Over at BloggingTheology, the Christian apologist Ken Temple was asked if Jesus was a male or female by a Muslim. This was not a joke, but a serious question. Of course, Temple responded with the obvious answer, that Jesus (peace be upon him) was a male. But because Jesus was supposed to be a “sin offering” (which washes away the sins of humanity), it inevitably creates a contradiction between the rule for what constitutes a “sin offering” according to Leviticus 4. Here is the discussion:
-
Ok…..This is a very pertinent question and is in no way meant to offend, but …Is Jesus Male or Female?
Like
-
Jesus is human male, in His human nature; and also God in His divine nature. One person, two natures.
Like
-
According to you Jesus is the lamb that is the sin offering of mankind, and you agree that Jesus is male. What you have stated goes in contradiction to the OT:
Leviticus 4:32
New International Version
“‘If someone brings a lamb as their sin offering, they are to bring a female without defect.Like
-
A lamb can be either male or female. It is a young sheep. That verse does not negate all the other verses about lamb sacrifices that include both male lambs and female lambs. Isaiah 53:7; Genesis 22:8; Leviticus 14:21-25; Exodus 12 – Exodus 12:5 says “a male” – 1 Cor. 5:7 – Jesus is our Passover Lamb”
Like
-
seems like a contradiction, as the many that exist in the Bible
“A lamb can be either male or female. It is a young sheep. That verse does not negate all the other verses about lamb sacrifices that include both male lambs and female lambs. Isaiah 53:7; Genesis 22:8; Leviticus 14:21-25; Exodus 12 – Exodus 12:5 says “a male” – 1 Cor. 5:7 – Jesus is our Passover Lamb” ”
You are deliberately choosing random verses, some of which have nothing to do with a “sin offering”, and making it appear as if there is no contradiction, but there is. Let’s look at each verse, shall we?
Isaiah 53:7 – “He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,”Hmm, nothing about a lamb being offered as a “sin offering”. It is just a simile about the nation of Israel being oppressed.
Genesis 22:8 – “Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.”
Well, it says “burnt offering”, not “sin offering”. Moreover, verse 13 states that a ram ( Hebrew – a-yil) replaced Isaac, not a lamb (Hebrew keves) as in Leviticus 4:32.
http://biblehub.com/lexicon/leviticus/4-32.htm
http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/22-13.htmLeviticus 14:21-25 – “If, however, they are poor and cannot afford these, they must take one male lamb as a guilt offering to be waved to make atonement for them, together with a tenth of an ephah[e] of the finest flour mixed with olive oil for a grain offering, a log of oil, 22 and two doves or two young pigeons, such as they can afford, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.”
Once again, it’s not a “sin offering” but a “guilt offering”. Are they the same thing?
Exodus 12:5 – ” The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats.”
This says the male could be a sheep or a goat. Was Jesus (pbuh) a sacrificial goat too?
So, the verses you presented do not remove the contradiction. Archive has made an excellent point.
Liked by 1 person
-
JazakAllahkahirun Q&B for rebutting Ken Temple. I got a little lazy, lol….. I find that there comes a point with Ken (with all due respect to him), that he starts to repeat the same answer over and over again in an attempt to evade the question.
Just look at the discussion regarding (1)Yahweh in the NT, (2)Did Abraham know the name Yahweh and (3)Proskenu.
But he did concede the point regarding Church Father quotations being used to compile the Bible. …….IDK to tell you the truth on how to approach Ken. At this point, I just ask questions to Ken to see the opposite side’s answer, as opposed to expecting any sort of ‘change of heart’……..
(As for the discussion between him and georgkaplin, I sort of tuned out, lol. It wasn’t my ‘cup of tea’, but perhaps georgkaplin may have found the same problem with Ken, idk)
Liked by you
-
LOL, I understand. After a while, you realize that Ken is just not going to ever acknowledge the clear facts and will continue to live in his fantasy world. It is what it is. Some people are just not reachable, but still, you never know. Perhaps Allah (swt) will open his eyes soon.
Like
-
Isaiah 53:4-12 and all of it is about all the previous blood sacrifices – and the 2 on the day of atonement – the two goats (He bore our iniquities, He carried them away; (verses 4-5), “The Lord caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” – verse 6) verse 10 – guilt offering
The Exodus 12 passage is specifically about the Passover lamb, that says it was a male lamb.
1 Cor. 5:7 and John 1:29 are saying Jesus is the fulfillment of the passover lamb.Burnt offerings are also for sin. (Job chapter 1)
Jesus fulfills Genesis 22, Exodus 12, Leviticus chapters 1-7; 16-17, Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1-12; Psalm 22 – all of it by His blood atonement substitutionary sacrifice.
Hebrews chapters 7 through 10 demonstrate this.
Revelation 5:1-10 also – the lamb that was slain, etc.There is no contradiction.
Like
-
“Isaiah 53:4-12 and all of it is about all the previous blood sacrifices – and the 2 on the day of atonement – the two goats (He bore our iniquities, He carried them away; (verses 4-5), “The Lord caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” – verse 6) verse 10 – guilt offering”
the thing is that jesus was not sent into the wilderness to starve to death.
the servant himself has to REPENT and make offering for his OWN sins.
isaiah himself says human sacrifice is forbidden
if your jesus is a GUILT offering, then isn’t it true that he could not be an ATONEMENT for all sins according to the rule set in the hebrew bible?
you do not need jesus to make you righteous or free from sin. you do not need human sacrificial murder of jesus. you do not need pigs blood, rams blood, sheeps blood or donkeys blood to talk with god. you don’t need to eat and drink jesus to get close to god.
yhwh says that jesus could only die for his own SINS , not the sins of others.
in isaiah, there is NOTHING to indicate that the suffering servant was SINLESS.
not doing idolatry/lying/deceiving DOES not mean one is sinless. jesus, according to orthodox christianity, was an IDOLATER.
jesus could die ONLY for his OWN blasphemy.
jesus could not have ALL idolatry poured on him, when accordin g to pauline christianity he himself made IDOL out of himself.
daniel, job and noah DID NOT need jesus, there own RIGHTEOUSNESS saved them, said yhwh
god says he desires GOOD WORKS, not animal sacrifices. yhwh would become DEFILED if he DESIRED human sacrifice.
Liked by you
-
This is exactly why no one takes Ken seriously anymore. All he does is blabber on with the same refuted nonsense. The guy is a robot.
“Isaiah 53:4-12 and all of it is about all the previous blood sacrifices – and the 2 on the day of atonement – the two goats (He bore our iniquities, He carried them away; (verses 4-5), “The Lord caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” – verse 6) verse 10 – guilt offering”
But it’s not a sin offering. See Leviticus. There are different “offerings”: sin, burnt, grain, fellowship etc. You said Jesus was a “sin offering”. That is where the contradiction lies. You just keep making stuff up to escape admitting the facts.
“The Exodus 12 passage is specifically about the Passover lamb, that says it was a male lamb.
1 Cor. 5:7 and John 1:29 are saying Jesus is the fulfillment of the passover lamb.”It says “lamb” or “goat”. Answer the question: was Jesus a goat also?
“Burnt offerings are also for sin. (Job chapter 1)”
But it is a different offering, as stated in Leviticus, so the contradiction still remains.
“Jesus fulfills Genesis 22, Exodus 12, Leviticus chapters 1-7; 16-17, Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1-12; Psalm 22 – all of it by His blood atonement substitutionary sacrifice.”
Non-sequiturs, nothing more. The contradiction still remains. You were caught misquoting the Tanakh for your own theological purposes.
“Hebrews chapters 7 through 10 demonstrate this.
Revelation 5:1-10 also – the lamb that was slain, etc.There is no contradiction.”
What the NT says makes no difference. You claimed that Jesus was a sin offering, but that would contradict Leviticus, which says that a sin offering must be a female lamb. The contradiction remains.
-
The Quran and Bible Blog 
Typology. There, answered.
It always amuses me that you guys insist on overt literalism of biblical themes but happily disavow the same for the Koran or Hadith.
Why the hypocrisy?
LikeLike
Hahahaha, no you didn’t answer anything stupid. You just make up excuses to avoid admitting the facts.
Why wouldn’t there be a literal fulfillment of the Levitical law about the sin offering? Why is it that every time there is a contradiction, you idiots fall back on the “well, it’s not literal” argument? It’s a bit too convenient, don’t you think?
Why did God specify a female lamb without defect for the sin offering? Why was that so important? Why not a male lamb, if the whole time, his plan was to come down as a male to die for everyone’s sins?
LikeLike
I’m curious Paulus, can you name one Messianic prophecy Jesus fulfilled ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s see if Cerbie will appeal to church doctrine rather than his reason. Oh wait, he has no reason. Never mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ archiveislam Salamualakum wa rahma tu lahi wa barakatu.
Be careful brother Isa(as) is still the Messiah, no doubt. Now admittedly, I haven’t studied this subject completely yet and MOST of the things Christians claim are ‘Messianic prophecies’ are not. But Allah clearly calls him the Messiah and the Jews at the time knew he was because no prophet comes without clear proof.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WalaykumSalam Wr Wb John Stewart,
JazakAllahkhairun for your comment. The question I had posed to our guest Paulus, is the following : ” can you name one Messianic prophecy Jesus fulfilled?” To be honest the question was posed initially as a curiosity as to his answer without any intention of argumentation. And for that I apologise.
Just to clarify my position I AM NOT DENYING THAT JESUS IS THE MESSIAH, the same way others are called the messiah in the OT: (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4899&t=KJV) Most notably, David
2Sa 23:1 Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, the man who was raised up on high, and the anointed H4899 of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,
So being a messiah is an important position, but not relatively unique as others have been called the same thing.What I am rejecting are prophecies about a man-god MESSIAH who died for your sins. Those are the prophecies I would like to address. That is the type of MESSIAHSHIP that I am refuting .
There is not only polemics going on here, this is also a learning opportunity (at least for me) to distinguish between so-called messianic prophecies which are entangled with polytheistic and blasphemous doctrines, to true and pure prophecies which can be correctly attributed to the Prophet Jesus (On him be Peace).
JazakAllahkahirun again for your comment, please correct me again if you still find a flaw in my reasoning/argumentation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure.
Let me cite a first century Jew, speaking to his fellow israelites.
“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25 David said about him:
“‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,
27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’[e]
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment Paulus,
If in future comments you could provide the name of the book and verse number, it would be much appreciaited
As for your comment, you mentioned Acts which doesn’t count for anything, but Acts is referring to the OT, which are the prophecies that I will address in our conversation. Psalms 16:8-11
8I keep my eyes always on the Lord.
With him at my right hand, I will not be shaken.
9 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest secure,
10 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
nor will you let your faithful[b] one see decay.
11 You make known to me the path of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence,
with eternal pleasures at your right hand.
—————-
Without the book of Acts, and only this passage from Psalms , would you , PAULUS, be able to equate this with Jesus?
LikeLike
ROFTL, so I guess we can say that Cerbie did not appeal to his reason.
Cerbie, did you know that the Dead Sea scrolls, some of which were written in the 1st/2nd century BC, speak of two messiahs? So, based on your argument (admit it – you emphasized “1st century Jew” for a reason), the earlier DSS refutes your appeal because it is earlier than your Bible. So we should believe that there are two messiahs?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi archive.
You will note that you asked a question and I answered. If you are dissatisfied with the reality that the earliest Jews applied that psalm to Jesus, then there is nothing I can do. That is your problem.
But, nonetheless, your question was answered. If, however, your real intention was to dismiss any evidence against your muhammadan bias, then sorry, the evidence won’t suit such an agenda.
Salam
LikeLike
LOL, how ironic! Cerbie, all you have been doing is dismissing any evidence against your crosstian bias. Sorry, but the evidence doesn’t suit such an agenda.
As I said, just because some 1st century Jews (not the “earliest” Jews, idiot) applied a random psalm out of context, it doesn’t mean they were right. Your entire premise is flawed from the start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ty for your reply Paulus,
You mentioned : ” … the reality that the earliest Jews applied that psalm to Jesus, ..”
Paulus what I am trying to get you to do, is not to blindly follow the “writers of the Book of Acts ” and others, but for you to think for yourself. Let’s do a thought experiment:
(1) We mentally take the OT and put it into a vacuum (i.e.disregard the NT and Christianity in general) and then make a list of all messianic prophecies.
(2) From this list, let’s disregard all prophecies regarding the virgin birth, as I already agree with you on that point. Now whether these prophecies actually exist in what you call the “OT” , and can be properly applied to Jesus, is another story; but it does not concern us. Personally I believe such prophecies existed, but not in the corrupted texts of the OT we have today, but again this is a moot point , let’s move on.
(3) Now could you provide me the remaining list, and then we can further the discussion?
Ty for your time
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Archive
You are insisting that my hermeneutic be ignored and adopt yours. Why would I do that?
Imagine a Christian asking you to *consider* Muhammad’s prophetic role without the Quran or Hadith. You would nt accept it. Christians follow Jesus’ hermeneutic FYI
All things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. – Luke 24:44
LikeLike
Except that you don’t follow “Jesus’ hermeneutic”. You follow the church’s “hermeneutic”. That is archive’s point, which you just confirmed! Thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can we avoid the red herrings and stick to topic ?
IF you can not undertake the task, then fine. Just admit, that without the NT, you would have no idea which are messianic prophecies !
*Sorry clicked the liked button accidentally, though I do like the fact that you responded
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello archive.
I’m not sure what you are trying to prove. Why would I disregard the NT as a Christian? My hermeneutic and theology is based on what I believe to be the entirety of scripture.
Just for clarity- you asked a question and I answered it. It’s not my problem if you reject the testimony and hermeneutic of the early Jewish church.
LikeLike
I appreciate the discourse, thanks for your time.
LikeLike
Hi Britney.
Whats the matter? Upset that you get refuted in one word. Let me say it again. Typology. Next you’ll reject the fulfillment because Jesus wasn’t a literal sheep. In fact, I’ve heard PW say this exact thing lol. Maybe you guys in the masjid rejec Jesus beause he wasnt clothed in wool lol. How far will you go?
It may shock you, thinking you are the best of people and all, but Christians aren’t bound to accept Muhammdan presuppositions. I know that hurts.
So I say it again. Typology. Common OT themes. Oops, I did it again!!
LikeLike
LOL, and let me say it again: you didn’t answer/refute anything. You idiots resort to “typology” to save your Bible from embarrassment. You still haven’t answered my question. Why did God make such specific rules for the sin offering? Why even stipulate that it HAS to be a female lamb which is “free of defect”? Oh, it’s “typology”? No, it’s a contradiction!
And no, I never said that Jesus had to be a literal lamb. My point is though that the lamb had to be a LITERAL female. Jesus was not a literal female, was he? Unless you also believe he had some bizarre two-natured gender? 😉
Another question: if the gender was not so important and is not meant to be taken “literally”, then do you also believe that the lamb did not have be necessarily “free of defect”? Are you going to resort to “typology” here too?
By the way, Cerbie, the book of Ezekiel demolishes your idiotic “typology” argument. Ezekiel refers to the resumption of the literal sacrifices, with all the same rules. See Ezekiel 40. So where’s the “typology” now? Why does Ezekiel prophesy the literal resumption of the sacrifices?
Oops, it happened again! 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, you really are daft. Of course the sin offering lamb of the old covenant was a literal lamb.
Jesus’ fulfilment of the sacrificial motif is typological, as theologians and Christians have long affirmed.
It’s only you muhammadans who think Jesus needs to be a literal female sheep. 😂😂
LikeLike
Bwhahaha, no Cerbie, it’s your god who said that the sin offering needed to be a literal female lamb! Read Leviticus 4, you clod! LOL, I love seeing crosstians fighting against their own scriptures just to avoid admitting they’re wrong!
I said that of course Jesus wasn’t a literal lamb, but he was supposed to be sinless, right? In other words, without defect? So, if that was a literal fulfillment, then why not the gender also? Why did your god make it such a stringent rule?
And again, Ezekiel demolishes your “motif” nonsense. It speaks of the literal resumption of the sacrifices, not some “symbolic” sacrifice. Hahaha, Cerbie’s Bible destroys his religion!
LikeLike
@ Paulus. Hey, it’s me again. I must have gotten lost in the sea of comments. My question is how does the typology method work? Like how do you objectively apply it? For example, in Psalms, as I’m sure you’re aware Muslims commonly say Psalms 5:10-16 is Muhammad(saw). The common rebuttal is it doesn’t fit with the context. Now, why can’t we say it’s typology then?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi John.
“[Typology is] the idea that persons (e.g., Moses), events (e.g., the exodus), and institutions (e.g., the temple) can — in the plan of God — prefigure a later stage in that plan and provide the conceptuality necessary for understanding the divine intent (e.g., the coming of Christ to be the new Moses, to effect the new exodus, and to be the new temple) (Graham Cole, He Who Gives Life, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2007], 289).“
I don’t think you grasped what typology actually is. Look at the above and have a think about how Muhammad can fulfill the things mentioned? Compare that to Christ
“All things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. – Luke 24:44
LikeLike
If someone is claiming a prophecy to be fulfilled I don’t understand how someone can be too literal. Also, you said we do this with the Qur’an can you please give an example?
LikeLiked by 2 people
John.
Consider these questions. If Jesus fufilled the sacrifical motif of the OT, does he also need to have wool over his body? of course one can be “too literal”
Yes, you dont apply overt literalism to your own faith. Here are two examples.
1. When Allah sees things, does he actually have physical, literal eyes?
2. When Allah hears your prayers, does he actually have physical, literal ears?
LikeLike
@ Paulus Actually yes we believe God has eyes because he clearly states he has eyes. What we don’t believe is that they’re human eyes. An easy way to explain this in English.
The face of a mountain
The face of a clock
They are literally faces, they’re just not human faces. Samething with the face of God. Christianity is claiming a ‘prophecy’ is fulfilled by being a sacrificial offering. However, the sacrifice has to be a female lamb. Prophecies are very exact in their nature I’m sure you and I would agree. If you don’t accept this then the author of this blog I believe made a good point about Muhammad(saw) being in Psalms using the same logic as Christians. The problem with this typology method is you can twist any text to say what you like. Would you agree or disagree with me?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good reply, bro. People like Cerbie try to deflect from the nonsense of their religion by projecting their insecurities onto Islam, without actually understanding the Islamic position.
And I absolutely agree with you typology can be used by anyone. It is simply a cop-out to avoid the embarrassment of a contradictory Bible.
LikeLike
@ archivesislam
My apologies my comment was not meant to correct you or embarrass you. I just didn’t know how to do a private message here. I just wanted it to be clear to anyone not Muslim that Islam’s position is not that he(as) is NOT the Messiah like the Jews. Just that he is not divine. Now I do agree with you is that most Christians don’t know what this means and do think it means some sort of divine being.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No ,no, no..don’t apologise . In fact, if that comment was not addressed, some may misconstrue Islam’s position on Jesus (on him be peace) . Regardless if you didn’t pm or not, a correction was needed to be made, lol.
LikeLike
@ Paulus I get what typography is. I’m asking 2 questions.
1. What is the methodology for it’s application?
For example, how would you go about applying typography? And why could I not hypothetically apply this to Muhammad(saw) then?
2. What is the evidence for using typography as a valid method of interpretation?
Did Jesus(as) teach this or show the correct way to do it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi John.
Question 1 is answered by question 2. Jesus and his disciples applied the principle of typography as seen in my earlier citations. I could cite many more. They applied certain texts in the OT through the life, death and ministry of Jesus.
Since Jesus claimed to *fulfill* the law, this negates the possibility of application to muhammad.
LikeLike
Okay… so… did typology exist for other prophets then? For example, the life of Abraham(as) can be seen through Moses(as)? And where does Jesus (as)explain its mode of usage? Because for example, you can see what they’re doing but not know how they applied it. Finally, did Jews used to do this before Christianity?
LikeLiked by 1 person
John.
You said you understood typology. I wonder, then, why you ask questions which demonstrate you don’t.
Please read this if you are genuine
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ya1WAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=Typology+is%5D+the+idea+that+persons+(e.g.,+Moses),+events+(e.g.,+the+exodus),+and+institutions+(e.g.,+the+temple)+can+—+in+the+plan+of+God+—+prefigure+a+later+stage+in+that+plan+and+provide+the+conceptuality+necessary+for+understanding+the+divine+intent+(e.g.,+the+coming+of+Christ+to+be+the+new+Moses,+to+effect+the+new+exodus,+and+to+be+the+new+temple)+(Graham+Cole,+He+Who+Gives+Life,+%5BWheaton:+Crossway,+2007%5D,+289).“&source=bl&ots=nrdFhH75qI&sig=JEYgPl4RgsuRyV9d8JA0vkkMxjs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisp9mLoYzaAhUJabwKHV3JCcwQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Typology%20is%5D%20the%20idea%20that%20persons%20(e.g.%2C%20Moses)%2C%20events%20(e.g.%2C%20the%20exodus)%2C%20and%20institutions%20(e.g.%2C%20the%20temple)%20can%20—%20in%20the%20plan%20of%20God%20—%20prefigure%20a%20later%20stage%20in%20that%20plan%20and%20provide%20the%20conceptuality%20necessary%20for%20understanding%20the%20divine%20intent%20(e.g.%2C%20the%20coming%20of%20Christ%20to%20be%20the%20new%20Moses%2C%20to%20effect%20the%20new%20exodus%2C%20and%20to%20be%20the%20new%20temple)%20(Graham%20Cole%2C%20He%20Who%20Gives%20Life%2C%20%5BWheaton%3A%20Crossway%2C%202007%5D%2C%20289).“&f=false
LikeLike
To briefly answer your question, yes it can and does apply to other prophets. For example, one can trace an Adamic theme throughout the tanakh in redemptive history. Seen in Israel, David and ultimately in Christ, who is presented as the final personification of the adamic theme.
But as I said, I suspect you actually do not understand what typology is or how it functions in the bible.
LikeLike
Typology equal crosstian bs.why did john say his animal god had no BONES BROKEN?so literal in one stance and typology in other?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Typology doesn’t revoke literal fulfilment. It simply doesn’t necessitate identical application.
There, answered.
Now, perhaps you can answer whether you think PW should be killed once he leaves Islam?
LikeLike
Oh my goodness, are you still stuck on Paul? Obsession much Cerbie? You’re not mentally healty, Cerbie. I think you should seek professional help!
So, on the one hand, you don’t need “literal fulfillment” because of “typology”, but you can also have “literal fulfillment”? So when is typology preferred and when is “literal fulfillment” preferred?
LOL, you keep proving again and again that “typology” is just an excuse you use to save your Bible from its own contradictions.
LikeLike
LOL, yep! Picking and choosing what suits your purpose! That’s Pauline Christianity for ya!
LikeLike
Okay, I finished what you had me read. Basically, my understanding is that they’re attempting to establish patterns in the way God does things. Fair enough in theory (I still think this has no evidence. As stated in the book you sent me Paul and two unknown authors are the ONLY ones who do this not Jesus(as) but I digress) I can use this methodology for Prophet Muhammad(saw). Him being the last prophet he should incorporate elements of the others:
1. The Jews twist the Torah and Jesus(as) comes with the Gospel/ Christians twist the Gospel Muhammad(saw) comes with the Qur’an
2. Jonah(as) is punished for leaving his people early/ Muhammad(saw) is punished for leaving his people early by going to Taif. (Even the boy who brings him grapes while he is in prayer is from Ninevah (Jonah’s(as) people)
3. Moses(as) splits the sea/ Muhammad(as) splits the moon (also note the sea and the moon correspond with each other)
4. Migration of Moses(as)/Migration of Muhammad(saw)
5. War against Philistines, Ammonites, Moabites/ War against idol worshipers
6. The kingdom of Israel splits with the apostasy of 10 of the tribes after Solomon(as)/ Arabia has tribes apostate causing the apostate wars
7. The temple is destroyed/ The temple is restored
8. Daniel 2 the statute is foretold and broken by God’s kingdom/ All of these nations were destroyed by the Caliphate
9. Arabs come from the other side of Abraham(as) and completing the Covenant with Abraham(as).
And these were just off the top of my head. if I sat down and pondered over this I sure I could come up with more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hahaha, that’s not typology John.
I think you should go back and read it again. And try to at least understand it.
LikeLike
Reread p105 and think about what it says re promise-fulfilment. Typology isn’t about finding a common theme between two people or events. If that were so, then I could simply say Allah hears, I hear, so I must be Allah.
Clearly you never understood typology. And yet you complain and tell me not to use concepts I’m not familiar with? More inconsistency from muhammadans
LikeLike
your god is the one who is false
i quote :
John tries to take literal what he can; he just cannot find a lot of which he can make use. So he writes: “These things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, ‘None of his bones shall be broken’” (John 19:36). It is obvious then that the literal words do matter. It is only that Jesus has so little in common with a Passover lamb, the only connection that could be found is that his legs were not broken. None of the other qualities of the lamb were present in Jesus. He was not a lamb. He was not sacrificed. He was not eaten. So, how does John know which details to take literally? The answer is obvious. Whichever he can use to make Jesus appear to have something in common with the lamb are literal; the rest are figurative. That is to say, he will make use of the scriptures in any way he can to make them yield the desired outcome.
As much as Jesus did not fulfill Passover through his death, he did not fulfill it through proper observance, either. Jesus uses it as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement, to redirect people’s attention from God toward Jesus. Rather than teaching his disciples Torah, rather than teaching them about the great deliverance of Israel, Jesus teaches about himself and his upcoming death. According to Luke, it is at the Passover meal that Jesus teaches: “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me” (Lk. 22:19). Jesus perverts the day, making it to be about himself. This, of course, shows that Jesus did not fulfill the day as a Passover lamb as in the previous paragraph, because his death did not refer Israel to the exodus. But it also shows that Jesus did not fulfill the day through observance. Instead, he attempted to overwrite the day to make it be about himself rather than God.
Just as Passover requires no further fulfillment, nor does Shavuot. HaShem gave to the people of Israel an expression of the divine will. He taught them how they ought to live. And he allowed them to experience divine revelation all together, the entire nation, so that they would know that the commands he gave through Moses did not originate with a man but with God.
Of course, the Lover of Jesus will leap at the idea of divine revelation, claiming that this is what happened at the upper room. However, that is clearly not the case. First, the disciples did not gain from God divine revelation. They only spoke in cacophony, which astounded passersby but did not reveal to them Divine Will. Moreover, this event was small, much smaller than the national revelation at Sinai. It certainly was not an outpouring on all flesh as Peter would claim it to be. The empty claim that some will make that it was a sign of the outpouring on all flesh that is to come is an admission that it has not been fulfilled. Yet I fully expect someone to insist on its significance as a sign of the promise, anyhow.
Some Lovers of Jesus will claim to have this outpouring themselves. They too speak in tongues. However, this has no relation to Pentecost. At Pentecost, the disciples were supposed to have tongues of fire and speak in known languages. Those that claim to have such a gift do not speak in any language, but babble repetition. And they certainly have no flaming tongues. It is doubtful that the disciples did either, but that cannot be checked. What is practiced today by Lovers of Jesus has no verifiable signs. The claim that they speak in tongues is specious and shows that Jesus did not send the comforter. It certainly cannot be said to fulfill Shavuot in anyway.
A Lover of Jesus might say that Jesus fulfilled Shavuot by fulfilling the law. This too is vain. The idea that Jesus fulfilled the law is usually taken in one of two senses. The first is that he kept it properly, that he never sinned. The second is that he taught its deeper truths. These ideas are not mutually exclusive, and are usually held together.
The first is obviously incorrect. As I wrote in my article “Invisible Perfect,” the gospels give us good reason to believe that Jesus was not superlatively good. The people among whom he lived the majority of his life did not notice in him this perfection. They only saw him as a carpenter’s son, identifying him by his family. But, even if the gospels had not mistakenly tipped their hand in this regard, Jesus sins multiple times in the gospels. Some sins many would consider insignificant, such as when Jesus stole some pigs. Because Jesus steals them in the midst of casting out demons, Lovers of Jesus are likely to overlook this sin. His destruction of the fig tree will also strike them as minor, perhaps not even a sin at all. (Though it certainly does not speak well to his character, either way.) But he also dishonors his mother, as when he goes missing without permission, worrying her terribly. If my daughters were missing for three days, I would be frantic. His response to her is not only unapologetic but also accusatory. Perhaps this is why he did not have a long life. (See Ex. 20:12). He breaks the Sabbath. And there are other offenses as well, but my point is not to malign the man. People sin. However, one should recognize that Jesus did not keep the law perfectly.
Nor did Jesus even teach the law particularly well. Lovers of Jesus like to emphasize that the said that one must keep the law and it will not pass away. But he altered the law, creating categories of adultery that did not exist. This is prohibited. Moreover, he shows himself to be ignorant of the Torah. He does not understand the meaning of “eye for an eye” as relating to damages. Alternatively, he does, but he believes that the courts should not maintain justice. Either alternative is horrible. He also teaches that Torah says to hate one’s enemy, which it does not do.
The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew is really a horrifying speech. Jesus opposes his teaching to that of Torah, making out his to be superior. Whenever he says, “You have heard it said,” he quotes from Torah, which he then juxtaposes with his own teaching, “but I say…”. His words then amount to: “The Torah says… but I say” or “God says… but I say”. Until one realizes that he is going to speak against the Torah, one wonders why Jesus announces that he came to fulfill it, not abolish it. What prophet ever had to announce that he did not come to abolish Torah? Jesus had to announce this, because he was going to malign Torah, treating it as incomplete, altering it where necessary. He is like one who says, “I do not wish to speak bad about so-and-so” and then goes on to do just that.
It is obvious why the Jewish world did not heed him. He did not understand Torah. He made himself superior to Torah. He altered Torah. But he in no way completed it. He did not fulfill Shavuot by explaining the real meaning of the law.
And yet Lovers of Jesus will continue to pronounce things like “Jesus fulfilled the spring feasts.” Such assertions are wholly without merit, products of the fancy. They come from reading Torah with one goal in mind, to relate it to Jesus. The hunt for types and shadows, hints and connections leads the Lover of Jesus to ignore the actual meaning of Torah. He downplays differences and exaggerates similarities. Such reading is imaginative but not conducive to understanding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, all Christians could do was to cherry-pick parts of the Tanakh, and then decide on a whim whether they were “symbolic” or “literal” fulfillments. Cerbie is stuck between a rock and hard place. No wonder he’s running away!
LikeLike
Brilliant response! Typology can be used to point the way to Muhammad (pbuh) after all! Alhamdulillah!
LikeLike
Brother, there is a clear typological link between Jonah and Muhammad (pbut). Jonah preached repentance and salvation to the Ninevites, so he was sent to a Gentile nation. Muhammad (pbuh) was sent to the Arabs (as well as all of humanity). Both preached salvation without sacrifices.
LikeLike
Perhaps you are right, Britney.
Muhammad sinned and Jonah sinned. Correct?
Oh wait, hang on. I just realised that the sacrificial motif is also in the book of Jonah,
“At this the men greatly feared the Lord, and they offered a sacrifice to the Lord and made vows to him.“
9 But I, with shouts of grateful praise,
will sacrifice to you.
What I have vowed I will make good.
I will say, ‘Salvation comes from the Lord.’”
Ergo, muhammad is unlike Jonah. He’s a false prophet.
And just for the record, God relented from bringing disaster to the ninevites. The texts says nothing about salvation.
Oops, you’ve been refuted again. I keep telling you that telling lies won’t work.
LikeLike
Lying for Jesus again?
If Jonah was a “type” that pointed to Jesus, then was Jesus also a sinner?
By the way, Cerbie, sacrifices are still present in Islam. The Eid Al-Adha sacrifice is a perfect example. And since the men on the ship sacrificed to God, without any of the elaborate rituals listed in Leviticus, then it is proof that God never placed much emphasis on sacrifices. This is further emphasized in the Ninevites’ repentance. No sacrifices were made, even though they had plenty of animals! God did not punish them because they repented! Alhamdulillah!
Ooops,it happened again. Cerbie’s lies are exposed. No wonder he’s running!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If Jonah was a “type” that pointed to Jesus, then was Jesus also a sinner?”
Yeah
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice! So this confirms that the “typology” excuse actually backfires on Christians.
By the way, what book is that?
LikeLike
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRp1nsPOA4YNk_-8spf-Qc0bbpXvgf9JMMIgFVg9nqxv0blsxjk
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks! I will definitely put that on my reading list!
LikeLike
Ok, I’ve had my fun and given your blog the most interaction it’s ever seen. You can go back to your 11 Facebook likes and try and get more interaction on your own.
Cheerio Britney 😂😂😂
LikeLike
Lol, okay Cerbie, thanks for the great fun I had humiliating you! Maybe when you’ve grown up from a little puppy, you can come back for some more humiliation! And maybe by then, you will have figured out the age of the little Midianite girls your god gave away as slaves! 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
You should really work on your arrogance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cerbie is just being who he is. You can’t condemn him for being an arrogant loser. That’s what happens when you get brainwashed into his cult.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
I said I get what typology is. Obviously, I don’t fully understand it or I wouldn’t be asking questions about it. From the book you quoted to me:
“The major difference in typology is grounded in history, the text, and intertextual development, where various “persons, events, and institutions” are intended by God to correspond with each other.” (pg.102)
“…predictions built on models/patterns that God himself established.” (pg. 103)
And I would like to keep in mind that again none of this has a basis with Jesus(as) it’s really just glorified philosophy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
some evidences that yhwh was holy blood incarnate
so lets see…..since it is blood of animals which atones,then maybe among those thousands of animals was a “special lamb” or “special goat” which was affecting ALL the sacrifices because it was yhwh in the form of lamb……
in same way, if your god could be murdered OUTSIDE of the temple, then yhwh could come down and get sacrificed as a COW outside of the temples location ……
one could say that their was “perfect ” cow among all other lambs which jews were killing, they didnt know it was yhwh in the form of animal, just like they didn’t know that they killed yhwh in the form of a man
how is it that thousands of animals could not have yhwh incarnate amongst them as an animal?????
this is BLOOD ATONEMENT….only by RITUALLUy killing yhwh in the form of cow every year could they make “perfect sacrifice”
The “perfect sacrifice” was made each year when yhwh came down as an animal/lamb to affect all sacrifices, so by killing yhwh every year, they were able to get their prayers answered..
we have text which says animal blood atones for sins….we have no text which says human baby blood atones…..this means animal blood was yhwh incarnate as BLOOOD….
the holy bloood incarnate
it all is making sense, animal blood atoned because it was yhwh EXISTING as holy blood.
LikeLike
https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/95fnce/q_is_there_any_historic_account_of_why_sacrifices/?st=jklcd9yr&sh=e9f43dbd
wow!
LikeLike