81 replies to this topic

[Wesley]

I believe you are missing the context of the entirety of Chapter 9 of Hebrews. In prior verses, the author is describing the prior sacrifices which were designed to purify the person. By the time verse 22 comes up, the subject is the act of crucifying Jesus is also the sacrifice. However, this is only if you believe in Jesus Christ. Later in Chapter, you can see the sacrifice does not have a continual and constant effect. It is required upon the believer to act accordingly, while filled with the Holy Spirit. This means the person must be sinless from here on out. If the person wants to live in Jesus, they have to live with the Spirit of Him.

The sacrifice made with Jesus was that for those who believe, all their sins are washed away. If you say "I believe" and then purposefully do something which is against what Jesus commanded, that sin is not automatically washed away. No where in the New Testament will you see the argument made "I believe and can sin and be considered sinless." There is a requirement on the believer.

In the Qur'an, you have this type of example.

36. The sacrificial camels we have made for you as among the Symbols from Allah: in them is (much) good for you: then pronounce the name of Allah over them as they line up (for sacrifice): when they are down on their sides (after slaughter), eat ye thereof, and feed such as (beg not but) live in contentment, and such as beg with due humility: thus have we made animals subject to you, that ye may be grateful.

37. It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His guidance to you: and proclaim the Good News to all who do right.

(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 22)

Here the sacrifice is not to wash away your sins, but it is to demonstrate piety, humility, and in the whole context, charity for those who do not have food, which is similar to the context of the sacrifices Cain and Abel made for Adam. One sacrifice was in humility, the other was made in jealousy. Only one was accepted in the eyes of God.

Using this argument to promote one religion is greater than the other is a false argument. Each required belief in God and the Manifestation of God. Each required the believer to work God's Will. Each promises that God is Merciful and Just. Each promises judgment in the Day of Resurrection.

Please don't be stuck on the way the Messages are presented. Why focus on the usage of a word, like blood, is used from one Revelation to the next? The inherent meanings remain the same.

[John Paul]

I believe you are missing the context of the entirety of Chapter 9 of Hebrews. In prior verses, the author is describing the prior sacrifices which were designed to purify the person. By the time verse 22 comes up, the subject is the act of crucifying Jesus is also the sacrifice. However, this is only if you believe in Jesus Christ. Later in Chapter, you can see the sacrifice does not have a continual and constant effect. It is required upon the believer to act accordingly, while filled with the Holy Spirit. This means the person must be sinless from here on out. If the person wants to live in Jesus, they have to live with the Spirit of Him.

The sacrifice made with Jesus was that for those who believe, all their sins are washed away. If you say "I believe" and then purposefully do something which is against what Jesus commanded, that sin is not automatically washed away. No where in the New Testament will you see the argument made "I believe and can sin and be considered sinless." There is a requirement on the believer.

I believe you have read the context but failed to understand it. The entire context is about bloodshed sacrifice for forgiveness of sin which is why Jesus allowed Himself to be sacrificed shedding His own blood for the forgiveness of our sins. That’s the point I’ve been making, Christ has offered an infinite sacrifice which is why no more bloody sacrifices are needed. This infinite sacrifice is satisfactory to God’s justice which Muslims neglect or at least fail to understand...

God bless,

Edited by Augustine, 29 June 2012 - 12:44 AM.

[danieldemol]

Interesting question, although the Muslims will have to clarify how they see it, I think it is interesting to understand Hebrews 9:22 in it's context.

I think from memory that at the time the Hebrews were required to sacrifice an animal in order to fulfill their obligations to shed blood. Could this requirement be fulfilled at Eid al-Adha?

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Eid_al-Adha

[John Paul]

Interesting question, although the Muslims will have to clarify how they see it, I think it is interesting to understand Hebrews 9:22 in it's context.

I think from memory that at the time the Hebrews were required to sacrifice an animal in order to fulfill their obligations to shed blood. Could this requirement be fulfilled at Eid al-Adha?

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Eid_al-Adha

Again in context, if we jump a few verses back we find in verse 7

“but the high priest alone goes into the inner one once a year, not without blood that he offers for himself and for the sins of the people.”

God bless,

[danieldemol]

No high priest took the blood of Jesus into the inner temple though, did they?

[John Paul]

Jesus is both the Priest and the sacrificial lamb as we are told in the book of Revelation

God bless,

[Wesley]

Jesus also has a new name in the book of Revelation. The most interesting dream ever recorded in history.

Makes you wonder... how many others have been executed by a government or religious group for professing a Message from God (or at least claiming to)?

Edited by Wesley, 29 June 2012 - 03:51 AM.

[Wesley]

Book of Hebrews

13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

13:13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

13:16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

13:18 Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.

13:19 But I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.

13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Interpret as you wish. Beautiful verses.

[danieldemol]

Jesus is both the Priest and the sacrificial lamb as we are told in the book of Revelation

God bless,

Here is a beautiful truth from Paul,


"...The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."₁

Now if we look at the exact nature of the blood sacrifice, it was that the blood sacrifice would be made outside the inner temple, and then taken in by the high priest. In the crucifixion the blood was let out of Jesus, not taken in.
As I understand it, you are insisting that the crucifixion fulfills the spirit of the blood sacrifice, but not the letter, then stating that Eid Al-Adha does not fulfill the letter of the blood sacrifice. I fail to see why whether it fulfills the letter of the blood sacrifice is relevant since in all three cases the spirit of it is that a blood sacrifice is made to God.

Kind regards.

1 (2 Corinthians, Ch3:4)

[Younes]

Thank you, but I did not ask you about the bible’s perspective. Indeed God is merciful and forgiving but you also believe that God is just right? As a consequence you are saying God will forgive without the appropriate satisfaction for justice, how does this make any sense?

Pardoning a person's sins without punishment or a sacrifice (I asumme blood sacrifice) does not mean that justice is foregone. God has the right to punish a person or forgive him without any punishment or sacrifice at all. Both scenarios are just since God has the right to do both.

To give you an example, we humans forgive because we hope that forgives us, right? If forgiveness "without the appropriate satisfaction for justice", as you believe it, then there should be no forgiveness if we go by your logic.

You are not the one who decides what is the appropriate satisfaction for justice, nor anybody else fot that matter. People have different beliefs about what justice is. Some think eternal hell for disbelievers is unjust.

122. And those who believe and do righteous good deeds, We shall admit them to the Gardens under which rivers flow (i.e. in Paradise) to dwell therein forever. Allah's promise is the truth; and whose words can be truer than those of Allah 123. It will not be in accordance with your desires, nor those of the People of the Scripture, whosoever works evil, will have the recompense thereof, and he will not find any protector or helper besides Allah.) (124. And whoever does righteous good deeds, male or female, and is a believer, such will enter Paradise and not the least injustice, even to the size of a Naqir, will be done to them. - From Surah 4

[Younes]

In the Qur'an, it says of martyrs (people put to death for their belief), "154. And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: "They are dead." Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not." Surah 2:154). Note how once again to the spiritualy blind, seeing a dead body, it appears they are dead, but to the spiritually perceptive the soul is percieved as not having died.

The same applies to Jesus who was crucified (ie slain) in the way of God, He appeared crucified (or put to death), but in reality He was living, though it appeared otherwise to the disbelievers because they perceived (it) not.

The obvious difference is that the verse in Surah 4 explicitly denies that Jesus (pbuh) was killed or crucified while the verse which that talks about the martyrs does not deny that they were killed but affirms it.

Obviously if you believe that both the Qur'an and the New Testament are correct, you must resort to these sorts of interpretations while going against the clear meaning of verses.

[danieldemol]

Respectfully, I feel that you are sweeping a few scholarly differences of opinion under the carpet with that a-s-sertion.

First of all, In Surah 3:55, Yusuf Ali translates this as;


"Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme"

Here is an alternative interpretation of 3:55 from wholly within the pale of Islam


'"The verse in 3:55 Allah uses a word which means death or termination of life. And the way the sentence is framed, it is evident that death will be be ahead of raising. Let us read the verse before going any further:

3:55 Behold! Allah Said: "O Jesus! I shall cause you to die (wafat) and I shall exalt you
towards me and I shall clear you of those who rejects Faith, and I am going to
make those who follow you above those who reject Faith - until the day of
Resurrection. Then unto Me is your return, so that I shall judge among you as
to in that wherein you used to differ.

They key words here are : Ya Isa, inni mutawaffika wa rafi’uka ilaiya

Meaning: "O Jesus! I shall cause you to die and I shall exalt you towards me….."

In order to fulfil the prophecy, first death will happen, second, he will be raised. Allah did not say He will raise Isa in any manner before his death. This argument is based on the key word 'wafat'. The meaning of "wafat" is death, or take away soul. If soul is taken away from a person, it is nothing but death. The problem arises when with regards to this verse, Muslims refuse to interpret the meaning of "wafat" as death. Irony is that all scholars who translated the Holy Quran do agree "wafat" means death. They translated the word "wafat" as death in at least 20 different instances. However, in this particular verse, they interpreted the meaning as ‘take away’ and insinuate physical ascension.'₁

Now because of this, Yusuf Ali's interpretation of Surah 4 is based not on what is explicitly stated, but rather on the interpretation given by the majority of scholars. The problem is, there are Hadith in all schools of Islam which state the time when the majority of Muslims would be in a state of ignorance. Thus although there is comfort in assuming the majority of scholars can't be wrong, it cannot be ruled out by anyone with a deep knowledge of Hadith that this is a very real possibility.

Now according to my understanding there are three interpretations given by people wholly within the pale of Islam dependant on which scholar they follow in this matter (There could be more interpretations not known to me).

(a) The mainstream interpretation - Jesus was not crucified. No historical evidence supports this interpretation. The scientific study of the life of Jesus considers authentic historical sources to be those dating from within 100 years of the passing of His holiness Jesus. From the historical statements of both early Christian and Jew, to the best of my knowledge it is agreed (amongst those scientific historians who consider Jesus to have been a real person) that Jesus was crucified.

(b) The view which I have put forward₂

© The swoon hypothesis. I think from memory that this view has been championed by Ahmed Deedat, and may even be trace-able back to somebody like Ibn Sina, however don't quote me on it since it is a while since I read about this theory. The theory essentially states that Jesus was crucified to a state of unconciousness near death, and that this made it appear to people that He had been crucified to death, but then He awoke from this state of unconciousness later on.

My personal view is that rather than attempting to suppress free thought to remain cool with the majority, Muslims should consider the merits of each interpretation and then decide the matter for themselves.

Kind regards

1 http://www.freewebs....nadqur/evid.htm
2 Encyclopedia of Islam, Jesus article. cf. L. Massignon, Le Christ dans les Évangiles selon Ghazali, in REI , 1932, 523-36, who cites texts of the Rasa'il Ikhwan al-Safa, a passage of Abu Hatim al-Razi (about 934), and another of the Isma'ili da'i Mu'ayyad fid-din al-Shirazi (1077).

[Younes]

I am going to keep this short and just answer the main points:

"The mainstream interpretation - Jesus was not crucified. No historical evidence supports this interpretation."...except the Qur'an. There are a lot of things in the Qur'an, and the Bible as well for that matter, that are not supported by historical evidence. The Qur'an is clear in its wording. Jesus (pbuh) was not crucified nor killed.

"In order to fulfil the prophecy, first death will happen, second, he will be raised. Allah did not say He will raise Isa in any manner before his death. This argument is based on the key word 'wafat'. The meaning of "wafat" is death, or take away soul. If soul is taken away from a person, it is nothing but death. The problem arises when with regards to this verse, Muslims refuse to interpret the meaning of "wafat" as death. Irony is that all scholars who translated the Holy Quran do agree "wafat" means death. They translated the word "wafat" as death in at least 20 different instances. However, in this particular verse, they interpreted the meaning as ‘take away’ and insinuate physical ascension.'1"

This is not really the case.

(39:42). It is Allah Who takes away the souls at the time of their death, and those that die not during their sleep. He keeps those (souls) for which He has ordained death and sends the rest for a term appointed. Verily, in this are signs for a people who think deeply.)

Well as you can see, taking the soul away does not mean just death. Jesus (pbuh) was caused to sleep by God and then He raised him. That is the Islamic mainstream view.

Both options a) and c) are wrong. A) is wrong because it states Jesus (pbuh) was crucified and killed. C) is wrong because it states that he was crucified.

By the way, this only the minor conflict between the Qur'an and the NT. The major problem is the controversy over Jesus (pbuh) being a Deity, the Son of God and a Lord.

[John Paul]

Pardoning a person's sins without punishment or a sacrifice (I asumme blood sacrifice) does not mean that justice is foregone. God has the right to punish a person or forgive him without any punishment or sacrifice at all. Both scenarios are just since God has the right to do both.

To give you an example, we humans forgive because we hope that forgives us, right? If forgiveness "without the appropriate satisfaction for justice", as you believe it, then there should be no forgiveness if we go by your logic.

You are not the one who decides what is the appropriate satisfaction for justice, nor anybody else fot that matter. People have different beliefs about what justice is. Some think eternal hell for disbelievers is unjust.

122. And those who believe and do righteous good deeds, We shall admit them to the Gardens under which rivers flow (i.e. in Paradise) to dwell therein forever. Allah's promise is the truth; and whose words can be truer than those of Allah 123. It will not be in accordance with your desires, nor those of the People of the Scripture, whosoever works evil, will have the recompense thereof, and he will not find any protector or helper besides Allah.) (124. And whoever does righteous good deeds, male or female, and is a believer, such will enter Paradise and not the least injustice, even to the size of a Naqir, will be done to them. - From Surah 4

If God can forgive whom He wills without adequate satisfaction for justice then every civil judge can forgive murderers, robbers, rapists without jail sentence. How does this make sense?

God bless,

[Younes]

If God can forgive whom He wills without adequate satisfaction for justice then every civil judge can forgive murderers, robbers, rapists without jail sentence. How does this make sense?

No, that is not the case, from an Islamic point of view. God has ordered that judges punish people for their crimes, therefore, they have to carry out the punishments. This, however, does not mean that God cannot forgive without punishing.

[John Paul]

No, that is not the case, from an Islamic point of view. God has ordered that judges punish people for their crimes, therefore, they have to carry out the punishments. This, however, does not mean that God cannot forgive without punishing.

That’s a little hypocritical don’t you think?

What you’re saying still doesn’t make sense. God is perfect in His attributes. Your line of reasoning is God is merciful but He does not have to be just; that is not perfect justice. If God is not perfect in any of His attributes then God is lying to Himself, by lying against His own nature.

God bless,

[danieldemol]

I can see there is a subtlety here Younes,

39:42 only refers to sleep when the soul is returned, but the soul of Jesus was not returned, as 3:55 testifies.

Your statement, "I'm going to keep this short", is indicative of the fact that there is actually much to be said about this, which is why I feel that it makes sense for the individual to read a broad diversity of scholarly dissertations on this matter.

Kind regards

[Younes]

I can see there is a subtlety here Younes,

39:42 only refers to sleep when the soul is returned, but the soul of Jesus was not returned, as 3:55 testifies.

Well you keep making contradictory statements, it seems. The Christian doctrine especially which is found in the NT emphasises that his soul was returned since he rose from the dead, and if the Qur'an in verse 3:55 testifies that his soul was not returned, there is still a contradiction. By the way, a person can sleep for a long time as evidenced by the Qur'an in other verses.

My advice is to seek God's guidance. However, you won't be guided when you insist on trying to bring a book which says that Jesus (pbuh) is a divine being at whose name every knee will bow, that he is the ruler of the whole world, the one through whom the world was created and for whom the world was created, the King who comes down with his Angels (pbut) for the Day of Judgement, God the Son and the Son of God, into harmony with the Book that clearly rejects Jesus (pbuh) being God or Lord, and God having a Son.

I don't know if you are aware of the contents of the NT or the Qur'an.

[AhmedTi]

That’s a little hypocritical don’t you think?

What you’re saying still doesn’t make sense. God is perfect in His attributes. Your line of reasoning is God is merciful but He does not have to be just; that is not perfect justice. If God is not perfect in any of His attributes then God is lying to Himself, by lying against His own nature.

God bless,

Surely we all do agree that God/Allah is Merciful and Just

Well, assuming that God requires is an infinite atonement and for that reason he crucified Jesus to redeem the humanity sin. If we believe in that we are implicitly say that God is injustice as he crucified Jesus how commit nothing Liable to deserve punishment.

Second, how is the dearest one son or slaves? If God has son he will not use him as a scapegoat for his slaves.

If Jesus allowed Himself to be sacrificed shedding His own blood for the forgiveness of human sins. Then, why the church was executing some people in the middle age. Also, supposing that this is the fact, I can as a Christian commits any sins cross my mind since I have already reserve my place in paradise.

We are a human created by God to worship him and God in his pre-knowledge knew that we will commit sins and for that reason he left the door of repent wide open. If he wants us not to make sins he would certainly created us like in Angels.

[John Paul]

Surely we all do agree that God/Allah is Merciful and Just

Well, assuming that God requires is an infinite atonement and for that reason he crucified Jesus to redeem the humanity sin. If we believe in that we are implicitly say that God is injustice as he crucified Jesus how commit nothing Liable to deserve punishment.

Second, how is the dearest one son or slaves? If God has son he will not use him as a scapegoat for his slaves.

Jesus by His own free will offered His sacrifice for our sake.

We are a human created by God to worship him and God in his pre-knowledge knew that we will commit sins and for that reason he left the door of repent wide open. If he wants us not to make sins he would certainly created us like in Angels.

Nevertheless God cannot neglect the justice owed to Him. This is why Younes’ answer remains unsatisfactory. God’s attributes are interconnected. God cannot love without being merciful --> God cannot be merciful without being truthful --> God cannot be truthful without being just.

So when a Muslim tells me God forgives whom He wills without punishment required just does not make much sense. God cannot do this, it’s against his nature. God perfectly fulfils His attributes, if He neglects the justice due to Him then God is not perfectly just, if God is not perfectly just then God is not perfectly truthful.

God bless,