Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Showing Partiality

This is a very important post from Dr. Mariottini. It is important that we must remember that we can't show partiality neither to the rich nor the poor.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Showing Partiality

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Michael Brown vs. Bart Ehrman: Debate on suffering and the Bible

I don't know how I missed Brian's posting of this debate? Must be because I was moving. I'm glad Mike Felker re-posted this so I can catch it this time. I thought Mike Felker's comment that Dr Brown could have pressed Ehrman more on how Ehrman can define "evil" and "suffering" without God is true, but I think Dr. Brown touched on it enough. I think that this is a great debate but his synergistic/free will apologetic i can't fully embrace, but it is more than enough to devastate Ehrman's position. The one thing that I disagree with Dr Brown and that has to be about what he said about Job blaming God. I would not describe it that way. Job understood that God was in control of what happened to Job so Job wanted to know what happened. He questioned but he did not sin in against God.

Ehrman's argument that God caused suffering to punish is really was a horrible argument because when we sin we deserve it - Justice. I loved Dr. Brown's rebuttal.



THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Michael Brown vs. Bart Ehrman: Debate on suffering and the Bible

Apologetics 315: Essay: Christianity and Other Ancient Religions by Stephen J. Bedard

Here is another excellent essay in the series of articles running at Apologetics 315. This one is by Stephen J. Bedard who does a great job explaining why Christianity is not a good comparison with the ancient mystery religions because Christianity is true and we can't say the same about the 3 major cults that Christianity is often accused of parodying.

Apologetics 315: Essay: Christianity and Other Ancient Religions by Stephen J. Bedard

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Jonathan Morrow of ThinkChristianly.org

Here is another great interview Brian Auten has posted. This one is with Jonathan Morrow who gives great insights on how to incorporate Apologetics into church ministry and how to prepare students for the challenges to their faith and worldview they will encounter in college

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Jonathan Morrow of ThinkChristianly.org

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Part 5 with McElhaney we are getting there...

thegreatverbalizer has responded to my last response.  His comments are in black and mine are in red to make it plain who said what.

This is part five in my exchange with brother McElhaney and I hope it is not the last time that he and I will discuss matters of faith in the future. In-fact as McElhaney has allot of interesting material over at his web site I am interested In knowing more about Christian economics and why Christian was against interest .

I'm not sure what you mean here but I'm sure you will make it more plain later.

I will try and keep this post as brief as possible as our exchange is there for anyone to go back and read the contents over and ponder upon. What I have done is break this into titles that will be in bold green font and than we will try and tie up the 'loose ends' if possible. McElhaney's words are in bold red font, and my response is in bold black font.

I gave a list of Jewish teachers and what they taught. Here is the link again. Here are several non-Christians agreeing with that Isaiah 53 is not just Messanic but describes events future to Isaiah. I'd like to know why you didn't comment on the link. http://www.hearnow.org/isa_com.html

Dealing with alleged Jewish commentaries of Isaiah 53

This is my comments upon that link above. I was personally hoping that out of the corpus of web sites in the entire internet something a little bit more convincing could have been found. I mean McElhaney we have to advance our discussion based upon proofs and evidences. I have seen two quotes out of seventeen that actually had real references that a person could go and verify what was said these quotes are:

Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai (2.Century), Zohar,, part II, page 212a and III, page 218a, Amsterdam Ed.):

and the other one is: Rabbi Moses, 'The Preacher'(11. Century) wrote in his commentary on Genesis (page 660):

Four of the 17 quotes actually dealt with Isaiah 52 while we are discussing Isaiah 53. Pesiqta is not even the name of any Rabbi what so ever.

PESIKTA RABBATI (Aram. פְּסִיקְתָּא רַבָּתִי), a medieval Midrash on the festivals of the year. It has been printed several times, and a critical edition, with introduction, commentary, and it was published by M. Friedman (Ish-Shalom) in 1880.

This is taken from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0016_0_15652.html

The rest of the material is from different Rabbis or teachers with no sources cited. I don't think this is the way he conduct proper investigation of spiritual matters.

More problematic is the dating for most of these sources. Because if we are disputing about Isaiah 53 we would want to know what early Jewish commentaries had to say about it. However, we are now given quotes from sources that are not cited that are 1400 and 1500 years after the event. Even than none of them mention anything about a Messiah dying and rising from the dead. Even more damaging is that two of the 'sources' given by McElhaney actually support my Jewish Hebrew translation that he had challenges with.

Talmud Sanhedrin (98b):
"Messiah ...what is his name? The Rabbis say,'The leprous one'; those of the house of the Rabbi (Jehuda Hanassi, the author of the Mishna, 135-200) say: 'Cholaja' (The sickly), for it says, 'Surely he has borne our sicknesses' etc. (Isa.53,4)."

"There is in the garden of Eden a palace called : 'The palace of the sons of sickness, <, this palace the Messiah enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel: they all come and rest upon Him. And were it not that He had thus lightened them off Israel, and taken them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israels chastisement for the transgression of the law; this is that which is written, 'Surely our sicknesses he has carried' Isa.53,4)

The point I was raising was that many Jewish commentators do not see Isaiah 52 or 53 talking of a past messiah and not one future to Isaiah. Could you produce a similar list of Jews who think Isaiah was talking about a man who lived in the past prior to Isaiah himself as you alleged?  As for trying to toss away my references, you can easily find the references by looking up the name of the one the quotes are attributed to. I have more to say about the translation.

Yet 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 53:10)

“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.

My response: So now that you have looked it up in my Bible what do you have to say?

Also if we accept the Jewish translation of Isaiah 53:10 than I think your point brother McElhaney about Jesus being 'despised and rejected of men' makes allot more sense when we think of the Messiah being a leper and being 'crushed by disease'. This seems to have a more consistent and logical flow.

I can't find any translation that fits with this interpretation of Isaiah 53:10.  You can't say that the passage is not messianic and then argue that it says the messiah is a leper.  My own translation of the Hebrew does not fit with yours. Do you know of anyone else that would translate it into English the same way? Do you really think that all Jews look at the passage the same way? I can already tell you that they do not.

Jesus the Paralytic and forgiveness of 'sins'.

Why? I agree with them: Only God can forgive sin. Because all sin is an affront to God. Can you commit a sin against anyone and it not be slight against God's character and holiness? No. It's because of our sin we go to hell for the fact that it's just punishment.

Well McElhaney you can see what you want. I think for the reader they are going to see you in your inconsistency on this matter.

Not everything Jesus' opponents said was wrong. Jesus commended them on their doctrine and theology:

 ¹Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ²"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. ³So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. Matt 23:1-3

This is a very consistent understanding when we look at the Lords prayer which admittedly McElhaney says is 'about us forgiving those who sin against us personally.' Why did Jesus validate his authority with a miracle well as he says to show the people that he had the power to forgive sin.

It's significant because the people knew that God alone can forgive sin.

McElhaney says,'I think it's going beyond the text to assert that we can forgive anyone's sin to the point that they are now justified and found faultless in God's eye.'

I also think it's going beyond the text to assert that just because Jesus forgave sin he was on the same level with God. When Matthew says they glorified God who gave power such power to men and Mark says they glorified God who gave such power to a man there is no contradiction. However, asserting that Jesus forgives sins in a special way that 'men' do not that is is 'going beyond the text'.

If I forgive you for wronging me, how does that help you? Why should God not punish you just because I forgive you? No, God has to forgive you so that your sins are not counted against you. Without Jesus you and I are justly condemned with out His forgiveness. Jesus was accused of blasphemy because they understood that Jesus was claiming this divine prerogative for Himself. If you disagree, can you explain why they accused Jesus of blasphemy. One more thing, the text says that Jesus knew their thoughts. How could he "guess" that was what they were thinking?

McElhaney stop and think about it for a moment. Is what your saying consistent? You want me to explain why they accused him of blasphemy, I am stating that they were wrong in doing such. You are saying they were right on accusing him of it. So you can't have your cake and eat it it to. If you say they were correct than Jesus committed a sin. However, your going to claim that no Jesus was claiming to be on a level with God and thus they are were correct in accusing Jesus, but he is not guilty of blasphemy because he is indeed God. Than I will ask you on what basis do you state this McElhaney. Than you will respond because he forgave sins! Than I show you a passage that says the people gloried God for giving such power unto men plural. Than your going to counter argue no it was for the power of healing the people. I say exactly healing the people, but your reading too much into it and say no for Jesus it was forgiveness of sins but for the people it was healing. However, I just don't think you see the link that the Jews tried to establish between someone who was having handicaps and sin. A notion that Jesus corrected above healing the man and a notion that Jesus also corrected below.

Jesus set them correct in John 9:1-3.

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him." {John 9:1-3 RSV}

This also repudiates 'original sin' and turns it on it's head. Not only this but if you claim that the statement, 'they glorified God who has given power unto men' I will ask you personally McElhaney have you ever healed the crippled? Do you know of documented medical cases of people who have done that?

You are much better at red herrings than I. Mark 2 does not say the man was crippled because of his sin. Jesus was showing that the man's sin was more important to deal with than his physical handicapped. I agree with John 9 and your interpretation that being a sinner and being handicapped are not mutually inclusive, Jesus said so. Just to be clear I am arguing that the Jews would have been right to accuse Jesus of blasphemy if He had  been lying about being God. If you disagree you still haven't explained why Jesus was not guilty of blasphemy. I have not personally healed a crippled person, but I was a crippled person suffering pain every single day of my life for 5 years, limping on canes and crutches. I had juvenille Rhumatoid arthritis and God healed me! What have you been healed of? I can say that God has given men the power to heal because I have seen and experienced it. I know people who were given up for dead...or in comas...or told that there was nothing modern medicine could do for them and God raised them up and restored them to health, If you are not seeing the power of God in life...I've got to ask what God are you serving?

'Original Sin' revisited...

All sin is basically disobedience against God. Adam's was just first - Original sin.

Again Adam was not just first, in order for Adam to rebel he had to listen to his wife who listened to the Snake (Satan). Satan in Christian theology is an X-Angel named Lucifer. In Christian theology the first to sin was Lucifer not Adam. I have asked brother McElhaney to rectify this point and I ask all Christians to do that.

No, I won't rectify that...because Lucifer's sin is not the reason why we are in the state we are in. Had Adam passed his test we would not be in the mess we are in now. IT is not Christian doctrine that sin entered into humanity through Lucifer or Eve. 

¹²Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— ¹³for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. ¹⁴Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. - Romans 5:12-14

You are not a Christian, how can you tell me what Christians should believe and outright contradict  Paul?

Do you need a Messiah like the one promised in Isaiah 53?

Well lets not get hasty as you haven't proven to met at least that Isaiah 53 is talking about a Messiah who will come die and rise again for your sins.

Answer the question: Do you need a savior or are you good enough to be blameless in God's sight?

We don't have free will like he did because we enslaved to sin. Our hard drives do not come clean. Look at Psalm 51:4-6

4 Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are proved right when you speak
and justified when you judge.
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
6Surely you desire truth in the inner parts;
you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.

This isn't just the psalmist but all of us. We can't reformat ourselves. Only Jesus can. I'm a computer programmer myself so I understand what you are saying, but we are aftermarket. Been in circulation for a while and not started from scratch. So why does God allow it? If he wiped out all of the hard drives and trashed them he would have to trash all of us.

My response if you take Psalms 51:5 literally you will have a huge problem on several accounts. What sinful things do babies do from the time their mother conceived me? Do you have any suggestions McElhaney? What sinful things is it that a born baby does? I hope one day you realize the futility of such a theological position when you and your beloved wife have a child and you look upon that child and praise God for the blessing of it. I don't think the first thing that crosses your mind is 'what a filthy child defiled in sin'. In-fact should we unjustly accuse anyone without proof? Out of all the thousands of sins a person can do which one comes to your that you can categorically show a baby does?

I have 2 children. A 1 year old and a 3 year old. I love them more than I thought I could love anyone besides my wife and Jesus and you know what? They are sinners. I see my 1 year-old understand me when I tell him not to touch things. He looks at me...hesitates and then chooses to disobeys me. The three year old lies when ever she thinks she needs to avoid getting in trouble. I've seen her do something and then tell me she didn't....and she know I saw her! Yes, we are all sinners and shaped in iniquity. And I am worse than they are!

I thought sin was All sin is basically disobedience against God

Ezekial 18:20 refutes your understanding of Pslams 51:5

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. (Ezekial 18:20)

Where is the refutation? Ezekiel 18 says that you are punished or rewarded for what you do...not because of a forebearer! It does not say anyone is born sinless.

Jesus was both conceived by and brought forth from a human mother (Luke 1:31). If original sin is inherited from one’s mother, Christ had it.

 

Nope. "From one man sin entered"  - shows that sin comes from Daddy not mommy. Jesus had no sinner for a daddy...he had no original sin. Thank you!

The qualities of little children are set forth as models for those who would aspire to enter the kingdom (Matthew 18:3; 19:14) and for those already in the church (1 Corinthians 14:20). Surely the Lord was not suggesting that we emulate little, totally corrupt sinners!

Yes, children have faith - unshakeable faith - if you tell them you will do something for them they will believe it and not doubt. That is what we are supposed to emulate. We are told that if believe Jesus died for us and was resurrected we will be saved - not sinless - but no condemnation. That is the context the Bible gives us of how we should be like children.

Again McElhaney the analogy is also not consistent. “Been in circulation for a while and not started from scratch.” I don't know how long you have been in circulation but I have not been in circulation from the time of Adam. 'If he wiped out all of the hard drives and trashed them he would have to trash all of us.' I couldn't help but notice the word 'If' and we all know that 'If' is conditional. There is no reason to press forth an argument saying that if he wiped out all of the hard drives and trashed them he would have to trash them all. The Islamic argument is that the hard drive comes clean. God does not need to wipe out any hard drive If they already come clean. You would have to advance an argument that states that we inherit our soul from our parents and I don't think you can do that.

We don't inherit of soul from our parents but I just showed you how the Bible says that our hard drives do not come clean. I understand your point that Islam does not teach that. Yet, another place where Islam and the Bible disagree and we have to decide who is right. I believe the Bible is right.

Looking for consistency on Isaiah 53:8-10

If I understand you you are arguing for a metaphorical interpretation of verses 10-12. So what you are you saying it means if you disagree with me? I don't understand how a metaphorical understanding tells us what Isaiah meant or adds anything?

I believe our discussion was primarily focused on verses 8-10 however if you want to bring 11 and 12 no problem as we are in-fact dealing with the whole of Isaiah 53. What I am looking for is an interpretation that is consistent McElhaney not one in which we use literalism when it suits our theology and than in a verse directly after we use another literary device to say this is now metaphorical or allegorical.

I have presented three scenarios McElhaney and they are,

We can have inconsistent interpretation where some parts are taken literal and some parts or taken allegorically to fit out theological presuppositions.
We can have a consistent interpretation where all parts are taken taken literally.
We can have a consistent interpretation where all parts are taken metaphorically.

Also have you not theologically pondered over your absolute insistence that verse 8 must mean real or physical descendants? I mean I have the Hebrew translation the one I gave you from the beginning and it doesn't seem to indicate anything at all about 'descendants'. However, have you theologically thought about the consequences of even suggesting that the Messiah /Jesus would have real or physical descendants? Why tease something out that is not theologically possible?

You still didn't answer my question. You gave three possible interpretation but you never said which one you held. You also seem to have ignored my response of showing Isaiah 9 also refers to the Messiah as "Everlasting Father",  This would be consistent with Isaiah 53:8-10 as I have argued. Where is yours?

Do Muslims believe that Lucifer was the first to rebel against God?

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.

I did ask brother McElhaney where he got this from.

He than replies Have you ever read Surah 7?

Well brother McElhaney yes I have and I have not seen anything about Lucifer, or an X angel. If you could possibly quote the verse or give us the quote that says Lucifer was the first to rebel against God or where Islam has a doctrine of fallen angels I would appreciate it.

(6) Then verily We shall narrate unto them (the event) with knowledge, for verily We were not absent (when it came to pass). (7) The weighing on that day is the true (weighing). As for those whose scale is heavy, they are the successful. (8) And as for those whose scale is light: those are they who lose their souls because they disbelived Our revelations. (9) And We have given you (mankind) power in the earth, and appointed for you therein livelihood. Little give ye thanks! (10) And We created you, then fashioned you, then told the angels: Fall ye prostrate before Adam! And they fell prostrate, all save Iblis, who was not of those who make prostration. (11) He said: What hindered thee that thou didst not fall prostrate when I bade thee? (Iblis) said: I am better than him. Thou createdst me of fire while him Thou didst create of mud. (12) He said: Then go down hence! It is not for thee to show pride here, so go forth! Lo! thou art of those degraded. (13) He said: Reprieve me till the day when they are raised (from the dead). (14) He said: Lo! thou art of those reprieved. (15) He said: Now, because Thou hast sent me astray, verily I shall lurk in ambush for them on Thy Right Path. (16) Then I shall come upon them from before them and from behind them and from their right hands and from their left hands, and Thou wilt not find most of them beholden (unto Thee). (17) He said: Go forth from hence, degraded, banished. As for such of them as follow thee, surely I will fill hell with all of you. - Surah 7:6-18

Perhaps I have a different interpretation. Allah told the angels to bow before Adam and Iblis refused - rebelling against God and taking angels into rebellion with him . These angels became  Jinn and Iblis is the Arabic name of Lucifer/Satan.

Has everyone sinned according to Paul?

Paul was not talking about Jesus. You cannot get that out of the context of the passage. If you are going to say that Paul was wrong then you should be able to name another human being who never sinned. In several letters, Paul said Jesus was sinless. Therefore he could not have been lumping Jesus into Romans 3:23. I do think that mentally handicapped and babies are included but they are forgiven because God would not hold them accountable. But for you and me we are accountable.

I can give a response to this but I am afraid your counter-response is based upon the assumption that Romans 3:23 is true. I am not going to base my argument on rather Romans 3:23 is true or not. I want to look at a few pieces of evidence to see if what Paul says is true.

he will be great before the Lord…and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb." (Lk 1:15). John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb and he didn't sin. Mary was also sinless.

No where in the Bible does it say that John the Baptist was sinless. No where does it say that Mary was sinless. 

Luke 1:5-6
"… there was a priest named Zechariah … his wife … Elizabeth. Both were righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly."

So just from the Bible alone I have internal evidence that Mary, John the Baptist, Elizabeth and Zechariah were sinless.

Righteous does not equal sinless. Righteousness means that one has a trackrecord that given the choice to do right or to do wrong that they have more than not chosen right not they have never ever done anything wrong! The only person in the whole Bible who is said to be sinless is Jesus. Therefore Paul is right.

Does the Talmud say that Jesus was buried?

I have never met a Christian who said that Jonah died in the fish. And all four Gospels and the Talmad says that Jesus was buried. Its usually understood that being laid in a tomb is being buried. "Entombment" is the same as being buried to most American English speakers, but thanks for the friendly advice.

My response to this is that I admitted a typing error in saying that Christians believed that Jonah died. However is brother McElhaney willing to admit an error in saying that 'the Talmad says that Jesus was buried'. If you can give me the reference to this I would appreciate it.

Revisiting the 3 days and 3 nights in Jonah prophecy.

Can you more clearly explain what you find so unremarkable? and why?

Sure it basically comes down to this. If I told you that Muhammed (saw) was buried for three days and three nights what is so miraculous about that? I mean he has been. What if I told you that Martin Luther King has been buried for three days and three nights and that in the future I too would be buried for three days and three nights would that excite you or cause you to yawn? You would think that if the concept of a Messiah dying and rising for the sins of people was clearly stated in the TNCH 'Old Testament' Jesus could have been a little less ambiguous about it huh?

The thing is neither Muhammad or Martin Luther King Jr got up after those three days.  They are still dead and Jesus isn't. I find that very impressive.

I'm talking about presenting a post about the timeline for the events. How was Jesus wrong? Are you saying he was wrong because Jesus did not spend three 24-hour days in the tomb? If so, then I think you need to be aware of the fact that to first century Jews,a part of a day is reckoned as a full day. He was in the tomb part of Friday and part of Sunday by our time keeping standardsso according to Jewish culture at the time it was three days.

Well I think we need to take another look at this brother McElhaney. Remember you said previously,

No they believed that Jonah was in the fish for 3 days and 3 nights because that is what the book says

Well if this is the case what was Jewish culture? For the Jewish culture the day begins with sun down. When you say for “Jews a part of a day is reckoned as a full day' can you show us using Sola Scriptura (scripture alone)?

No, I can't and neither can you. The original readers would not have had a problem with the text because they understood the time being specified and we don't specify time like that anymore. You have to bring in cultural and historical knowledge.

I can give my counter argument using the biblical text alone.

Friday night Saturday day Saturday night and Sunday day

Friday sunset until Saturday sunset is a 24 hour day in Judaism. Saturday sunset until Sunday sunset is another 24 hour day in Judaism. Sunday sunset until Monday sunset is another 24 hour day in Judaism.

Jesus would be in the tomb Friday night, Saturday day and Saturday night and Sunday morning Mary Magdalene fines he is not there.

John 11:9-10: 9 Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. 10 But if one walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him." NKJV

If we accept that Christ was working from the principle of a day being twelve hours, and a night being twelve hours, then three days and three nights constitute a seventy-two hour period.

No dice. You are making an assumption that you can't justify beyond how you reckon time today and not how they did it in 1st century Jewish culture. Seems like you went outside the text.
 

If one needs to find further evidence for this point, the account of Genesis 1:4-13 provides it. Here we see again that God divided the day into two halves:

"[God] divided the light from darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening [darkness] and the morning [light] were the first day ....And the evening [darkness] and the morning [light] were the second day .... And the evening [now three periods of darkness called night-- three nights] and the morning [now three periods of light called day -- three days] were the third day" (Gen. 1:4-13)

This bring up a point I've always wondered: Do Muslims have old earth/young earth creation debates? I'd rather not get into it here so I've got to say that bring this up show more love of using red herrings.

Now matter how you slice the pie Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy he is alleged to have made. But I do not think Jesus is a liar I think who ever interpolated those words in the mouth of Jesus will be sorry on the day of judgment.

You haven't sliced the pie..you're cutting into a different cake altogether and then wondering why it makes no sense.

The historical 'facts' about Jesus death.

The challenge makes no sense because anyone who believes that Jesus rose from the dead, by definition, is Christian. And my point was that non-Christian "experts" agree that Jesus was crucified and many Muslims say he wasn't based on the Qur'an and then try to read that into the New Testament.

Exactly! I hope this is kept in mind when Christians try and make a point of the resurrection being historical. Mike Licona did horribly in a recent debate with Bart Ehrman on that matter. Even Ehrman said historians can only show what 'probably did happen'. Not only that but did you know brother McElhaney that you and I as believers are on the fringe for believing in creationism rather than evolution? You and I would be hard pressed to put forth a list of Biology professors from the world over that are creationist that challenge the cores of the theories of Evolution. So just because something seems established with in a given field of research doesn't mean it cannot be over turned or challenged.

It's not difficult at all to find scientists and engineers who challenge the core theories of evolution. I'm one of them.  And there are several the world over. I noticed that you quoted me talking about the crucifixion and then discussed the historicity of the resurrection. I'm not arguing that the resurrection is an established fact of history that only crackpots discount. I'm saying that Jesus' life and crucifixion are established facts. And Bart Ehrman agrees with me. I have several debates in which Ehrman says these very things. The Qur'an disagrees with me, the New Testament, History, and Ehrman about the crucifixion. Who should one believe if the criteria that one faulty passage calls the entire text into question?

It's an honest question you claimed that Isaiah was written in a past tense showing that it wasn't about a future messiah and all I asked was for you to give the name of a single Hebrew Scholar that agrees with you. I guess you can't

How about I do better and I give you Michael Brown? This is what Michael Brown has to say,

“While it is true that Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Radak all interpreted the passage with reference to Israel, other equally prominent leaders, such as Moses ben Nachman (called Nachmanides or the Ramban) felt compelled to follow the weight of ancient tradition and embrace the individual, Messianic interpretation of the Talmudic rabbis (found in the Midrash, despite his belief that the plain sense of the text supported the national interpretation). Noteworthy also is the oft-quoted comment of Rabbi Moshe Alshech, writing in the sixteenth century, “ Our rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view.” This too is highly significant, since Alshech claims that all his contemporaries agreed with the Messianic reading of the text, despite the fact that Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Radak had all come out against that reading”

(Answering Jewish Objection to Jesus, Michael L. Brown, Pgs. 49-50, Baker Books, 2003 )

“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 theychanged?

I think this point needs more detail than I am prepared to go through here. I will ask that we skip this point and for me to do more research and write a full post on why I believe this to be true. I read it and saw some documentation but I will have to dig it up again.

So you are trying to argue that substitutional atonement is contradicted by Deuteronomy 24:16? Sorry. But there are problems with that. Jesus is shown to carry the same function as the Passover lamb and the lambs sacrificed during Yom Kipur celebrations. You can't apply Deuteronomy 24:16 because that isn;t the same context.

Well let's look at what Deuteronomy 24:16 says,

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16) Yeah I would say is text alone is enough to refute the entirety of Christian doctrine. Again here you go screaming that I can't apply a certain passage because it causes problems for your doctrine.

I agree with Deuteronomy and it causes no problem because it's not about anyone being able to pay for your sin...it show that the Jews of the 1st century were correct only God can forgive sin. Christians are not saying that a man paid for your sin. We are saying that God put on human flesh and paid for it.

The following is the Jewish response to your 'Passover lamb'

Taken from : http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/library/library-primary-228/missionary-tactics/170-the-so-called-hebrew

The Passover lamb was a yearly sacrifice that was eaten in commemoration of G-d's passing over the houses of the Israelites when He slew the Egyptian first-born (Exodus 12). The Paschal lamb had nothing to do with atonement from sin.

If, indeed, Jesus' death was supposed to be an atoning sacrifice, it would have been more appropriate to liken him to the special goat that was offered on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. This goat served expressly as an atonement for the sins of the Jewish people (Leviticus 16).

Wrong. The scape goat was not killed. The lamb was. 

Missionaries frequently point out that although the two people who according to Christian scripture were crucified beside Jesus had their legs broken with a mallet to ensure that they would die before the Sabbath, Jesus had already expired by the time the Roman soldiers came to check whether he was still alive. They believe that this enhances their claim that Jesus was the Paschal lamb since, according to the Bible, there was a prohibition against breaking any of the bones of the Paschal lamb (Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12).

Of course, if missionaries are determined to play this game, it is important that their arguments be consistent. If they capitalize on the alleged similarity between Jesus and the Passover lamb regarding the law forbidding the breaking of its bones, Jesus would also have to fulfill the other legal requirements of the Passover sacrifice. There is no justification in seizing only upon the single aspect that was fulfilled, while ignoring the numerous times that Biblical rules were observed only in the breach.

For instance, the Bible teaches that any sacrifice that was blemished or maimed in any way was disqualified (Leviticus 22:19-22). However, before Jesus was crucified, the Christian Bible claims that he was beaten and whipped by Roman soldiers. These wounds would have disqualified Jesus from being a legitimate sacrifice.

Jesus wounds would not have disqualified him because He was without blemish because he had no sin!

Did Muhammed (saw) or the Qur'an say that the Bible the Christians have today is the word of God?

My full response to that is here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/01/does-quran-teach-bible-was-corrupted.html

McElhaney and I wrangle over the word b'motav,

The point being is that deaths are in the plural and this doesn't refer to someone singular.

So am I to understand brother McElhaney you have no desire to interact with the Hebrew text at all?

No. That is not what I'm saying.

If your not unwilling to interact with the Hebrew text maybe you could elaborate on what you mean by giving this link again?

http://www.hearnow.org/isa_com.html

What is in this particular link that you feel can help advance a common understanding of what the word b'motav means? I admit that I didn't see anything in that particular link but if you could maybe just quote it to me?

The purpose of the link is to show how some Jews look at Isaiah 53. One of the most telling thing is that they look at 52 as an introduction. I wanted to demonstrate that not all Jewish readers of Isaiah 53 see it the way you say they see it.

The Messiah will be crushed by Disease.

I brought up to McElhaney that the Jews translate from the Hebrew Isaiah 53:10 'crushed by disease'.

I still need to look at your link. But I will get to it.

We just discussed it above

As far as showing where you have taken things out of context in your exegesis 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.

Comment: Well since I guess it would be more appropriate to not talk about the Jews but the word in Hebrew and it what it means than would you be willing to concede the point that the word offspring in the Hebrew language literally means ' physical descendants' even if you want it to mean something else?

In verse 8 and Verse 10 the words are not the same so they both don't have to mean "physical descendants". Which Hebrew word are you referring to?

Did Jesus Worship Idols does Hosea 11 refer to Jesus in context?

Who says Jesus burned Incense to a graven image?

Maybe you need to back up and explain why you think graven images comes into play in the discussion.

Exactly brother McElhaney and this is why as a Muslim I have to reject Matthew 2:15 wild imagination in asserting that 'Out of Egypt I called my Son as some prophecy about Jesus'. In the original context anyone reading Hosea 11 will see that this refers to the nation of Israel. It is only if WE COMPLETELY REJECT verse 2 that this can refer to Jesus. I can not as a Muslim believe that Jesus burned incense to graven images. We Muslims love Christ Jesus and hold a higher standard than to even suggest such a thing!

Matthew was not saying Jesus did any such thing.  I still don't understand why you think that Matthew was saying any such thing.

Do you accept the Qur'an as inerrant and infalliable?

Yes I accept the God's word the Qur'an as inerrant and infallible.

What does Dan Corner really believe?

If God saves you then you can't loose your salvation. It takes God to save you and it takes God to keep you. I do not like Dan Corner's formulation of the position because he thinks that you can live any kind of way and God will never revoke your Christian card. My position is different. If you disobey God's commands and live after the flesh and die that way) you never was born again at any time.

Could you quote from any of Dan Corner's books or statements where he believes a Christian can 'live any kind of way' and God will not revoke your Christian card? To my knowledge Dan Corner objects to James White and all of those who believe in Preservation of the Saints or 'OSAS'.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/cat1.htm

You posted a video interview of Dan Corner he said that he believed that those who believe in eternal security think that you don't have to live a holy life. While some people teach that, I don't. Neither does John MacArthur, RC Sproul, James White, or any Calvinist or Arminian I trust. 

Again It is my sincere wish that you all have enjoined this exchange between McElhaney and I. By the next post I should be able to see if we are reaching any common ground on the disputed Isaiah 53 passage. If not I will most likely wrap it up and give the concluding remarks over to McElhaney so that I can move on with other issues in my blog. I want to thank him once more for the exchange and I look forward to other interaction in the future. May Allah guide us all to what he loves.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Part 5 with McElhaney we are getting there...