Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun’s article
A Series of Answers to Common Questions
By
He wrote:
3.
THE PLAN OF SALVATION
Muslim Argument:
Jesus' death is a violation of the clear OT commands prohibiting human sacrifices. Since
Jesus was also under the Law (Cf. Gal. 4:4), his death
would be an express violation of the commands of God which did not allow for humans to be
put to death, only animals.
Christian
Reponse:
Actually, there
is no express command forbidding adult human sacrifices. What is forbidden is the
sacrifice of children as a means of appeasing the pagan gods. (Cf.
Lev. 18:21, 20:2-5; Deut. 12:31, 18:10; 2 Kings 16:3, 17:31, 21:6, 23:10; Jer. 7:31, 32:35; Ezek. 20:31) This is not to imply that the
Bible allows for adult sacrifices, but rather to point out what is actually stated within
inspired Scripture itself.
Secondly, the
reason why these pagan rituals were abhorrent to God is because it not only entailed idol
worship which was an abomination all by itself, but also included the death of innocent
lives:
"They
did not destroy the peoples as the Lord had commanded them, but they mingled with the
nations and adopted their customs. They worshiped their idols, which became a snare to
them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and
daughters whom they sacrificed to the idols of
"...
for they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands. They committed
adultery with their idols; they even sacrificed
their children, whom they bore to me, as food for them." Ezek. 23:37
Again, the
"blood on their hands" is linked with
"For
they have forsaken me and made this place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that
neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of
However, the
Mosaic Law did allow for the guilty to be put to death if they intentionally broke an
express command which carried with it the death sentence. (Cf.
Ex. 31:14-17; Deut.19:11-13)
Since Jesus
"became sin for us" (cf. 2 Cor.
To summarize, the
Holy Bible prohibits the death of innocent children who committed no wrong. Since Jesus
was neither a child nor innocent after taking our sins, his death did not violate an
express command.
Thirdly, Jesus
willingly died in order that others might live. (Cf. Mark 10:45;
John 10:17-18) We often consider individuals who sacrifice their lives for others
as heroes, i.e. a person who takes a bullet in order to save his friend or soldiers who
die to protect their country etc. In the same manner, Jesus' willingness to die on the
cross was the greatest display of his unconditional love for others, sparing them from the
eternal wrath of God in hell.
Finally, God
willed for Jesus to be the final and perfect atoning sacrifice, being "the Lamb of
God who takes away the sin of the world." (Cf. John 1:29)
God is sovereign and can make such decisions without anyone holding him accountable for
it. Man answers to God, God answers to no one.
My Response:
Let
me quote something very interesting to what Shamoun said which
back fires against him and every Christian:
Secondly, the
reason why these pagan rituals were abhorrent to God is because it not only entailed idol
worship which was an abomination all by itself, but also included the death of innocent lives.
Very
interesting indeed. According to
you and every Christian Jesus was an innocent and sinless man, yet he was put to death for
the sins of others. Basically the core of Christian doctrine is that an innocent man was
sacrificed and killed for other people's sin, no difference than human pagan sacrifices of
innocent people! So Shamoun has to eat his own words, so does
every other Christian. The fact is that the sacrifice of Jesus is no different than any
other pagan ritual sacrifice. Jesus was an innocent man according to you, yet he died for
something he did not do. Where is the justice in that? The fact is that there is no
justice in that and it makes no sense and is a joke and is no difference than human pagan
sacrifices.
Shamoun
then goes on to say: his
death, judicially speaking, fell under the bounds of the Law since he was guilty after
that point. Therefore, Jesus' death from a legal standpoint was morally acceptable since
his purpose in coming to this world was to take upon himself the punishment we deserved
because of our sins.
Amusing
indeed! So it was morally acceptable that Jesus an innocent man who did
nothing wrong according to you, died for something he did not do and died for
something you did.
No
wonder why
You
would like to think that Jesus would at least not go through pain or die a nice painless
death for taking our sins upon himself and becoming sin for us, but no the Father still
looks at him as a guilty sinner worthy of torture and pain and a crucifixion. Very fair
indeed, even when Jesus does something honourable he still gets treated very badly, still
no justice! So either way round there is no justice at the end, Jesus an innocent man died
for your crime, there is no justice in that and there is no difference between the pagan
human sacrifices of innocent people.
Secondly
Jesus was still put through a hell of a lot of pain for taking your sins and becoming sin
for you, one would think the Father would be nicer to him for doing such an honourable
thing, but yet the Father still looks down on him as a sinner and punishes him very badly,
no justice in that at all.
As
for Shamoun's third point of Jesus willing to sacrifice
himself. This is very illogical. Shamoun claims it is like
someone who takes a bullet for someone else or becoming a hero etc. However so why does
Jesus need to go through such pain and die! He is God and is within the Godhead and the
Father knows Jesus very well and could have definitely just given him the easy way out.
Basically there is no reason why Jesus had to go through pain or suffering as a person
would when he takes a bullet for some one else. People who sacrifice themselves to help
others do have to go through pain and suffering most of the times. However Jesus is a
totally different case, HE IS GOD AND A MEMBER OF THE GOD-HEAD WHO THE FATHER KNOWS WELL,
so why wouldn’t the Father help Jesus out and cause him no pain? This actually show's
the Father probably enjoyed hurting Jesus and causing him to suffer for some one else's
crime. Another point I must ask is was it the Father's will that Jesus took on our sins?
Or was it Jesus' own will? As Jesus said he does not his own will but his Father's will.
It indeed was the Father's will that Jesus do such a thing, so Jesus saying he did it on
his own accord is a lie and an invention, Jesus himself begged to be saved and did not
want to die:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/jesus_hypocrite.htm
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
Why was it necessary for God to send his eternal Son to die for sinners.
Couldn't God have simply forgiven sinners instead of having his Son murdered?
Christian
Reponse:
We must first point out that God did not murder his Son. It was the will of The Father,
Son, and the Holy Spirit that the Son should lay his life down for sinners. This was to
demonstrate both God's holiness and infinite love for man:
"For
even the Son did not come to be served, but to serve, and lay his life down as a RANSOM for many." Mark
"I
am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live
forever. THIS BREAD IS MY FLESH WHICH I WILL GIVE
FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD." John
"I
am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me- just as the Father knows me
and I know the Father- AND I LAY DOWN MY LIFE FOR
THE SHEEP... The reason my Father loves me
is that I LAY DOWN MY LIFE- ONLY TO TAKE IT UP
AGAIN. NO ONE TAKES IT FROM ME, BUT I LAY IT DOWN OF MY OWN ACCORD..." John 10:14-15, 17-18a NIV
"God
presented him (Jesus) as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in
his forbearance he had left sins unpunished- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time,
so as to be just and the one who justifies those who
have faith in Jesus." Rom. 3:25-26 NIV
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this:
While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Rom.5:8
NIV
Christ willingly
laid down his life in order that others might live. We often look up to and admire men who
willingly give up their lives to defend either their families or country. Their deaths are
considered heroic and a demonstration of unconditional love, not murder or suicide. Hence,
Jesus' willingness to die for unworthy sinners is the greatest display of God's infinite
and unconditional love for fallen humanity.
As Scripture
indicates, Christ's death was necessary in order to satisfy God's infinite holiness and
justice. For sin to be forgiven, a sacrifice needed to be made in order for God to
maintain his holiness. Otherwise, God's justice and holiness would be severely
compromised. The Bible indicates that God cannot dwell in the presence of sin without
incurring his wrath:
"For
you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil will not sojourn with you. The boastful
will not stand before your eyes; you hate evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies; the
LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful." Psalm 5:4-6
NRSV
"Your
eyes are too pure to behold evil, and you cannot look on wrongdoing..." Habakkuk
This is precisely
why God cannot let sin go unpunished, since his holiness will not allow it to continue. He
will not acquit the sinner without there being a payment for the crimes committed:
"Keep
far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and those in the right, for I will not acquit the guilty." Exodus 23:7 NRSV
God also does not
take pleasure in the death of any soul, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live.
(Cf. Ezek. 33:11; 2 Pet. 3:9)
Therefore, in
order for God to pardon repentant sinners while remaining holy and just, someone had to
take the consequences of sin which entailed physical and spiritual death. By death is
meant the soul separating from the body in the physical sense, with the body returning to
the dust. And in the spiritual sense it refers to broken communion with God:
"And
to the man he said, `Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten
of the tree about which I commanded you, "You shall not eat of it," cursed it is
the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns
and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By
the sweat of your face you shall eat the bread until
you return to the ground, for out of it you were
taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall
return'." Genesis 3:17-19 NRSV
"Rather,
your iniquities have been barriers between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his
face from you so that he does not hear." Isa. 59:2 NRSV
The sacrifice had
to be made by one who had infinite value since man's value is finite and cannot atone for
all of mankind's sin:
"Truly
no ransom avails for one's life, there is no price one can give
to God for it. For the ransom of life is costly, and can never suffice that one should
live on forever and never see the grave." Psalm 49:7-9 NRSV
This is precisely
why God had to come down and ransom man, since only God is infinite in value:
"But
God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol for he will
receive me." Psalm 49:15 NRSV
But in order for
God to pay the price of sin fully and satisfy his infinite holiness he had to take on a
human nature. As was noted, part of the consequence of sin is that the soul of man
separates from his body as the flesh returns to the dust. God is Spirit (John
This nature also
had to be free from the stain of original sin, since all who are descended from the first
man inherit a corrupt human nature. (Cf.
Therefore, the Savior had to be born of a virgin whose womb would be made holy in
order for him to be without sin:
"And
Mary said to the angel, `How can this be since I have no husband?' And the angel said to
her, `The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the most high will overshadow
you; therefore the child to be born will be called
holy, the Son of God.' "
Luke 1:34-35 RSV
Had he not been
born supernaturally by God's Holy Spirit, he would have then needed a savior
to free him from sin.
The cross becomes
necessary for God to demonstrate both his love and holiness. If God were to simply forgive
without demanding payment for sin, his holiness would have been less than his love. On the
other hand, if God were to just punish without allowing the possibility of reconciliation
and forgiveness than his love would have been severely compromised. Either way, God would
be less than perfect since he would be greater in one of his qualities, and less than
perfect in the other.
Hence, Jesus'
death on the cross clearly demonstrates both God's perfect holiness and his infinite love
for man. No other religion is able to claim this perfect balance for their deities.
My Response:
To
start off, it was not Jesus' will to die. That is a joke and a lie. Jesus cried and begged
to be saved. Jesus himself said and did whatever the Father willed him to do, not what he
willed to do. So he did not lay down his life on his own accord and will (*)(*).
Secondly
you basically admit that a sacrifice had to be made to make up for the sins, what was that
sacrifice? An innocent man who did no crime? There is no difference between this sacrifice
and those pagan sacrifices of innocent humans. The Father did indeed murder his son. He
was in control of everything and looked down on Jesus as a sinner so put him through the
punishment of a sinner as Shamoun himself stated earlier. So
yes the Father did murder Jesus. Let me quote something Shamoun
said: The cross becomes necessary
for God to demonstrate both his love and holiness. If God were to simply forgive without
demanding payment for sin, his holiness would have been less than his love.
Show
his love? Well I don’t want any of your God's love. If love to you is condemning an
innocent man for the sins of others then I must say you need some help in your logic. As
for God forgiving sins without payment for the sin, is the payment of sin the death of an
innocent man? This sound's no different than a mob boss. Why does payment of sin have to
be the death of an innocent man? No justice at all. As for Shamoun
trying to make a point of Jesus being called holy, this has already been dealt with here (*). Indeed Islam has no such silly dogma. Islam does not need
salvation by the death of an innocent man for their sins.
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
The Bible indicates that Christ was not the only sinless person. Oftentimes, scripture
uses the term "righteous" to indicate one who is blameless:
"And
they (Zachariah and Elizabeth) were righteous before
God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." Luke 1:6
"My
little children, these things I write to you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have
an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous." 1 John 2:1
"I
say unto you, that even so there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over
ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance." Luke 15:7
"I came not
to call the righteous, but sinners into
repentance." Luke 5:32
"Little
children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is
righteous." 1 John 3:7
All these verses
affirm that there were many who were sinless like Christ, and did not need Christ to die
for them.
Christian
Reponse:
We provide a
verse by verse refutation of this erroneous understanding of Scripture. First, it should
be pointed out that the word for "righteous" is the Greek term dikaioo. The
word, dikaioo and
its various forms, is a legal term used judicially to declare one just, not guilty. It
does not mean one who is sinless.
There are two
ways one can be declared just before God. The first is to be completely perfect in every
aspect of one's life, something which no one can ever attain. The only person to be
absolutely perfect is Jesus Christ. The second manner is to be declared righteous solely
by God's grace. This entails a blood sacrifice for the covering over of sins:
"For
the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for
yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." Leviticus
"In
fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood,
and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Hebrews.
The only problem
with animal sacrifices is that in the eyes of God animals are not equal in value to man.
Therefore, animal sacrifices could only cover sin temporarily. This is why the Israelites
had to continuously offer sacrifices.
God sent Christ
as the sacrificial Lamb who by his death on the cross, offered himself as a sacrifice of
infinite value covering over the sins of the whole world. His blood not only covers sin,
but it completely eradicates it; something which animal sacrifices could not do:
"The
next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!' " John
"But
if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, purifies us
from all sin." 1 John 1:7
"For
Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered
heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer
himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year
with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have to suffer many times since the
creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do
away with sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:24-26 NIV
Keeping in mind
that it is the blood that justifies one before God, we proceed to the verses in question.
In regards to
Zachariah and Elizabeth being blameless, one of Zachariah's duties as a Levitical priest of the division of Adonijah
(Cf. Luke 1:5) was to offer sacrifices once a year, first for his own sins and then for
the people. (Cf. Lev.16:1-34). Therefore, Zachariah was
blameless before God because of his observance of the commands which included animal
sacrifices for his sins. His righteousness was not based on him being sinless.
As far as 1 John 3:7 is concerned John is not implying that believers are
sinless, since he also states:
"If
we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and
the truth is not in us... If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place
in us." 1 John 1:8, 10 NIV
John's point is
that we have been made righteous in Christ, since "the blood of Jesus Christ, his
Son, cleanses us from all sin." (Cf. 1 John 1:7)
The part about
the ninety-nine righteous who do not need to repent in Luke 15:7
was not due to the fact that they were sinless. Jesus was mentioning a parable about a
Shepherd who would leave ninety-nine of his sheep in order to chase after that one who is
lost. (Cf. Luke 15:1-6)
Christ was
addressing the self-righteous Pharisees who were murmuring against him for sitting and
eating with sinners. Jesus' point was not that there were sinless individuals, but rather
that God rejoices over those persons who acknowledge their sins, humbling themselves
before their Creator. This was the purpose for Christ coming into the world, to search
after lost sinners and bring them back to the flock of God. Furthermore, God does not take
pleasure in self-righteous hypocrisy, individuals who think they are more righteous and
better than others. This is precisely what the Pharisees thought of themselves, Jews who
were far more righteous than the sinners and tax collectors whom Jesus was dining.
Finally, Jesus
elsewhere likens himself to a Shepherd:
"I
am the good Shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me- just as the Father knows me
and I know the Father- and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are
not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also.
They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." John 10:14-16 NIV
It is Jesus, as
the Shepherd, who searches after the lost sheep, leaving behind the ninety-nine. This
indicates that the ninety-nine were not righteous because they were sinless, but because
they belonged to Jesus. Therefore, the point of the parable is to show that it is Jesus
who both brings the sheep into the flock and who also justifies them; it has absolutely
nothing to do with one being sinless.
(Note: For the
answer to Luke
My Response:
Jesus
may be the good shepherd but he is not good in the sense that he is God,
this has already been noted in the previous section of this rebuttal.
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
According to Jesus in Matthew 18:6, children are sinless:
"But
whoever causes one of these little ones who
believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened
round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
Jesus is
basically indicating that children are without sin since someone must cause them to sin.
Christian
Reponse:
Again, Jesus is
not saying that children in and of themselves are sinless. Rather, Jesus is affirming that
those children WHO BELIEVE IN HIM are declared righteous, since they have been justified
through Christ. This is reiterated in the verse before it:
\
"And
whoever welcomes a little child like this IN MY
NAME welcomes me." Mat. 18:5
Again, in Matthew 19:13-14 we are told:
"Then
little children were brought to Jesus for him to
place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought
them. Jesus said, `Let the little children COME TO
ME, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.'
"
Hence, a person
must come and wholeheartedly embrace Christ like the children did. This is the kind of
devotion Christ demands, total dependency upon him in all aspects of one's life.
This again
affirms that justification comes solely through Christ.
My Response:
So
basically the children are sinners? Indeed you have a very strange and twisted doctrine in
original sin. Just to show how illogical the original sin is on children is that since
children are sinners, and since they aren’t knowledgeable enough to know what to
believe, and since many of them are born into non-Christian families, then many of them
will die not believing in Christ and will die as sinners since they are already sinners.
Hence they will end up in hell! So according to original sin and Christianity, kids who do
not accept Jesus as their saviour are going to hell! Since they die as sinners who do not believe in Christ. There is no
way around to say that they are just kids and cannot understand so it was okay if they did
not believe in Christ or if they never knew about Christ. This does not work because
according to you they are still sinners! And where do sinners go according to you? The
sinners who do not believe in Christ go straight to hell! No way around it. For the kids
to be accepted to heaven is to under mine Christ and God, because technically you are
allowing sinners who do not believe in Christ into heaven. Either way you are left with a
major problem, according to original sin all kids who die without believing in Jesus go to
hell, for them not to go to hell and enter heaven means God compromises his own law and
commands for letting sinners who do not believe in Christ into heaven.
You
can choose which option you want, or choose the best option which is option 3 which is to
leave Christianity and embrace Islam!
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
Salvation according to Jesus comes from observing the commandments:
"And
behold, one came up to him, saying, `Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal
life?' And he said unto him, `Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is
good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.'
" Mat. 19:16-17
"And
behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, `Teacher, what shall I do to
inherit eternal life?' Jesus said, `What is written in the Law? How do you read?' And he
answered, `You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.' And he said to him, `You have answered right; DO THIS, and you will live.'" Luke 10:25-28
"For
I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees,
you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." Mat 5:20 NASB
Christian
Reponse:
Jesus is actually
teaching the exact opposite. His point is to show the impossibility of achieving salvation
by works of the Law. This point is clearly brought out by Christ throughout his sermon in
Matthew:
"You
have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who
looks at a woman lustfully has already committed
adultery with her in his heart." Mat 5:27-28 NIV
"You
have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your
enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray
for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes
his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the
unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even tax
collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than
others? Do not even pagans do that? Be PERFECT,
therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Mat.
5:43-48 NIV
These are just
some examples of the righteousness which Jesus demands that surpasses the righteousness of
the Pharisees and scribes. This righteousness is impossible to attain by human efforts
since it must perfectly duplicate God's righteousness. This demand for perfection is
reiterated by Christ to the rich man:
"Jesus
answered, `If you want to be PERFECT, go, sell your possessions and give to the
poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'
" Mat. 19:21 NIV
The perfection
that God demands comes from surrendering one's life to Christ. It is Jesus who justifies
believers by the righteousness he attained through his perfect obedience to the Law.
When someone
surrenders his life to Jesus, God imputes Christ's righteousness to his account. From
there, God empowers the individual by the Holy Spirit to fulfill
God's righteous requirements. This righteousness is not to achieve salvation, but is a
sign that one has been saved:
"But
now a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made
known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This
righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Rom. 3:21-22 NIV
As the apostle
Paul states, the righteousness that comes through faith in the Messiah had been foretold
beforehand in the Old Testament:
"After
the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his
knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities." Isa. 53:11 NIV
"The
days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous
Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his
days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will
be called: The LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Jer.
23:5-6 NIV
"Seventy
`sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression,
to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS, to
seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy... after the sixty `sevens,' the Anointed One (Messiah) will
be cut off and have nothing." Daniel 9:24, 26
According to
these passages, Messiah's death would usher in the righteousness of God and would also
atone for sin.
"Therefore,
there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Because through Christ
Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what
the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by
sending his Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned
sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous
requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful
nature but according to the Spirit." Rom. 8:1-4 NIV
"God
made him sin who had no sin to be sin for us, so
that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2
Cor. 5:21 NIV
"For
it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; it is not of yourselves. It is the
gift of God, and not of works lest anyone should boast. For we
are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do
good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10
Hence, it is the
unanimous testimony of Scripture that man is justified by the imputed righteousness of
Christ, since one can never achieve the perfect righteousness of God apart from him.
As far as Jesus'
statement to the lawyer in Luke 10:25-28 is concerned,
again Christ's point is that if the lawyer is able to do all that is required in the Law
he will obtain salvation. But the problem is that no one can attain the perfection which
God demands, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Cf. Rom. 3:23)
Because
"there is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins,"
since "all have turned aside," and "have become corrupt; there is no one
who does good, not even one," each individual needs Christ's imputed righteousness.
Otherwise, no one can stand justified before God. (Cf.
Ecclesiastes 7:20; Psalms 14:3)
My Response:
I
must say Shamoun has lost it. Note what he says about the
verses the Muslim proposes: Jesus is actually teaching the
exact opposite.
Let
us quote the verses again:
"And
behold, one came up to him, saying, `Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal
life?' And he said unto him, `Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is
good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.'
" Mat. 19:16-17
The
verse is very clear. Jesus tells the man to keep the commandments! But no according to Shamoun he is saying the exact opposite! Indeed that is very funny
as nowhere in the text does it support that view. If Jesus were indeed teaching the exact
opposite then this would mean to not keep the commandments! Meaning you could kill, steal,
do whatever you want since you don’t have to keep the
commandments.
And
behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, `Teacher, what shall I do to
inherit eternal life?' Jesus said, `What is written in the Law? How do you read?' And he
answered, `You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.' And he said to him, `You have answered right; DO THIS, and you will live.'" Luke 10:25-28
Aha
so Jesus was lying and meant don’t do this. Do not love God with all your heart and
your soul and strength and mind and your neighbour. So now we don’t have to love God
anymore nor our neighbour! Shamoun just keeps making things
worse for himself.
For
I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees,
you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." Mat
So
basically you have to be worse than them to get into heaven, very nice indeed.
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
Jesus taught,
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up
at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." John 6:54-55 NIV
According to Matthew 26:27-28, Jesus gave
the disciples the cup of wine and said, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my
blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." NIV
If this is meant
to be taken literally, why do we not find anyone preserving the blood of Jesus as it
flowed from his body while on the cross? Furthermore, this would be teaching cannibalism,
something forbidden in scripture.
Christian
Reponse:
Jesus' point is not that we are to partake of his flesh in a literal sense, but in a
spiritual manner. This partaking of Christ comes from embracing his words in our lives:
"The
Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.
The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they
are life. Yet there are some of you who do not
believe." John 6:63-64 NIV
Jesus was
indicating that he was going to lay his life down that the world might live through him:
"I
am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live
forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give
for the life of the world." John 6:51 NIV
Blood symbolizes
the life of the creature as it is written, "For the life of the creature is in the
blood..." (Cf. Lev. 17:11) Therefore, the cup was
symbolic of Jesus' life being laid down for sinners:
"Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Mat. 20:28 NIV
It does not mean
that one literally drinks Jesus' blood. Furthermore, as was indicated, Jesus' blood being
shed was necessary to appease God's holiness so that sinners could stand justified before
him. There is no hint of cannibalism whatsoever.
My Response:
Good
enough response by Shamoun, however so it does not mean Jesus
is God if we embrace his words since his words are not even his but God's. Visit these
rebuttals for more information (*)(*)(*)(*)
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
According to Christians, Adam's sin brought condemnation on all flesh. This necessitated a
divine Redeemer to come down from heaven to save man. But according to Ezekiel 18:1-24 a person will not be held accountable for
someone else's sins.
Christian
Reponse:
This is a
misunderstanding of what Christians mean by Original Sin. It is our belief that we are not
condemned because of Adam's sin, but because of Adam we inherit a sinful nature.(Cf. Psalm 51:5, 53:8; Ephesians 2:3)
Because of this sinful nature, we are naturally inclined to sin. (Cf.
Rom. 7:15-24)
Ezekiel's point
is that anyone who sins shall die. Yet, all have sinned and become deserving of death.
Hence, freedom from the bondage of sin and death comes only through Jesus Christ:
"Jesus
replied, `I tell you the truth, everyone who sins
is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs
to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you
will be free indeed.' " John
8:34-36 NIV
My Response:
Ezekiel's
point is that no man dies for the sins of another man.
1
The
word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, 2 What
mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the
10 If he beget a son
that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things, 11
And
that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled
his neighbour's wife, 12 Hath oppressed the
poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up
his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, 13 Hath given forth
upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he
shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall
be upon him. 14 Now, lo, if he
beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath
done, and considereth, and doeth not such like, 15
That
hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the
house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbour's wife, 16 Neither hath
oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath
spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked
with a garment, 17 That hath taken off
his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my
judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he
shall surely live. 18 As for his father,
because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not
good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity. 19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of
the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my
statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the
righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall
be upon him.
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
According to Hosea 6:6, God does not desire sacrifices.
He rather desires one to be merciful and obedient to him. This point is reiterated by
Jesus in Matthew 9:13.
Christian
Reponse:
It is not either/or, but rather God desires both. The point in Hosea is that sacrifices in
and of themselves are insufficient. Sacrifices must follow sincere repentance and
obedience to God's commandments, something
"Like
Adam, they have broken the covenant- they were unfaithful to me there.
Hence,
Sacrifices must
be offered with a sincere, repentant heart. David brings out this point clearly in the
Psalms:
"You
do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you did not take pleasure in burnt
offerings. The sacrifices of God are broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. In your good pleasure make
It is precisely
the same with Christ's sacrifice. Jesus died for the sins of the world, yet not all shall
be saved. The reason being is that not all shall repent and embrace Christ as their Savior. Therefore, it is necessary for a person to come into sincere
repentance before offering up his sacrifice, since without repentance the sacrifice
becomes void.
My Response:
So God accepts the death of an innocent man who did nothing contradicting his very own
words that man will not bear the sin of another man?
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
In order to refute the idea that Jesus died for sinners, Muslims often point to verses
where Jesus is pictured as committing sins.
Christian
Reponse:
If it can be
shown that Christ did sin, then he is disqualified from being a perfect sacrifice. We will
present the verses in question and offer our responses.
According to Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus taught that getting angry was a sin. Yet, Jesus often
got angry with others as documented in the Bible. (Cf. Mat.
11:22-24, 12:22-31, 21:12-15, 19; Mark 3:5, 20-30; 11:12-19; Luke 10:13-15, 19:45-47; John
2:13-17)
Response:
Jesus did not say
anger in and of itself was wrong, but that unjustified anger especially towards a fellow
believer, i.e. a "brother," was wrong.
Jesus tells us who his brethren are:
"He
replied to him, `Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' Pointing to his disciples, he said, `Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does
the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.' " Mat. 12:48-50 NIV
And what is the
will of God according to Jesus?
"Jesus
answered, `The work of God is this: to believe in
the one he has sent' ... `For my Father's will
is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.' " John
Therefore, all
who reject God's Messiah are not Jesus' brethren. In all the passages cited above, Jesus'
anger is directed towards those who have rejected both God `s commands and him. (Cf. Mark 7:6-8) Hence, his anger was not sinful but a
demonstration of God's holy and just indignation against persistent sinners and
unbelievers.
According to the
Gospels, believers are commanded to be honest. (Cf. Mat. 15:19;
Mark 7:22; John 8:44) Yet, according to John 7:2-10
Jesus lied to his brothers about not going up to Jerusalem, when he actually did in fact
go.
Response:
Jesus was not
denying that he would go to
Accordingly, John
states that "not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up to the courts and
begin to teach." (Cf. John 7:14) Hence, there was no
sin on Jesus' part but a misunderstanding of the text on the part of the questioner.
During the trial
before the high priest, Jesus stated: "I have spoken openly to the world; I have
always taught in the synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I never
spoke secretly." John 18:20
But according to Mark 4:11-12, Jesus taught his disciples "the secret of
the
Response:
Jesus' usage of
"always" does not mean that he did not teach elsewhere, rather it has to do with
the claims that Christ made about himself. Jesus was indicating that there was nothing in
relation to himself which he had not proclaimed before eyewitnesses in synagogues and the
Temple. The argument centered on who Jesus claimed to be,
something which Jesus had stated both privately to his disciples, and publicly to others.
Hence, if the high priest wanted to know what Jesus' personal claims were, he would have
no difficulty finding eyewitnesses who could testify. This is precisely what Jesus goes on
to say:
"Why
question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said." John 18:21 NIV
That the trial centered around Jesus' identity is
clarified in the following passages:
"At
daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of
the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. `If you are the Christ,' they said, `tell us.' Jesus answered, `If I tell you, you will
not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man
will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.' They asked, `Are you then the Son of God?' He replied, `You are
right in saying I am.' Then they said, `Why do we
need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.' " Luke 22:66-71
NIV
"Then
the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying,
`We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.' " Luke 23:1-2 NIV
"Pilate
then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, `Are you the king of the Jews?' `Is this 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?' " John 19:33-35 NIV
"The
Jews insisted, `We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.' " John
Hence, Jesus had
committed no sin since the trial centered on what Christ
claimed about himself, not on what he had taught. Jesus claimed that he was the Christ,
the Son of the living God, a fact which he affirmed both privately and publicly. (Cf. Mat. 16:16-17; John 10:36-38)
John's baptism was
for repentance of sins. (Cf. Acts 19:4) Jesus was
baptized. (Cf. Mark 1:4)
Response:
Jesus came to
fulfil the Law and to serve as God's priest. (Cf. Mat. 3:13-15,
5:17; Heb. 4:14-15) Priests were required to be at least 30 years old, and had to
be washed in water and anointed with oil. (Cf. Exod. 29:4, 7; Num. 4:3, 43) The anointing with oil
symbolizes being anointed with God's Spirit. (Cf. 1 John 2:27-
John 14:26)
Therefore, in
order for Christ to serve as priest he had to be at least 30 years of age, washed in water
and anointed. This is precisely what we find, that Jesus began his ministry at the age of
30, was washed in water, and was anointed by the Spirit. (Cf.
Luke 3:21-23)
Furthermore, the
baptism was necessary in order for John to know and identify who the Messiah was. God had
promised John that when he saw the Spirit descend on the One this would be the Messiah. (Cf. John 1:29-34)
Jesus' baptism
had nothing to do with him being a sinner, but everything to do with fulfilling God's set
purpose.
In John
Response:
Jesus did not
stone her because he wanted to save her from sin:
"Jesus
straightened up and asked her, `Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' `No one
sir,' she said. `Then neither do I condemn you,' Jesus declared. `Go now and leave your life of sin.' "
John 8:10-11 NIV
The point in
Jesus coming to this world was "to save his people from their sin." (Cf. Mat. 1:21) Christ had "not come to call the
righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Cf. Luke 5:32)
Hence, Jesus did
not stone her because he wanted her to be saved, not because he was a sinner.
My Response:
That
is all nice but however let me just respond to two points of Shamoun
which in fact do hurt his cause. Let me start with his last point of Jesus not stoning the
adulteress. To start of Shamoun's cheap weak response of Jesus
wanting to save her does not work, the law is clear, you stone the adulterer and the
adulteress, so Shamoun goes against his own book. And since
Jesus was God he would have known this very well, however so he still did not stone her
because he to knew he was without sin, Shamoun's
response does not cut it. Now let me quote John 7:6-10:
6
Then
Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway
ready. 7 The world cannot hate
you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works
thereof are evil. 8 Go ye
up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. 9
When
he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. 10 But when his
brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in
secret
Jesus
made it perfectly clear to his disciples that he would not go to the feast, whether Jesus
stayed and left later and joined up half-way through the feast and did so in secret this
will still not chance the fact that he still joined the feast when he said he would not. Shamoun could say whatever he wants but the text is clear, Jesus
said he would not go but he still did, whether it be 3 hours later, or whether it be him
doing it in secret, it changes nothing.
Also
this was discovered to be an interpolated passage into the bible. Notice the commentary
from the NIV BIBLE.
The
earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.
He wrote:
Muslim Argument:
Christians believe that Isaiah 53 is an eighth century
B.C. prophecy foretelling the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. In attempt to
refute the prophetic significance of the passage, Muslim apologists present the following
arguments:
The prophecy
actually begins at Isaiah 52:13 and ends at 53:12. It begins with God addressing his "servant"
and promises that his "servant" will prosper and be highly exalted. The term
"servant" is consistently used to refer to the nation of Israel. (Cf. Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20)
This proves that Isaiah 53 is speaking about national
Israel, not the Messiah.
Response:
This erroneously
assumes that every single usage of the term "servant" must be referring to
This is
solidified by the fact that Isaiah 11:1 also identifies
the stump of Jesse as the Branch. Elsewhere, Branch is used as a title for the Davidic
King Messiah:
"The
days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous BRANCH,
and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in
the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. And this is the
name by which he will be called: `The LORD is our righteousness.' "
Jer. 23:5-6 NRSV
In Isaiah 61:1-2 we read: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon
me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has
sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of
the LORD's favor..."
In Luke 4:16-21, Jesus claims that this prophecy finds its fulfillment in him:
"When
he came to
`The
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to
let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.'
"And
he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in
the synagogue were fixed on him. Then he began to say to them, `Today this
scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.'
" NRSV
Finally, there
are places where the servant is identified as being distinct from national
"And
he said to me, `You are my servant,
This passage
indicates that God's servant is a specific individual whose name happens to be
These factors
affirm that certain servant passages, specifically 42:1-9
and 49:1-7, do not refer to national
There are three
lines of evidence to support that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy
of Christ. First, both Jesus and the apostles affirm that portions of Isaiah 53 are messianic in nature. In Luke
22:37, Jesus states: "For I tell you, this
scripture must be fulfilled in me, `And he was
counted among the transgressors'; and indeed what is written about me is being
fulfilled." Christ is quoting Isaiah 53:11 and
affirms that it is prophecy about him.
In Acts 8:26-35, the apostle Philip discovers an Ethiopian eunuch
reading Isaiah 53:7-8. The eunuch then asks, " `About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about
himself or about someone else?' Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus."
The apostle Peter
writes:
"To
this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example that you
should follow in his steps.
`He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his
mouth.'
"When they hurled insults at him, he did not retaliate;
when he suffered, he made no threats.
Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness;
by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you
have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." 1
Pet. 2:21-25 NIV
Peter alludes to Isaiah 53:4-7, 9 and 11 and indicates that they were literally
fulfilled in Jesus' crucifixion and justification of believers.
Secondly,
according to Isaiah 53:9 the servant "had done no
violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth." It also states that the servant is
to be a guilt offering, an asham.
(Cf. Isa. 53:10) According to Leviticus 5:15 a guilt
offering had to be perfect. Yet, according to Isaiah, Israel was anything but
perfect:
"And
I said: `Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my
eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!' " Isa. 6:5 NRSV
"See,
the Lord's hand is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. Rather, your iniquities have been barriers between you and your
God, and your sins have hidden his face from
you so that he does not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with
iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness... For our transgressions before you are many, and our sins testify against us. Our transgressions indeed are with us, and we
know our iniquities." Isa. 59:1-3, 12 NRSV
Thirdly, Isaiah
declares that the servant is stricken "for the transgression of my people." (Cf.
53:8) The phrase "my people" is used elsewhere by Isaiah to identify the
nation of Israel. (Cf. 22:4; 26:20; 32:13) It makes
absolutely no sense to say that Israel was dying for Isaiah's people, who happened to be
Israel! It only makes sense if the servant is a specific individual who is distinct from
corporate Israel.
In Isaiah 53:5 the Hebrew term min is more correctly translated as
"from." Therefore, Isaiah was not saying that the servant was wounded for transgressions, but from transgressions.
Response:
This assumes that
the preposition min has only one meaning, which
it does not. The word must be translated in accordance with the way it is being used in a
given context. One way the word is used is in a causal sense such as we find in the
following citations:
"Because of the multitude of your iniquities... you
have profaned your shrines." Ezek. 28:18
"It
was not (because of) the king's will..." 2 Sam. 3:37
"All
flesh shall not again be cut off by the flood waters." Gen. 9:11
This is the way
Isaiah uses the term, that because of or for the sins of his people the servant was being
wounded and crushed. This is how even non-Christian scholars understand it:
"He
was pained because of our rebellious sins and
oppressed through our iniquities..." (Rabbi
Nosson Scherman / Rabbi Meir Ziotowitz, The Stone Edition Tanach- ArtScroll Series, Published by Mesorah Publications, ltd.,
1998)
(Note:
For a more thorough study on the different usages of min
consult Bruce K. Waltke & M. O. Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Eisenbrauns; Winona Lake, Indiana, 1990], pp. 212-214)
In 53:8b Isaiah states, `for the transgression of my people he was stricken." The phrase Isaiah uses is lamoh and is plural, i.e. "they were stricken." This identifies the
servant as national
Response:
The Muslim
contention that "lamoh" cannot be used in the
singular case is erroneous. Dr P.J. Williams, affiliated lecturer in Hebrew and Aramaic
Faculty of Oriental Studies,
"...
The author claims that 'anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew' will recognize his point
that 'lamoh' is always plural. In fact one of the latest Hebrew grammars,
and a great number of older ones disagree at precisely this point. P. Jouon, ed. by T. Muraoka, A Grammar of
Biblical Hebrew, Rome, 1991, section 103 f, records that 'lamoh'
may be used as a pausal
form of 'lo' "to him". This phenomenon is illustrated well in Genesis 9:26 and 27, and Isaiah 44:15.
The suffix -mo is indisputably singular in Psalm 11:7. The phrase may satisfactorily be translated 'from the transgression of my people the blow was his',
i.e. he was wounded for the transgression of my people, where 'my people' is distinct from
the one who suffers." (bold emphasis ours)
The term for death
in Isaiah 53:9 is plural in Hebrew and should be
"deaths." This indicates that Isaiah had national Israel in mind.
Response:
The term is
understood to refer to the intensity of the servant's sufferings, not to a plural number
of actual deaths. This becomes evident when reading the term in its intended context:
"They
made his grave with the wicked and his death with the rich, although he had done no
violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth."
The term grave, qeber, is singular and is used synonymously with death.
John N. Oswalt notes, "The last members of each colon in
Hebrew, his grave and his death, are synonymous." (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament -
The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66 [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans's
Publishing Company, 1998], p.397)
According to
Edward J. Young, "The two words grave and death are to be taken together; in his death and
burial the servant was with the rich and with the wicked." (The Book of Isaiah, A Commentary, vol. 3 Chapters
40-66 [Eerdmans's, rpt. 1996], p. 353)
This argues the
fact that the plural "deaths" refers to the servant's intense suffering. In
fact, The Stone Edition Tanach
identifies the plural usage as referring to the servant's executions:
"He
submitted himself to his grave like wicked men; and the wealthy [submitted] to his executions."
I
n
fact, certain rabbis understood the plural to refer to the intensity of the Messiah's
death:
"The
sense of the whole is, And he made in His deaths His grave with the wicked, and the rich:
the plural `deaths' is used because piercing Him as cruel men do, through and through,
they would, so to speak, be putting Him to death again and again."
Isaiah
53:10
speaks of the servant seeing "his seed." The term "seed" is always
used to refer to physical offspring. (Cf. Gen. 12:7, 15:13,
46:6; Ex. 28:43) But Jesus had no children since he was never married.
Response:
The term
"seed," zera,
does not always refer to physical offspring. The word is also used metaphorically:
"And
the LORD God said to the serpent... `And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman, And between your seed and
her seed. He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.' " Gen.3:14, 15 NASV
Seed cannot
possibly mean that the serpent, who is actually the Devil (Cf.
Rev. 12:9), will have literal, biological offspring who will fight with the woman's
seed. Rather, it is referring to individuals who carry out the Devil's will. (Cf. John 8:44)
Zera can also mean race or
generation:
"For
they have taken some of their daughters as wives
for themselves and their sons, so that the holy race
has intermingled with the peoples of the lands..." Ezra 9:2
NASV
"And
a mongrel race will dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines." Zech. 9:6 NASV
Therefore, seed
does not necessarily imply that the servant shall have biological offspring. It can be
referring to the children God has given the Messiah to justify and redeem:
" And again, `BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME.'
" Hebrews
"And
this is the will of Him who sent Me, that all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but
raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds
the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal; and I Myself will raise him up on the last
day." John 6:39-40 NASV
Finally, the text
does not say that the servant shall see his seed,
but rather that he shall see seed. The seed he shall se can be referring to the posterity
that will come to serve God through the servant as stated in Psalm
22:30-31:
"Posterity (zera) will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn - for he has done it."
In conclusion,
the evidence supports the messianic understanding of Isaiah 53.
The evidence presented against it does not stand under careful analysis and exegesis
My Response:
And
even after all that it does not prove Jesus is God. And if everything you say is true,
then once again why don’t the majority of Jews believe it
to! If it were that simple they would have simply believed it but the fact is that they do
not believe it showing there is more to it. Here are links to Jewish refutations of Isaiah
referring to Jesus:
http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah53.html
http://www.jdstone.org/cr/pages/ssss_isa53.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq136.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq006.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq014.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq019.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq021.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq038.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq039.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq040.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq044a.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq045.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq046.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq047.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq054.html
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq078.html
More
information regarding this chapter from http://qumran.com/For_a_Better_Understanding/is_isaiah_53.htm:
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
Before we examine Isaiah 53
verse by verse some preliminary issues must be considered .
Isaiah 53 is only understood properly when read in the context of the Jewish Bible as a whole .
Earlier on in the book of
Isaiah, God had predicted exile and calamity for the Jewish people. Chapter 53, however,
occurs in the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation", which tell of the
supposed restoration of Israel to a position of prominence and a vindication of their
status as God's "chosen people".
In chapter 52, for example,
Israel is described as "oppressed without cause" (v.4) and "taken
away" (v.5), yet God promises a brighter future ahead, one in which Israel will again
prosper and be redeemed in the sight of all the nations (v.1-3, 8-12).
Chapter 54 further elaborates
upon the redemption which awaits the nation of Israel. Speaking clearly of the Jewish
people and their status (even according to all Christian commentaries), chapter 54 ends as
follows:
"`This is the heritage of
the servants of the Lord and their vindication is from Me,'declares the Lord."
In the original Hebrew texts,
there are no chapter divisions, and Jewish and Christian scholars agree that chapter 53 is
actually a continuation of the prophecy which begins at 52:13. Accordingly, our analysis
must begin at that verse.
52:13 "Behold, My servant
will prosper."
Israel in the singular is called
God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9;
44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20;
43:10) - Other references to Israel as God's servant include Jer.
30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded
by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by God , as in Isa.
53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22; Lk.
1:54.
52:15 - 53:1 "So shall he
(the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had
not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who
would believe what we have heard?"
Quite clearly, the nations and
their kings will be amazed at what happens to the "servant of the L-rd," and
they will say "who would believe what we have heard?".
52:15 tells us explicitly that
it is the nations of the world, the gentiles, who are doing the talking in Isaiah 53.
53:1 "And to whom has the
arm of the Lord been revealed?"
In Isaiah, and throughout the
Jewish Bible , God's "arm" refers to the physical
redemption of Israel from the oppression of other nations (see, e.g., Isa.
52:8-12; Isa.
63:12; Deut. 4:34; Deut. 7:19;
Ps. 44:3).
53:3 "Despised and rejected
of men."
While this is clearly applicable
to Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be
reconciled with the Christian Bible account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly
"praised by all" (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by
multitudes (Matt. 4:25), who would later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry
into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9-11).
Even as he was supposedly taken
to be crucified, a multitude bemoaned his fate (Lk.
53:3 "A man of pains and
acquainted with disease."
Israel's adversities are
frequently likened to sickness - see, e.g., Isa. 1:5-6; Jer. 10:19; Jer 30:12.
53:4 "Surely our diseases
he carried and our pains he bore."
In Matt. 8:17, this is
incorrectly translated, and said to be literally (not spiritually) fulfilled in Jesus'
healing of the sick, a reading inconsistent with the Christian mistranslation of 53:4
itself.
53:4 "Yet we ourselves
esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted."
See Jer.
30:17 - of God's servant
53:5 "But he was wounded
FROM (NOTE: not FOR ) our transgressions, he was crushed FROM
(AGAIN: not FOR) our iniquities."
Notice above how the Christians
mistranslate and write "FOR our transgressions "
rather than " FROM our transgressions " .
Whereas the nations had thought
the Servant (
53:7 "He was oppressed and
he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and
like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth."
Note that in the prior chapter (Isa. 52),
Regarding the claim that Jesus
"did not open his mouth" when faced with oppression and affliction, see Matt.
27:46, Jn. 18:23, 36-37.
53:8 "From dominion and
judgment he was taken away."
Note the correct translation of
the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslate, since - by Jesus' own testimony -
he never had any rights to ruler-ship or judgment, at least not on the "first
coming." See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn.
8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.
53:8 "He was cut off out of
the land of the living" and 53:9 "His grave was assigned with wicked men."
See Ez.
37:11-14, wherein
The Jewish Bible repeatedly says
that if a descendant of David is righteous, he will not be "cut off
" (karet). For example, see 1Kings 2:4,
Therefore, if this verse is
speaking of Jesus being "cut off", then that must mean he was unrighteous and
was cut off from his (supposed) royal heritage.
53:8 "From my peoples'
sins, there was injury to THEM ."
Here the Prophet makes
absolutely clear, to anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew, that the oppressed Servant is a
collective Servant, not a single individual.
The Hebrew word "lamoh", when used in the Jewish Bible ,
always means "to them" never "to him" and may be found, for example,
in Psalm 99:7 - "They kept his testimonies, and the statute that He gave to
them."
53:9 "And with the rich in
his DEATHS ."
Perhaps King James should have
changed the original Hebrew, which again makes clear that we are dealing with a collective
Servant, i.e., Israel, which will "come to life" when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14). "DEATHS" (Plural)
53:9 "He had done no
violence."
See Matt.
53:10 "He shall see his
seed."
The Hebrew word for
"seed", used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants in the Jewish Bible . See, e.g., Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen.
46:6; Ex. 28:43. A different word, generally translated as "sons", is
used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1, e.g.).
53:10 "He will prolong his
days."
Not only did Jesus die young,
but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God himself ?
53:11
"With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just."
Note again the correct
translation based upon the Hebrew translation : "the
Servant will cause many to be just" he will not.... "justify
the many."
53:12 "Therefore, I will
divide a portion to him with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the
mighty."
If Jesus is God, does the idea
of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jews -righteously suffered
"FROM" the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God (Ps. 44) ? -
Dr.Raphael Patai a noted anthropologist, Biblical scholar and author writes in
his book " Messianic Text " page 1-2 that :
"... it
also must be pointed out that several of these Biblical Messianic prophecies are Messianic
only in the light of these later interpretations . At the time of their composition ,these passages may have had other meanings .The
important prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah about the Suffering
Servant for instance, are considered by Jewish as well as Christian scholars as referring
to the people of
In Isaiah 49:3 the Suffering
Servant is explicitly identified with Israel . On this basis,
as well as on the basis of certain other features, all the so called "Servant Songs
" ( Isa.42:1-4 , 49:1-6 , 50:4-9 and 52:13 -53:12 ) have long been taken to speak of
the sufferings of exiled Israel as personified in "The Servant of the Lord ".
Yet these same passages became
IN TALMUDIC TIMES identified with the Messianic theme , and so
they have remained in Jewish FOLK CONSCIOUSNESS throughout the ages . In fact it is quite
probable that the concept of the suffering Messiah, fully developed IN THE TALMUD , THE MIDRASH , AND THE ZOHAR "
What Dr Raphael Patai is telling us is that Isaiah 53 at the time of its composition
had no Messianic connotations whatsoever .
The Jewish concept of a Davidic
Messiah who would rule the world from
The Jews reminisced of the
"better days " when they were a powerful and
sovereign nation under the ruler-ship of David and Solomon . The Idea of a Davidic Messiah
developed due to the suffering and frustration of a nation in exile who yearned for their
homeland and for a day their enemies would bow before them and serve them
.
Christians have taken Jewish
Messianic folklore completely out of context by interpreting Midrashic
homilies in a literal sense .The result is a non-Semitic distortion of Jewish folklore
woven with Greek/Roman Mythos " Christianity " .
Now that
most non-Jewish scholars concede that Isaiah 53 refers to the Jewish people... Some
Christians have tried to find support for their beliefs in Rabbinic
writings. Traditional Judaism NEVER believed that there would be a supernatural
virgin-born Messiah who would be killed as an atonement for
sin. If this had been the traditional Jewish belief all along, it certainly came as a
shock to the Jewish followers of Jesus.
When the Nazarene told his
followers that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer...Peter protests, "GOD forbid it
lord, this shall never happen to you." (Mat. 16:22) Peter didn't joyfully exclaim:
Praise GOD, you are the suffering servant of Isaiah 53! The Disciples never knew that the
Messiah was supposed to suffer - (Mat.
Jesus' enemies, such as Herod
(Mat. 2) certainly didn't think that the Messiah was supposed to be killed - otherwise why
help his cause by trying to kill him!?
In reality, the Jewish people
expected the Messiah to rule as king over a restored
( Jer.
23:5- 6, Isaiah 11:1-9, 2:1-4, Ezekiel 37:21- 28...) This had always been the Jewish
understanding of Messiah, and Isaiah 53 was understood as referring to the Jewish people
all along. It's not an idea invented by Rashi in the Middle Ages.
The church father Origen reports that this was the Jewish understanding in his time,
hundreds of years before Rashi. (Contra Celsum)
Actually, there are ancient sources that have explicit reference to a supernatural,
virgin-born savior, who dies by murder to achieve salvation
for believers who can experience him by eating of his flesh...You can read all about it in
the mythologies of Mithra, Osiris,
Krishna, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus, Bacchus, Isis, etc.
Those Christians who desperately
ransacked the Talmud to find support for their preconceived ideas are not students of the
Talmud with any interest in the actual teachings of Rabbinic Judaism. They merely use the
Talmud like a drunk uses a lamp post - not for illumination,
but for support.
Most Christians who read the
Talmud are not really in the position to know what it means (although some well educated
honest Christian scholars do) much as they would claim that a non-Christian can't really
understand the New Testament. (I Cor. 1:18). Some have the
audacity to say Christians know Tanach (Jewish Bible) better
than the Jews ( comical to say the least).
Most of these Christian
Talmudists don't even own a Talmud much less read it themselves .
They rather get their information from collections of secondary sources put together by
other Christian Talmudist .
When these collections are
checked, the Talmudic passages are frequently incorrectly cited, usually quoted out of
context, and occasionally completely manufactured.
Did the Rabbis ever notice that
there are two different pictures of the Messiah in the Bible? Did they resolve this
tension by proposing a theory of 2 Messiahs, a Messiah son of David and a Messiah son of
Joseph? That depends on whether you read what the Talmud actually teaches, or accept the
propaganda of the so Christian-Talmudists.
R. Alexandri
said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man
came with the clouds of heaven; whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh
unto thee...] lowly, and riding upon an ass! - If they are meritorious, [he will come]
with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass. - Sanhedrin 98A
The minor figure of a Messiah
son of Joseph has nothing to do with how Talmudic sages perceived contradictory passages
in the Bible. He does figure into Rabbinic Apocalyptic-Midrashic
speculation.
Ask a
"Christian-Talmudist" to explain the difference between "PSHAT" and
"DRASH".
Ask a
"Christian-Talmudist" about why the Talmud applies Isaiah 53 to Moses, any pious
person who suffers, and sick men who have had an ejaculation (he will see his seed, he will prolong his days...)
Ask a
"Christian-Talmudist" why most non-Jewish Biblical scholars, (many of them
Christian) accept the real traditional Jewish understanding of Isaiah 53, Daniel
If you would like to learn the
Jewish perspective on the Issues dont go to your Christian
Bookstore or rely on the 700 Club and the "Zola Levite Show
" for your Information .
More
links regarding Jewish Responses to Isaiah 53 reffering to
Jesus:
http://www.faithofyeshua.faithweb.com/
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/isaiah2.html
I
challenge Shamoun and Christians to go on each website I
posted and read what they have to say, because the fact is Isaiah does not refer to Jesus.
This
concludes the 3rd part of the rebuttal to Shamoun's article.
To continue
to part 4 click here.
My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.
Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's Articles section.
Sami Zaatari's Rebuttals section.