A critical study of Isaiah 53

Is Isaiah 53 a prophecy concerning Jesus and his alleged crucifixion?

Crucifixion Series(Part 1)

by Ibn Anwar

  Isaiah 53 is considered almost universally by Christians as a prophecy concerning the crucifixion of Jesus. They base their claim on verses applied to Jesus in the New Testament such as Matthew 8:17 that are taken from Isaiah 53. In this article we shall explore the chapter as analytically as possible and see whether the Christian claim has weight or not.

The context of Isaiah 53 actually begins in verse 13 in chapter 52. Superficially, some of the verses do seem applicable for Jesus, but, does the entire passage agree with the Jesus that is portrayed in the so called gospels? If the prophecy is really about Jesus then it surely follows that there should be no contradiction at all between the contents of Isaiah 53 with the life of Jesus according to the so called gospels[1]. For example, let us say we have a prophecy from Nostradamus that may at a glance seem to be about Ibn Anwar. So in the prophecy Nostradamus says,”that there shall arise a person in 2008 and 2009 who will debate with Christians a lot on the internet. He will be 50 years old and he will have many friends who will support him in his endeavours.” All right, so we’re in 2009. Everything Nostradamus mentions in his prophecy is true to the letter except for one thing, that is, my age. I am not 50 years old. Can any reasonable person say that the prophecy is truly about Ibn Anwar? The answer is obviously NO. Likewise, if there is even a single verse in Isaiah 53 that is incompatible with Jesus then the whole argument falters. Everything has to correlate with Jesus. With that said let us not waste any time and begin with verse 13.

*The translation used in this article is from the New International Version unless stated otherwise*

13. See, my servant will prosper;
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.

Analysis

Who is this “servant” who will prosper? To know who he is we should have a look at the previous passages that are in actual fact related to chapter 53. For example, in Isaiah 41:8 the verse says,”But you, O Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen.” Once again in verse 9 it says,”I said,‘You are my servant’; I have chosen you and have not rejected you.” In Isaiah 43:1 we read,”..he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel.” And again in Isaiah 44:1 says,”But now listen, O Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen.” In all those instances the same Hebrew word is used namely ‘ebed which means servant(‘abd in Arabic). Look carefully at the verses and notice that the servant(‘ebed) is mentioned along side Jacob and Israel. Thus it is safe to say that in verse 13 of chapter 52 the servant is not Jesus but rather the nation of Israel portrayed in one man namely, Jacob. According to Rabbi Rashi and the like it is a representation of the people of Israel.

14. Just as there were many who were appalled at him —
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man
and his form marred beyond human likeness

Analysis

If Jesus was marred beyond human likeness or as God’s Word Translation renders it, “His looks will be so disfigured that he will hardly look like a human.” surely people would not have recognised him. However, as we read in the gospels none of them had any problem in recognising the figure of Jesus e.g. Luke 23:27 and John 19:6 says that ,”as soon as the chief priests and officers saw him, they shouted,”Crucify! Crucify!”. So according to John 19:6 the moment Jesus stepped out of the shadow to meet them they immediately recognised him. If he had been marred beyond recognition surely there would have been hesitation. In fact the narratives about his alleged torture are not as dramatic or grim as the words of verse 14 in Isaiah 52 convey. In Luke 22 verse 63 it just says that the guards at the temple beat him. Interestingly enough Luke totally omits what is found in Matthew, Mark and John i.e. the narrative about Jesus getting beaten and his head getting fastened with a crown of thorns after his condemnation by Pilate. Nonetheless, even in those narratives Jesus is not described as being marred beyond recognition or human likeness.

53:1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

Analysis

The arm or zrowa’ is often used in reference to God’s assistance  or intervention in saving his people(Israel included) from the oppression of other nations. For example we read in Deuteronomy 4:33, “Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?” In Isaiah 52:10 we read,”The LORD will lay bare his holy arm.” The same may also be found in Deuteronomy 7:19 and Isaiah 63:12,”who sent his glorious arm of power to be at Moses’ right hand, who divided the waters before them…”. The arm does not symbolise a human being who will die for the sins of all of humanity.

verse 2, He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him
.

Analysis

This particular verse is just downright weird if not a mockery. If we were to accede to the Christian understanding i.e. it’s Jesus then we might as well just say that Jesus is ugly and there goes 90% of the portraits of Jesus the world over! The Passion of Christ ought to have had an ugly actor!

verse 3, 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

Analysis

Do you notice anything pecular about the verse? Yes, it uses the PAST TENSE! What is a prophesy? To prophesy is to foretell. It is something in future. To tell the future the appropriate tense to use is the future tense, hence, we have the famously quoted prophesy of Isaiah 7:14,”Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign…”. Isaiah 53:3 then seems to describe something that has happened. Secondly, it says that ,”he was despised and rejected” and “we esteemed him not”. This does not seem to correlate with what we discover in the gospels about Jesus’ relationship with the masses. For example, in Luke 4:14-15 we read, “Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.” The Greek word there is pas which means all and they praised(doxazo which can also mean glorify) him. So the verse says that EVERYONE praised him. In Matthew 4:25 it says, “Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.” In Matthew 21:9-11 we read about “a very large crowd” or pleistos ochlos greeted Jesus’ “triumphal” entry into Jerusalem with shouts of Hosanna, Hosanna. Even “nearing the end” Jesus’ popularity with the people did not wane as we read in Luke 23:27 ,”A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him.” All of these passages clearly contradict Isaiah 53:3 which describes the person as despised and rejected.

Verse 4, Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

Analysis

The word infirmities and sorrows in Hebrew are choliy and mak’ob respectively. Neither convey the meaning of sin or iniquity. In fact, the word choliy is synoymous with davah which is mentioned in Leviticus 12:2 describing the infirmity of women during menstruation. Is menstruation or the weakness as a result thereof a sin or iniquity? No. Mak’ob is simply sorrow or anguish. What is the purpose of Jesus’ crucifixion? According to Christians it is to ATONE FOR THE SINS/INIQUITIES of humanity. The verse does not seem to suggest that. Nowhere does it mention the word sin. Had it really wanted to convey the meaning of atoning for sins surely it would have used words like ‘asham , chatah or chet all of which convey the meaning of sin. Did Jesus take up our weakness and sorrow? No, women are still menstruating and get tired during that period and all of us experience sorrow at least once a week. Further more, it says that he was smitten by God. The word there is nakah which means to strike. Are the Christians trying to tell us that the Pharisees and the Romans are all God since they were the ones who supposedly hit Jesus? Finally, notice that like the verse before this too is in the PAST TENSE.

Verse 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.

Analysis

The translation which is used by most Christian Bibles correspond with the above. However, the preposition used is inaccurate. The word for in the verse is min in Hebrew which should be translated as from or because of. As such the Bible resource website net.bible.org explains in its footnote on the verse,” tn The preposition מִן (min) has a causal sense (translated “because of”) here and in the following clause.” You may be wondering what’s the big deal? Allow me to illustrate with an example. This is for you VERSUS this is because of you. In the first instance it is as if the you is given something(perhaps a reward or gift), however in the second instance the notion of a gift or reward is totally absent and instead the idea of accusation or guilt are implied.  Likewise, in the common Christian translation the idea seems to be that the person who is supposed to be Jesus dies for you(as a gift or reward for you in order to save you, offer salvation) rather than just as a consequence of what you’ve done without reward or gift. The verse also mentions that he is “crushed”! When in the world was Jesus crushed?!? It says that “by the wounds we are healed”. That does not correlate with Hebrews 9:22 which is often used as the proof text for blood atonement, “without sheeding of blood there is no atonement.” So Hebrews 9:22 says that it is the blood that atones, but Isaiah 53:5 suggests that the wounds are the source for healing. Which is it? Finally, the verses before this too is in the PAST TENSE!

Verse 6,  We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way
;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Analysis

The verse seems to suggest that everyone has gone astray and chosen their own devices instead of following God. However, in Luke 1:6 we read something quite different. It says, “They(Zacharias and Elizabeth) were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.” These two individuals obeyed all of God’s laws and teachings and did not do anything wrong, hence they cannot be blamed for anything! If that is so then the verse in Isaiah 53:6 applied to Jesus is false! And once more the verse is in the PAST TENSE just like the ones before!

verse 7, He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

Analysis

The verse is virtually saying that the person was led to his slaughter SILENTLY and QUIETLY with his mouth CLOSED. Did Jesus meet this criteria? I’m afraid not.

When Jesus was arrested he OPENED HIS MOUTH!

Matthew 26:55, “At that time Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me.”

See also Matthew 26:64, Matthew 27:11 and 46.

Luke 23:28, “Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children.”

See also Luke 23:34, 43, 46

In John we see that Jesus attempts a defence against the High Priest at the temple.

John 18:20-21, “I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.”

See also John 18:34, 36, 37 etc.

Clearly, from the above given verses Jesus never kept silent as he was “led to the slaughter”. It cannot be about Jesus.

verse 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.

Analysis

There is not a single Christian version of the Bible that translates the pronoun in the forth line differently than the above(NIV). They all translate it with the singular pronoun “he”. The following is the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 53:8,

מעצר וממשפט לקח ואת דורו מי ישוחח כי נגזר מארץ חיים מפשע עמי נגע למו׃

“meotser umimishpat lukakh veet doro mi yesokheakh ki nigzar meerets khayim mipesha ami nega lamo: “

The pronoun in the fourth line is lamo in Hebrew. Look at the following verse carefully from Psalm 99:7,

בעמוד ענן ידבר אליהם שמרו עדתיו וחק נתן למו׃

“beamud anan yedaber aleihem shamru edotav vekhok natan lamo:”

When the two verses are compared what becomes obvious is that both use the exact same pronoun i.e. lamo. Now, look at the NIV translation of Psalm 99:7,

“He spoke to them from the pillar of cloud;
they kept his statutes and the decrees he gave them(LAMO).”

Can you see the game now? The deception? One moment they translate it in the singular and the next it’s plural! They translate as they please when it suits them! The following is the correct translation of Isaiah 53:8 from the Jewish Bible,

“From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them.”

So it’s not a “he”, but rather “them”. It is in the collective and not in the singular. It speaks of the people of Israel as a nation and not a single man god who will die for mankind.

verse 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.

Analysis

Jesus was given a grave with the wicked? Last I checked he was not even buried but rather stored in a roomy chamber called a sepelchure(chamber carved out of rock) and left there ALONE. Nobody else was stored with him by Joseph of Arimathea. The verse also suggests that “he had done no violence”. According to Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15-16 and Luke 19:45 Jesus drove the people out of the temple. Did he do it by giving them sweets? Read the narratives yourself. He acted violently by overturning the tables and benches. Was there any deceit from the mouth of Jesus? The answer would seem to be yes according to Luke 23:43,”Today you will be with me in paradise.” He made this promise to one of the thieves who were exectued with him that he will be with him in paradise that very day. However, we know from John 20:17 that Jesus never ascended to heaven on that day or the day after that or even the day after that, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,’I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” Where is the Father who is God? The “Lord’s prayer” tells us succinctly that,”Our Father who art IN HEAVEN.” So did Jesus lie when he made that promise that he obviously did not fulfill? You tell me.

verse 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.

Analysis

We have noted the “crushing” issue earlier. Jesus was never “crushed”. It says that “he will see his offspring and prolong his days,” Since when does Jesus have offspring? And how in the world can the days of God be “prolonged” which means to extend. God is immortal and time has no bearing on his being. If Jesus is God it makes no sense to prolong his days.

I think I will end the article here. It’s past 1 am now and I really need my sleep. I believe the thesis thus far is more than sufficient in proving our point.

Remember what was mentioned in the beginning? If there is even one thing that does not correlate with Jesus then the whole Christian argument for Isaiah 53 fails. But, it’s not just one non-correlation! We have seen that almost all the verses give rise to many problems when Jesus is forced into it. In conclusion, it is foolish to claim that Isaiah 53 is about the alleged crucifixion of Jesus to atone for the sins of the entire human race.

Notes:

[1] I do not claim that the four gospels contain fully true and authentic accounts of the life of Jesus. They may contain both truth and falsehood. However, that is not the point of the discussion in the article. The reason why the gospels are referred to in the article is because the Christians believe in them and apply them together with Isaiah 53. The purpose of the article is to show that according to their own standard the gospels refute their usage of Isaiah 53. Proceed to the Four Anonymous Gospels for further reading on the gospels.

Incoming search terms:

  • study of isaiah 53
  • isaiah 53 study
  • interpretation of isaiah 53
  • isaiah 53 analysis
  • study on isaiah 53
  • Character Study on Isaiah 53
  • study isaiah 53
  • isiah 53
  • isaiah 53 interpretation
  • isaiah 53 jesus analysis
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

51 Responses to “A critical study of Isaiah 53”

  1. Mansoor_ali says:

    I found a very interesting piece of article on the same subject of Isaiah 53

    Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....s_of_Jesus

    Isaiah 53 (The Suffering Servant)
    Main article: Isaiah 53

    Isaiah 53 is probably the most famous example of a messianic prophecy claimed by Christians. It speaks of a one known as the “suffering servant” who suffers because of the sins of others. Jesus is said to fulfill this prophecy through his death on the cross.[3] Modern Jewish scholars argue that the suffering servant is actually Israel[4], The following verse from Isaiah 53:5 is understood by Christians to speak of Jesus:

    5But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
    The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
    And by His scourging we are healed (NASB)

    Several Christian scholarly books, like Revised Standard Version Oxford Study Edition Bible, The Revised Standard Version also identify Isaiah 53 as the nation of Israel. New Revised Standard Version and New English Bible also follow this interpretation.

    This is because several times in the book of Isaiah the nation of Israel is called servant, amongst other reasons.

    Jews for Judaism founder Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz in his book “The Jewish Response To Missionaries,” of the Christian viewpoint has demonstrated that the Isaiah 53 passage is purposely mistranslated in Christian Bibles to support theological concepts. The original Hebrew, portrays a different picture. For example, the preposition “mi” in Isaiah 53:5 and 53:8 is commonly translated as “for.” The meaning of “mi” is not “for” but rather “from” or “because of”. Thus the Judaica Press Tanach translates Isaiah 53:5 as: “But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.” Other examples of translation errors are Isaiah 53:8 where the Hebrew phrase “mi-pesha’ ‘ami niga’ lamo” is translated as “for the transgression of my people was he stricken”. The word “lamo” is the poetic form of the Hebrew “lahem” which means their/them not him and is used as such throughout the Hebrew Bible. The Jewish rendition of Isaiah 53:8 then is: “because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them.” Based on this, the servant is argued to be a collective entity not a person. This claim is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word for “death” in the following verse of Isaiah 53:9, “And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;” is plural.

    Thanks

  2. zidane says:

    salam alaikum

    Very good article, I would like to point out that the passage along with most of Isaiah is talking to the nation of Israel not to the world. So even if it is reffering to the suffering of jesus it is only because of or for Israel not the entire world. Also as you have pointed out most of the passage is in past tense this seems to solidify the argument that the second part of Isaiah (40-66) was not written by Isaiah but someone else and is reffered to as deutro-Isaiah. So all the prophecies in the first part of Isaiah are being fulfilled in the second part. So since this passage was written during the end of the babylonian captivity the author whoever it may be was more or less lamenting israel for not recognising its righteous people who have to suffer because of them.

  3. Joe says:

    Why did you avoid verses 1-12 These verses describe Jesus whom they pieced, Rejected by men like you. and all other men who don’t know the truth unless they receive the holy Spirit.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Clearly you have not read the article. I dealt with the chapter from verse one to ten! I proved at every step of the way that Jesus as presented in the Gospels does not fit the depiction given in Isaiah 53. You said that, “These verses describe Jesus whom they pieced…”. Where? Nowhere in Isaiah 53 does it say anything about being pierced. Thank you for displaying the common ignorance of ordinary Christians.

  4. Dr.Mustafa says:

    ISAIAH 53
    In this chapter the servant who is suffering is the nation of Israel as a whole not
    Jesus Christ

    Biblical verses that refer to Israel as the “servant”, many of them from the Book of
    Isaiah such as 41:8, 44:1, 44:21and 49:3 which goes as He said to me, “You are my
    servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.” Jewish scholars, and several
    Christian scholarly books, like Revised Standard Version Oxford Study Edition
    Bible, The Revised Standard Version tell us that Isaiah 53 is about nation of Israel
    and the New English Bible echo this analysis.

    The “servant” in question is actually the nation of Israel these scholars also argue that verse 10 cannot be describing Jesus.

    The verse states:He shall see [his] seed; he shall prolong [his] days

    This description is inconsistent with the short, childless life of Jesus.
    The reason that the Servant is referred to in the third person may be that
    these verses are written from the point of view of Gentile nations amazed at
    Israel’s restoration, or it may simply be a method of figurative description as in
    Isaiah 52:15.

    The Servant passages in Isaiah, and especially Isaiah 53, has to be
    compared with Psalm 44. Psalm 44 directly parallels Isaiah 53 as applicable to the
    nation of Israel.

    The New Testament in Matthew 8:17 and acts 8:34and 35 misunderstood it
    to be pointing to Jesus Christ.

    Isaiah 53 was and is considered to be taking about the nation of Israel by the Jews .Even till the coming of Jesus it was considered to be referring to Israel as a nation .Then came the authors of new testament and changed its reference .

    Isaiah 52 verse 14 says about the suffering servant that “..his appearance was so marred beyond human resemblance and his form beyond sons of men”
    Was Jesus Christ’s form marred beyond human resemblance? Was he not looking human?
    Isaiah verses 1 to 9 are described in past tense as the servant has suffered already.

    Verse 10 says he shall see his seed
    Through the bible seed has been described in terms of children .What seed did Jesus have?

    According to Christians he is God .But they say this suffering servant points to Jesus.

    Imagine son God being called a servant by father God !

    Verse 2 says “and no beauty that we should desire him”. So Jesus has no beauty that we should desire him!
    Verse 4 says “he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows”. What grief’s and sorrows did Jesus borne?
    Verse 9 says “”and they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death,..”.Jesus was laid alone in the tomb according to the authors of New Testament .So who is the wicked and rich man he is buried with?

    Than k you.

  5. Chuck says:

    Sir;
    Thank you for a most interesting article. I am a recent convert(revert) to Islam.
    I enjoy reading articles that help enlighten me in my new faith. As I have nothing but the highest respect for my fellow brothers and sisters of the book, I am looking for ways to apologize my new faith. If you could direct me to some new sites or articles, I would be most grateful. I have chosen Jahan Abdul-Muid as mu new name.
    May Allah be praised.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Assalamu’alaikum akhi,
      I am most happy that you found the article interesting and above all else I would like to congratulate you for having successfully found your way back ‘home’(to Islam). I pray that Allah bless your life immensely and make you an example for all others who have yet to find their way back. I am in the process of writing a few new articles. Insha’Allah they will be published soon. As for new sites you might like to visit http://www.marifah.net , http://www.masud.co.uk , http://www.livingislam.org and sunnianswers.com. These are sites that promote traditional Islam. I hope you will continue to visit this humble site of ours and continue to post comments on the articles herein. Wassalam.

  6. Ronald says:

    Your arguments are really weak, I do not know where to begin.

    YOU say the scripture does not refer to Jesus but to the Jews.
    Your first argument is that since it is in the past, it must refer to a past event. Would you tell us which event therefore it refers to? An event before Isaiah where the whole nation of Israel was marred more than any man.
    Is there any time (before or after) Isaiah when Israel was bruised for our iniquities? (As Isaiah is Jewish, who, by the way does he mean by “we”?)
    Is it indeed that the chastisement for your peace is upon Israel? Are you healed by Israel’s bruises? You must substantiate these things, unless, of course you believe the passage not to be the word of God.

    Verse Eight…”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”

    If it is a past event describing Israel, then there can not be Jews. Otherwise the word would be false which says “who can declare his descendants?..He was cut off from the land of the living”.

    Would you enlighten us of the period when there was no deceit in the whole of the nation of Israel? When Israel were slaughtered without murmuring? When Israel’s death has been programmed to be with the wicked, but (as a whole nation) has been buried with the rich? Remember YOU claim that it is not a prophetic passage but describes past events. But even if you might concede it is prophetic, if you consider the passage to be the word of God, are you saying that Islam teaches that Israel has suffered for the sins of the world? (As to you, Verse 10 has to be saying).

    Verse 11 “By His knowledge shall my righteous servant save many because he opoured out his soul to death… He made intercession for the transgressors”.
    Again, tell us the event in History (again since all these are past events to you) when Israel has saved us. When Israel has willingly died for us (“poured out his soul to death”), or made intercession for us.

    And the way you choose your words about “for our transgressions” is ridiculous.
    The word “for” CAN mean “because of” and indeed does in that passage. If I said he was expelt from school for stealing, does that not mean he was expelt from school because of stealing? Christianity teaches that Jesus was wounded because of (or for, if you like) our transgressions.
    And saying that Christians regarding Jesus to have been a handsome man shows that that verse does not refer to Jesus is laughable. As a matter of fact I believe that Jesus was an ugly man in terms of physical looks. I have always said it because of that particular verse. Christians do not have pictures of Jesus Christ that they claim they are really His. Maybe some Roman Catholics might be offended by that, but that is another matter. Good luck disproving Scripture because of Jesus’ looks, even more, because of the passion of the Christ movie.

    There really are logical explanations for jesus’ fulfilling of those prophesies and if you want me to lay it out, I will gladly do just that.
    As of now, since YOU claim it is past events being listed, YOU tell us which events these are. Ones where no one can tell of the descendants of the nation of Israel and where Israel willingly is broken and crushed for the transgressions of the world. Where Israel as a nation are bad to look at, where all their faces are marred more than any man, one where Israel is led to the slaughter without complaigning. Where the whole nation of Israel is buried with the rich, and affirm indeed that Islam teaches that God has made Israel’s sacrifice an offering for “our” sins, whatever YOU take “our” to refer to!

    Or, make it clear if you don’t believe that Isaiah 52.13 and 53 is the word of God.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Notice that none of your weak points actually address anything that I have said on the verses in question. Try harder.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Analysis

      The verse seems to suggest that everyone has gone astray and chosen their own devices instead of following God. However, in Luke 1:6 we read something quite different. It says, “They(Zacharias and Elizabeth) were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.” These two individuals obeyed all of God’s laws and teachings and did not do anything wrong, hence they cannot be blamed for anything! If that is so then the verse in Isaiah 53:6 applied to Jesus is false! And once more the verse is in the PAST TENSE just like the ones before!

      verse 7, He was oppressed and afflicted,
      yet he did not open his mouth;
      he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
      and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
      so he did not open his mouth.

      Analysis

      The verse is virtually saying that the person was led to his slaughter SILENTLY and QUIETLY with his mouth CLOSED. Did Jesus meet this criteria? I’m afraid not.

      When Jesus was arrested he OPENED HIS MOUTH!

      Matthew 26:55, “At that time Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me.”

      See also Matthew 26:64, Matthew 27:11 and 46.

      Luke 23:28, “Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children.”

      See also Luke 23:34, 43, 46

      In John we see that Jesus attempts a defence against the High Priest at the temple.

      John 18:20-21, “I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.”

      See also John 18:34, 36, 37 etc.

      Clearly, from the above given verses Jesus never kept silent as he was “led to the slaughter”. It cannot be about Jesus.

      • The Bull says:

        Jesus was silent before his accusers. You have ignored the testimony of both Matthew and Mark.

        Mark 15: 3 “And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing. ”
        also Matthew 27:12.

        The people arresting Jesus had no real power. They were following orders. The ‘shearers’ were the officials with the power of life and death to whom Jesus was silent.

        “Such silence was wholly unusual in the forum, and demonstrated a presence and a dignity which puzzled the prefect.” (Lane)

      • rocky says:

        and luke says that he is reporting accurate history, so who do you believe, luke who claims to interview the people who got thier information from “eye witnesses” or mat and mark?

        but here is something interesting about luke
        quote:
        Luke’s final saying of Jesus, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit,” is not to be understood as having been spoken by Jesus in addition to Mark’s “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” but rather as Luke’s replacement of the Markan “cry of dereliction” with a saying more amenable to Luke’s theology. Remember in Luke’s Gospel Jesus is not scourged before his
        crucifixion; he is led straight out to crucifixion without being
        flogged first. In Luke’s Gospel Jesus has not been tortured as much as in Mark and Matthew (there is no Isaianic “by his stripes we are healed” theology in the Gentile Luke’s Gospel), and so he is depicted by Luke as being in control of his faculties even while on the cross, able to carry on a conversation with the repentant thief above. For that matter, in Luke Jesus also suffers no “agony in the garden”; unlike in Mark or Matthew, Jesus in Luke is confident until death of God’s presence and of his own innocence. Hence the Lucan Jesus couldn’t have said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” any more than the Markan and Matthean Jesus could have said, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” This is why we must be careful not to project the Jesus of one Gospel onto any other Gospel. If we do, we utterly miss each Gospel writer’s unique understanding of Jesus.
        end quote

  7. Ronald says:

    Stop beating about the bush and tell us which events before Isaiah the passage refers to. You just repeated your initial postings without answering any of my direct objections.
    Tell us when Israel has been “cut off” such that no one can ever name their descendants.

    It’s almost One in the morning, so let me reply with the Biblical interpretation of that passage later today.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You said: “Would you enlighten us of the period when there was no deceit in the whole of the nation of Israel?”
      Didn’t Jesus lie according to the New Testament? Jesus supposedly said, “And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. “And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” (Matthew 21:21-22) I’m sure you’re a true believer aren’t you? Can’t you ask in prayer that this website and others that attack Christianity be shut down forever? Don’t Christians go around praying left, right and centre for so many things and yet don’t receive? If Jesus promised his followers something and it does not come to pass does that not make him a deceiver?

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You said: “And the way you choose your words about “for our transgressions” is ridiculous.
      The word “for” CAN mean “because of” and indeed does in that passage. If I said he was expelt from school for stealing, does that not mean he was expelt from school because of stealing? Christianity teaches that Jesus was wounded because of (or for, if you like) our transgressions.”

      My reply: The translation which is used by most Christian Bibles correspond with the above. However, the preposition used is inaccurate. The word for in the verse is min in Hebrew which should be translated as from or because of. As such the Bible resource website net.bible.org explains in its footnote on the verse,” 1 tn The preposition מִן (min) has a causal sense (translated “because of”) here and in the following clause.” You may be wondering what’s the big deal? Allow me to illustrate with an example. This is for you VERSUS this is because of you. In the first instance it is as if the you is given something(perhaps a reward or gift), however in the second instance the notion of a gift or reward is totally absent and instead the idea of accusation or guilt are implied. Likewise, in the common Christian translation the idea seems to be that the person who is supposed to be Jesus dies for you(as a gift or reward for you in order to save you, offer salvation) rather than just as a consequence of what you’ve done without reward or gift. The verse also mentions that he is “crushed”! When in the world was Jesus crushed?!? It says that “by the wounds we are healed”. That does not correlate with Hebrews 9:22 which is often used as the proof text for blood atonement, “without sheeding of blood there is no atonement.” So Hebrews 9:22 says that it is the blood that atones, but Isaiah 53:5 suggests that the wounds are the source for healing. Which is it? Finally, the verses before this too is in the PAST TENSE!

    • Dr.Mustafa says:

      ANSWER TO RONALD WHAT IS “CUT OFF” IN ISAIAH 53 REFERS TO

      “For he was cut off out of the land of the living” is not to be taken as a literal description of the death of an individual. Metaphors of this type, used to describe deep anguish and subjection to enemies, are part of the biblical idiom. Similar metaphorical language is used, for example, in Ezekiel 37 to express the condition preceding relief and rejuvenation following the end of exile. Ezekiel provides the clues needed for understanding the phraseology used by Elijah. The metaphorical images employed by Isaiah are also used in Ezekiel’s description of the valley of the dry bones, where the bones symbolize the exiled Jewish people. Lost in an apparently hopeless exile, the Jewish people claim: “we are clean cut off” (Ezekiel 37:11). In reply, God promises: “And I will put My spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land” (Ezekiel 37:14). It is now clear that Isaiah’s phrase, “for he was cut off out of the land of the living,” refers to the deadly condition of exile. God will free the servant from this fate and restore him to the “land of the living,” the Land if Israel.

      Within the context of Isaiah 53 and specifically within the context of verse 8, the phrase “for he was cut off out of the land of the living,” has no special literal or metaphorical application to Jesus.

      SO BROTHER RONALD ISAIAH 53 DOES NOT POINT TO JESUS CHRIST IT IS A COMMON CHRISTIAN ASSUMPTION

      CHRISTIANS TAKE ANYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT AND SAY THIS POINTS TO CHRIST WHEREAS A SINCERE NEUTRAL READING SHOWS EXACTLY OPPOSITE

  8. terminator says:

    “verse 7, He was oppressed and afflicted,”

    does the hebrew in anyway give a clue that the person was oppressed and afflicted in his ENTIRE life? if we can prove this then compare it to jesus . the jews try to stone him , he RUNS away . does running away sound like oppressed and afflicted? when the jews send their hitmen to kill jesus, the hitmen don’t go through with their action, because jesus’ speech SAVES jesus. crowds SAVE jesus “do not kill him now otherwise the CROWDS will RIOT” oppressed and afflicted? notice how the kristians have to limit oppression and affliction to a certain point

    “he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,”

    all this is ambigious and could be interpreted to be some kind of poetical stuff. the christians want to view these words in light of the bs in the new testament i.e a stick glued to jesus’ back and mocked and beaten and made to carry his cross. but what if the original authour VIEWED “led like a lamb…” in a totally DIFFERENT way?

  9. terminator says:

    ronalge, you really think that the authour thought that yhwh was being led to his slaughter? what kinda of a disgusting mind are you reading into the authours mind?

  10. Ibn Anwar says:

    Ronaldo said: “As of now, since YOU claim it is past events being listed, YOU tell us which events these are. Ones where no one can tell of the descendants of the nation of Israel and where Israel willingly is broken and crushed for the transgressions of the world.”

    My reply: Can you please read the verses in your own Bible? Can’t you see the past tense used? I don’t have to claim that the events were supposed to have been in the past before Jesus when the verses are clearly written in that manner.

  11. Ibn Anwar says:

    Ronaldo said: “Is it indeed that the chastisement for your peace is upon Israel? Are you healed by Israel’s bruises? You must substantiate these things, unless, of course you believe the passage not to be the word of God.”

    My reply: Who is healed by Jesus alleged bruises? Christians? Jimmy Swaggart? Ted Haggard? Kent Hovind? Aren’t these Christians? How are they healed exactly? I see Christians siffering around the world just like anybody else. What healing is this that you speak of?

    • rocko says:

      brother anwar in reply to ronalges bs , i read the following view:

      You did respond to my next question, which was – where does Isaiah 53:12 say that the servant did not sin? – you responded by pointing to the fact that the servant suffered for the guilt of others, and the prophet describes the guilt of others – in a way that gives us to understand that the servant did not share in their guilt. I agree to this point – I believe that the servant did not share in the guilt of those who persecuted him – but this does not make him “without sin”. It certainly doesn’t preclude corporate Israel – both Isaiah and Micah describe Israel as righteous in contrast with the Gentile nations who persecute her – the prophet makes it clear that Israel does not share in the guilt of the nations, – although she is certainly guilty of her own sins towards God (Isaiah 26:2,13; 40:31; 49:23; 51:7; 54:17; 60:21; 62:2; Micah 7:8,9).

      To respond to the new questions you brought up – How does Israel bring healing to her persecutors with her wounds? – and how do they make intercession for their killers?

      Jeremiah commands the Jewish people to pray for the Babylonians (who killed them), and throughout history the Jewish people took this injunction seriously – to pray for their host nations – nations including Czarist Russia and medieval Spain. There is no question that God was more favorably inclined to these Jewish prayers on account of the suffering that the Jewish people endured – Psalm 34:19.

  12. Ibn Anwar says:

    Ronaldo said: “And saying that Christians regarding Jesus to have been a handsome man shows that that verse does not refer to Jesus is laughable. As a matter of fact I believe that Jesus was an ugly man in terms of physical looks. I have always said it because of that particular verse.”

    My reply:
    Well, speak for yourself Ronaldo. For centuries Christians have depicted Jesus in pictures and paintings and hardly ever is Jesus portrayed as ugly. In fact, some of those painters claim divine inspiration for their works. You may not believe them, but why sho9uld they believe you who claim that Jesus was probably ugly?

    • Ronald says:

      Christians and Muslims obviously disagree with the office of Christ, and one of the many difference is that while we believe He died for the sins of the World, the Muslims do not, so, obviously a Muslim would never take Isaiah.53 to refer to Jesus, since it does not fit his understanding of Christ. I will show how the passage is a credible prophecy of the Messiah from the Christian stand point, since that really is all I could do.

      52v14 “As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:”
      In the gospel’s account of the crucifixion, Jesus is beaten many times crowned with thorns and spat on, so conceivably, his face was disfigured.

      53v1″Who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed”.
      I will first of all address your objection that since the past tense is used it must refer to a past event. It is not necessarily so. In narration, you can use the past tense to talk about the future. The past tense is used in other prophecies in the Bible. For example in Matthew 2v15, the saying in Hosea.11v1 is quoted to refer to the Messiah. Yet it reads “I called my son out of Egypt”. Also, in Romans.1 20-21 Paul uses the past tense to prophetically talk of a future event. We read, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” And certainly the book of the Revelations, Ezekiel, etc use the past tense almost throughout. Therefore the usage of the past tense in Isaiah .53 is consistent with Biblical prophecy.

      53v1 “Who has believed our report. To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed”

      I agree with you that the arm refers to God’s salvation, or intervention. The prophet is bemoaning the fact that many will not see the arm of the LORD to save men in the ministry of Christ. That of course is the case, since most of Israel rejected him and most people including billions who are Muslim have not believed the ensuing report concerning Christ.

      v2-3 “For 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. He 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 ”
      Jesus obviously had a humble upbringing (as a tender plant) and “as a root out of dry ground” refers to the impossibility of his birth. A root can’t grow out of dry ground, as one can not be borne without a human father. It is recorded throughout that Jesus was despised by the people of his own village. He had no place to lay his head, so, he was not a very apealing person. Like I said, the verse seems to say Jesus was not very good looking, but it’s a silly debate really. Does it matter if Jesus was handsome or ugly? There is no Christian who says they know Christ was good looking (though, admittedly “beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder” to continue this joke a bit furthe). I certainly hope he was ugly, I would get one more way to identify with my Lord!

      v4 “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.”
      Obviously the Jews when they rejected Him and demanded for Him to be crucified for blasphemy, when they saw Him suffer, they considered it to be a curse from God. The Bible says “cursed is any man who hangs on a tree”. In Galatians3v13 Paul quotes this verse in Deutronomy 21v23 to expound how Jesus has been made a curse for all the world.

      v5″But 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.”

      To be continued…

    • rob says:

      the people upon jesus’ entry wanted to touch the hem of jeezuz’s clothing? mary madgalene sees an unrecognisable person who looks like an UGLY gardner? the man god in MEAT face glowed like christimas tree on the day of transfiguration lol?

  13. Ronald says:

    …continued from verse 5

    The doctrine of atonement, is that Jesus died for our sins. His sacrifice takes away the sin of the world, “Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world”. The scripture you quoted in Hebrews says we are saved by His blood (which all Christians believe) and I don’t see why the above scripture can’t refer to that. Because it mentions “stripes” instead of “blood”. Obviously blood didn’t just pop out of Him. He was beatedn and stripped. In any languages, as far as I know when we talk of bloodshedding, it refers to killing, or death. So, “we are saved by his blood” means we are saved by his death.

    v6 “All 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.”

    By saying Zacharias and Elizabeth being holy people rules out Jesus, you suggest Isaiah was an unholy person. He says “all we”. Christians believe that no one is perfect, (I think Islam too). So Zacharias and Eizabeth too had gone astray in some ways. If that is not possible, then the scripture is useless (it can’t be as it is the word of God) as Isaiah who is not lessrighteous than those two says “all we have gone astray”. Jesus says “Be perfect as your father is perfect”; “Without holiness no one shall see God” And Moses says “love the Lord your God with ALL your heart, ALL your strength and ALL your mind” And Jesus affirms that that is the greatest commandment. Do you see that that is an impossible commandment to obey? Moses did not love God with ALL of his always. He had sin, like Abraham, like Isaiah, like Zacharias, like Paul, everyone. Only Jesus ever kept that law. We are told He never sinned. I understand Islam teaches the same which is why I am amazed at the silliness of your accusation that Jesus lied. That would mean he was not sinless. And your Quran says he was, so, you prove the Quran to be false since it alleges that Jesus never sinned (unlike Muhammed who sinned left, right and center)?
    The thing is, Jesus is the only man who never sinned. And the same one, who lived in perfect righteousness, His Father poured out His wrath on Him, so that all who believe in Him to them His righteousness would be imputed (Romans 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, Galtians3, 1Corinthians, John.3, etc). That is the Biblical teaching of the Christian doctrine of propitiation and substitution.
    v7″He 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 openeth not his mouth”
    It does not mean that he literally said nothing. It just means He did not resist the oppression. He answers Pilate and Herod, to show them the flaws of their supposed justice, but not to resist them arresting Him. If you take it literally, you have an impossible task since you say it refers to the whole nation of Israel. As you say it is a past event, you must tell us when the whole nation of Israel was led to the slaughter and there was no single person who murmured anything! It is a legitmate objection, by the way since you claim it happened before Isaiah, tell us THEN what event it was! Jesus in His arrest when Peter drew His sword, Jesus commanded Him to put back the sword. He was not resistant at all to the arrest.

    v9″He 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”
    Jesus was cut off the land of the living and he has no descendants, therefore no one can declare his generation.
    This is another serious objection. You say it was the nation of Israel. If this scripture is true, then we can’t have Jews (“who shall declare His generation?”). Obviously we have the Jews, so please gracefully admit you don’t know what the scripture refers to, or substantiate that no one can declare the generation of the nation of Israel, as this verse would dictate you do!
    I already discussed that all this suffering was for the transgressions of Israel and the rest of the world.

    v9And 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

    Again this rules out Israel, since it can never be said of the nation of Israerl or any other for that matter that “there was no deceit in his mouth”.
    By crucifying Christ between two thieves, his end was plotted to be with the wicked, but he is buried in a fine sepulchure by Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy man, so the scripture is sweetly fulfilled.
    To be continued….

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You said: The doctrine of atonement, is that Jesus died for our sins. His sacrifice takes away the sin of the world, “Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world”. The scripture you quoted in Hebrews says we are saved by His blood (which all Christians believe) and I don’t see why the above scripture can’t refer to that.

      My reply: I have already addressed the issue of blood atonement at length in the following articles:
      http://unveiling-christianity......sacrifice/
      http://unveiling-christianity......-no-blood/

      The expression “we are saved by his blood” is not from Isaiah 53 so you’re totally off point.

      You said:
      By saying Zacharias and Elizabeth being holy people rules out Jesus, you suggest Isaiah was an unholy person. He says “all we”. Christians believe that no one is perfect, (I think Islam too). So Zacharias and Eizabeth too had gone astray in some ways. If that is not possible, then the scripture is useless (it can’t be as it is the word of God) as Isaiah who is not lessrighteous than those two says “all we have gone astray”.

      My reply:
      No, the verse that I cited does not only say that Zechariah and Elizabeth were just holy people. Rather it says that they are righteous before God as they have walked on all of God’s commandments doing no wrong(blameless, unblemished). The following is the verse in the original Greek:
      ησαν δε δικαιοι αμφοτεροι ενωπιον του θεου πορευομενοι εν πασαις ταις εντολαις και δικαιωμασιν του κυριου αμεμπτοι

      The keyword in that verse is ἄμεμπτοι (amemptoi) which is derived from memphomai which literally means ‘irreproachable’ and ‘morally pure’. It is because they are morally pure(perfect/blameless/irreproachable) for having followed ‘pasaias tais entolais’ (all the commandments) they are rightly described as dikaioi (righteous). There is no evidence anywhere that either Zechariah or Elizabeth went astray. The evidence that we have testifies that they were perfect. You claimed that Islam believes that no one is perfect. That is totally false. Islam believes that the prophets are perfect including Muhammad s.a.w. and the saints (awliya’) are themselves close to perfection. Christians believe that no one is perfect? I don’t put much stock in what Christians believe mate. If I did I’d be Christian. The problem with fundamentalist Christians like you is that you approach your scriptures with presumptions that are yet unsupported. You understand scripture based on an a priori assumption. That’s a fallacy. We do know that there were people that were perfect besides Jesus. I’ve already mentioned two. Another example of a perfect individual is Job who is described as perfect(tam in Hebrew) by God himself more than once in one chapter. No such example is to be found with Jesus. Then in verse 22 of Job 1 it says that ‘in all of this Job did no sin’ and in verse 5 it speaks of Job making sacrifices for others but he does not make it for himself which shows that he had no sin. So at least until up to the point in Job 1 in Job’s life he was sinless and perfect. He may have slipped later in life but by the time he’s reached the age that is found in Job one he was already an adult(able to conduct sacrifices for others). So until that point in his life which was probably more than 25 years he remained sinless. This means that man can live a sinless life as Ecclesiastes says, “God made men upright” (Ecclesiastes 7:29).

      You said:
      I understand Islam teaches the same which is why I am amazed at the silliness of your accusation that Jesus lied.

      My reply:
      I don’t believe Jesus lied but according to your scriptures he did. According to Sun Tzu, the best way for a person to win a war(battle/conflict) is to use the weapons of the enemy against him. So what i’m doing is using your own scripture to refute your own propositions. It is pitiful that you can’t comprehend the nuances of debating.

      You said:
      He says “all we”.

      My reply:
      First of all, in English as well as other languages ‘all’ is often used in a restricted sense rather than not. All usually means many or most. For example, I can say that ‘everyone knows Jesus was a good man’. No English professor(my basic degree is in language and linguistics by the way) will take exception to that statement. Further more, he will not have the understanding that I’m claiming that everyone in Africa and in the jungles of the Amazon know who Jesus is. ‘Everyone’ there is used in a general yet restricted sense. We find plenty of examples of this in scripture. For example, if you look at 1 John 2:20 it says about the believer that he knows all things (oidate pantes[you know all things]). I take it you’re a believer. Do you claim to know all things? Jesus was above believers wasn’t he? Did he know all things? No, there was at least one thing he did not know, that is, the hour as he said, “of that hour no one knows, not the angels in heaven or the son, but the Father only.” This is just one example where the word ‘all’ may not mean absolutely everything from A to Z. Likewise, when scripture suggests that all have transgressed or sin it is not actually claiming that absolutely everyone has sinned and fallen as we do find examples of those who did not, some of whom I have already mentioned. Further more, the verse is referring to a specific time period. It says, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way”. Who’s the ‘we’? Obviously, he was addressng the people of his time. The dead were not of the ‘we’ in that verse. Neither is he referring to people later in the future. The verse does not say that “all have sinned and will sin for all eternity”. It is unfortunate that Christians like you cannot even understand simple tenses.

      You said:
      v7″He 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 openeth not his mouth”
      It does not mean that he literally said nothing.

      My reply:
      Oh, now it’s not literal? But when the passage says all have sinned you take that literally. When it suits you it’s literal and when it does not it’s metaphorical. You Christians are really amusing. The verse repeats the fact that he did not open his mouth which shows that it is literal. Amazingly, you opted to quote a different translation which renders the word ‘silent’ as ‘dumb’ lol. Obviously, you realised that the rendering that I actually quoted does not support your flimsy proposition as so you sought another translation that makes it vague and thus helps you. Unfortunately, for you I can actually read the Hebrew and refute you quite easily. The word there is ‘ne’elamah’ which comes from the root ‘alam’ which literally means ‘mute’, ‘speechless’ or ‘silent’. A derivative of the same word is used in Psalms 39:9 where it says, “I became mute and did not open my mouth because you did it.” Is this metaphorical? No, it’s speaking of the fact that the person have been rendered speechless. The verse mentions the fact that the subject did not open his mouth twice and the speechlessness is emphasised further by the use of the word ‘alam’ which means silent/speechless. You have utterly failed yet again.

      You said:
      v9″He 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”
      Jesus was cut off the land of the living and he has no descendants, therefore no one can declare his generation.
      This is another serious objection. You say it was the nation of Israel. If this scripture is true, then we can’t have Jews (“who shall declare His generation?”). Obviously we have the Jews, so please gracefully admit you don’t know what the scripture refers to, or substantiate that no one can declare the generation of the nation of Israel, as this verse would dictate you do!
      I already discussed that all this suffering was for the transgressions of Israel and the rest of the world.

      My reply:
      It is evident that you have come with a preconceived assumption and you’re not dealing with the points I actually made in my article above. You’re not dealing with the facts that I have made. Let me reproduce the analyses made and the readers will be able to judge that you’ve failed miserably again.

      There is not a single Christian version of the Bible that translates the pronoun in the forth line differently than the above(NIV). They all translate it with the singular pronoun “he”. The following is the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 53:8,
      מעצר וממשפט לקח ואת דורו מי ישוחח כי נגזר מארץ חיים מפשע עמי נגע למו׃

      “meotser umimishpat lukakh veet doro mi yesokheakh ki nigzar meerets khayim mipesha ami nega lamo: “

      The pronoun in the fourth line is lamo in Hebrew. Look at the following verse carefully from Psalm 99:7,
      בעמוד ענן ידבר אליהם שמרו עדתיו וחק נתן למו׃

      “beamud anan yedaber aleihem shamru edotav vekhok natan lamo:”

      When the two verses are compared what becomes obvious is that both use the exact same pronoun i.e. lamo. Now, look at the NIV translation of Psalm 99:7,

      “He spoke to them from the pillar of cloud;
      they kept his statutes and the decrees he gave them(LAMO).”

      Can you see the game now? The deception? One moment they translate it in the singular and the next it’s plural! They translate as they please when it suits them! The following is the correct translation of Isaiah 53:8 from the Jewish Bible,

      “From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them.”

      So it’s not a “he”, but rather “them”. It is in the collective and not in the singular. It speaks of the people of Israel as a nation and not a single man god who will die for mankind.

      You said:
      v9And 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

      Again this rules out Israel, since it can never be said of the nation of Israerl or any other for that matter that “there was no deceit in his mouth”.
      By crucifying Christ between two thieves, his end was plotted to be with the wicked, but he is buried in a fine sepulchure by Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy man, so the scripture is sweetly fulfilled.
      To be continued….

      My reply:
      Joseph of Arimathea did not die and was not buried with Jesus! He made his grave with Joseph? Joseph wasn’t buried with him mister joker. Further more, you have not tried to address any of the points I made in analysing the verse! Let us reproduce my analysis for this verse again and the readers will agree with me that you’re a joker like all the Christians who have come with a brandishing finger thinking that they have the upper hand:

      Jesus was given a grave with the wicked? Last I checked he was not even buried but rather stored in a roomy chamber called a sepelchure(chamber carved out of rock) and left there ALONE. Nobody else was stored with him by Joseph of Arimathea. The verse also suggests that “he had done no violence”. According to Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15-16 and Luke 19:45 Jesus drove the people out of the temple. Did he do it by giving them sweets? Read the narratives yourself. He acted violently by overturning the tables and benches. Was there any deceit from the mouth of Jesus? The answer would seem to be yes according to Luke 23:43,”Today you will be with me in paradise.” He made this promise to one of the thieves who were exectued with him that he will be with him in paradise that very day. However, we know from John 20:17 that Jesus never ascended to heaven on that day or the day after that or even the day after that, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,’I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” Where is the Father who is God? The “Lord’s prayer” tells us succinctly that,”Our Father who art IN HEAVEN.” So did Jesus lie when he made that promise that he obviously did not fulfill? You tell me.

      In conclusion you have utterly failed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is prophesied in the verses that you have mentioned and I have totally refuted your flimsy points for all to see. Try harder.

  14. Ronald says:

    ….From verse 9
    v10″Yet 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.”

    The biblical teaching is that the Father Himself gave His own Son to death, so that all who believe Him, his offering would take away their sins, and thus reconcile them to God. Jesus says “God so loved the world that He gave His Only Son that WHOSOEVER believes in Him would not perish but have eternal life” (John.3:16). And again; “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father” (John.10v17-18).
    According to the Bible, no one takes away Jesus’ life. He lays it down of His own right for His sheep. It is a convenant of redemption He has made with the Father.
    All men have sinned against God and thus can not come to His presense (be PERFECT as your Father is perfect). We all have earned the wrath of God to abide on us. He will punish all sin forever (Exodus .34v7). All men have no hope, EXCEPT that God sends His Son and takes responsibility for the sins of the world. He lives righteous but submits Himself to death on a tree- a cursed death, and God pours all the wrath that all of us deserve on His Only Son, the One who alone pleased Him in all His ways. The punishment for our sins is undergone by Jesus, and the righteousness that we must provide (be PERFECT), Jesus provides, so that all we who are terrible sinners, if we put our hope in the finished work of God’s Son, His righteousness is accredited to us, Him providing the perfectness that God demands from all men. That is the gospel according to the Bible. That is why it is good news. That rebels like all people have been are justified by the perfectness of God’s own Son.
    That is the pleasure of God, and it only prospers at the hands of Jesus Christ as this verse in Isaiah 53.10 says.

    v11″He 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.”

    Though Christ has been rejected by many, many others have believed in Him, and all Christians are the travail of His soul and when He sees us reconciled to God, He is satisfied that His sacrifice was not in vain.

    v12 “Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors”
    Again, please tell us when Israel “bore the sins of many” and “made intercession for the transgressors”.
    This scripture shows of the glory that Christ must enjoy for His labours. We the Christians worship him and sing His praises. That fulfills this scripture.

    Obviously you do not agree with the gospel of Christ according to the Bible, but that passage is consistent with the Biblical Christ. I believe I have shown how.
    You allege that it refers to a past event before Isaiah.
    The onous is on you to tell us WHICH EVENT? It is a legitmate objection, and unless you can substantiate your claims, admit, you do not know what it refers to!

    So, substantiate the event this scripture refers to, one where all of Israel is led to the slaughter without a single person murmuring, where Israel is cut off such that no one can declare their generation, where God makes Israel an offering for our sins, one where Zacharias and Elizabeth are holy people but Isaiah is not.
    Or better; pray that God would reveal to you the meaning of the passage. And, if God should show you Christ, I hope you would run to Him for mercy and stop waving your fist at Him.

    To the Praise of the Glory of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      It is really sad that this joker thinks that he’s got something when in fact he’s just regurgitating the same old stuff that conservative Christians put forward without actually addressing any of the points that I made. The fact that he has failed to actually refute any of my points shows that he is a failure as a Christian defender.

  15. heathcliff says:

    ronald, do you believe that your gods flesh and blood is HOLY?
    does that mean that your lord in meat skin on private part was also holy?
    ronald , when jesus was bleeding and battered on the cross `who among the people recognised the bleeding and battered jesus as god in carnate?

    ronalge, where exactly was god seated in jesus’ meat?
    how does God become known by manifesting himself in creation and taking on human ATTRIBUTES?

    When you meet somebody, is your relationship based upon his character, his attributes, i.e. how he acts, or his actual essence?

    tell us ranalge, tell us

    ronalge, how can you not be a polythiest ? remember that you have to VIEW god in light of his ACTIONS in meat/flesh walking and crapping like human being . you know god ONLY through history and see god in HUMAN terms.

    you have an IMAGE of god everyday in your christian POLYTHIESTIC mind, so how can you be faithful to the torah when it sez MAKE NO IMAGE of god? Yet you kristians ALWAYS have IMAGE of gods MEAT in your mind doing THINGS what NORMAL humans do .

  16. Ronald says:

    I do not know if it is due to some technical problem (highly doubt that to be the case), but, for some reason my reply has not been posted.

    Your theme Sura is “produce your proof if you are truthful”; and when I just did as your sacred book says to me to do, you will not post my comments though there is no offensive language or anything of the sort that I wrote.
    It is highly unlikely that you will post this comment either, to make it appear that I could not answer your objections, or worse, come clean on my promise to “reply with the Biblical interpretation of that passage later today.”
    The truth is too hard to handle, is it not? Why do your sacred writings demand we present proof, if you will not let us present it?
    If you are going to unveil christianity, be truthful to the record of it, so that true Christianity will be unveiled,-that which turns rebels to God, than conveniently devise schemes of your own version of our faith, yet not let us speak for what we believe.

    No wonder the only account of Christians you have on your page is of those who hit out at you and unreasonably present themselves. You prefer for Christians to be that way, and block those who contend for the faith in sincerity and earnestly, yet demand that we do! Shame on you.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      You assume too much. Some of us actually have lives to attend to Ronald. You have just committed false witness Ronald. What does the Bible say about making false witness?
      A truthful witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies. (Proverbs 14:5)
      A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will not go free. (Proverbs 19:5)
      A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will perish. (Proverbs 19:9)
      A false witness will perish, and whoever listens to him will be destroyed forever. (Proverbs 21:28)

      According to the Bible you are a deceiver, you will perish, you will not go free and whoever listens to you will perish. Why do Christians always condemn themselves?

  17. rocky says:

    QUOTE:

    Unfortunately, christians seem to be incapable of conversing in normal language and have a tendency to invent their own language (“christianese”), assigning special meanings to commonplace words that have little or nothing to do with those words’ meanings in normal usage. They do this particularly in the cases of the verb “to save” (and also the related nouns “saviour”—one who saves—and “salvation”—the act of saving) and the noun “grace”.

    The corresponding Hebrew words לְהוֹשִֽׁיעַ l’hoshiya (to save) and חֵן ḥén (grace) cannot be used in the way that “save” (etc) and “grace” are used in christianese without sounding totally ridiculous.

    he word “save” too, which in Hebrew simply means “rescue” from danger—typically by engaging in physical combat (fighting) with an assailant who is assaulting the person being “saved”.

    In the T’nach, “saving” is almost always associated with “fighting” or “waging war”…. I refer you to any or all of the following examples:

    •”Just stand still and you’ll see Adonai’s salvation that He is going to do for your today….” (Sh’mot 14:13)

    •”Adonai saved Yisraél from Egypt’s power that day….” (Sh’mot 14:30)
    •”Adonai set up a saviour for Yisraél—Otniyél ben K’naz, Kalév’s younger brother….” (Shoftim 3:9)
    •”Adonai set up a saviour for them—Éhud ben Géra the Binyamini, who had a deformed right hand….” (Shoftim 3:15)
    •”….and he, too, saved Yisraél….” (Shoftim 3:31)
    •”If You will save Yisraél through my hand, as You have spoken….” (Shoftim 6:36)
    •”….you didn’t save me from them….
    and, when I saw that you hadn’t saved me….” (Shoftim 12:2-3)
    •”Adonai saved Yisraél that day….” (Sh’muél Alef 14:23)
    •”….so David saved the inhabitants of K’ilah….” (Sh’muél Alef 23:5)
    •”Adonai is my Light and my Salvation—
    Whom should I fear?
    Adonai is the fortress of my Life—
    Whom should I dread?
    If evil men approach me
    To devour my flesh—
    [When] my adversaries and my enemies [attacked] me—
    Wow! They stumbled and fell!
    If an army encamps against me
    My heart will not be afraid;
    If war breaks out against me—

    On this [assurance] I can rely!” (T’hillim 27:1-3)The above verses (and these are only a selection—there are many, many more) demonstrate how the verb save and nouns saviour, salvation are used in the T’nach, which is nothing like the way christians use them….

    END QUOTE

    moshayiah = a sAvIour

    ihoshayiah = to sAve

    now where in the tanakh does it prophecies about a moshayiah who will ihoshaiah from sin/spiritual danger ?

    moshayiah = a sAvIour

    ihoshayiah = to sAve

    quote:

    In the T’nach, “saving” is almost always associated with “fighting” or “waging war”….

    the christian says he is saved

    saved from what?

    from gods wrath i.e hell fire

    how is he/she saved from gods wrath?

    god sacrificed himself to himself.

    where in the torah does a moshiyah inflict pain upon himself to free /save individuals who are captured by the enemies?

    according to christian theology, sin killed god.

    christians continue to SIN, so clearly they are not saved from sin

    it is hell fire they claim to be saved from

    just find one example,in torah, where a substitue who is called a moshiah who receives punsihment , saves from REAL DANGER.

    the jew wrote:

    typically by engaging in physical combat (fighting) with an assailant who is assaulting the person being “saved”.

    end quote

    I CHALLENGE RONALGE TO FIND ONE PLACE IN THE TANACK were god would CREATE MEAT AND BLOOD, hide in it, get it screwed BLUED and tatooed and THEN TELL the people tHAT they are SAVED in A SPIRITUAL WAY. WHERE did the TANAKH ever say THAT THE messiahs MEAT and BLOod (WAS THE meat /blood ANOTHER ETERNAL god or was it CREATED) will SAVE jews NOT IN A LITERAL BUT SPIRITUAL way? SHOW US where it said that.

    SUCH AN EMBARRASMENT is jesus’ screwed , blued and tatooed flesh and blood on the cross that christians like RONALGE are awaiting thier saviour god to ACT more messiah LIKE in the future LOL

    even according to your new testament the post ressurected jeezuz was A COWARD and wasn’t even recognised he dressed up as a GARDNER. why, was he afraid of his KILLERS?
    was he afraid that if he got caught he would be finnished once and for all?

    THIS is absolutely NOT MESSIAH like

    i tell you why
    QUOTE:

    The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as “mashiach ben David” (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15).

    quote:

    and what was jesus ronalge? jesus was GOVERNED by the jews AND NO jew saw him as messiah , yet tanakh says he will be A LEADER and this means he would win the hearts of jews, yet jesus was KILLED by the jews. your god was inspiring others to KEEP the jewish laws?

    ronalge here is another bomb on your head

    the Messiah will make a sin-offering FOR himself, not of himself, AND also for ALL the people of Israel:

    Ezekiel 45:22(JPT) – And the prince shall make on that day for himself and for all the people of Israel a bull for a sin-offering.

    The Messiah will make this sacrificial sin-offering on behalf of himself and his people

    sin offering is a mitzvah

    it has specific requirements

    and one of those is that the one offering one for himself needs to have done something that requires it, otherwise not only is he doing the mitzvah in vain, he is actually committing a sin, namely, the killing of an animal for nothing – violating the mitzvah of tza’ar ba’alei chayim.

  18. rocky says:

    “EXCEPT that God sends His Son and takes responsibility for the sins of the world. He lives righteous but submits Himself to death on a tree- a cursed death, and God pours all the wrath that all of us deserve on His Only Son, the One who alone pleased Him in all His ways. The punishment for our sins is undergone by Jesus, and the righteousness that we must provide (be PERFECT), Jesus provides, so that all we who are terrible sinners, if we put our hope in the finished work of God’s Son, His righteousness is accredited to us, Him providing the perfectness that God demands from all men. That is the gospel according to the Bible. That is why it is good news. That rebels like all people have been are justified by the perfectness of God’s own Son.
    That is the pleasure of God, and it only prospers at the hands of Jesus Christ as this verse in Isaiah 53.10 says.

    v11″He 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.” ”

    CUT the christian Bull s hit. your god sent laws which he knew WOULD not help the jews because he knew that it would be very difficult for them to keep and he (your god) didn’t think about sending laws which were very difficult to break. so he sent him self in created meat and blood. god created meat and blood and had the other god called the father send himself in 100 % created meat and blood. god the father told god the son to hide in `100 % meat of jesus the 100 % man.

    god then PUNISHED his created meat by allowing the PAGAN romans to screw , blue and totatooe his meat and then finally nailed to a cross

    but the romans couldn’t TOUCH the god who was HIDING in the meat.

    it was the father who DID cosmic CHILD abuse to the son by turning away from his son god. so god the father PUNISHED god the son . the romans punished the MEAT , the father PUNISHED the cosmic version of the son god. the father DID NOT DESTROY THE SOUL of the son god in HELL , judas’ FLESH AND SOUL will be destroyed in HELL, this means JUDAS will SUFFER MORE AND FEEL billions time more FORSAKEN then the son god.

    i am baffled AT how you christians can read all your crappy THEOLOGY in MURDER OF A jew . jesus was MURDERED and you got to REINTERPRET murder of jesus .you can see gods in your trinity forsaking each other
    you can see your god spending time in hell
    you can see him REWARDING himself by seating him self on the right hand of the father lol.

    i ask you people how does a god pour his wrath on himself in anyway affect me and the BILLIONS of humans? lets assume that your god was BURNT TO death or STARVED to death , what does the RAPE of the flesh in anyway AFFECT my spiritual WORLD? haven’t we seen MASACRES and killings and rapes ect ? so what is the big deal in god doing it to himself to please himself so that he could COOL down?

    how does someone BEATING the s h it out of himself REALLY work for people in 2011? WHY VIOLENCE? WHY the need of VIOLENCE WHEN there are 1000 alternatives? why a person needs to CUT HIMSELF with a BLADE TO COOL down or get a HIGH? is this whY THE christian god UTILISED violence to go on a high?

    GOD ALMIGHTY takes OUT hundreds and thousands of PEOPLE in tsunami and HE can takee people out in the most horrible way.

    ronalge wants to put hope in the murder of his god
    he is telling the people to put hope in a blasphemer who according to paul was a CURSE.

    NOW THE TORAH says that it IS A GOOD THING TO PUT blasphemer on a TREE and he DIED an ACCURSED DEATH. IT IS GOOD according to the torah. god then decides to die CURSED death WHICH in jewish EYES WOULD BE A GOOD THING
    BECAUSE their torah TELLS them that a BLASPHEMOUR IS SINNER AND EVIL in gods EYES .

    god is submitting himself to death even though he is omnipresent and is submitting himself to death because he desperately wants to taste the feeling of hi s own creation i.e HELL HELL HELL HELL

    .
    christians HAVE TURNED BLASPHEMIES into good things. the pagan romans HELPED them in many ways

    “we tried to save god in flesh, we even gave the jews a choice to free god, but the jews are evil and wanted gods blood and meat ”

    and from thereon you can see the blasphemy playing from ronalges mouth.

    god the son can work his FLESH to reward himself with heaven and other rewards , but when a sincere human TRIES his best , his works are compared with gods works on the cross and god says sorry not good enough

    this is SELFISH

  19. Ronald says:

    When my comments would not be posted for a long time, it was my natural conclusion, but, fair enough, you are busy, and since you posted later, for me that’s enough. I apologise for making assumptions about you that were incorrect, but, I hope you would realise it is all in good faith. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and, good on you, my comments are posted. Now I hope you would also be at least as gracious to withdraw your assumptions that I hit out at you out of malice.It is just not the case.

    I think I should make clear where I come from. I am not a theologian at all. I can not read the Greek or Hebrew. I am only a student of something completely different (Civil Engineering), so, of course, in an intellectual debate with someone of your scholarship, I am probably only a “joker”.
    All this notwithstanding, it’s not reasonable for you to dismiss my objections on this account alone, especially if they are legitimate. I am not regurgitating “fundamental Christian fables” as you allege. I don’t even know what exactly is “fundamental Christianity” to you. My “regurgitation” is from the teaching of the Bible. You can not say that what I say is not attested to by Christian Scripture. You can find them to be laughable like Rocky obviously did, which is understandable as I would also probably find the Islamic Q’ran to be laughable. Like Paul says in 1 Corinthians.1:18, the message of the cross is always going to be foolishness to some, and offensive to others, but to us who believe it is the power of God.
    Rocky will only see Christ for meat and blood, and God going to hell (I don’t know where he gets all that), but, to me, to consider that there was absolutely no way I could see God as He is perfectly Holy and I perfectly unholy, and from the testimony of Scripture understand that my damnation was justified, and that God, though He would still have been absolutely just if He sent me to Hell which I earned, YET He intervened, and sent His Son, the only delight of His soul, so that hell bound sinners like all men have been ( I don’t care whether you think Abraham or Moses or Isaiah or Daniel or Mohammed earned their place with God, the thing is that the best of their works is still like filthy rags when compared to the infinitely Holy, infinitely righteous supremacy of God- the same God who demands that men must be perfect, or they will never see Him. Do you really believe any of the prophets were “perfect” by God’s standard?); when I consider that God would have been right to damn me, but because of His infinite love and mercy gave His Only Son who debased Himself and became a man (or “meat” according to Rocky), and lived like a man yet without sin, and on the same He poured out all His wrath that should be mine, so that God would impute His righteousness to me (Psalms.32, Romans.4) and I would be considered perfect (the doctrine of justification) so I can know that I will see Him and gaze at His beauty all the days of my life–to me that is not a message of blasphemy, but of indescribable love.

    Back to our debate, it really looks that we both continue making assertions according to what we read in the same writings. I presume you believe those words in Isaiah.53 to be the word of God. I gave the Christian interpretation of the same, showing how the revelation of Christ is consistent with the prophesy. I say the fulfillment of the prophesy was in Christ Jesus, you say the passage refers to a past event involving the nation of Israel. The only common ground for us is you tell me which event (how many times do I have to ask this?) Since you claim it happened before Isaiah, it is only reasonable you tell us which event it is. You must tell us why we still have the Jews yet the Scripture says no one will declare his (or “their” for you) generation. Especially since you take “as a sheep that is before her shearers dumb” (or silent, or mute, I don’t see the difference by the way) to be literal, please substantiate THE EVENT when Israel were all slain and they were all literally silent (or mute, or dumb).
    And as Isaiah is Jewish, yet says “all we have gone astray”(it does not matter whether you take it to be metaphorical or literal, if he says “all we”, he obviously includes himself) “and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all”. As Isaiah is Jewish, who does he refer to by “the iniquity of us all”? Do you really believe that Israel were cut off the land of the living because of the sins of other nations (or themselves also, as Isaiah is saying)? If you do, you have an unbelievable task to explain why we still have a people that were “cut off” and of whose generation the prophet asks “who can declare it?”You seem to be able to affirmatively answer the prophet’s rhetorical question. You are probably a great scholar, but if you can answer what God says you can’t, we have on our hands a seriously phenomenal scholar in you! I mean God says (according to you), “Who can declare the generation of the nation of Israel that I cut off out of the land of the living?” And, apparently, we all can answer back to God, since we still have people who are the descendants of Jacob. It’s an objectionable fallacy.

    Or, maybe you don’t believe that Isaiah.53 is the word of God at all.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Thank you for being gracious enough to admit your error and make amends for it. I didn’t really mind it personally to tell you the truth. My response was simply to show you that what you did is vehemently condemned by your own book. In fact, the verses that I cited and there are plenty of others like them does not excuse a person for his false witness even if he did it out of ignorance. But we’ll not belabor the point on that. Let’s move on.

      You said:
      Like Paul says in 1 Corinthians.1:18, the message of the cross is always going to be foolishness to some, and offensive to others, but to us who believe it is the power of God.
      Rocky will only see Christ for meat and blood, and God going to hell (I don’t know where he gets all that)

      My reply:
      Well, the cross and the significance that is attached to it by Christians is indeed foolishness. I have proven this in many of my articles and replies to comments by Christians the The Bull above. In fact, I have dealt with the subject of crucifixion in a lengthy article here http://unveiling-christianity......ucifixion/. In addition, I have proven that God does not require blood in order to be able to forgive someone:
      http://unveiling-christianity......sacrifice/
      http://unveiling-christianity......-no-blood/

      The following are some of be rational objections to the soteriology that that ascribed to the cross that have remain unanswered by Christian theologians:
      1. How can a most loving God require or demand the blood of an absolutely innocent person so as to let free and reward an absolutely guilty and sinful person? Does such a concept stand in the real world? Imagine there’s a judge presiding over a case of 5 murderers and rapists who have raped 50 women and killed all of them. The judge is disgusted by the crimes committed, but he offers a way out for them anyway for some strange reason. The offer is this: “You are all guilty of heinous crimes, but if you accept my son’s sacrifice you will be saved”. The judge then calls the bailiff(like Roman centurions) to go and fetch his 7 year old innocent son from home(children are innocent and guiltless according to Jesus, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”(Matthew 18:3)) to appear before the court. The innocent little child loves his father so much and is very obedient and the father loves him so much too. But for some weird reason he loves the criminals so much too(John 3:16) and so he says to the son, “My Son, I love you but now you have to die for those men who raped and killed 50 women.” The son wants to be obedient but he’s frightened and so he drops to his knees and says, “Father, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as you will”. The Father turns aside and ignores his son’s agonising pleas. The Father then allows the bailiff to take the innocent child out into the busy street and crucify him on a traffic light to die a horrible and painful death. The son in his pain cries out loud, “my father, my father, why have you forsaken me?!?!?”. The father hears his son’s cry, but simply ignores him. Rather, he now turns his utmost attention to the criminals and say this to them, “Do you accept my son’s sacrifice for you?”. The criminals loving life and not wanting punishment answered yes. The father then smiles, give each of them a kiss on the cheek and say, “Go now my beloved children. You are free and you can enter into my house as your sins are now gone and I love you.” Tell me honestly, would you as an individual accept such a scenario? If you were an honest and reasonable person you will say no. In fact, the whole world rejects such a perverted idea. No guiltless child can ever be made to pay for the crimes and sins of another! The concept that you’re trying to sell here essentially says if someone has fever he should not take the necessary medication to relieve himself, rather someone else should take it for him. It is utterly nonsensical. Ezekiel 18 is very clear on who should pay for one’s sins, that is, the person himself and not another.
      2. John 3:16 says that God(the Father) loves the world so much that he gave his son(Jesus). Does the Father love the world more than the son that He would let and plan His son’s own horrible and atrocious demise for the world? If the Father loved the son more than the world would He not have felt like saving the son from even the smallest pain as any loving Father would??
      3. Does the son love the world more than the Father that he is the one who dies in order to supposedly save them? Does not the Father not love the world more or equal to the son? If so, would He not have offered Himself instead of letting His son do it?
      4. If the Father actually loved His son beyond everything would He not have done all that is in His power to save him? Would a loving father shove his son into the path of a moving car to save a baby stranded in the middle of a road or would he go himself if that was the only option?
      5. Matthew 20:28, 1 Timothy 2:6 and other such verses tell us that the death of the son was a ransom for many. The keyword there is ‘ransom’. I take it you know what ransom means. But in case there are those who are not that familiar with the meaning of the word, allow me to clarify. Ransom means to take hold of something in order to gain something else and upon gaining that something else the thing which was held(usually against the subject’s’ will) is released. For example, A kidnapper kidnaps a child from his family and demands a ransom. Upon payment of the ransom the child may be released by the kidnapper. Let us now return to the idea of Jesus being a ransom. According to many early church fathers, Satan held the world in his clutches and so God gave His son as a ransom to alleviate mankind’s state of affair. This concept is despicable on a number of levels. Above all else, it depicts Satan as one who is on equal bargaining ground with God who created him. This is unacceptable and ridiculous. Some modern day Christians prefer to relegate the ‘ransom’ issue to God. That God ransomed Himself. This is unacceptable based on the fact that God is supposed to be loving and not cruel. In addition, if God was all powerful there is no need to pay a ransom to Himself for He owns everything. How can He pay Himself something when in fact everything is already His from the beginning of creation? It makes no sense at all to say that ransom is paid to God by Himself so that men may be saved. So who was the ransom for and was there no other way to pay then through the shedding of the blood of a completely innocent person?
      6. What is the point of repentance if Jesus paid the full price? Repentance will be rendered meaningless if some kind of full payment is already paid and simply accepting that payment lets you off.
      7. Is there forgiveness from God anymore after the alleged blood atonement/payment? How can there be forgiveness anymore after the full price has been paid? It means that God has exacted the full toll and now there is no need to forgive. True forgiveness means to forgive someone without demanding something in return. Why do you like to portray God as Shylock? God is out for a pound of flesh? What an absurd concept! Can you imagine a loving person named John who has been wronged by someone named Jim. People know that one of John’s prominent characteristics is love and forgiveness. But John refuses to accept John’s apology. John will not forgive Jim unless he pays him with something valuable. John says, “I’ll forgive you only if you give me one million dollars. If you can’t give me one million dollars then I was your little child’s blood. If you can’t give me your little child’s blood then you can go to my house and give me my own little child’s blood”. What barbaric doctrines are you giving God?

      Please answer the above contentions many of which have been raised by Christian scholars themselves in numerous publication e.g. ‘The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views’

      Where did Rocky get the idea of Jesus going to hell? It’s from the Apostle’s Creed which is one of the earliest Christian creeds in existence and read in churches all over the world today during mass. The creed says that Jesus, “descendit ad inferos” meaning ‘descended into hell/fire’.

      You said:
      Back to our debate, it really looks that we both continue making assertions according to what we read in the same writings.

      My reply:
      No, I am not simply making assertions. I’m proving my points with clear scriptural references and linguistics analyses. Even if the passage isn’t about Israel, that does not make it about Jesus. If you prove that Isaiah 53 isn’t about Israel(and you haven’t actually done so) that does not mean that it now is legitimately about Jesus. You have not dealt with a single one of my points with regards to Jesus being incompatible with the descriptions given in the passage. None of the points I made in reply to your previous comments have been addressed. The inability to actually address them tells volumes.

      • Ronald says:

        Your interpretation of the atonement minus the dramatisation, is not that far off from biblical teaching.
        I will go about it in a gentle manner and this is how;

        First of all God is perfectly holy (I think we agree on that). he gave the Torah to Moses, and as the greatest commandment; “love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your strength”. This, Jesus affirms to be the greatest commandment ever. This means every heartbeat of man that is not to the glory of God is apostate;- my point is, it is an impossible law to obey. God says through Jesus, “be perfect as your father is perfect”. It is a command from the Father and is not about men being good, but perfect “as the Father is perfect”. It is a commandment impossible for anyone to obey. It is God’s standard for holiness required for every man “without which no one will see God”. Therefore no one can see god, as,and I think you would admit no one is perfect the same way the Father is perfect; and even the most devout men with great piety (think Moses, or Daniel);- none of them loved God with ALL of their heart, strength, soul always. That means we all have broken the greatest commandment and are thus guilty of the greatest sin. Even if we don’t go all those lengths, you probably agree that our ways are far from God’s, and as he says in the Psalms, that He has “looked upon the whole earth to see if there is any who does right, who follows after God and there is none, not ONE”. You say a merciful and loving God can forgive the sins of men without demanding payment for it, but I couldn’t disagree more and here is how;

        Suppose a thug attacked your house at night and killed all who are dear to you but you somehow survived. If the same were dragged to court and the judge determined that the fellow was guilty, but said “because I am merciful and loving, I will forgive the thug”, you would not agree that the judge is indeed loving and merciful. A loving and merciful judge MUST deliver justice. God is judge of the world, and if He is a good judge, He will not let evil go unpunished (as He promises in Exodus .34 verse 7). Therefore man’s greatest problem is not that God is not forgiving, but that God is good and just. That is our biggest problem because, while God is good and right in all things, none of us are. We hate abortion, simply for the reason that we love babies. We hate war and famine simply for the reason that we love humanity. We despise disease simply because we love health. If you love good, you must hate what is contrary to good. I can not say that I love babies if I support abortion. And if I said I don’t care about genocide, I could not at the same time say I love humanity. Similary God can not say He is good (which He says He is) if he tolerates evil. A good God must hate evil. He loves, but He loves good, which none of us are, and BECAUSE He is good, He must hate us since we are contary to good. As the judge of the world, if he is to be a good and just judge, he has to condemn all of us since all of have aggravated His law.
        This is how Christ comes in; All mankind have earned the full wrath of God to be upon them on account of our sins, and the Judge of the world knows we must pay for our sins, and that by eternity in hell. God’s demands are such that we can not pay and the curse for our inability to pay is such that no man can bare. Christ says to this God, such is my compassion for these miserable souls, that than they die, I will be responsible for them as their surety (or ransom). And the Father knows that the price we must pay is have His wrath on us forever, and there is no way our curse can go away without the appeasing of His wrath, yet the same Father because of His great mercy and compassion makes a convenant of redemption with His Only Son, the Only delight of His soul, the Only one who ever pleased Him as He wants to be pleased; God sends Him to earth to be as men and suffer the humiliation of men and die on a tree, on which the wrath of God is poured out in full on Him, so that the justice God demands from men is perfectly met.

        So, why could not God just forgive men? Because being God, He is just and as he has promised He will not let the sins of men go unpunished. Why does he not declare men right without demanding they repent? Because christ died so that we could be God’s people rather than being people of our own desires and of the world. He actually redeemed us, therefore we must turn to Him by faith. This “turning to God by faith” is what is meant by repentance.
        Do we suggest that Satan has bargaining power that God has to redeem us from him? No. The Bible does not teach that we are redeemed from Satan. It says, to “turn children’s heart back to their father’s”, and Paul in Galatians chapter 3 talks of Christ being the intermediary between us and God. We are reedemed from God’s wrath for His glory and the delight of knowing Him.
        Why wouldn’t the Father Himself die for our sins? Remember Christ is One with the Father (I know it is blasphemous with you), and He is the greatest delight of His soul. So God gave His utmost best. It was much more painful for the Father to pour wrath on His Son than if He had undergone it Himself.
        Why for sinners and criminals in His own righteous law? Yes, why, o why? That is why Christians sing of blessed grace. That God who should condemn us as vile disobedient creatures as all of us have been, that he would give His utmost delight to save meaningless rebels like us. It is a mystery and one that causes to “look on Him who was pierced” and prostrate fall at the glory of His unending mercy, the supremacy of His indescribable grace that He would give His Only delight for His enemies. I know I would not do it for my friends, but God does it for His enemies.
        Is that blasphemous, or does it show the unsearchable ends of God’s indescribable grace?
        I pray that as you unveil christianity, God would really unveil the gospel to your heart.

        This diverged from the original debate, but since you addressed atonement, I have taken the pleasure to make known to you the blessedness of that doctrine.

  20. Ibn Anwar says:

    The Bull said:
    Jesus was silent before his accusers. You have ignored the testimony of both Matthew and Mark.

    Mark 15: 3 “And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing. ”
    also Matthew 27:12.

    The people arresting Jesus had no real power. They were following orders. The ‘shearers’ were the officials with the power of life and death to whom Jesus was silent.

    “Such silence was wholly unusual in the forum, and demonstrated a presence and a dignity which puzzled the prefect.” (Lane)

    My reply:
    Have you actually read the gospels? He answered nothing? Mark 15:3 contradicts Matthew 26:64 where he clearly answered something. Further more, John 18:20-21 clearly has Jesus replying to them saying, “I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.”

    “Such silence was wholly unusual in the forum, and demonstrated a presence and a dignity which puzzled the prefect.” (Lane)
    What in the world is the above nonsense? The prefect obviously refers to Pilate. Was Pilate puzzled by Jesus’ silence? where exactly does it say that in the narratives? The following refutes this Lane’s absurdity:
    “Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”
    “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?” Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
    Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” “What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.” (John 18:33-38)

    No, Jesus wasn’t silent at all. He opened his mouth and spoke time and again throughout the whole affair according to the narratives.

  21. Ronald says:

    I can not see how you keep on saying i did not address your contentions why the passage does not refer to Christ yet I wrote how it refers to Christ verse for verse.

    Your contention that it can’t refer to Jesus since it is in the past, I answered that the past tense is used elsewhere in other prophesies.

    Your contention that Jesus was handsome as opposed to the ugly figure proposed in verse 3, you can not prove he was handsome. Anyways, “he had no beauty nor majesty”, does not necessarily refer to His looks. It could mean that he was regarded unimportant, not paid credible attention, which happened as the Pharisees and Scribes thought he was a joker and the friend of tax collectors. Since you maintain that the passage is about Israel, I would think you can’t take it literally as you seem to be doing, since I don’t think that the whole nation of Israel here described were ugly.

    About Him being a “man of sorrows”, Jesus was by far and large a sorrowful person. He was rejected most of the times, and even His own family would not believe Him.

    Verse 8; “From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them.”
    Since I don’t understand the Hebrew language I am not able to say why it is translated “befell him” in our scriptures, but, I don’t see how your translation rules out Christ. It would only be refering to the state of the Jewish people for their transgressions. As you maintain that the passage refers to Israel, you must tell us who are God’s people in this passage on the account of whom a plague befell Israel.

    “Buried with the rich”. Do you take this to mean that the nation of Israel when they were cut off for the seasons of other God’s people, that they were literally buried with another rich people? I don’t think you believe that. I can’t see why it is not acceptable to you that “with the rich in his death” (or “buried with the rich” in your version) means his death was like a rich man’s death (body handled withd dignity and laid behind the sepulchure).

    I do not say that you not being able to prove that the passage refers to Israel therefore means it refers to Christ by default, but my contention is that you categorically tell us how it refers to Israel.

    I have asked throughout this debate WHICH EVENT does this passage refer to? You have not answered that at all. You are not able to. Therefore your claim that it refers to Israel is refuted (or if not, then , I ask again, tell us the event, since it is a past event). I think that is the only way to go about the passage. I say the prophesy is of Christ and the events are His ministry of atonement for the sin of the world which happened about 2010 years ago at Calvary. You say it refers to Israel and my question is WHEN? (since you say it is a past event). This is a question you must answer or admit you can not prove it refers to Israel.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Stop digressing to Israel and stick to actually proving your alleged claim that the chapter is about Jesus. You have not addressed any of the points that I have made in response to your weak attempts. I have already said that even if the chapter isn’t about Israel that does not result in it being about Jesus. I am not obligated to prove to you who exactly it’s about as I do not take oath on the Bible and who told you that everything in the Bible has to make sense to any person? If you think that everything in the Bible makes sense, then explain to me the exact meaning of the word SELAH which occurs numerous times in the Old Testament. That’s just one word. Explain it to me will you?

    • Dr.mustafa says:

      ANSWER TO” GRAVE SET WITH WICKED AND RICH”

      The suffering servant’s “deaths” as well as the description of his subsequent revival are metaphors for the fortunes of Israel. The phrases “for he was cut off out of the land of the living” (verse 8), “his grave was set” (verse 9), and “in his deaths” (verse 9) are not to be taken literally. The metaphor “his grave was set” describing an event in the life of God’s suffering servant, is similar to the statement, “for he was cut off out of the land of the living” (verse 8). Metaphors of this type, used to describe deep anguish and subjection to enemies, are part of the biblical idiom. Similar metaphorical language is used, for example, in Ezekiel 37 to express the condition preceding relief and rejuvenation following the end of exile. Ezekiel provides the clues needed for understanding the phraseology used by Isaiah. The metaphorical images employed by Isaiah-”cut off out of the land of the living” and “grave”-are used in Ezekiel’s description of the valley of the dry bones, where the bones symbolize the exiled Jewish people. Lost in apparently hopeless exile, the Jewish people exclaim: “we are clean cut off” (Ezekiel 37:11). In reply, God promises: “And I will put My spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land” (Ezekiel 37:14). It is now clear that Isaiah’s phrase, “for he was cut off out of the land of the living,” refers to the deadly condition of exile. Similarly, the term “grave” in Isaiah-”And his grave was set with the wicked”-refers to life in exile as used in Ezekiel: “I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves” (Ezekiel 37:12), where “graves” is a metaphor for the lands of exile.

      The messages of these two prophets are addressed to God’s suffering servant. The sovereign national entity was destroyed but the Jewish people survive, albeit in exile from which God will restore them to their land. Although “cut off out of the land of the living” and now living in the lands of exile, the “grave set with the wicked,” God will free the servant from this fate and restore him to the “land of the living,” the Land of Israel. That Isaiah speaks in the singular and Ezekiel in the plural is of no consequence, for the people of Israel may be spoken of in both forms (for example, Exodus 14:31, Psalms 81:12-14).

      Paralleling “grave set with the wicked” is the phrase “with the rich in his deaths.” “Rich” here refers to the powerful men and institutions of the Gentile nations among whom the personified people of Israel are exiled.

      “And his grave was set with the wicked” describes an imposed fate and not something accepted voluntarily by the servant. Furthermore, this was not a literal death, as the servant was alive when “his grave was set” (cf. Genesis 30:1; Exodus 10:17; Numbers 12:12; 2 Samuel 9:8, 16:9; Jonah 4:9 for examples of figurative death). This verse informs us that despite the imposed fate of exile, Israel continued to be faithful to God. Accordingly, Israel is to afterwards enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice. The phrase “in his deaths” signifies that the suffering servant of the Lord experienced figuratively many “deaths” in exile. His anguish was multiplied exceedingly by the constant harassment of his enemies. Jewish history shows us how often Israel, hounded by its enemies, seemed to be in its last throes only to rise again.

      ANSWER TO “CUT OFF FROM THE LAND OF LIVING”

      “For he was cut off out of the land of the living” is not to be taken as a literal description of the death of an individual. Metaphors of this type, used to describe deep anguish and subjection to enemies, are part of the biblical idiom. Similar metaphorical language is used, for example, in Ezekiel 37 to express the condition preceding relief and rejuvenation following the end of exile. Ezekiel provides the clues needed for understanding the phraseology used by Elijah. The metaphorical images employed by Isaiah are also used in Ezekiel’s description of the valley of the dry bones, where the bones symbolize the exiled Jewish people. Lost in an apparently hopeless exile, the Jewish people claim: “we are clean cut off” (Ezekiel 37:11). In reply, God promises: “And I will put My spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land” (Ezekiel 37:14). It is now clear that Isaiah’s phrase, “for he was cut off out of the land of the living,” refers to the deadly condition of exile. God will free the servant from this fate and restore him to the “land of the living,” the Land if Israel.

      ANSWER TO “AND HIS LIFE HISTORY WHO WAS ABLE TO RELATE”

      The translation of dor, which is generally rendered as “generation” is to be understood here as meaning “life’s history” or “life’s cycle.” What is involved here is not just the suffering servant’s life-span but the entire spectrum of events contained within those years. This is similar to the use of dor in Isaiah 38:12, where Hezekiah speaks of how he felt about what was believed to be his imminent passing: “My life’s cycle [dori] is pulled up and carried from me as a shepherd’s tent.” He bewails not just his expected loss of life but all that he could still accomplish if allowed to live. Isaiah 53:8 quotes the repentant Gentles as asking, in effect, the rhetorical Question: Who is able to properly relate all the trials and tribulations suffered by the servant during his passage through history?

      Within the context of Isaiah 53 and specifically within the context of verse 8, the phrase “for he was cut off out of the land of the living,” has no special literal or metaphorical application to Jesus.

  22. rocky says:

    “Rocky will only see Christ for meat and blood, and God going to hell (I don’t know where he gets all that),”

    yes, your protestant krist didn’t give up anything for humanity. god so loved the world that he created flesh and blood , hid in it, got it murdered, cooled down, became happy and now he won’t apply his wrath unto humanity only if they believe that he murdered himself. if they don’t believe he murdered himself he will murder the peoples flesh and soul in hell. this is like a sick sadist who cuts himself with a blade to receive pleasure.
    how does god allowing CREATED meat to get ABUSED by roman hands HELP your spiritual world?

    “but, to me, to consider that there was absolutely no way I could see God as He is perfectly Holy and I perfectly unholy, and from the testimony of Scripture”

    your unholy pagan trinitarian god needs to be examined closely
    how does an ill person with severe skin disorder GAIN perfection?
    since your god filled jesus’ meat, why didn’t he fill adams meat? is your god UNABLE to make 100 % sinless PERFECT human being? does he always NEED to hide in CREATED meat for it to be PERFECT? but tell me, how does an ILL PERSON with SEVERE disability attain perfection?
    HOw does the ENVIROMENT one is BORN into HELP him/her attain perfection? God knows all of the problems sinful enviorments can create for children who GROW up and yet he STILL EXPECTS perfection? the same GOD who placed in man desires AND EMOTIONS expects PERFECTION from them?

    but lets see testimony of scripture

    QUOTE:

    In Hebrew culture, it has never been considered sufficient merely to say that one feels remorse for having done something wrong and that one is “sorry” for having done it. The Torah prescribes that, on Yom Kippur, when we come together as a community to “repent” and seek forgiveness for all the wrongs we have done in the preceding year, we are to “make our bodies suffer” (Vayikra 16:31, 23:27, 23:32; B’midbar 29:7), a term that means fasting (abstaining from both food and drink). Prayer is also implied, because fasting without prayer is both meaningless and pointless. In Biblical times fasting was accompanied by the symbolic act of dressing in sacking, which is coarse and uncomfortable, and also very unattractive. By making these sacrifices (using that word in a very loose and general sense) the penitent demonstrates his remorse in a very practical way, and they are far more meaningful “sacrifices” than slaughtering an ox or a goat that never did anyone any harm.

    It will be seen from the passage from Yonah quoted above that the people of Nin’veh adopted all these practices: their king ordered them to abandon their wicked behaviour, to fast, and to dress in sacking, and to pray for forgiveness. He himself even went one step further, humbling himself by “rising from his throne and sitting on ashes”. Verse 9 shows that he didn’t even know for sure whether their “repentance” would “save” them (Who knows, perhaps God will relent and change His mind…), but the following verse states clearly that it did, and that it was their practical demonstration of remorse that led to them being forgiven: “And when God saw their deeds – that they had returned from their evil ways…”

    END QUOTE

    BELIEF ACCOMPANIED WITH SINCERE DEEDS
    = FORGIVENESS

    so all this just DESTROYS ALL your lies about PERFECT god needing to ABUSE his flesh to appease /please himself

    “understand that my damnation was justified, and that God, though He would still have been absolutely just if He sent me to Hell which I earned,”

    you EARNED hell , NOT THE sincere people who learn from their mistakes and try thier best to stay sincere in all situations and GOD is the one who GUIDES TO THE PATH.

    ” YET He intervened, and sent His Son, the only delight of His soul, so that hell bound sinners like all men have been ”

    how does your god HIDING in meat 2000 years ago help the people in the year 2011? i see absolutely NO help at all.
    it is only a selfish act for god to make himself happy an act which does not help humanity at all. if i fried your face in an oven, how does that act help me? feel guilty? well if feeling of guilty was good , then why did god kill himself? because according to your theology feeling guilt does not IMPRESS god. doing repentance? if repentance was good quality repentance then according to your theology god was not IMPRESSED, he killed himself because repentance of human means nothing to him.

    see what this means? you christians believe in some puny “sacrifice” /murder and thats all god requires of you because repentance or guilt can not help you AT ALL.

    “Do you really believe any of the prophets were “perfect” by God’s standard?); when I consider that God would have been right to damn me, but because of His infinite love and mercy gave His Only Son who debased Himself and became a man (or “meat” according to Rocky),”

    DEBASED him? did he RIP out the sons divine attributes? did he destroy the sons SOUL in hell fire? did he FRY his meat in the desert? i’ve seen on t.v a LOT WORSE done to innocent children and you compare that with your gods appeasement?

    “and lived like a man yet without sin, and on the same He poured out all His wrath that should be mine, ”

    this is funny man. so you have 3 gods in the trinity each one co-equal and each one can “POUR out wrath” so if god pours his wrath unto himself then would you call that SELF ABUSE? lol?

  23. rocky says:

    “Like Paul says in 1 Corinthians.1:18, the message of the cross is always going to be foolishness to some, and offensive to others, but to us who believe it is the power of God”

    BECAUSE his message is the message of worshipping DEATH AND DESTRUCTION. the jews saw their brothers DESTROYED on crosses WHAT makes you think they would not get angered when paul claimed that yhwh was HUNG on a cross? wouldn’t that piss people off?

    about you said that according christian theology there is nothing you can do as a human to get you in heaven.

    you as a human and your deeds are s hit and so is your LIFE sh it.
    now lets see

    your god see womans period blood when you do your deeds

    now i understand why you evil people go around bombing people and commiting rAPE of children in your churches

    “its already been paid for ” you tell yourself because nothing you can do REPENTANCE FEELING OF GUILT can help you because your repentance and guilt is like period of woman in gods eyes.

    so you are dependant on a claim that god was BUTCHERED and died and you USE thAT escuse every time to feel BETTER.

    Now i understand why your religion is period BLOOD of woman

    THIS WORLD WAS NOT CREATED SO THAT god could kill himself BY DOING his DEEDS ON A cross, this world was created to TEST PEOPLE their faith and to see those who sincerely try thier best to avoid sin

    are the disbelievers and believers =?
    NO

  24. rocky says:

    blood obsessed christians EXPOSED

  25. richardrichie says:

    if you don’t know hebrew grammar then why don’t you keep quite ?

    quote:

    Ezekiel 14:14,20(JPT) – (14) Now should these three men be in its midst-[namely] Noah, Daniel, and Job – they would save themselves with their righteousness, says the Lord God.

    (20) And Noah, Daniel, and Job are in its midst, as I live, says the Lord God, if they will save a son or a daughter; they with their righteousness would save themselves.

    Did you also notice how Ezekiel points out that they would save themselves, i.e., without the need for the blood of an intercessor/savior “saving them”?

    Two different forms of the root verb נצל (nun-tsadi-lamed) are used in the two passages:

    - At Ezekiel 14:14, the phrase is יְנַצְּלוּ נַפְשָׁם (y’natsLU nafSHAM).
    - At Ezeloe; 14:20, the phrase is יַצִּילוּ נַפְשָׁם (yaTSIlu nafSHAM).

    In v. 14, the form is a conjugation of the verb in the plural 3rd-person, future tense, in the pi’EL stem (the active intensive form of the Hebrew verb).

    In v. 20, the form is also a conjugation of the verb in the plural 3rd-person, future tense, except it is in the hif’IL stem (the active causative form of the Hebrew verb).

    Regardless of these grammatical differences, in both cases the meaning is basically that [they] will rescure themselves [from a calamity; unlike the Christian application of "to save {someone from 'hell'}"]. The message here is that each of them was saved from some punishment of their time – Noah was saved when the earth was destroyed by the Flood; Daniel was saved when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by the Babylonians; Job underwent a difficult ordeal, but was later reestablished because he refused to curse God.

    The verb is used many times throughout the Hebrew Bible. Only once in the form and context as in v. 14, and seven times in the form at in v. 20 – 1Samuel 12:21, Isaiah 47:14, Ezekiel 14:16, 18, 20(x2), 2Chronicles 32:15.

    Causative Mood

    In the causative mood and active voice the subject of the verb causes the action of the verb – “Jacob caused him to cut a tree.” In the causative mood and passive voice, the action is caused to be imparted on the subject of the verb – “Jacob was caused to be cut.” Each of these verb forms also have a name.

    Causative active – hiphil

    Causative passive – hophal

    Intensive Mood

    The intensive mood intensifies the action of the verb. When the verb is used in the intensive it may be translated as “slashed.” “Jacob slashed a tree” is intensive mood and active voice and “Jacob was slashed” is the intensive mood and passive voice.

    end quote

    oh no, ronald, seems like christianity received another deadly knock out punch.

    it was NOT ONLY noahs FAITH but his SINCERE/ righteous works which HELPED save NOAH .

  26. ROCKY says:

    “Suppose a thug attacked your house at night and killed all who are dear to you but you somehow survived. If the same were dragged to court and the judge determined that the fellow was guilty, but said “because I am merciful and loving, I will forgive the thug”, you would not agree that the judge is indeed loving and merciful. A loving and merciful judge MUST deliver justice. God is judge of the world, and if He is a good judge, He will not let evil go unpunished (as He promises in Exodus .34 verse 7). ”

    suppose thomas RAPES 6 WOmen
    if the raped women say that they are happy to take thomas’s PUNISHMENT wouldn’t you think the WOMEN NEED to see a psychiatrist?
    not only they are RAPED but the ALSO want to RECEIVE punishment for rape.

    Let’s imagine that the rapist thomas has a twin brother who happens to be arrested by the police and put in jail by MISTAKE. The innocent twin is beaten up by the inmates and is paralyzed. The guilty twin is devastated and he is not only remorseful for his act of rape but he feels terrible because it has resulted in the suffering of his innocent brother. Would the prosecutor be willing to drop charges against the GUILTY brother? How could the suffering inflicted upon the innocent twin pay the price for the crime committed by the guilty twin, even though the guilty twin is now suffering due to the harm inflicted on his innocent brother? It seems at best this could result in sympathy for the the twins but it could not satisfy the penalty owed by the guilty twin.

    if your GUILTY THEN YOU GOTTA PAY the price no matter how many times a pagan god HIDES IN FLESH , receives MALTREATMENT by pagan romans, FORSAKES himself and then cools DOWN.

    But wait

    there is something else

    god can create MANY lEVELS of punishment in HELL for the sinners, SO NOT ONLY HE CAN FORGIVE but HE CAN punish as well to help /cleanse the SINNER.

  27. Ibn Anwar says:

    Ronald wrote:
    Your interpretation of the atonement minus the dramatisation, is not that far off from biblical teaching.
    I will go about it in a gentle manner and this is how;

    First of all God is perfectly holy (I think we agree on that). he gave the Torah to Moses, and as the greatest commandment; “love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your strength”. This, Jesus affirms to be the greatest commandment ever. This means every heartbeat of man that is not to the glory of God is apostate;- my point is, it is an impossible law to obey. God says through Jesus, “be perfect as your father is perfect”. It is a command from the Father and is not about men being good, but perfect “as the Father is perfect”. It is a commandment impossible for anyone to obey. It is God’s standard for holiness required for every man “without which no one will see God”. Therefore no one can see god, as,and I think you would admit no one is perfect the same way the Father is perfect; and even the most devout men with great piety (think Moses, or Daniel);- none of them loved God with ALL of their heart, strength, soul always. That means we all have broken the greatest commandment and are thus guilty of the greatest sin. Even if we don’t go all those lengths, you probably agree that our ways are far from God’s, and as he says in the Psalms, that He has “looked upon the whole earth to see if there is any who does right, who follows after God and there is none, not ONE”. You say a merciful and loving God can forgive the sins of men without demanding payment for it, but I couldn’t disagree more and here is how;

    Suppose a thug attacked your house at night and killed all who are dear to you but you somehow survived. If the same were dragged to court and the judge determined that the fellow was guilty, but said “because I am merciful and loving, I will forgive the thug”, you would not agree that the judge is indeed loving and merciful. A loving and merciful judge MUST deliver justice. God is judge of the world, and if He is a good judge, He will not let evil go unpunished (as He promises in Exodus .34 verse 7). Therefore man’s greatest problem is not that God is not forgiving, but that God is good and just. That is our biggest problem because, while God is good and right in all things, none of us are. We hate abortion, simply for the reason that we love babies. We hate war and famine simply for the reason that we love humanity. We despise disease simply because we love health. If you love good, you must hate what is contrary to good. I can not say that I love babies if I support abortion. And if I said I don’t care about genocide, I could not at the same time say I love humanity. Similary God can not say He is good (which He says He is) if he tolerates evil. A good God must hate evil. He loves, but He loves good, which none of us are, and BECAUSE He is good, He must hate us since we are contary to good. As the judge of the world, if he is to be a good and just judge, he has to condemn all of us since all of have aggravated His law.
    This is how Christ comes in; All mankind have earned the full wrath of God to be upon them on account of our sins, and the Judge of the world knows we must pay for our sins, and that by eternity in hell. God’s demands are such that we can not pay and the curse for our inability to pay is such that no man can bare. Christ says to this God, such is my compassion for these miserable souls, that than they die, I will be responsible for them as their surety (or ransom). And the Father knows that the price we must pay is have His wrath on us forever, and there is no way our curse can go away without the appeasing of His wrath, yet the same Father because of His great mercy and compassion makes a convenant of redemption with His Only Son, the Only delight of His soul, the Only one who ever pleased Him as He wants to be pleased; God sends Him to earth to be as men and suffer the humiliation of men and die on a tree, on which the wrath of God is poured out in full on Him, so that the justice God demands from men is perfectly met.

    So, why could not God just forgive men? Because being God, He is just and as he has promised He will not let the sins of men go unpunished. Why does he not declare men right without demanding they repent? Because christ died so that we could be God’s people rather than being people of our own desires and of the world. He actually redeemed us, therefore we must turn to Him by faith. This “turning to God by faith” is what is meant by repentance.
    Do we suggest that Satan has bargaining power that God has to redeem us from him? No. The Bible does not teach that we are redeemed from Satan. It says, to “turn children’s heart back to their father’s”, and Paul in Galatians chapter 3 talks of Christ being the intermediary between us and God. We are reedemed from God’s wrath for His glory and the delight of knowing Him.
    Why wouldn’t the Father Himself die for our sins? Remember Christ is One with the Father (I know it is blasphemous with you), and He is the greatest delight of His soul. So God gave His utmost best. It was much more painful for the Father to pour wrath on His Son than if He had undergone it Himself.
    Why for sinners and criminals in His own righteous law? Yes, why, o why? That is why Christians sing of blessed grace. That God who should condemn us as vile disobedient creatures as all of us have been, that he would give His utmost delight to save meaningless rebels like us. It is a mystery and one that causes to “look on Him who was pierced” and prostrate fall at the glory of His unending mercy, the supremacy of His indescribable grace that He would give His Only delight for His enemies. I know I would not do it for my friends, but God does it for His enemies.
    Is that blasphemous, or does it show the unsearchable ends of God’s indescribable grace?
    I pray that as you unveil christianity, God would really unveil the gospel to your heart.

    This diverged from the original debate, but since you addressed atonement, I have taken the pleasure to make known to you the blessedness of that doctrine.

    My reply:
    NONE OF THE ABOVE ANSWERS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING THAT I RAISED:
    1. How can a most loving God require or demand the blood of an absolutely innocent person so as to let free and reward an absolutely guilty and sinful person? Does such a concept stand in the real world? Imagine there’s a judge presiding over a case of 5 murderers and rapists who have raped 50 women and killed all of them. The judge is disgusted by the crimes committed, but he offers a way out for them anyway for some strange reason. The offer is this: “You are all guilty of heinous crimes, but if you accept my son’s sacrifice you will be saved”. The judge then calls the bailiff(like Roman centurions) to go and fetch his 7 year old innocent son from home(children are innocent and guiltless according to Jesus, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”(Matthew 18:3)) to appear before the court. The innocent little child loves his father so much and is very obedient and the father loves him so much too. But for some weird reason he loves the criminals so much too(John 3:16) and so he says to the son, “My Son, I love you but now you have to die for those men who raped and killed 50 women.” The son wants to be obedient but he’s frightened and so he drops to his knees and says, “Father, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as you will”. The Father turns aside and ignores his son’s agonising pleas. The Father then allows the bailiff to take the innocent child out into the busy street and crucify him on a traffic light to die a horrible and painful death. The son in his pain cries out loud, “my father, my father, why have you forsaken me?!?!?”. The father hears his son’s cry, but simply ignores him. Rather, he now turns his utmost attention to the criminals and say this to them, “Do you accept my son’s sacrifice for you?”. The criminals loving life and not wanting punishment answered yes. The father then smiles, give each of them a kiss on the cheek and say, “Go now my beloved children. You are free and you can enter into my house as your sins are now gone and I love you.” Tell me honestly, would you as an individual accept such a scenario? If you were an honest and reasonable person you will say no. In fact, the whole world rejects such a perverted idea. No guiltless child can ever be made to pay for the crimes and sins of another! The concept that you’re trying to sell here essentially says if someone has fever he should not take the necessary medication to relieve himself, rather someone else should take it for him. It is utterly nonsensical. Ezekiel 18 is very clear on who should pay for one’s sins, that is, the person himself and not another.
    2. John 3:16 says that God(the Father) loves the world so much that he gave his son(Jesus). Does the Father love the world more than the son that He would let and plan His son’s own horrible and atrocious demise for the world? If the Father loved the son more than the world would He not have felt like saving the son from even the smallest pain as any loving Father would??
    3. Does the son love the world more than the Father that he is the one who dies in order to supposedly save them? Does not the Father not love the world more or equal to the son? If so, would He not have offered Himself instead of letting His son do it?
    4. If the Father actually loved His son beyond everything would He not have done all that is in His power to save him? Would a loving father shove his son into the path of a moving car to save a baby stranded in the middle of a road or would he go himself if that was the only option?
    5. Matthew 20:28, 1 Timothy 2:6 and other such verses tell us that the death of the son was a ransom for many. The keyword there is ‘ransom’. I take it you know what ransom means. But in case there are those who are not that familiar with the meaning of the word, allow me to clarify. Ransom means to take hold of something in order to gain something else and upon gaining that something else the thing which was held(usually against the subject’s’ will) is released. For example, A kidnapper kidnaps a child from his family and demands a ransom. Upon payment of the ransom the child may be released by the kidnapper. Let us now return to the idea of Jesus being a ransom. According to many early church fathers, Satan held the world in his clutches and so God gave His son as a ransom to alleviate mankind’s state of affair. This concept is despicable on a number of levels. Above all else, it depicts Satan as one who is on equal bargaining ground with God who created him. This is unacceptable and ridiculous. Some modern day Christians prefer to relegate the ‘ransom’ issue to God. That God ransomed Himself. This is unacceptable based on the fact that God is supposed to be loving and not cruel. In addition, if God was all powerful there is no need to pay a ransom to Himself for He owns everything. How can He pay Himself something when in fact everything is already His from the beginning of creation? It makes no sense at all to say that ransom is paid to God by Himself so that men may be saved. So who was the ransom for and was there no other way to pay then through the shedding of the blood of a completely innocent person?
    6. What is the point of repentance if Jesus paid the full price? Repentance will be rendered meaningless if some kind of full payment is already paid and simply accepting that payment lets you off.
    7. Is there forgiveness from God anymore after the alleged blood atonement/payment? How can there be forgiveness anymore after the full price has been paid? It means that God has exacted the full toll and now there is no need to forgive. True forgiveness means to forgive someone without demanding something in return. Why do you like to portray God as Shylock? God is out for a pound of flesh? What an absurd concept! Can you imagine a loving person named John who has been wronged by someone named Jim. People know that one of John’s prominent characteristics is love and forgiveness. But John refuses to accept John’s apology. John will not forgive Jim unless he pays him with something valuable. John says, “I’ll forgive you only if you give me one million dollars. If you can’t give me one million dollars then I was your little child’s blood. If you can’t give me your little child’s blood then you can go to my house and give me my own little child’s blood”. What barbaric doctrines are you giving God?

    Ronald wrote:
    First of all God is perfectly holy (I think we agree on that). he gave the Torah to Moses, and as the greatest commandment; “love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your strength”. This, Jesus affirms to be the greatest commandment ever. This means every heartbeat of man that is not to the glory of God is apostate;- my point is, it is an impossible law to obey.

    My reply:
    Why do you misquote Jesus? Jesus said the most important commandment of all is “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is one.” It is only after this do we find the commandment to “love God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”
    You claim that it is impossible for anyone to live up to this law. But I have already proven that it is not so. Zechariah and Elizabeth were described as irreproachable(memphomai) due to the fact that they FOLLOWED ALL THE COMMANDMENTS DOING NO WRONG (Luke 1:6).

    Ronald wrote:
    It is a commandment impossible for anyone to obey… I think you would admit no one is perfect the same way the Father is perfect; and even the most devout men with great piety (think Moses, or Daniel);- none of them loved God with ALL of their heart, strength, soul always.

    My reply:
    I have already stated time and again that Zechariah and Elizabeth both followed all the commandments. Have you not read about David? David is described as one who was chosen by God, a man who was after God’s own heart (After removing Saul, he made David their king. He testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.’(Acts 13:22)). It also says that David a man after God’s own heart will do EVERYTHING I want him to do. That necessarily implies that David would have heeded the most important precepts ordained by God including loving Him with all His heart and soul. Is it impossible for a man to be perfect before God? You claim that it is. Clearly, you have not read the Bible well enough. I have already told you about Job and like a heedless imp you prod along as if I haven’t informed you of him. Look the the following description given to Job:
    “And Jehovah said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? for there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and turneth away from evil.”(Job 1:8)
    Job in this verse is described by God Himself as perfect. And this is repeated again and again as if once was not enough!
    “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and turned away from evil.” (Job 1:1)
    “And Jehovah said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? for there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and turneth away from evil: and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.” (Job 2:3)
    And in verse 22 of chapter 1 the following description is given to him:
    “In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.”
    Consider also verse 5:
    “When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would send and have them purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular custom.”
    In this verse we see that Job offers burnt sacrifice for his children in thinking that they might have sinned or cursed God in their hearts. The verse shows that he LEAVES HIMSELF OUT of the service. What does that imply? That necessarily implies that his heart was pure and totally devoted to God so that he does not require sacrifice like his children did.
    The whole chapter followed by chapter 2 seem to be about the perfection displayed by Job as testified by God Himself. There isn’t a single chapter where Jesus is described as perfect by God more than once. The point is up till chapter 2 in Job’s life when he was already a grown and mature man he remained faultless and perfect in God’s estimation. This means that the Christian hypothesis that all men are sinners without exception is starkly at odds with their own scriptures.

    Ronald wrote:
    Suppose a thug attacked your house at night and killed all who are dear to you but you somehow survived. If the same were dragged to court and the judge determined that the fellow was guilty, but said “because I am merciful and loving, I will forgive the thug”, you would not agree that the judge is indeed loving and merciful. A loving and merciful judge MUST deliver justice. God is judge of the world, and if He is a good judge, He will not let evil go unpunished (as He promises in Exodus .34 verse 7)

    My reply:
    Ronald, I have already posted several articles that specifically deal with God forgiving people without requiring any kind of blood sacrifice. Why are you so heedless and blind? In the book of Jonah chapter three, an entire nation of people that God has decided to punish harkened to God’s warning and repented in sack cloth and ashed(there was not a single blood that was shed). Seeing what they did God changed His mind and did not destroy them, meaning that He forgave them simply for their sincere repentance. What you fail to understand is that God can punish a person in accordance with his actions then after he has served his dues he may be forgiven by a Merciful and Loving God. What you fail to understand is that God can rectify the evils committed by anyone hence affirming His justice whenever and wherever He so wishes. For example, if a thief stole 100 dollars from you and the thief goes scott free without any worldly punishment in the hereafter if God decides not to punish the thief that does not mean He is unjust. In God’s divine wisdom and justice God can pay what you had lost in the world a million times over and so you would be so overjoyed that your mind would not linger on what offense committed against you by the thief and so God can forgive theif and remain Just all the same. God would punish the sinner as Ezekiel 18 clearly states, not the innocent for the sinner. Such a concept is not only perverse and barbaric, but also utterly nonsensical and ludicrous as I have illustrated. None of what you have said answered any of the points I raised concerning the rational objections against the soteriology attached to the cross.

    Ronald wrote:
    Similary God can not say He is good (which He says He is) if he tolerates evil. A good God must hate evil

    My reply:
    What you do not understand is that everything is in God’s plan. Evil is an instrument which God uses and implements according to the Bible. Haven’t you read it?

    “Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.’ “(Isiah 45:7, Young’s Literal Translation)

    “Doesn’t evil and good come out of the mouth of the Most High?” (Lamentations 3:38, World English Bible)

    “For the one living in Maroth is waiting for good: for evil has come down from the Lord to the doorways of Jerusalem.” (Micah 1:12, Bible in Basic English)

    You would agree that Pharoah was an evil person who opposed God right? Who do you think inspired and led Pharoah to such a state of being? Look at the following verses:
    The LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.”(Exodus 4:21)

    “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt.”(Exodus 7:3)

    “But the Lord hardened Pharoah’s heart, and he would not let them go.”(Exodus 10:27)

    “Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh; yet the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the sons of Israel go out of his land.”(Exodus 11:10)

    You have sadly inherited the strange idea that there is an ongoing onslaught between good(championed by God) and evil(championed by Satan). Satan is under God’s power and command. He does not and cannot do anything without God’s allowance. The idea of a cosmic battle between light and darkness, good and evil has its roots in gnosticism which was long ago discarded by mainstream Christianity as heretical. Why do you cling to a belief system that is antithesis to reason and scripture?

    The above however does not mean that God treats good and evil on equal terms. You need to understand that God’s supremacy transcends and overshadows all. You need to understand that nothing is out of God’s control. You need to understand that this world is a test. If a professor provides an set of exam questions with multiple choice answers the student cannot blame the professor of wrongdoing and misguidance for providing false answered side-by-side with the correct one. If you can appreciate and comprehend this simply analogy that you’d know what i’m trying to convey to you here. If you refuse and do not wish to understand it then you are totally lost and it is sad indeed.

    Ronald wrote:
    Why wouldn’t the Father Himself die for our sins? Remember Christ is One with the Father (I know it is blasphemous with you), and He is the greatest delight of His soul. So God gave His utmost best. It was much more painful for the Father to pour wrath on His Son than if He had undergone it Himself.

    My reply:
    Clearly, you don’t even understand the Trinity which you’re supposed to believe in. In fact, in the above quotation you have soundly refuted yourself. You said that “it was much more painful for the Father to pour wrath on His Son…” So the Father was not there in or with Jesus when he was allegedly on the cross because the Father poured His wrath on HIM and NOT on THEM. In my previous response I cited the verbal cry from Jesus whereby he cries out to the Father, “My God, my God why have you forsaken me”. Any child will understand that he is addressing someone other than himself. In fact, standard Christian teaching teaches that the Father DID NOT go to the cross. It was only the Son. The Father is a distinct person apart from the Son who is another person and the Holy Spirit is yet another person. Each of those persons cannot substitute or replace the position of another or become the other. To say that the Son is the Father is to commit the modalist or monarchist heresy. Don’t you know these? Why do Muslims have to teach Christians their own theology? You claim that it was much more painful for the Father to pour wrath on His son that if He had undergone it Himself…This again is bulletproof shooting in the foot on your part. In this statement of yours you are admitting that HE DID NOT UNDERGO what Jesus went Himself! Don’t you see your own ridiculousness? It amazes me always in spite of how common it is to see Christians contradicting themselves in the same sentence or paragraph. Further more, where is the scripture evidence that says that the Father felt pain for pouring His wrath on Jesus. God feels pain? God suffers? Can you show me one verse in the whole Bible(s) where it says the Father felt pain for Jesus’ alleged suffering more than if He had gone Himself?

    Every reader will be able to see that just like The Bull, and other Christians who have tried to defend the basic creeds of Christianity in this domain have utterly failed to do so. Every reader can see that Ronald has failed to address a single one of the following:

    1. How can a most loving God require or demand the blood of an absolutely innocent person so as to let free and reward an absolutely guilty and sinful person? Does such a concept stand in the real world? Imagine there’s a judge presiding over a case of 5 murderers and rapists who have raped 50 women and killed all of them. The judge is disgusted by the crimes committed, but he offers a way out for them anyway for some strange reason. The offer is this: “You are all guilty of heinous crimes, but if you accept my son’s sacrifice you will be saved”. The judge then calls the bailiff(like Roman centurions) to go and fetch his 7 year old innocent son from home(children are innocent and guiltless according to Jesus, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”(Matthew 18:3)) to appear before the court. The innocent little child loves his father so much and is very obedient and the father loves him so much too. But for some weird reason he loves the criminals so much too(John 3:16) and so he says to the son, “My Son, I love you but now you have to die for those men who raped and killed 50 women.” The son wants to be obedient but he’s frightened and so he drops to his knees and says, “Father, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as you will”. The Father turns aside and ignores his son’s agonising pleas. The Father then allows the bailiff to take the innocent child out into the busy street and crucify him on a traffic light to die a horrible and painful death. The son in his pain cries out loud, “my father, my father, why have you forsaken me?!?!?”. The father hears his son’s cry, but simply ignores him. Rather, he now turns his utmost attention to the criminals and say this to them, “Do you accept my son’s sacrifice for you?”. The criminals loving life and not wanting punishment answered yes. The father then smiles, give each of them a kiss on the cheek and say, “Go now my beloved children. You are free and you can enter into my house as your sins are now gone and I love you.” Tell me honestly, would you as an individual accept such a scenario? If you were an honest and reasonable person you will say no. In fact, the whole world rejects such a perverted idea. No guiltless child can ever be made to pay for the crimes and sins of another! The concept that you’re trying to sell here essentially says if someone has fever he should not take the necessary medication to relieve himself, rather someone else should take it for him. It is utterly nonsensical. Ezekiel 18 is very clear on who should pay for one’s sins, that is, the person himself and not another.
    2. John 3:16 says that God(the Father) loves the world so much that he gave his son(Jesus). Does the Father love the world more than the son that He would let and plan His son’s own horrible and atrocious demise for the world? If the Father loved the son more than the world would He not have felt like saving the son from even the smallest pain as any loving Father would??
    3. Does the son love the world more than the Father that he is the one who dies in order to supposedly save them? Does not the Father not love the world more or equal to the son? If so, would He not have offered Himself instead of letting His son do it?
    4. If the Father actually loved His son beyond everything would He not have done all that is in His power to save him? Would a loving father shove his son into the path of a moving car to save a baby stranded in the middle of a road or would he go himself if that was the only option?
    5. Matthew 20:28, 1 Timothy 2:6 and other such verses tell us that the death of the son was a ransom for many. The keyword there is ‘ransom’. I take it you know what ransom means. But in case there are those who are not that familiar with the meaning of the word, allow me to clarify. Ransom means to take hold of something in order to gain something else and upon gaining that something else the thing which was held(usually against the subject’s’ will) is released. For example, A kidnapper kidnaps a child from his family and demands a ransom. Upon payment of the ransom the child may be released by the kidnapper. Let us now return to the idea of Jesus being a ransom. According to many early church fathers, Satan held the world in his clutches and so God gave His son as a ransom to alleviate mankind’s state of affair. This concept is despicable on a number of levels. Above all else, it depicts Satan as one who is on equal bargaining ground with God who created him. This is unacceptable and ridiculous. Some modern day Christians prefer to relegate the ‘ransom’ issue to God. That God ransomed Himself. This is unacceptable based on the fact that God is supposed to be loving and not cruel. In addition, if God was all powerful there is no need to pay a ransom to Himself for He owns everything. How can He pay Himself something when in fact everything is already His from the beginning of creation? It makes no sense at all to say that ransom is paid to God by Himself so that men may be saved. So who was the ransom for and was there no other way to pay then through the shedding of the blood of a completely innocent person?
    6. What is the point of repentance if Jesus paid the full price? Repentance will be rendered meaningless if some kind of full payment is already paid and simply accepting that payment lets you off.
    7. Is there forgiveness from God anymore after the alleged blood atonement/payment? How can there be forgiveness anymore after the full price has been paid? It means that God has exacted the full toll and now there is no need to forgive. True forgiveness means to forgive someone without demanding something in return. Why do you like to portray God as Shylock? God is out for a pound of flesh? What an absurd concept! Can you imagine a loving person named John who has been wronged by someone named Jim. People know that one of John’s prominent characteristics is love and forgiveness. But John refuses to accept John’s apology. John will not forgive Jim unless he pays him with something valuable. John says, “I’ll forgive you only if you give me one million dollars. If you can’t give me one million dollars then I was your little child’s blood. If you can’t give me your little child’s blood then you can go to my house and give me my own little child’s blood”. What barbaric doctrines are you giving God?

    In conclusion, the soteriology value ascribed by Christians to the cross is absurd and nonsensical to the human mind.

  28. ROCKY says:

    “Why wouldn’t the Father Himself die for our sins? Remember Christ is One with the Father So God gave His utmost best. It was much more painful for the Father to pour wrath on His Son than if He had undergone it Himself.”

    carrying on inventing your lego god as you like. explain something here,
    the father was POURING his wrATH ON the sons ESSENSE? fathers wrath was POURED on son gods omniscience and omnipresence? what was the holy spirit doing? was he councilling the father because the father was suffering from severe depression when he was watching himself pouring his wrath on his son who happens to have same bits the father has? or was the spirit god playing tiddlywinks with the father and he (spirit god) also feeling severe depression?

    or did both the spirit god and the father god TOGETHER pour their wrath on the son and then FELT very PAINFUL for pouring thier wrath on the son lol?

    if the son had DONE over the father would he (the son) FEEL very painful for watching himself pour his rath on the father?

    so lets see

    i grab a child off the street and start to CUT into his flesh for my satisfaction

    which fool will say that it was MUCH more painful for me to watch my self cut the child then under go it myself?

    you gotta undergo to KNOW

  29. rocky says:

    i just realised something which destroys christianity once again. in torah can the jews offer any LAMB to god? no, they have to offer a lamb which is off GOOD QUALITY. now to get GOOD QUALITY EFFORT IT REQUIRED . MEANING YOUR DEEDS OF LOOKING AFTER THE ANIMAL AND FEEDING IT ECT IS WHAT GIVES THE QUALITY

    Now do you see that it is EFFORTS AND DEEDS OF THE human?

  30. rocky says:

    ronaldo said something about LOVING God with all your heart and soul

    tell me something, how does believing in the death of his god HELP him love his god with all his heart and soul?

    Isaiah 29:13 – And the Lord said: “Because this people has come near [Me], and with its mouth and with its lips has honored Me, but has drawn its heart far away from Me, and its fear of Me has become a commandment of men that was learned by rote.

    do you christians really think that childish act of your god by doing over his created MEAT helps you to be SINCERE people when the sacrifice of his flesh 2011 year ago has absolutely NO affect on your spiritual/physical world?

    do you use the VIOLENCE done to your god to increase your sincerity?

    many people WENT WILLINGLY to their DEATHS and GAVE UP their worldy LIFE. in jesus’ case he RETAINS his “worldly life” “heavenly delights” and then has another human jesus who is 100 PERCENT human (notgod coz remember that the god bit HID in the flesh of 100 percent HUMAN jesus)

    but your sincereity is really like menstrual blood

    how can you possibly “love god with all your heart and soul” when you continue to have sinful thoughts, and sinful deeds ?

    LIKE I SAID, how does jesus’ meat nailed to a cross help your MIND from SINFUL thoughts WHEN you continue to SIN?

    i see lot of christian girls FREE mixing with men in churches and thier clevage showing, they are together holding hands and singing songs lol

    so the neighbour of christian girl never has sinful thoughts while he is praying to trinity god?

    NOTICE SOMETHING brothers in ISLAM

    NOW for the christians to sin a LITTLE ISN’T A BIG deal ANYMORE FOR the christians who embraces the death and destruction of god in flesh

    WHILE when they preach thier s hit to OTHERS

    THEY are crying ALL sins ARE = and have the SAME weight

    1 SIN is a STAIN on your record ect

    see brothers in ISLAM the EVIL of thier GAME?

    so christians even after EMBRACING the claim that god killed himself and made him self forsake himself , the christian is STILL POLLUTED with SIN and CONTINUES his SICK sinful WAY of life
    christian:
    “i’m a SINNER man, my SINCERITY is like MENSTRUAL blood
    , i am unable to love god with all my heart and soul because in 2011 the rape of meat has no affect on my mind and soul , only MAKES me FEEL better that someone else got his meat grilled INSTEAD of me , hahahaha i’m feel better and am saved”

    original jesus:
    i’m sure that when jesus RESPONSED to the jewish inquirer about loving god with your soul and mind, the jewish inquirer went away home thinking that he can have a DIRECT relationship with YHWH without the need of an intermediary , funny don’t you think that the man god DIDN’T PULL from his mind that the JEWISH INQUIRER to “follow jesus by taking up the cross” or ” you need my MEAT AND blood as AN INTERMEDIARY before you and god” no he (the christian human god ) DIDN’T say that .

    but aNYway, lets see how christians make jesus’ claim to love god with all heart and soul USELESS .

    1.their deeds and THOUGHTS are menstrual blood
    2.they CONTINUE TO sin.
    3.they FEEL better that someone else god their meat hooked on a tree instead of their own meat
    4. i tell you the truth , christian theology is all about feeling better , not reconciling yourself with God
    5. god in christianity puts his DEEDS in the FLESH above everything , it seems like god only exists because he wanted to kill himself .
    6. god seems to make his DEATH MORE IMPORTANT THAN his own EXISTENCE LOL
    7.human being although DIRTY sinful POLLUTED creature needs gods deeds in the meat as an INTERMEDIARY to COOL god in cosmic form DOWN.
    8.IT LIKE THE FOLLOWING
    christian sins in his mind, god gets angry and then the christian REMINDS god ” hey god, you KILLED yourself, REMEMBER?”
    THEN christian god cools down

    9. isn’t it funny that both christians and thier god LOOK back at the “sacrifice” of god ?

  31. rocky says:

    something DON’T MAKE ANY FREAKIN SENSE

    god HIDES in 100 percent HUMAN jesus’ MEAT

    the HUMAN jesus WAS 100 PERCENT human just like ANY OTHER human who breathes, eats, excretes , urinates , thinks ect

    SO THE QUESTION IS

    waS 100 PERCENT human jesus WORSHIPPING the god INSIDE his FLESH?

    you get me?

Leave a Reply