Rabbi Admits that the Day of Atonement is parallel to Jesus Christ!

In this lecture, beginning at around the 1:29:00 mark (between the one hour and 29 minute mark and 1 hour 32 minute mark)- Rabbi Michael Skobac admits that the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur = יום כפר ) of Leviticus 16 is the closest parallel to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ!  He tried to argue that Jesus did not fulfill the Passover the Sacrifice, yet the New Testament teaches just that.  (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7)  Jesus fulfilled the passover lamb also, as “not a bone of him was broken”. (see Exodus 12:46 and John 19:33, 36)  One of the most amazing things he says is that the Passover sacrifice has nothing to do with sin!  Really?  The idolatry and the false gods of Egypt was not sin?  The Passover sacrifice was a judgment against the idolatry and false gods of Egypt. (Exodus 12:12)  Only by the substitutionary sacrifice of an innocent lamb and the blood applied to the doorposts would the judging angels of the wrath of God be stopped.  This is also a further development of what Abraham said when Isaac asked him, “Where is the lamb for the sacrifice?” Abraham answered, “God will provide for Himself the lamb”. (see Genesis 22:7-8)

There are many false arguments he makes, such as the claim that a substitutionary sacrifice of blood is not necessary always for forgiveness; rather he claims that the main thing is repentance and contrition over sin, not the sacrificial system or substitutionary atonement by giving up life- by death by a violent, bloody death.  Of course Christians agree that just going through the motions of a religious ritual, without inward heart repentance is empty and to no avail.  Both the OT and the NT require both – the bloody substitutionary sacrifice and repentance on the part of the sinner.  Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (Passover), Leviticus chapters 1-7 and 16-17, 1 Kings 8, Psalm 50:5; Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and other passages all point to the necessity of blood sacrifice.   Leviticus 17:11 is still teaching the necessity of blood sacrifice, despite the Rabbi’s argument against it, and is what Hebrews 9:22 is referring to – “without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.”

As time allows, in later posts, I may comment on other parts of this lecture, which is basically trying to counter the arguments and evangelism that Messianic Jews and other Christians who witness to Jews make.  Muslims like to use this lecture also, in making arguments against the Christian faith.  (No longer available as Paul B. Williams changed his blog three times.)

One should read all of Leviticus chapter 16 and 17 and see the context, the two goats – one was slaughtered for atonement and one was sent away for atonement, after the priest confessed all the sins of the people of Israel onto the goat.

Here are the most relevant verses of Leviticus 16 concerning the Day of Atonement and the scapegoat:

20 “When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. 21 Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.22 The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.  (Leviticus 16:20-22)

34 Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year.” And just as the Lord had commanded Moses, so he did. (Leviticus 16:34)

A very important point I want to make is about the word “bear” or “carry” in verse 22.  This is the Hebrew word Nasa’ = נשא and it also used several times in Isaiah 53.

Surely our griefs He Himself bore [Hebrew: נשא]
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.  (Isaiah 53:4)

Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore [ נשא ] the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:12)

There is also another Hebrew word for “carry” and “bear” or “take away” [ סבל – “sabal” ]  used in Isaiah 53:4 and 53:11, that would emphasize the taking away aspect of the scape-goat (literally:  “the goat of sending away”, or “the goat of escaping” = עז-  אזל = “Az” = goat; “azel” [ אזל ]  = sending away or escaping)

Isaiah 53 really starts in 52:13, according to context, as the chapter divisions were a later invention.  “Behold, My servant, will act wisely and succeed, and He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted.”  Note, the Hebrew word Nasa’ [ נשא ]  is also used in this verse, but in this context, it means, “lifted up”.  This may be pointing to the “lifting up” of the Son of Man on the cross (John 3:14, 12:32) or the lifting up of the Son of Man in the resurrection and ascension to heaven.   Almost every verse in Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 is either quoted in the NT or alluded to the NT (see examples at end); and many aspects are alluded to back to earlier parts of the TaNakh. (the Hebrew Bible – T = Torah; N = Nabi’im = prophets; “Kh” = Ketuvim = writings (the Psalms, poetry, wisdom, and historical books.  These are the three sections of the Hebrew Bible that Jesus also affirmed in Luke 24:44.)

The whole section, beginning in Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 has several indicators that Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is about atonement aspects of both goats in the Day of Atonement of Leviticus 16.  Because the suffering servant (52:13 – “My servant”; and 53:11 – “My servant, the righteous one, will justify the many”) both bears our sins and is slaughtered, He is fulfilling both aspects of the Day of Atonement.   By both aspects, I mean both goats – one was slaughtered and one was “sent away”, representing 2 aspects of atonement.   Because He is also called “a lamb”, He is fulfilling the aspect of the Passover lamb of Exodus 12, which turned God’s wrath away from those that had the blood on the doorposts, and He is the lamb that Abraham said “God will provide for the lamb for the sacrifice” in Genesis 22.

Isaiah 53:6 also points to the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement.

“All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.”  ( Isaiah 53:6)

The concept of the iniquity “falling upon” or “encountering” Him seems to allude back to the lot falling upon the scapegoat.  And that the priest placed his hands on the head of the scapegoat and confessed all the sins of the sons of Israel over the goat was a symbol of transference of sin from us humans onto the goat.

Isaiah 53:6 is alluded to in 1 Peter 2:25 – “For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and guardian of our souls.”

Also, the shepherd imagery points to Psalm 23:1, Isaiah 40; and Micah 5:2-5, and Jesus makes that claim that He is the Messiah who is the good shepherd who will shepherd My people, etc. (John chapter 10)

Getting back to the idea of “bearing sin” – from Isaiah 53:4 and 11-12 – this is picked up a lot in the New Testament.

1 Peter 2:24

” and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. ”

The last phrase, “for by His wounds you were healed” is a direct reference to Isaiah 53:5; and the first part that He “bore our sins” is a reference to Isaiah 53:4, 11, and 12.  In fact, the LXX translation of “bore” in Isaiah 53:4 and 12 is the same Greek word in I Peter 2:24. (ανηνεγκεν, from ανα-φερω – to carry, to carry away, to bear, to offer up (a sacrifice).  This word is also used in Hebrews 7:27 (twice, offering up sacrifices, and Jesus offered Himself up); Hebrews 9:28, and James 2:21 about Abraham offering up Isaac.

Another argument that the Rabbi makes is about Isaiah 53:10 – that phrase, “He would render Himself as a guilt offering . . . ” is harkening back to Leviticus 5:15-19 and the guilt offering there, but it states that it is only for unintentional sins, not intentional ones.  But if one keeps reading into Leviticus chapter 6:1-7, one can see that the “guilt offering” [ אשם ] also includes intentional sins.  (Thanks to Michael Brown for that insight! Answers to Jewish Objections to Jesus. 5 Volumes. In volume 2, “Theological Objections, on page 128 and following. ) Furthermore, the day of atonement emphasizes several times “for all the iniquities of the sons of Israel”.  (see Leviticus 16:20-22 and verse 34)  All would include both intentional and unintentional sins.

But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, [ אשם ]
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. (Isaiah 53:10)

Allusions or quotes in the NT:

Isaiah 52:13 – “My Servant” – Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28.  Matthew 12:1-4 also about “My servant” which is a quote from Isaiah 42:1-4.  Jesus, as the servant who serves and “give His life a ransom for man” alludes to all of Isaiah 53, and He was clearly claiming to be the servant of Isaiah 42 and 53.

“He will act wisely or prudently” = the Hebrew word here is a deep word, meaning, “He will act wisely so as to succeed or prosper”, in carrying out the will of God.  This word is also used in Joshua 1:8.

“He will be high, and lifted up, and great exalted.”  This points to the numerous concepts of Jesus’ glorification and victory over sin in His resurrection, and ascension to heaven, and His taking His seat of authority at the right hand of the Father.

Isaiah 52:14 – “His appearance was marred more than any man” – refers to the beatings and sufferings of the brutal crucifixion.  He was so disfigured that the disciples did not recognize Him when He rose from the dead, because the last memories of His dis-figurement was so seared into their brains.

Isaiah 52:15 – “what had not been told them, they will see, and what they had not heard, they will understand” – this is quoted by the apostle Paul in Romans 15:20-21, that when the gospel goes to new areas and new people groups, the mission of the suffering servant is being fulfilled and accomplished.  The mission of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52-53 is not complete until all the unreached people groups have heard, and some of them come to  know the true God, the fulfillment when some from all the nations will be redeemed by the blood of the lamb. (see Revelation 5:9)

Isaiah 53:1 – quoted in John 12:38 and Romans 10:16

Isaiah 53:2- 3 – alluded to back in Isaiah 11:1 and as the “Netzer” [ נצר ] and the branch and tender shoot, (with Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; and Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12) – as the “Netzer” – he was despised and rejected and this is what Matthew 2:23 is talking about when it says, “this was to fulfill the word of the prophets, He will be called a Nazarene.”  (“Netzer” or “Nazer” is the root of “Nazarene”) The Jews of the south around Jerusalem were disgusted with the area of Galilee, “Galilee of the Gentiles”, and the Samaritans, because they were half Jews, mixed with the Assyrians and others peoples (see 2 Kings 17); and so many Greeks and Romans and other foreigners were up there in around Galilee.  “can anything good come out of Galilee?” was a common saying.

Isaiah 53:4 – quoted in Matthew 8:17;

the “bearing of sin” is alluded to in 1 Peter 2:24 and other places. The word for “pain”/”sickness” is used in Isaiah 1:3-9 about the sins of the people.  Also, Jeremiah 17:9 speaks of the heart being sick and deceitful, and although a different word for “sick”, the concept points to spiritual sickness in sin.

Isaiah 53:5 – the last phrase is quoted in 1 Peter 2:24

Isaiah 53:6 – alluded to in 1 Peter 2:25

Isaiah 53:7 – 8

He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, (see John 1:29)
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.

By oppression and judgment He was taken away,

And as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living,

For the transgression of My people, to whom the stoke was due?

Isaiah 53:7-8 is quoted in Acts 8:30-35

30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:

“He was led as a sheep to slaughter;
And as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
So He does not open His mouth.
33 “In humiliation His judgment was taken away;
Who will relate His generation?
For His life is removed from the earth.”

34 The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.

Another interesting note is the phrase “cut off from the land of the living”.  This concept of being “cut off” is similar to the passage about the Messiah in Daniel 9:26 – “Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.”  Clearly this is about the death of the Messiah predicted by Daniel, and then after His death, the temple will be destroyed, in 70 AD, as Jesus predicted in Matthew 23:36-39 and 24:1-3 and 15.

Isaiah 53:9 –

His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death, (allusion to Joseph of Arimathea’s grave in Matthew 27:57)
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.  (Quoted in 1 Peter 2:22)

Isaiah 53:10 –

But the Lord was pleased –  (pointing to the wrath of God being satisfied by His atonement in willingly being a guilt offering- Leviticus chapter 5 and 6) 

To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, (Leviticus 5 and 6:1-7)
He will see His offspring,  (The Messiah’s “seed” is His spiritual sons and daughters by faith – also referred to later in the passage in Isaiah 54:1-4 and Galatians 3-4)
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.

Isaiah 53:11-12

As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,  (Jesus alludes to this in Mark 10:45; and Romans 5:11-21 speaks of the justification of many by the death of Christ)
As He will bear their iniquities. (referred to at the beginning of the article)
12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors; (quoted in Luke 22:37; and also probably fulfilled by being crucified between 2 other criminals.)
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, (I Peter 2:24; Hebrews 7:27; 9:28)
And interceded for the transgressors. (see Luke 23:34; Christ continues to intercede for us now – Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25)

So, Isaiah 53 was a further development of the substitutionary sacrifice and the bearing of sins of the goats of the day of atonement in Leviticus 16, 17:11, (also in Leviticus 5-6) and a prediction of the Messiah to come, as almost every verse in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is either directly quoted or alluded to in the NT.

Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Apologetics, Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Islam. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Rabbi Admits that the Day of Atonement is parallel to Jesus Christ!

  1. Sam Shamoun says:

    Hey bro, we just posted our latest updated where you will find a whole series of rebuttals to Shabir, Laurence Brown and Paul Williams. We even started a series on Jonathan Brown, one of Williams’ favorites, where I use him to refute and expose Muhammad as a false prophet: http://answering-islam.org/New/new.html

    Enjoy!

  2. Sam Shamoun says:

    That inconsistent, deceptive Christophobe Williams reblogged another non-response to me where he attacks my character in order to prevent Muslims from listening to me, which is nothing more than the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Since I know he won’t post my comment I am posting it here for people to see why he won’t bother posting it:

    Williams, is this really your best? Is that all you can do is to go after me personally and think that people are going buy into your cowardice and character assasination? Is this all you can say in light of the massive amount of rebuttals I have been producing by the grace of the Lord Jesus, Muhammad’s God and Judge, decimating your lies, slanders and blasphemies, and showing the world that Muhammad stands condemned by your own arguments and criteria?

    Man you are pathetic and this is simply a sign that you know you cannot defend the lies and wickedness of your religion.

    And do make sure do enjoy your latest pwngage!

    Shabir

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/ally/isaiah53_1.html

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/ally/isaiah53_2.html

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/ally/isaiah53_add.html

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/ally/paul_circumcision.html

    Laurence Brown

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/laurence_brown/bites_dust1.html

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/laurence_brown/bites_dust2.html

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/laurence_brown/bites_dust3.html

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/laurence_brown/bites_dust4.html

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/laurence_brown/bites_dust5.html

    Jonathan Brown

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/jonathan_brown/incriminating1.html

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/jonathan_brown/incriminating2.html

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/jonathan_brown/incriminating3.html

    Lord Jesus willing, more to come.

  3. Ken Temple says:

    I could be wrong, but, I don’t think Paul looks at this site very much. And I don’t think he reads your articles.

    • Sam Shamoun says:

      Ken, whether he does or not, this will still equip you to reply back to him on his blog since he won’t let my comments through. Enjoy!

  4. Sam Shamoun says:

    Since Williams just posted another assault against the Holy Bible, this time in regards to Luke’s birth narrative, I sent him this:

    I guess it’s time to pwn you again. Enjoy!

    It is surprising that Muslims would raise this as an issue, since it is actually the Qur’an that describes Jesus’ virginal conception and birth in very graphic language:

    And (remember) her who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic- farjahaa): We breathed into her from Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign for all people. S. 21:91

    And Mary the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her SEXUAL ORGAN (Arabic- farjahaa) and We breathed INTO IT of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). S. 66:12

    The word farjahaa, from farj, refers to a person’s private area, to their private parts. Here are some verses which use this word in this connection:

    Prosperous are the believers who in their prayers are humble … and guard their private parts (lifuroojihim). S. 23:1-2,5 Arberry

    Say to the believers, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts (furoojahum); that is purer for them. God is aware of the things they work. And say to the believing women, that they cast down their eyes’ and guard their private parts (furoojahunna), and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment save to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or what their right hands own, or such men as attend them, not having sexual desire, or children who have not yet attained knowledge of women’s private parts; nor let them stamp their feet, so that their hidden ornament may be known. And turn all together to God, O you believers; haply so you will prosper. S. 24:30-31 Arberry

    Men and women who have surrendered, believing men and believing women, obedient men and obedient women, truthful men and truthful women, enduring men and enduring women, humble men and humble women, men and women who give in charity, men who fast and women who fast, men and women who guard their private parts (furoojahum), men and women who remember God oft — for them God has prepared forgiveness and a mighty wage. S. 33:35 Arberry

    and guard their private parts (lifuroojihim). S. 70:29 Arberry

    In the above references which speak of Christ’s conception, this word is used to describe Allah penetrating Mary’s private area by breathing his Spirit into it.

    Mahmoud M. Ayoub contrasts the birth narratives of the Gospel of Luke with that mentioned in the Quran. All bold and capital emphasis is ours:

    “The language of this verse (author- Luke 1:35) is clearly circumspect. It implies no sexual union or divine generation of any kind. Furthermore, while Luke’s description agrees both in form and spirit with the Qur’anic idea of the conception of Christ, the language of the Qur’an IS FAR MORE GRAPHIC AND OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.” (Christian-Muslim Encounters, ed. Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad & Wadi Z. Haddad [University Press of Florida, 1995], p. 67)

    He goes on to say:

    “… Then of Mary He (author-allegedly God) continues: ‘And she who guarded well [lit. fortified] her chastity [lit. GENERATIVE ORGAN], and thus We breathed INTO HER of our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign [or miracle, ‘Aya] for all beings’ (S. 21:90-91) …

    “In the second instance the Qur’an speaks of Mary as a righteous woman who lived in strict chastity and obedience to God: ‘And Mary daughter of ‘Imran who guarded well her GENERATIVE ORGAN farjaha, and thus We breathed INTO HER of our spirit’ (S. 66:12). THE BOLD AND GRAPHIC STATEMENT APPEARS TO HAVE SHOCKED TRADITIONISTS AND COMMENTATORS, so that most of them tried to cover it up with different and FARFETCHED significations or glossed over it with out comment…

    “Ibn Kathir interprets the phrase ‘guarded well her generative organ’ to mean: ‘safeguarded and protected it. Guarding well ihsan signifies chastity and high birth.’ He comments on the phrase, ‘and thus We breathed into it of our spirit’ thus ‘that is, through the angel Gabriel. This is because God sent him to her, and he took for her the form of a man of good stature (S. 19:17). God commanded him to breathe INTO THE BREAST OF HER CHEMISE. HIS BREATH WENT DOWN AND PENETRATED HER GENERATIVE ORGAN, AND THUS CAUSED HER TO CONCEIVE JESUS …’” (Ibid.)

    Finally:

    “Abu Ja’far al-Tusi, the jurist doctor of the Shi’i community, as well as his well known disciple al-Tabarsi, read the words, ‘We breathed INTO IT’ literally. Al-Tusi says: ‘It has been held that Gabriel BREATHED INTO MARY’S GENERATIVE ORGAN then God created Christ in it’ …” (Ibid., p. 68)

    Source: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/virginalconception.htm

    So your god literally breathed his spirit into a woman’s vulva! How disgusting and shameful to describe such a holy conception in such vulgar manner!

  5. Ken Temple says:

    Wow; it sure seems like Muslims project those details and thoughts onto Christianity, since they got that way of thinking from their own sources.

    • Sam Shamoun says:

      Brother Ken, I see that the Muslims are going into damage control by throwing their sources under the bus or condemning their scholars. First, Ayoub is a scholar os the Quran, which means he is a scholar of Arabic since if he wasn’t then he couldn’t be regarded as a Quranic scholar.

      Second, I actually provide a series of quotes proving that farj meanings opening, and in the context of females, it refers to their vulva area. Here goes:

      Ibn Kathir provides additional evidence for the very graphic and distasteful nature of the Quranic birth narratives. In his comments on S. 66:12, Ibn Kathir writes:

      meaning who protected and purified her honor, by being chaste and free of immorality,

      meaning, through the angel Jibril. Allah sent the angel Jibril to Maryam, and he came to her in the shape of a man in every respect. Allah commanded him TO BLOW into a gap of her garment and that breath went into her womb THROUGH HER PRIVATE PART; this is how ‘Isa was conceived. This is why Allah said here,

      meaning His decree and His legislation. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Abridged, Volume 10, Surat At-Tagabun to the end of the Qur’an, pp. 75-76; bold and capital emphasis ours)

      Ibn Kathir makes the following comments in reference to S. 19:22-23:

      “Allah, the Exalted, informs about Maryam that when Jibril had spoken to her about what Allah said, she accepted the decree of Allah. Many scholars of the predecessors (Salaf) have mentioned that at this point the angel (who was Jibril) blew into the opening of her garment that she was wearing. Then the breath descended until it entered INTO HER VAGINA and she conceived by the leave of Allah.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 6, Surat Al-Isra’, Verse 39 To the end of Surat Al-Mu’minun, first edition July 2000, p. 244; bold and capital emphasis ours)
      Ibn Kathir’s notes on S. 2:223 also help us to see the very graphic nature of the term farj:

      this refers to Al-Farj (THE VAGINA), as Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid and other scholars have stated. Therefore, anal sex is prohibited, as we will further emphasize afterwards, Allah willing …

      Ibn Jurayj (one of the reporters of the Hadith) said that Allah’s Messengers said …

      ((From the front or from behind, as long as it occurs IN THE FARJ (VAGINA).)) …

      Abu Bakr bin Ziyad Naysaburi reported that Isma’il bin Ruh said that he asked Malik bin Anas, “What do you say about having sex with women in the anus?” He said, “You are not an Arab? Does sex occur but in the place of pregnancy? Do it only IN THE FARJ (VAGINA).” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2 (Surat Al-Fatihah to Verse 252 of Surat Al-Baqarah), first edition January 2000, pp. 618, 619, 622; bold and capital emphasis ours)

      In responding to the Shia position regarding the permissibility of temporary marriages (mutah), this Sunni writer defines farj as:

      I’arat al-Furuj (Loaning of Vaginas)
      The Shi’ah books of fiqh carry a separate chapter entitled “I’arat al-Furuj.” This could literally be translated as “The Loaning of Vaginas.” … (Dr. Ahmad ‘Abdullah Salamah, Shi’ah Concept of Temporary Marriage (Mut’ah); online edition)

      Here is the final Muslim example showing that farj refers to the female organ:

      Narrated Basrah:
      A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet). The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: She will get the dower, for you made her VAGINA (farj) lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her (according to the version of al-Hasan). The version of Ibn AbusSari has: You people, flog her, or said: inflict hard punishment on him. (Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2126)
      Christian writer Abd al-Masih helps to put this in perspective. Commenting on S. 21:91, al-Masih notes:

      “Whoever reads verse 91 of Sura al-Anbiya’ 21 carefully could be embarrassed. It is scandalous how Muhammad and his spirit of revelation lift Mary up as the most important of all women, and at the same time tear away her veil of chastity. Her self-protection is not described in a euphemism, but is calculated brutally, as in a business deal:

      And she guraded her vagina [farj] so we breathed into her of our spirit. (Sura al-Anbiya’ 21:91)

      This revelation is not an honour, but an exposition. Maybe it was customary among Bedouins to speak contemptuously and carelessly about women. But this only shows the rule of Arabic men and their contempt for women. If the best of women is spoken about like this, what about others! The men are never written about like this. They remain covered, holier-than-thou and self-righteous.” (Abd al-Masih, Who Is The Spirit From Allah In Islam? [Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503, VILLACH AUSTRIA], pp. 46-47)

      He notes regarding S. 66:12:

      “The second problem is caused by the Arabic language. In Arabic, Allah does not say: ‘so we breathed into her of our spirit’, but ‘into him’. Who is it, into whom the spirit was breathed? The embryo ‘Isa? That is difficult to accept, for then ‘Isa would have existed in Mary’s womb already before the spirit was breathed into her. That would mean that Allah created ‘Isa beforehand or that he existed before he was conceived. Both options are out of the question for Islamic scholars.
      Who is it then, into whom the Spirit from Allah was breathed? IT IS ALMOST UNSPEAKABLE, but the last expression in the previous sentence, which is masculine in Arabic, IS THE EXPRESSION FOR MARY’S GENITALS.[43] The literal meaning of Allah’s statement in Arabic is then, ‘so we breathed into her vagina [farj] of our spirit.’ This turns the stomachs of some of our readers.

      Rudi Paret, the best translator of the Qur’an into German, confirms the meaning of this phrase in a footnote. This seems not only to us, but also to many Islamic scholars to be a blasphemy. Ibn Mas’ud went so far as to suggest that the Qur’anic text should be changed to read ‘so we breathed into her [Mary] of our spirit.’ It is comforting to see that there are Muslims who prefer the possibility of a fallible Qur’an to a blasphemy like this.

      Other commentators explain the expression into him as Mary’s heart or body, which are masculine in Arabic, but not mentioned in the text. These are nothing but attempts to cover up the problem, but the problem itself remains. The assumption that it was an unclean spirit that spoke through Muhammad is obvious. It is almost impossible to imagine that Muslims claim that Jibril himself did this. Here the false statement of an unclean spirit stands against the noble Holy Spirit.” (Ibid., pp. 53-54; capital emphasis ours)

      In the above indicated footnote, the author states:

      43. According to al-Nasafi: “in her vagina” (Madarik al-Tanzil, vol. 4, p. 272). (Ibid., p. 53)

  6. Sam Shamoun says:

    Ken, I just saw your recent posts at Williams’ blog and his response to your citation of Mark 14. I left this comment there which I know he won’t post.

    Ken, the circularity of Williams’ response here, which is a classic case of begging the question:

    “Both these verse prove that Jesus was NOT God as Jesus is pictured as next to God not God himself. Your argument is rank heresy because it is polytheistic – picturing 2 divinities in heaven.”

    Do you notice how he assumes that God is unipersonal and based on this unproven assumption proceeds to assume that if Jesus is distinguished from God then this means that he cannot also be God? And yet he goes ahead and contradicts himself since he admits that Acts 7 does point out the fact that both God the Father and Jesus are divine, i.e. “two divinities in heaven.” In saying this, not only has he shot himself in the foot he has also demonstrated that, contrary to his ranting and raving, NT writings such as the Synoptic Gospels and Acts DO IN FACT AFFIRM THE DEITY OF CHRIST!

    Way to go Williams! I am going to take this reply of yours and write a response to illustrate once again your gross inconsistency and logical fallacies.

  7. Ken Temple says:

    Thanks; I will have to study all of that more deeply and pray on how or even if, to use it.

    I hesitate to use any more of that material because, as you see, they just call us names and say that we are dirty and perverted to even bring up the issue; and I don’t know if it is a wise method in apologetics. It may be accurate, but I am not sure it is wise to focus on that kind of stuff very much; because many Muslims are immature in their reactions and it is the nature of 1400 years of tension for them to act that way, it seems; and I want to try and lower tensions as much as possible, without compromise and just share the truth when I can. (that is just my personal conviction)

    I don’t think the Muslims are mature enough to handle such discussions.

    • Sam Shamoun says:

      BTW, I just left this reply to Williams’ attempt of responding to me. Enjoy!

      Williams, thank you for again begging the question and presupposing unitarianism in your comments. I am the one who needs to ask you, have you really read the Hebrew Bible and the scholarly work on the beliefs of Jews during the Second Temple period? If so then you wouldn’t be making such naive and uninformed remarks since the fact is that the evidence shows that a major strand within Judaism believed in two divine powers. Let me quote one of your favorite liberals to prove it:

      In light of this, I need to ask you have you read Alan F. Segal’s magisterial work on this subject, titled “Two Powers In Heaven”? From your comments I suspect you haven’t. Here are some links for you to peruse:

      http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/two-powers-in-heaven-is-back/

      http://books.google.com/books/about/Two_Powers_in_Heaven.html?id=LRzCB9xSRFsC

      Finally, instead of begging the question could be so kind as to explain what do you mean that God is one? One what exactly? One nation, one community, one essence, one attribute, one person etc.? If you say he is numerically one then your god is not the greatest being that exists since numerically speaking 2 is greater than 1, 3 is greater than two etc., which means that there are an infinite number of things greater than your deity.

      In fact, are you like the Mutazilites who didn’t believe in Allah possessing distinct attributes since they saw this as a violation of his absolute singleness? Rather, they assumed that the characteristics which he displayed to his creatures all stemmed from his essence.

      And do you believe that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah? If so, can you please tell me if you believe that it is identical to Allah? If the answer is no, then you have something other than Allah that is also uncreated, which is a clear cut violation of monotheism.

      This explains why you won’t debate people who know your own faith better than you, and know the true Christian faith better than you ever did and will ever know.

      • Sam Shamoun says:

        I just realized that I forgot to add the quote from James Tabor. This is taken from one of my rebuttals to Williams:

        And just in case Williams tries to object to the fact that Paul believed that Jesus is Yahweh God Incarnate, we will simply quote the words of a liberal scholar that he himself praises and whose book he was rather giddy about receiving (*; *; *):

        “As we saw in the previous chapter, Paul says that it was Christ, and not the human Jesus, who existed from the beginning of creation in the ‘form of God’ but then subsequently emptied himself, being born in the likeness of a mortal human being (Philippians 2:6-7). Paul makes the rather startling assertion that this cosmic Christ, ages before he was born as a human being, HAD MANIFESTED HIMSELF AS YAHWEH, THE GOD OF ISRAEL. He refers particularly to the time of Moses, when the Israelites ‘saw’ Yahweh as a mysterious cloud-fire: ‘And Yahweh went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light, that they might go by day and by night’ (Exodus 13:21).

        “Paul says that the God who led the Israelites through the Red Sea and in their desert wanderings for forty years, the one they called the Rock, WAS CHRIST (1 Corinthians 10:4; Deuteronomy 32:4, 18). He does not explain the particulars of his view, but the idea that there was AN ‘UPPER’ YAHWEH, who remains unseen, sometimes called ‘God called Most High,’ as well as A ‘LOWER’ MANIFESTATION OF THAT SAME GOD, CALLED THE ‘MESSENGER YAHWEH,’ who appears from time to time in human history in a visible manner on earth, WAS COMMON IN VARIOUS FORMS OF JUDAISM OF PAUL’S TIME. This lower Yahweh is not flesh and blood, even though in some of the stories he seems to ‘materialize,’ but when he appears he is then ‘taken up’ or in one case disappears in a flame of fire.

        “This is very much akin to the Greek notion of the ineffable God manifest in the lower world as the ‘Word’ or Logos, which was an integral part of Platonic and Stoic cosmology. The Logos idea was appropriated by the Jewish philosopher Philo, a contemporary of Paul, to deal with passages in the Hebrew Bible THAT SEEM TO REFER TO TWO YAHWEHS, AN UPPER AND A LOWER. In the New Testament the Gospel of John adopts the Logos idea wholesale, but makes the shocking assertion that ‘the Logos became flesh,’ referring to the birth of Jesus (John 1:1, 14). This is akin to Paul’s view of the preexistent Christ. In the form of God, who emptied himself and was born of a woman.

        “Paul says little more about the preexistent Christ as a manifestation of Yahweh other than that he was present in the days of Moses. Paul is focused entirely on the other end of history, the termination of what he calls ‘this present evil age’ (Galatians 1:14 [sic]). What Jesus represents to Paul is one thing and one thing only–the cosmic, preexistent Christ, being ‘born of a woman,’ as a flesh-and-blood mortal human being now transformed to a life-giving Spirit. This is what drove Paul and excited him most. For him it explained the Genesis creation itself and accounted for all the subsequent ‘blood, sweat, and tears’ of the human story. Humans were created to become Gods! ‘This slight, momentary affliction’ was preparing them for an ‘eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison’ (2 Corinthians 4:17).

        “In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh, the One God of Israel, had declared: ‘Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God and there is no other … To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear’ (Isaiah 45:22-23). Paul quotes this precise phrase from Isaiah but now significantly adds: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father’ (Philippians 2:10-11). Christ as the newly exalted Lord of the cosmos IS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF YAHWEH.” (James D. Tabor, Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity [Simon & Schuster, New York, NY 2012], Six. A Mystical Union, pp. 133-135; bold and capital emphasis ours)(1)

        And:

        7. The literal term in Hebrew, “messenger Yahweh,” is usually translated as “the angel of Yahweh” but this is not the best choice for English since “angel” in English has its own set of connotations quite different from Hebrew. In Hebrew the phrase used, malak Yahweh, MEANS A MANIFESTATION OF YAHWEH and this figure speaks and acts as Yahweh in the first person, appearing and departing, sometimes in a flame of fire (see Genesis 16:10; 18:33; 22:11; Exodus 3:2; Judges 13:20). There are a few passages where these “two Yahwehs” are mentioned in a single verse: “Then Yahweh (below) rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh (above) from heaven” (Genesis 19:24). (Ibid, p. 257; bold and capital emphasis ours)

        Hence, not only does Tabor readily acknowledge that Paul believed that Christ is Yahweh God who appeared during the OT period to his saints such as Moses, he even admits that certain strands of Judaism could see that the Hebrew Bible posits two distinct entities as Yahweh God, one visible and the other invisible!

    • Sam Shamoun says:

      Brother Ken, how can they call us perverted when we are simply turning the argument back against them? If we are perverted then what does it make them for reading Luke in such a perverted and distorted manner? Titus 1:15 comes to mind.

      • Ken Temple says:

        I agree with you; as I said, it seems they are projecting their dirty minds onto the Luke 1:34-35 text and onto the Christian doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God. And they have been doing this projecting for many centuries.

    • Sam Shamoun says:

      Here is another reply to Williams. Enjoy!

      Williams, your referencing Surah al-Ikhlas is a further display of your ignorance of your own sources since it shows that you haven’t meditated on your beliefs with any depth. Here is what you posted:

      Say: He is Allah, the One and Only!
      Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
      He begetteth not nor is He begotten.
      And there is none like unto Him.

      Since the Quran is believed to be the uncreated speech of Allah, not the words of men, who was this addressed to? If you say creation you are then basically admitting that Allah’s speech is contingent upon creation since Allah had to create agents for the specific purpose of addressing such texts to them. However, since Allah is free of all wants and needs, then this means this surah must be addressing someone else, someone who is not part of creation. So please be so kind as to explain to us who these words were addressed to before creation came into being.

      And just in case you decide to go against the orthodox position and end up embracing the Mutazilites’ view of the Quran, who were the Arians of Islam, here are some quotes for you to chew on:

      33. The Qur’an is the word of Allah. It came from Him as speech without it being possible to say how. He sent it down on His Messenger as revelation. The believers accept it, as absolute truth. They are certain that it is, in truth, the word of Allah. It is not created as is the speech of human beings, and anyone who hears it and claims that it is human speech has become an unbeliever. Allah warns him and censures him and threatens him with Fire when He says, Exalted is He: “I will burn him in the Fire.” (al-Muddaththir 74:26) When Allah threatens with the Fire those who say “This is just human speech” (74:25) we know for certain that it is the speech of the Creator of mankind and that it is totally unlike the speech of mankind…

      56. We do not argue about the Qur’an and we bear witness that it is the speech of the Lord of all the Worlds which the Trustworthy Spirit came down with and taught the most honoured of all the Messengers, Muhammad. It is the speech of Allah and no speech of any created being is comparable to it. We do not say that it was created and we do not go against the Congregation (jama`a) of the Muslims regarding it. (G. F. Haddad, Tahawi’s Statement of Islamic Doctrine (Al-`Aqida Al-Tahawiyya): http://www.ghazali.se/troslara-aqida/imam-tahawi-aqida/)

  8. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Ken, that repulsive Muhammadan named Jesus deliberately misquoted Segal. I posted this on Williams’ blog, which I suspect he won’t publish. Here it is so you can mention it to this Jesus character:

    Being a good Muhammadan, it doesn’t surprise me that Gezuz would pervert the aim of Alan F. Segal’s work and misquote it. Let me quote what Segal actually wrote in context:

    “… The discovery of gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi has verified the existence of anon-Christian gnosticism IN THE THIRD CENTURY, BUT NO DOCUMENT OF PRE-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICISM (which according to Bultmann developed out of a combination of Persian mythology with Israelite traditions) HAS BEEN DISCOVERED. NOR HAS ANY ONE DOCUMENT FROM THE EARLY PERIODS EVINCED THE ENTIRE SO-CALLED GNOSTIC SALVATION MYTH. In fact, we lack ANY PRE-CHRISTIAN TEXTS which evidence the kind of anticosmic exclusivistic beliefs evident in the Nag Hammadi texts. Without some contemporary evidence we cannot be sure even of the major tenets of any possible gnosticism in Jesus’ time…”

    That comes from the same page which you misquoted from. Gezuz you make your prophet proud with such lies and deception.

    Williams, make sure to post this comment to expose this deceiver for thinking he could misquote and get away with it.

  9. Ken Temple says:

    The James Tabor quote is significant. I hope to find time to use it later and read your other stuff also.

  10. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Ken, I don’t know why you don’t simply cite the use of overshadow to expose their wicked and perverted reading of the text.

    For example, it is used in Luke 9:34, Mark 9:7 and Matthew 17:5 in reference to Jesus’ transfiguration when the cloud overshadowed Christ and the three disciples. It is also used in Acts 5:15 in respect to Peter’s shadow overshadowing people which resulted in their miraculous healing. Nothing sexual whatsoever unlike the filth of the Quran which I presented.

    Also check out John Gilchrist’s response to the same argument raised by the late Ahmed Deedat: http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/christ.html#1.3

    • Sam Shamoun says:

      I quote that section from Gilchrist here for your benefit:

      In his booklet the words “gutter language” are emphasised in bold print. Someone has said, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” It seems the converse is equally true. Deedat implies that there is something immoral about the Biblical account of the conception of Jesus. He very significantly omits the rest of the verse: “therefore the child to be born of you will be called holy, the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). The whole verse is set in an awesome context of holiness. Because this child was to be conceived, not by the medium of impure flesh, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, therefore the child would not be impure and sinful like all other men, but would be holy, even the Son of God. How anyone can see anything distasteful in this is beyond understanding. The Qur’an itself teaches that the reason for the conception of Jesus by divine power alone was his unique holiness (Sura Maryam 19:19). These words apply:

      To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving, nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. Titus 1:15

      In Luke’s Gospel one often reads of their Holy Spirit coming upon people and in every case the expression implies an anointing of his holy influence. Simeon was a man “righteous and devout” and the “Holy Spirit was upon him” (Luke 2:25) and when Jesus was baptised and was praying, the “Holy Spirit descended upon him” (Luke 3:22). Likewise we read that when the glory of God appeared above Jesus when he was transfigured, “a cloud came and overshadowed them” (Luke 9:34). How can anyone say, when similar expressions are used of the conception of Jesus (i.e. that the Holy Spirit “came upon” Mary and that the power of God “overshadowed” her), that this is “distasteful – gutter language”?

    • Ken Temple says:

      I just haven’t had time to look up all that; but thanks for the information and help. The Gilchrist quote is really good. Thanks, I didn’t know about this.

  11. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Ken, I just posted this on Williams’ blog. Let’s see if he has the courage to publish this as well:

    You Muhammadans are amazing and truly demented. You guys take a text like Luke 1:35 and because of your sick perverted minds twist it to see sex in it. You even have the audacity to deliberately miscite and misinterpret most of your sources in order to force them to say the exact opposite of what they are saying! And yet when I cite the filth and porn of the Quran, and back it up with Muslim and non-Muslim references, you bend over backwards to explain such filth away saying it is a metaphor! No greater proof of your demonization could ever be given than the venom and blasphemies you guys are posting here. But that is to be expected from believing in a book which talks about deflowering swelling breasted whores-oops, I mean houris-for all eternity.

    With that said here is another Muslim source confirming that far IN THOSE PARTICULAR contexts refers to a woman’s vulva/vagina. Enjoy!

    Fa-Ra-Jiim = To open, separate, cleave, split, enlarge, part, let a space between, make a room, comfort anything in, dispel cares. An opening, intervening space [gap or breach] between two things. Ex: Parting hind legs or intervening spaces between fingers.
    He opened, made room, ample space.

    Furijat – Cloven, split, rent, opened.

    Farjun (Pl. Furuj) – PUDENDA (SEX ORGAN); chastity, space between legs (of horse or mare), part/s of a person (male/female) iINDECENT TO EXPOSE, EXTERNAL PORTIONS OF THE ORGANS OF GENERATION [OF A MALE/FEMALE]. Also the posterior pudendum because it is a place of opening, of between the legs.

    faraja vb. (1) perf. pass. 77:9

    farj n.m. (pl. furuj) 21:91, 23:5, 24:30, 24:31, 33:35, 50:6, 66:12, 70:29

    LL, V6, p: 143, 144, 145 (Project Root List: http://www.studyquran.co.uk/6_FA.htm)

    • Ken Temple says:

      Does that mean that Ibn Anwar was born a Muslim, committed apostasy, came back to Islam, committed apostasy again, became a Muslim again, apostasy again, now a Muslim again? Is there some testimonial of this somewhere on line?

      • Sam Shamoun says:

        Yes. If you go to those links you will find the links where we recorded him attacking Islam during the time he had apostatized for a second time.

  12. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Ken, since I know Williams won’t dare post this I am posting this on your blog so you can use it against him. I posted it in the comments section to the following blog article: http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/the-truly-universal-religion/

    Here goes:

    Marc, let me show how these Muhammadans are constantly burying themselves with such arguments. Watch this.

    Since no one would who lived on an Islam would ever come up with the idea of God having a Son who is also God who came to die for our sins through human reasoning or experience THEN HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THE CHRISTIAN FAITH COMING UP WITH THIS NOTION IF NOT BY DIVINE REVELATION? So Williams just proved beyond any reasonable doubt that our faith IS NOT BASED ON HUMAN EXPERIENCE OR REASONING, BUT ON DIVINE REVELATION?

    If, however, he responds that Christianity borrowed these ideas from the pagan culture which came before him then again shoots himself in the foot SINCE HE MUST THEN RETRACT THIS QUOTE SINCE MEN APART FROM REVELATION WERE ABLE TO COME UP WITH THE IDEA OF GOD HAVING A SON WHO IS ALSO GOD IN ESSENCE WHO LOVED US ENOUGH TO DIE FOR OUR SINS!

    Either way Williams just helped destroy his entire argument! Thank you Williams.

    BTW, please don’t mind the caps since it seems that you learn much better and quicker when someone shouts out loud at you.

    • Sam Shamoun says:

      Oops! The first line of the first paragraph should have read, “Since no one living in a remote location…” Sorry about that.

      • Sam Shamoun says:

        Brother Ken, I just posted this reply to the Muslims who have tried to undo the damage that Williams’ silly post has brought upon them for trying to pretend to be intelligent: http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/the-truly-universal-religion/

        I post it here since I don’t know if Williams will publish this one. So enjoy:

        Oh brother!

        It never ceases to amaze me just how intellectually inept Islam makes it adherents.

        Take Abbas’ long rant, which he actually thinks is a response to the logical problem which this quote poses for Islam. If people who live on an Island WILL NEVER come to the conclusion that God has a Son who is God that comes to die for our sins, and if revelation must correspond to what God has placed in people’s hearts, THEN THIS MEANS THAT NEITHER REVELATION NOR HUMAN REASONING WILL EVER RESULT IN SUCH A DOCTRINE. AND YET LO AND BEHOLD THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT CHRISTIANITY TEACHES! SO WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

        Hopefully, the caps will help you see that this refutes your claim since either men can and did reason that God has a Son who would die for their sins, and therefore is perfectly compatible with the revelation God has placed within human hearts, or this must have come directly from God himself, from special revelation.

        And do yourself a favor and stop quoting from the Quran which proves absolutely nothing except that you are experts at logical fallacies such as begging the question.

        Face it, this post ended up imploding on you guys and has become a major source of embarrassment since it proves that many Islamic polemicists can’t think logically and consistently, and that their own arguments often end up backfiring against them.

        Now unless you have anything of substance to end this will be it for me since I don’t have time to run around in circles with your mental gymnastics and logical fallacies.

  13. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Ken, I just posted this in response to the filth of that blasphemous Muhammadan named Jesus, whom I prefer to call GEZUZ. But knowing Williams, he won’t post this filth from the Quran and Islamic sources. So make sure to save this as ammo against these blasphemers:

    And this is for GEZUZ concerning the porn of the Quran which talks about deflowering the whores of Paradise. Enjoy!

    Reclining upon the couches lined with silk brocade, and the fruits of the two Gardens will be near at hand. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both (jinns and men) deny? Wherein both will be those (maidens) restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna (HAS OPENED THEIR HYMENS WITH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE) before them. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both (jinns and men) deny? (In beauty) they are like rubies and coral. S. 55:54-58 Hilali-Khan

    And:

    Surely for the godfearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards and maidens with swelling breasts, like of age, and a cup overflowing. Therein they shall hear no idle talk, no cry of lies, for a recompense from thy Lord, a gift, a reckoning, S. 78:31-36 Arberry

    Compare how the following English versions translate Q. 78:33:

    And young full-breasted (mature) maidens of equal age; Hilali-Khan

    maidens with pears-shaped breasts who are of equal age (to their spouses) Muhammad Sarwar

    and girls with swelling breasts of the same age as themselves, Palmer

    And damsels with swelling breasts, their peers in age, Rodwell

    and [damsels] with swelling breasts, of equal age [with themselves], Sale

    And here is how Muhammad and the Islamic expositors explained these verses:

    meaning, wide-eyed maidens WITH FULLY DEVELOPED BREASTS. Ibn ‘Abbas, Mujahid and others have said…

    “This means ROUND BREASTS. They meant by this THAT THE BREASTS OF THESE GIRLS WILL BE FULLY ROUNDED AND NOT SAGGING, because they will be virgins, equal in age…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 78:33; bold and capital emphasis ours)

    Another famous commentator, ar-Razi, stated in his Tafsir (Volume 8, p. 311) that:

    “The kawa`ib are the buxom girls (nawahid) whose breasts have become FULL (taka“abat) and ROUND (tafallakat).” (Bold and capital emphasis ours)

    Ibn Kathir further wrote in regard to Q. 55:56 that:

    chaste females, wives restraining their glances, desiring none except their husbands, seeing them as the most beautiful men in Paradise. This was said by Ibn `Abbas, Qatadah, `Ata’ Al-Khurasani and Ibn Zayd. It was reported that one of these wives will say to her husband, “By Allah! I neither see anything in Paradise more handsome than you nor more beloved to me than you. So praise be to Allah Who made you for me and made me for you.” Allah said…

    meaning they are delightful virgins of comparable age who never had sexual intercourse with anyone, whether from mankind or Jinns, before their husbands. This is also a proof that the believers among the Jinns will enter Paradise. Artat bin Al-Mundhir said, “Damrah bin Habib was asked if the Jinns will enter Paradise and he said, ‘Yes, and they will get married. The Jinns will have Jinn women and the humans will have female humans.’” Allah’s statement…

    Then Allah describes these women for the proposed…

    Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Ibn Zayd and others said, “They are as pure as rubies and white as Marjan.” So here they described Marjan as pearls… (Ibid.; bold and underline emphasis ours)

    He also said the following concerning Q. 56:35-37:

    … Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said…

    Anas said, “I asked, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Will one be able to do that? He said,

    ((He will be given the strength OF A HUNDRED (MEN).))

    At-Tirmidhi also recorded it and said, “Sahih Gharib.” Abu Al-Qasim At-Tabarani recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah was asked, “O Allah’s Messenger! Will we have sexual intercourse with our wives in Paradise?” He said…

    ((The man will be able to have sexual intercourse WITH A HUNDRED VIRGINS IN ONE DAY.))

    Al-Hafiz Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Maqisi said, “In my view, the Hadith meets the criteria of the Sahih, and Allah knows best.” (Ibid.; bold and capital emphasis ours)

    This is what the Muslim commentators, the two Jalals, stated in reference to Q. 56:36,

    and made them virgins, immaculate – every time their spouses enter them they find them virgins, nor is there any pain [of defloration] – (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; bold and underline emphasis ours)

    And this is what they said regarding Q. 36:55:

    Indeed today the inhabitants of Paradise are busy (read fi shughlin or fi shughulin), [oblivious] to what the inhabitants of the Fire are suffering, [busy] delighting in pleasures such as deflowering virgins – not busy with anything wearisome, as there is no toil in Paradise – rejoicing, blissful (fakihuna is a second predicate of inna, the first being fi shugulin, ‘busy’); (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; bold and underline emphasis ours)

    It is a shame to call such a place heaven. This is nothing more than a glorified whorehouse. (Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/permit_lust.html)

    • Sam Shamoun says:

      Brother Ken,

      I am posting this here again, in case Williams decides to withhold from publishing this.

      Williams, you need to teach GEZUZ a thing or two about logic since he obviously was asleep or skipped it when they were teaching it.

      You need to help him understand that since you were the one who perverted Luke 1:35 in order to blasphemously accuse it of something sexually perverted, this means that consistency demands that you trash the Quran for containing perverted pornographic material such as texts which say your god blows into women’s vulvas, that there will be swelling breasted whores whom no one has deflowered yet etc. However, to justify such filth and to continue to attack the Holy Bible shows that Islam has made you dishonest and perverted, since it is not about decency, consistency or truth. It is about spreading the filth of Islam while perverting the passages of the Holy Bible to make it look as bad as possible.

      Therefore, whenever GEZUZ quotes Biblical texts to his own destruction and defends the filth of Islam he is only confirming that Islam turns people into inconsistent, lying Christophobes.

      Finally, I have a big surprise for GEZUZ. Since he said al-Qurtubi is a top scholar I am going to unleash on him what he said concerning the angel causing Mary to get pregnant. The filth and vulgarity even makes the Quran look tame by comparison. So I want to thank GEZUZ for opening his mouth about al-Qurtubi since he will not be able to undermine what his top scholar says about the filthy manner in which the Quran describes the virginal conception! 😉

  14. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Ken, sorry to keep doing this to you but here is some more pornographic filth from the Islamic sources in order to silence Muslim polemicists who like to twist biblical verses to their shame and destruction. Be careful, since it is graphic and degrading to the blessed mother of our Lord:

    Al-Qurtubi’s Commentary:

    {He said: Even so, Allah creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter}

    It was told that after Gabriel said to Mary: “Allah creates what he pleases” – he blew (breathed) into her garment and its sleeve; Ibn Jareeh said – Ibn Abbas said: Gabriel took the edge of her garment by his finger and breathed into it and she became pregnant almost that moment with Jesus.

    Others said: Gabriel breathed into her womb (uterus) and she became pregnant as a result of that. Others said: this can’t happen because in this case this pregnancy would have been caused by an angel and the child will be half human and half angel. However, the reason she became pregnant is because when Allah created Adam, he (Allah) stored the male sperm water in the back of men, and the female sperm water was stored into the female wombs. And when both sperm waters unite then a child is created in the womb and pregnancy will take effect. However, in the case of Mary, Allah stored both the male and female sperms in her; some in her womb and some in her back. Then Gabriel blew (breathed) into it to excite her sexually because a woman needs sexual excitement in order to become pregnant. When Mary became excited sexually because of Gabriel’s act of breathing into her, then both sperm waters were mixed into her womb and she became pregnant. (Source: http://quran.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=221&BookID=14&Page=56)

    And here is a video which also mentions this filth and trash: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KM691Ibx23c; http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Videos_on_Islam:Arabic_Analysis#Qur.27an_3:47_-_Jibreel_made_Mary_horny

  15. Lvka says:

    That’s why we celebrate the Uplifting of the Holy Cross on September 14 each year. There are many other similarities between Judaism and traditional Christianity.

  16. Lvka says:

    The concept of sacrifice has nothing to do with murder (!) or wrath (!) or substitution (!).

    When people are friends, and care for one another, and love one another, they come into each other’s houses and share a meal together. Since most people aren’t vegetarians, this implies animal products. But when their friendship is broken, this does not happen anymore. So sacrifice means: I want to be friends with God again. I want to make peace with Him, and “share a meal” together.

    And it also means: “Thank you!”. Because -unlike other carnivors- man is aware (of God’s existence). So when he hunts or raises animals, or wages war and is victorious, he “has to” show gratitude, since not doing that would be inhuman. So he offerrs a portion to God as a sign of thankfulness for all the good things God has given him. (Of course, he could’ve eaten the whole thing himself, but that would’ve been an ugly and unthankful or unloving gesture from his part). For instance, pagans, who believed that Mars or Ares is the god of war, hanged many weapons of their dead or captured enemies in the trees in his honor, when winning against and adversary, although they could’ve just as easily kept them all for themselves. (It’s not like they didn’t need them, or anything). But they didn’t, out of respect and gratitude. Becaue that’s one of the things that separates us from animals.

  17. θ says:

    Some deeper objections of Jesus’ Passover Lamb theology and Atonement goat theology.
    1. Priest factor.
    Certain Christian apologists may argue that Jesus was legally brought and condemned to death under authority of High Priest.
    However, it happens a day before then Jesus was brought to Pilate Hall (a place considered as a violation of Passover’s purification by Jews) and Herod palace. Hence, the argument that Jesus was put to death under the Priest’s decision is invalid.

    Moreover, the Priests just conducted a “kangaroo trial” because it happens in one of Priest’s house (Luke 22:54 states that Jesus was taken to “the high priest’s house”) instead of within a synagogue or the Temple. Hence, in terms of place, the trial is invalid.

    Moreover, Jesus was forced under duress to confess a sin. The Priests just allowed Jesus to get blasphemed, accused by false witnesses, and finally smitten on the face by other Jews * before * a conclusive death sentence was reached. Hence, in terms of procedure the trial is invalid.
    Lk 22
    63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?65 And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.

    Moreover, there’s another fatal consequence of equating Jesus’ death sentence to the Passover lamb or the Atonement Day’s goat, that is an aspect of the unbelief of the Priests.
    The slaughtering of Passover lamb is carried out by the faithful Jews, and the sacrifice of Atonement’s goat is carried out by the faithful Priests. But at the case of crucifixion, none of the Priests believes that Jesus is a sacrificial entity.

    2. Blood factor.
    Christian apologists may argue that Jesus’ blood was shed upon his body (temple made not by hand) as if it were a valid sacrifice.
    However, the shedding of blood just occurred after God has already forsaken Jesus alone, and after he gave up the ghost. Hence his body is not a holy temple anymore.

    The blood that is poured upon Jesus’ dead body is not much different from the blood that was shed upon the dead bodies of goats, lambs, and bulls of Jewish sacrifice.

    3. Blemishing factor.
    Christian apologists may argue that Jesus’ body was scourged and tortured so badly * after * the Priests sentenced him to death.
    However, the truth is, in fact Jesus gets smitten on the face by Jews * before * a conclusive death sentence was actually reached. Hence, in terms of unblemished requirement, his body is invalid lamb.
    Lk 22
    63 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
    Lev 22
    24 Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof in your land.

    4. Paschal lamb.
    Christian apologists may argue that Jesus is a typical paschal lamb that prevented the death angel from taking the lives of Christians.
    However, the truth is, in fact the Paschal lamb is intended in a limited scope to specifically protect the life of the “firstborn sons”, not for the second-born sons, nor daughters, nor adults from the wrath of sin.

    Moreover, if Jesus were a paschal lamb, his blood must have failed to protect Judas – who also eats his body and drinks his blood symbolised by the bread and vine – from the death angel who claims his betraying life.

    Moreover, if Jesus were a paschal lamb, he would not have eaten the unleavened bread (which he symbolises with his body) a day earlier before he was sacrificed next day.

    5. Priest of the Day of Atonement.
    Christian apologists may argue that Jesus is a typical High Priest who does not need to atone his own sins before atoning the people’s sins.
    However, mostly Christians are ignorant of the steps and procedures during the Day of Atonement. The same High Priests gets his sins forgiven firstly after he sprinkles the bull’s blood behind the Temple’s curtain while uttering Tetragrammaton. Afterward, the High Priest shall do the same thing with a goat’s blood in order to atone the people’s sins. Hence, when the High Priest atones the people’s sins, he is already in a pure state.

    Moreover, mostly Christians are ignorant of the story of Jesus’ baptism for remission of sin over the river of Jordan by John the Baptist.
    If Jesus had willed to show that he is truly unblemished or sinless, certainly he would have proved his sinlessness by refusing to be baptised, just as other Pharisees do.
    As the Gospels recorded, mostly Pharisaic Jews – who don’t believe in John’s prophethood – refuse to be baptised by John, because they want to show they are the unblemished ones of God.
    Lk 20
    4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?5 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not?6 But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us:

    6. Tearing of Temple curtain or parokhet .
    Christian apologists may argue that the event of tearing off Temple’s curtain at the time of crucifixion symbolised the end of animal atonement made under High Priest by going behind the curtain. Worse, they fantasied further how it signified that both the Old Covenant and the Temple had been rendered obsolete.
    However, seemingly Christians forgot that the same Temple’s curtain was ever burned once before by the great fire during the destruction of the 1st Temple. Does it make the Old Testament obsolete for Jews, then? Not at all.

    Moreover, as the book of Acts mentioned, the early Christians keep maintaining the Jewish feasts and the sacrifice in the Temple. Paul carried out the same Jewish animal sacrifice as a requirement for fulfilling a vow.
    Hence if Jesus’ crucifixion were a great “once for all” sacrifice, for the early Christians it is just a myth, even by their continuation of Jewish sacrifice and feasts, they mockingly turn a phrase “It is finished” (John 19:30) from “great sacrifice” to a “great vain sacrifice”.

Comments are closed.