use the worst logic you possibly can, since belief is a matter of faith anyway, not reason.

Drag out Pascal's Wager. Build a veritable army of strawmen. Appeal to emotion. Appeal to popularity. Appeal to morality. Make sure your arguments are so circular that the unbeliever gets dizzy just thinking about them. Pay no attention to their refutations of all your arguments; either ignore them, or - better yet - explain to them why their refutation isn't really valid at all. Cite scripture where possible. Confound your intended victim with such an avalanche of bad logic that they give up trying to argue with you out of sheer frustration. When this happens, you've won!

So atheists don't "Build a veritable army of strawmen. Appeal to emotion. Appeal to popularity. Appeal to morality. Make sure your arguments are so circular that the unbeliever gets dizzy just thinking about them. Pay no attention to their refutations of all your arguments; either ignore them, or - better yet - explain to them why their refutation isn't really valid at all. Cite scripture where possible." Right.  See Dan Barker, John Loftus, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, and others.

Step 6: Completely mischaracterize their position, especially if they're an atheist.

This logical fallacy is so powerful it deserves its own category. If the unbeliever you're talking to is a theist of a different stripe than you, then you're already halfway there - they'll at least understand some of what you're trying to tell them. You'll have some common ground, and you'll know that the person you're facing, while not of the right religion *yet*, at least has the sense to believe in a deity of *some* sort. (Even a false one.) They'll probably have some idea of an afterlife, some concept of sin or wrongdoing, some idea of offending god, things like that.

An atheist, on the other hand, has no such baggage. Remember that they're a completely different species of unbeliever altogether. And remember all the stereotypes you've been taught about what atheism is *really* about, and what atheists *really* believe, and what they're *really* like. Refuse to believe that atheism is simply a position on the existence (or nonexistence) of god - this toxic godlessness is a lifestyle and a total worldview. Even if the atheist doesn't know it, you do. Don't forget it, and don't let them forget it, either.

It's wrong for Christians to charge Atheists of being immoral or amoral. An atheist is no more evil than any other human being. The Bible says we are all evil. 

Step 7: Get upset when they refuse to convert.

Threaten them with eternal hellfire, if necessary. After all, don't they understand what the consequences are if they don't believe in your religion?? Shake some sense into them with your righteous anger! Alternatively, get very sad and express pity for the unbeliever, since they're going to spend an eternity roasting in hell if they don't convert. Make sure you shake your head sadly and tell them that you'll pray for them.

Nothing to get upset about. God's word never goes out void even if we don't get the reaction we want.

Step 8: Remember that your holy scripture trumps reality.

It was written by God, after all. Cite your holy scriptures freely and often. If you are a dedicated literalist, be as legalistic about it as possible. Cling to your dogma even when pesky things like "facts" and "ideas" try to rear their ugly heads and get you to consider another point of view. Make sure that you deny, minimize, or ignore scriptural errors and contradictions (especially if you're an inerrantist). Amazingly, some 8 out of 10 believers know hardly anything about the holy scriptures they claim to follow. Could your friends be among those misguided 80%?

Nothing wrong with considering the facts. We must.  She presupposes that the Bible conflicts with reality.  It doesn't. Part of witnessing is to be able to show that the Bible is not wrong and does represent reality. 

Step 9: Remember that you understand your holy scripture better than unbelievers do.

It doesn't really matter if the unbeliever in front of you has read the entire thing, or if they've studied it for years, or if they went to seminary, or know several ancient languages and have translated portions of your holy book. It really doesn't even matter if they've read and studied your holy book more than you have - because you have GOD on your side! An unbeliever might have read your holy book, but of course they don't understand it properly: they don't have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, guiding them to interpret things correctly. But you do! Good thing you're there to straighten out all their misguided beliefs about what your holy book really says.

As far as I can tell, every atheist I have ever talked to does not know the Bible as well as I do.  For example I have heard atheist asserting that the Bible condones racism, misogyny, sexism, rape, child sacrifice, and host of other stupid ideas. If you knkew the Bible you would not think that it supports any of those things.

Step 10: Remain completely unaware of how rude and arrogant you are.

In fact, assume that the person you're talking to is arrogant themselves, especially if they're an atheist. Fail to realize how arrogant it is to claim exclusive knowledge and understanding of the divine workings of the universe and the nature of god. If necessary, use convoluted, contradictory explanations to to assert that claiming exclusive knowledge is in fact a form of humility.

Christians should not be rude or arrogant even if the atheist gets nasty. We know what God thinks and feels because he has revealed it in the Bible. Asserting such is not rude or arrogant. It's also not like the atheist doesn't have access to that revelation. The Bible does not tell us everything. some things we don't know. But the character of God, his existence, salvation and the Resurrection are things we do know.  It's not arrogant to say that. If you disagree with the Bible that is a point of discussion not rude. What about claiming there is no god when you can't prove that there isn't any proof that there isn't.  What about claiming the Bible is wrong wnen you can't show that it is? That sounds like rude and arrogant to me.

BONUS: Demonstrate a complete cluelessness about why this list was created.

If you are religious or dogmatic in any fashion, assume that this list isn't about you. Because of course it couldn't be. You've never done anything on this list in your life, and you never would. Seriously.

No, everyone falls short. There isn't a Christian who can't improve in his/her approach to speaking to non-believers. 

How to Alienate a Nonbeliever in 10 Easy Steps

Comic Fan Makes Like Tony Stark and Builds His Own J.A.R.V.I.S - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

I wasn't sure where to file this...but I decided to put it here. A dude has made his own digital life assistant like Tony Stark has in movies and comic books. I have long heard of computer-controlled, voice-activated homes and rooms, but this shows that the the hardware has come down in price considerably.

Iron Man fan Chad Barraford puts 99 percent of us to shame, however, by doing something sane and industrious - building his own digital life assistant modeled after Tony Stark's cinematic J.A.R.V.I.S. system.
The Boston Globe caught up with Barraford to catch the system in action and like any reasonable programmer capable of rigging up what's essentially a digital butler, he's got it handling everything from his entertainment to his health. Handy tasks like organizing his Netflix account, social networking sites and personal finances are a given, but by linking his J.A.R.V.I.S. to an RFID reader, Barraford (plus his dog and close friends) are able to instantly modify his apartment's environment with the swipe of a card. Best of all, the whole thing can be controlled via voice commands, which comes in handy when Barraford's struck with a migraine and wants his living space to politely conform to his recovery by dimming the lights.

Now if only we can get it to be holographic! I want one of these. It is very sophisticated. And it could conceivably do a lot more!

Comic Fan Makes Like Tony Stark and Builds His Own J.A.R.V.I.S - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Apologetics 315: Essay: The Failure of Naturalism by Richard Gerhardt

Brian Auten is continuing to post great essays from a wide variety of people regarding why we know Christianity is true. They are all good! Here is Dr. Richard Gerhardt's essay. He is a biologist, historian of science, and philosopher of science. I think his opinions on theism and naturalism should carry much weight.I really enjoyed readin his contribution and will be following his blog.

Apologetics 315: Essay: The Failure of Naturalism by Richard Gerhardt

Link to the series so far

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Rejoinder to the Pastor Part 2

thegrandverbalizer19 has done me the honor of writing a response to my response to his last article on why the disciples did not know that Jesus was going to rise from the dead. I bolded my comments that he is responding to comments and marked the new comments in red to make sure that there is an easy to see difference between the passages I'm responding to and my comments. I'm not trying to offend anyone...so I will continue that tradition. This time around thegrandverbalizer19 makes most more bolder presentation. I thank him for that. Also in this post I will make appeals directly to him..

Contention 1 does not die because again the argument put 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!”

Now please note of great importance is the fact that the pastor readily admits or does not comment on the fact that the word Messiah is not found in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53.

Fair enough. I take it you want to know why Isaiah 53 is considered a Messianic prophecy. A passage does not have to have the word "Messiah" in it to be messianic. All Jewish Messiahs would have been God's servant and of course the greatest would be called "Servant".

The reason we know these texts were intended to be Messianic prophecies is because they were recognized (and discussed) by the Jews before Jesus’ birth. For example:


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_prophecies.shtml

Note that the pastor makes the following comment,

“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.”

My response: I am not sure why the pastor makes the comment that if Isaiah 53 was Israel that there could be no more Jews I found that a very odd comment and it would be interesting to see the pastor perhaps elaborate upon this point. As a Muslim I take exception to the view that every person is guilty of violence or deceit. He is saying this statement based upon his conviction in Christian theological understanding while I am basing my view not only on theological position but upon natural observation. The pastor says, “no human being-Jew, Gentile, or Muslim is not guilty of violence or deceit. This can't be the right interpretation.”

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.


Why would I say my position is supported by natural observation and not just theology? Well when a baby dies the Muslim position is that it goes to heaven it is has not committed any sin and is a natural state of purity. Many children do not commit acts of violence and deceit they number in the thousands if not hundreds of thousands and they live and die in their young age without committing acts of violence and deceit. We also have the example of people who are mentally handicapped these people are not held accountable either.

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.

I believe that it is the pastors theological position that makes him believe it is not 'the right interpretation'.

Well, no because Jesus said 

 ⁹"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? ¹⁰Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? ¹¹If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! ¹²So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. - Matthew 7:9-12

Jonah and the Whale.

Um...Fish. Sorry, its a pet-peeve of mine.

The pastor says,

“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.”

My comments: Well all a person has to do is read the book of Jonah and one will readily see that it has nothing to do with an alleged future messiah coming to die for the sins of mankind. It is no prophecy awaiting fulfillment only in the imagination of the gospel writers. Why would we say this? 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.

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. .

³⁸Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."

 ³⁹He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. ⁴⁰For 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. ⁴¹The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one^[e] greater than Jonah is here. ⁴²The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here. - Matthew 12:38-42

However a miracle would be the following scenario: We throw Jonah into a raging sea expect him to die but he lives, a whale or large fish comes and gobbles him up and we expect him to die by the teeth, the acid or suffocation at the bottom of the sea for 1-2 days and voila on the third day here is fine and dandy on the shores of Nineveh preach and so forth.

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. 

So we put Jesus on a Cross/Tree/Tau put nails in his hands and feet after being scourged and we expect him to die. However he and the two other thieves are still alive, yet after some time Jesus 'breaths his last' or 'gives up the ghost' but the other two people besides Jesus are still alive so their legs are broken. Jesus legs are not broken which really doesn't matter if he's going to be resurrected however they would really come in handy if he survives the crucifixion cause there is still some walking to be done. Than we give Jesus not over to his enemies but to his secret disciple. Jesus who we expect to die after all the melodrama ends up surviving narrowly escaping with his life just like Jonah! Voila a miracle! However no one dies and there is no resurrection.

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.

It was pointed out to the pastor that the context of Isaiah 53 we see the word 'Was' indicating past tense. He gave a response to this so let me quote something from this response. The pastor quotes the following from a link he gives

“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.”

No need to go into great depth on this as my argument still holds. Even the pastor says,

“I like the Jewish translation. It says that Jesus died for God's people and we deserved the strike. Not the servant.”

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.

If the pastor likes the Jewish translation is this only in instances the he feels it reflects his theology or does he like the Jewish translation in total? If in total how does he feel about this Jewish translation of Isaiah 53:3?

Again, I'm not a pastor. But I like the Hebrew texts and I do not believe I am being inconsistent at all.

Remember that the pastor says,

“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”

He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not (Hebrew)

He was despised and rejected by men,a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (New International Version)

He was (A)despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and(B)acquainted with grief;And like one from whom men hide their face
He was(C)despised, and we did not(D)esteem Him. (New American Standard Bible)

So actually the Hebrew and two of the versions the pastor suggested agree with my contention.

How do they agree with you contention? Jesus fits this description like a glove.

Please note disclaimer I am note a Bible scholar or a scholar of the Biblical languages. However, I do trust that the men and women who were responsible behind the NASB and NIV translations do know what they are doing. I have noted they all translated the word 'WAS' so my contention is still valid.

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.

Isaiah 53:3 If This is a reference to Jesus was he popular or unpopular.

The pastor says he was unpopular based upon the following text.

Matt 27:20-26

John 6: 60-71

I say Jesus was popular based upon the following text.

Luke 2:52, 4:14-15,

Mark 3:8-9,

I don't want to get into a back and forth with the pastor on the issue of Jesus being popular or unpopular. Suffice to say that I think there is reason for my interpretation and there is reason for his interpretation.

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.

 ¹⁴After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world." ¹⁵Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself. - John 6:14-15

 The pastor than says,

“I find it interesting that all of Isaiah 53:5 was not fully quoted”

Well no one is hiding anything not only was Isaiah 53:5 quoted but the whole of Isaiah 53:1-12 was quoted in both his post and my own.

What I was referring to was that sometimes when a verse is discussed only half of the verse was used and verse 5 was an example.

Here is the way the pastor quoted Isaiah 53:5

“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.” (NIV, NASB)

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. (Hebrew)

The difference between these two translations is night and day. Notice the Christians like to use the word 'pierced' which would give an idea of nails, and fits in better with their theology.

The Jews use the word wounded.

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

The Christians use like to say he was pierced FOR our transgressions.

The Jews like to say he was wounded because of our transgressions. In The Jewish context it is understood like this, If a group of people were to detonate a dirty nuclear weapon in Russia as an agent provocateurs of the United States and Russia found out and than launched a retaliatory strike many people would also suffer because of that groups transgressions or rebelliousness not for it!

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.

There is a problem with the end of the verse, "with his stripes we are healed." This is another changing of tense to lead someone away from the true meaning of the chapter, the motive being that the Christian evangelists want you to think the healing is a continuous atonement, when in fact the healing is the end of the sickness.

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.

A closer look at Isaiah 53:8-10 (Jewish Hebrew translation)

8By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he wascut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.

9And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.'

10Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:

Isaiah 53:8-10 (Christian translation)

8By 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.


9He 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.


10Yet 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.

There are obviously quite a few differences that play a huge outcome in deciding the interpretation of this passage.

The pastor contends,

“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.”

In other words it can't be a contradiction because that would be a contradiction!

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. 

If you look at the Hebrew translation of Isaiah 53:8 and contrast this with the one that the pastor choose my argument still stands. On what consistent basis do Christians interpret some passages literally and others figuratively? Why didn't Jesus see his seed and prolong his days? Well the pastor says because that would contradict verse 8 and we can't have that! Well how about this suggestion. We make verse 8 conform to verse 10. Oh no says the Christians this can't be the thought of Jesus having children would really be problematic for our theology!

However this is not what the pastor says. The pastor isn't ready to chuck the argument out the window he simply says,

“it doesn't makes sense to understand verse 10 without a resurrection - rising from the dead.”

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.

Isaiah 53:9 Well let's take a look at the word translated as death, and why in the world would there be such a huge difference in the Jewish and Christian translations of this particular passage.

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'

How does this bolster your point?

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.

1The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones.2 He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry. 3 He asked me, "Son of man, can these bones live?"I said, "O Sovereign LORD, you alone know."Then he said to me: "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, 'Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.'

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.

The pastor takes the passage of verse 9 literally and than takes verse 10 figuratively when it talks about 'his offspring'. What he could do is take verse 9 figuratively and than take verse 10 when It talks about 'his offspring' he could take that literally.

It's about context. How does your interpretation better fit the context than the basic Christian interpretation?

Isaiah 53:10 Now, this passage tell us that the suffering servant being described was not only familiar with disease, but also afflicted with it, and crushed by it. It may be argued that Jesus was familiar with disease; however, he was not crushed by disease.

What translation are you reading to get "disease" out of verse 10?

to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution

though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering

The differences between these two translations and their theological implications is night and day. Why would a Christian translation say that the Lord gave his 'life' rather than the word 'soul'. Why have some translations moved away from the word soul?

"His soul an offering for sin" is a lot different than his body. Many are under the impression that Jesus’ blood was to be the final blood sacrifice. It’s his body that’s the offering, not his soul. Is this because the Christians wish to translate the word as life because again it fits into their theology?

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?

So I hope his answers the question of the pastor who says,
“I hope that thegrandverbalizer19 will make this part of his post clearer. Where are discrpancies that he sees.”

No and and more questions come up. What Hebrew - to  English translation arte you using? Can you provide the Title and publisher, please?

The pastor also says,

“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.”

Actually if the pastor reads a little more carefully I do believe that the argument was,

“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!”

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.
You see this idea of searching scriptures in the TNCH or what Christians call the 'Old Testament' and using creative interpretation to come up with prophecies about Jesus Christ is not really anything novel. In-fact with a little imagination and some careful cross referencing you too in the comfort of your own home can start making prophecies in the Bible!

You mean like some Muslim Apologists who argue that Jesus prophesied Muhammad's coming in  John 14:15-31 instead of the Holy Spirit?

I thought I would try my hand at making prophecies about Jesus. Please forgive me as I'm a little knew to it but here goes.

Luke 2:52

52And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

However, I would write it like this,

“And Jesus increase in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man fulfilling what was written in the proverbs concerning him.”

Than I would give a foot note with 'b' reference and than it would say Proverbs 3:4

4 So shalt thou find favor and good understanding in the sight of God and man.

Voila! I have completely ignored the context and I could care less what verse 3 or 5 say. Because verse 4 so clearly describes Jesus!

Here goes another try.

John 11:35 “Jesus wept”

However, I would write it like this,

“Jesus wept fulfilling what the prophets wrote concerning him'. Than I would give a foot note with an '2' reference and it would say Psalms 69: 3 “I Am weary with my crying”

 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?

One last point the pastor says,


“Remember God alone can forgive sins and Jesus forgave sins.”

Well I would like to see the pastor quote the scripture that says Jesus forgave sins.

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!"

I think we are also interested to see the scripture that says, “the Messiah would rise from the dead on the third day.” Isaiah 53 and even Jonah don't help the pastors cause much.

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?

Again as is the case the pastor is free to comment below and give his feed back. I do appreciate him taking the time. My apologies for anything crude or offensive all praise be to Allah for all that is good and beneficial and only the mistakes are mine.

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?

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Rejoinder to the Pastor Part 2

Unbelievable? 4 Jul 2009 - Peter Hitchens debates Islam

I found a great interview/debate on the Internet in which Peter Hitchens and Ibrahim Mogra debate on the subject on which is better for Britain - Christianity vs Islam. Here is an introduction I saw on the website where I got the debate:

Peter Hitchens vs. Ibrahim Mogra: Is Islam or Christianity the best future for Britain?

July 4, 2009 on Premier Christian Radio

Peter Hitchens is a well known journalist and Anglican Christian. Unlike his atheist brother Christopher, he believes Christianity is an essential bedrock for society. He says Islam will fill the spiritual vaccuum of Britain if secularists have their way.

Ibrahim Mogra represents the Muslim Council of Britain. He says that Muslims are only interested in living harmoniously within society.

They discuss Sharia Law, multiculturalism, religious freedom and more.

Some great points were made. One fact that I did not know was that there are now more Muslims in Britain than Anglicans! I had no idea! I think Hitchens made good points. My problem with trying to harmonize Christianity and Islam.  They both claim to be objectively true but they say opposite things. They both can't be true. Either you reject both or accept one. You can't accept both. Another important point Peter Hitchens made is the fact that if Christianity is recedes people still need spirituality and something else will take its place - Islam. And the same things could happen in the United States and there will be more Muslims than Christians. Do we want a society like Sudan, Paskistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia.




Unbelievable? 4 Jul 2009 - Peter Hitchens debates Islam