As always, the justcool himself!

justcool:

@syrup
Once again, I m humbled by your gracious manners
Thanks for all your posts in this thread.

I should rather be thanking you for demonstrating a good example of such manners in the Evolution-Creation thread.

justcool:

Please, my dear sister, lets not deviate from the topic at hand into jugding the Grail Message and ABD-RU-SHIN. I enjoy your conversations with m-nwankwo but I think bringing the issue of the validity of the Grail Message and Its writer will deviate us from the point of this thread. I see a situation that leads to animosity and personal attacks that is always frequent on this forum, and I don't want it in this thread.

Okay, I'm sorry. Much as I don't solicit for animosity anywhere, the reason why I felt it might be helpful to mention names is to help my fellow discussant come to terms that nobody is above scrutiny. It's often my style to hold the same rigorous scrutiny out for those who often may assume that they have seasoned objections to the NT, whereas it turns out that they are not so comfortable having their own cherished beliefs and philosophies examined by the same rule.

All the same, I hope we can place personalities aside and honestly examine issues without biases. It's quite unhealthy to hold some people on holy flowerbeds while speaking so freely in disregard againt the Bible.

justcool:

I am still waiting for your reply to my last post. Or have I defeated you!!!(just kidding)

Lol. . . I took my own advice of a few minutes to clam down before posting a reply (review above). Defeating me is quite easy - just state the truth with concrete facts, and I'll zip up!

@syrup
LOL
According to the Scriptures, Christ once said:
"This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
In this Scripture quoted above, Christ did not include, "that will be shade on the Cross." HE simply stated, "which is for you." due to interpretation some translators have translated it to be, "This is My body, shade for you." And from this interpretation came the idea, "this is My body shade on the cross for you." You see how things get lost in translation?

According to the Gospel, Christ once said:
"because this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins." Mathew 26:28
(New American bible)

Here He said "being poured out," which is tantamount to "which is given for you."

However in King James version, we see a different translation:
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Here we see the idea that erroneously lead people to think that He was referring to His blood that will be shade on the cross. But that is a different thing, He was referring to His words which He symbolized with the wine that He gave the apostles.
His words, or the Truth which was given for the forgiveness of many people, i.e. those that live according to His words.
By this He didn't mean His blood that will be shade on the cross.

Christ's crucification is a murder committed by manking as m-nwankwo had already pointed out. When Jesus spoke of His blood, He was speaking of His words, ie the Truth He brought.

But due to translation and misconception, the symbolism of this was lost.

If you take His blood to be literal, then when according to the gospel He said "eat and drink" He was telling them to actually eat Him and drink His physical blood? Is he telling men to be vampires?

@ricadelide
After you have read the Grail Message, you can then make you judgement. And base it only on what you read not what I or anyother person said.

Thanks and remain blessed

@justcool,

justcool:

@syrup
LOL
According to the Scriptures, Christ once said:
"This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
In this Scripture quoted above, Christ did not include, "that will be shade on the Cross." HE simply stated, "which is for you." due to interpretation some translators have translated it to be, "This is My body, shade for you." And from this interpretation came the idea, "this is My body shade on the cross for you." You see how things get lost in translation?

Okay, this is getting really serious and interesting, lol. However, I'd like to see those translations to save me the risk of my assuming it is so. I'm not aware that any such translations speak of the Body of Christ as being "shed" - rather, it was said to be "given" in the Gospels and "broken" in the Epistles (big difference). But I'd like to see yours.

justcool:

According to the Gospel, Christ once said:
"because this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins."
New American

Here He said "being poured out," which is tantamount to "which is given for you."

However in King James version, we see a different translation:
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Here we see the idea that erroneously lead people to think that He was referring to His blood that will be shade on the cross. But that is a different thing, He was referring to His words which He symbolized with the wine that He gave the apostles.

In Biblical hermeneutics, you just don't draw inferences from off the stove like that - there is a solid principle known as "exegesis" which simply is to follow the Bible and not read one's biases into it (which is "eisegesis". What you have summized is not exegesis, it is rather eisegesis.

(a) If Jesus was referring to His "words" as interpreted for the Blood, it would simply mean a foreign element altogether. In Biblical symbolism, "wine" does not represent "words" - if it does, there would be verses that show that.

(b) Jesus meant clearly His Blood, for if He meant it as something else it should be clear in His word to His disciples. However, we find that in Biblical exegesis the Blood is always connected with sin: the forgiveness, remission or cleansing of sin. This is why I hinte to m_nwankwo that it is absolutely important to understand Jewish thought before assuming a contrary position. A few examples about real Blood connected with forgiveness of sin include:

Hebrews 9:22 -
"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood ;
and without shedding of blood is no remission"

This thought did not just spring up in the NT - and it is important to see the place of Blood in dealing with our sins in the OT as well. Here is one more thought:

Leviticus 5:9-10
And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon
the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out
at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering.
And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner:
and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned,
and it shall be forgiven him.

What is happening back here is that the animal for sin offering had real blood (not "wine" or "words", and it was the blood of the animal that was "shed" (that is 'wrung out'). Based on this, it declares that the atonement is made, and on that basis "forgiveness" is secured.

For one to assume that the Blood of Jesus Christ was rather His "word" that was being shed is to miss the very basis of Biblical atonement and redemption. Take the Cross away, and you are left with no atonement, no redemption, and certainly no forgiveness - for such a person has rejected the efficacy of that Blood and arrived at something far removed from what God revealed.

If you take His blood to be literal, then when according to the gospel He said "eat and drink" He was telling them to actually eat Him and drink His physical blood? Is he telling men to be vampires?

Wasn't it pretty obvious that He symbolized His Body by bread and His blood by wine? Why should the idea of "vampire" be entertained here?

The wine points to the real Blood of Christ shed on the Cross - that is what the wine portrays. There is no mistaking that at all; nor is there a reference where that becomes translated as His "words shed on the Cross". It is Blood that the Bible has always taught as the efficacy for -

* atonement
* redemption
* forgiveness
* cleansing of sin

Once you miss the Blood and its efficacy, you lose everything completely.

syrup:

It is Blood that the Bible has always taught as the efficacy for -

* atonement
* redemption
* forgiveness
* cleansing of sin

Once you miss the Blood and its efficacy, you lose everything completely.

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Many blessings.

@Syrup: Is this better than animal sacrificing? Its worse. This is human sacrificing my friend.

syrup:

Okay, this is getting really serious and interesting, lol. However, I'd like to see those translations to save me the risk of my assuming it is so. I'm not aware that any such translations speak of the Body of Christ as being "shed" - rather, it was said to be "given" in the Gospels and "broken" in the Epistles (big difference). But I'd like to see yours.

@syrup
Here are a few translations:

“And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.”
(Douay-Rheims Bible)

“And after giving thanks He broke it and said, "This is my body which is about to be broken for you. Do this in memory of me."
(Weymouth New Testament Bible)

Here you see, the first translation added, “which shall be delivered for you.” This will lead the reader to think that Jesus was speaking about His betral by Judas, who sold or delivered Him for crucification on the cross.
The second translation added “which is about to be broken for you.” Leading the reader to think that Jesus was talking about His crucification on the cross, which was about to take place.

You see how meanings are added and lost in translations. You might want to buy at least 3 different versions of the Bible and compare each verse. (I did this when I was a pastor) You will amazed at what you will find. You will find some verses that say exactly opposite what the same verse says in another translation. I can give other verses if you want.

Now about the real significance of “the blood of Jesus.”

According to the gospel:
“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.”

Here was he talking about actualy drinking His blood? This is what lead catholics to come up with the idea of transubtantiation. They believe that one actualy  have to eat the flesh and blood of Jesus inorder to abide in Him, hence they turn bread in to the body of Jesus. I used to teach people this when I was a catholic. From the above verse you can tell that He was not talking about actually drinking blood niether was He talking about wine nor bread.  From the verse in red we can deduce what he meant from blood and flesh. The verse said “this is the Bread that came down from heaven” Did His body come down from heaven?
Just as you chew meat, swalow it and digest it, you shuold accept His words, examine it(Chew the meat), understand it(Digest it) and swallow it(implement it in your life. To drink His blood is live in His Truth. Just as blood circulates your physical body and nurishes it, so shall His Words(The Truth) circulate in the body of your spirit and nurish it. The human spirit perpertualy needs the flow of Truth to remain alive. The Truth is food for the the spirit, the spirit grows and matures only in the Truth, and as long as the spirit lives in the Truth, the spirit will live forever. And the this Truth which the spirit is dependant on is the blood of Jesus.This Truth which only comes from Divinity—(Jesus, God, and The Holy Spirit.) This is what is meant by the “blood of Jesus.”

My dear, I have to call it a day today. I have to study for my calculus test, and you are distracting me. If I fail my test you will be in trouble.(Just Kidding)
I wil post more after my test.

Dear ricadelide,
I have carefully gone through the post again & do notice that my earlier agreement was misplaced. That's a lesson for me not to gloss over some posts and assume.
Many thanks for watching my back - really grateful.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:

@Syrup: Is this better than animal sacrificing? Its worse. This is human sacrificing my friend.

I understand your problem with the prophecies of the Biblical prophets. But as I often say, it is not my call to instruct God what He would do - it is His prerogative and His alone.

He spoke of the redemption and atonement that He would grant through His Son long before it was fulfilled. The prophets faithfully declared these things, even though they were constantly ridiculed and their messages and prophecies denied. I understand that in Islam there is no thought of redemption or atonement - and that is why we have been through the question of whether or not you believe in ALL the prophets. Do you see how futile your continual denials are?

Rather than keep denying anything, my stand is rather to receive all that God has spoken by the prophets, even as we find in Jesus' clear warning in Luke 24:25-26 >>

Then he said unto them:
O fools, and slow of heart to believe [size=14pt]all[/size] that the prophets have spoken:
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

Dear Olabowale, it is a futile exercise to try to instruct the prophets on what to declare or believe - and denying what they have stated as prophecies will not give you peace or reason. I was blessed to believe ALL that the prophets have declared rather than making mere claims and cutting corners. May God help you to take heed and calmly examine your denials and their implications upon your life.

God bless you.

@syrup

Thanks for your objective response. I address the issues you raised as follows

syrup:

@m_nwankwo,

Thank you again for being simple and honest - values which I prize so much. However, here are my thoughts to your reposte:

Fair enough, I'll not belabour that point.

I see where you're coming from. I just wish that you could subject Abdru-shin and his Grail Message to the same scrutiny you require of the Bible.

When I read objections like this, my simple response is: you have just given me a bigger reason why I should have no confidence in what your own trusted source has to say. If it is okay to be suspicious at all of those who were closest to Jesus Christ and experienced Him firsthand, then it is absolutely useless and quite dishonest to assume that another author who knew nothing of Him could have anything of value to offer.

[b]By extension, the followers of Jesus Christ who knew Him firsthand should be trusted far more than someone far removed from Him in age, culture, event and experience. Why should I have the slightest confidence in Abd-ru-Shin's personal opinion of Christ when the same Abd-ru-Shin fails the following qualifications:

* Mr Shin was not Jewish and had no experience of raw Jewish life in Jesus' day
* he was far removed in place, time, and events surrounding the Gospel accounts
* he had no understanding of Biblical doctrines to make any informed exegesis

Would it not be naive to assume that the one who is the late-comer many centuries later could be more trusted than the disciples of Jesus who knew Him firsthand and gave their very lives to testify to what they knew? On the contrary, Mr Shin could only pass for an arm-chair philosophizer who had nothing to risk other than criticize the accounts of those who knew Jesus Christ.

I am not trying to place an unfair spotlight on Mr Shin; but like I hinted earlier, fairness only requires us to be as rigorous as those who query the Bible.

Did Mr Shin have these qualifications?[/b]
It depends on what you do with something very central to the Biblical faith - prophecies. [b]HOW you handle that subject will show how much you really weigh on the scales.[/b]

However, I'll take my time to examine your objections.

1. I have examined the Grail Message and found it to be the Truth. I encourage those who have not yet put it to scrutiny to do so. Those who have examined it and found it not to be true should post there objections and why and I will respond to their submissions.

2. I am not asking you to be confident of what the Grail Message offers. You should only be confident in what your soul knows to be true. The Grail Message is the work of ABD-RU-SHIN. People should put the work under scrutiny and decide for themselves wheather or not it is the Truth. There is nothing wrong in putting ABDRUSHIN or his work under the spotlight. Indeed it is welcomed.

3. Any prophecy, no matter from who it came from should be scrutinsed with ones spirit. My perception is that any prophecy that comes from God must reflect the attributes of God. Justice and Love are attributes of God and a prophecy or interpretation of the propecy that contradicts any of these is not from God.

Stay blessed

@Syrup: Iwas just going to let the sleeping dog lies, until I saw your unfounded statement about islam as quaoted below.

I understand that in Islam there is no thought of redemption or atonement - and that is why we have been through the question of whether or not you believe in ALL the prophets. Do you see how futile your continual denials are?

I am going to overwhelm you with verses from the Q.ur'an and hadith from the Prophet (as) about this very subject. Please read on:

Say, "If you love God, follow me, and God will love you, and forgive you
all your sins; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate."

Islam. Qur'an 3.31

Say, "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair
not of the mercy of God: for God forgives all sins: for He is
Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

Islam. Qur'an 39.53

God the Almighty has said, "O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and
ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not
mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and
were you to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam,
were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth and were you
to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness
nearly as great as it."

Islam. Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 42
If you were not to commit sins, God would have swept you out of existence
and would have replaced you with another people who have committed sin,
and then asked God's forgiveness, that He might grant them pardon.

Islam. Hadith of Muslim

Part IV - Atonement in the Qur'an

We now come to the Qur'an, in order to examine the terminology of atonement found there. The Qur'an contains words that come from the same Old Testament root as the Old Testament "kippeer". The corresponding Arabic root is KFR.

There are two completely different meanings in the Qur'an for words which come from this root KFR. The first meaning is in noun form "kufrun" and means ingratitude or thanklessness, or unbelief. This is, without doubt, the most widely used meaning in the Qur'an. It occurs in about 520 Qur'anic verses. When a Muslim falls away from Islam, as when he becomes a Christian, he is called a word which comes from this semantic field. He is a "kaafir", someone who has committed "kufr", and according to the Qur'anic law must be put to death. This meaning is not directly connected to atonement and will not be discussed here.

Instead we will deal with the second meaning of the root KFR. It has the noun form "kaffaaratun" and means to cover or wipe away. This meaning occurs relatively seldom in the Qur'an (13 verb forms and 4 noun forms). But these occurrences are important, for they contain some of the few assurances of salvation that Allah makes to a Muslim, and thus are not only related to the Old Testament in their word forms but also in their theology. What follows summarises their contents. We will deal with the verb form first, and will then go to the noun forms, which are used much differently.


1. The Verb forms: Allah hides or wipes away (lit. atones) men's evil deeds= Arab.: Allahu yukaffiru (anil)insaani sayyi)aatihi

The examples that contain the verb form "kaffara" (= hide or wipe away), mostly follow the same pattern. The following is a compilation of these examples:


Whoever believes in Allah (al-Ma`ida 5:56; al-`Ankabut 29:7; Muhammad 47:2; al-Mursalat 77:

and in his Messenger (al-Ma`ida 5:12);

whoever believes what he sent down to Muhammad, that is, what he revealed to him (Muhammad 47:2);

whoever turns to Allah (Arab.: taaba; al-`Ankabut 29:7; Muhammad 47:2; al-Tahrim 66:;

and fears him (Arab.: ittaqaa; al-Ma`ida 5:65; al-Anfal 8:29; al-Talaq 65:5);

whoever does good (al-Taghabun 64:9);

whoever says the prayers and gives alms (al-Ma`ida 5:12);

whoever avoids that which is not allowed in the great commandments (al-Nisa 4:31);

whoever emigrates for Allah's sake and is driven from his home, whoever suffers hardship and fights and (with that) is killed (Al Imran 3:195);


he is the one, whose bad deeds Allah will wipe away (lit. atone before him: Al Imran 3:195; al-Nisa 4:31; al-Ma`ida 5:12+65; al-Anfal 8:29; al-`Ankabut 29:7; al-Zumar 39:35; Muhammad 47:2; al-Fath 48:5; al-Taghabun 64:9; al-Talaq 65:5; al-Tahrim 66:;


and whom he will allow to enter gardens where streams flow in the valleys (Al Imran 3:195; al-Ma`ida 5:12+65; al-Fath 48:5; al-Taghabun 64:9; al-Tahrim 66:;

and whom he will give a great reward (al-Talaq 65:5);

and whose best deeds he will repay (al-Zumar 39:35; al-`Ankabut 29:7);

and for whom he will restore everything (Muhammad 47:2);

and whom he will help (al-Anfal 8:29);

and whom he forgives (Al Imran 3:193; al-Anfal 8:29).


The basic meaning of atonement in all these examples, which have a similar form, is the covering and the hiding of the bad deeds. The underlying meaning is the wiping away or the erasing of these deeds, like the wind wipes away footprints in the sand. So when Allah "atones" for someone's bad deeds, he covers them and wipes them away. We must take special notice of the fact that Allah is the one who "atones", and not the sinner or a priest. Moreover, this "atonement" is not free of charge, rather it is tied to conditions like faith, fear of God and good deeds. Finally we need to note that we do not find any categories in the "atonable" bad deeds, like intentional and unintentional.


2. The noun form: Atonement in the canonical law

In Sura al-Maida 5 there are the three examples using the noun form "kafaaratun" (that is, atonement), all with formulations used in legal proceedings:


5:45 "But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) wrong-doers."


5:89 "Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for atonement, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the atonement for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths."


5:95 "O ye who believe! Kill not game while in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. If any of you doth so intentionally, the compensation is an offering, brought to the Ka'ba, of a domestic animal equivalent to the one he killed, as adjudged by two just men among you; or by way of atonement, the feeding of the indigent; or its equivalent in fasts: that he may taste of the penalty of his deed. God forgives what is past: for repetition God will exact from him the penalty. For God is Exalted, and Lord of Retribution."


What was the condition for Allah's atoning effacement of the bad deeds in the examples with verb forms, i.e. the good deeds, has become atonement itself in the examples with noun forms. This means that the sinner himself is the one who atones and not Allah. The Qur'an contains no direct statement, which with the help of a verb commands or allows the sinner to atone for himself. But verse al-Baqara 2:271 almost makes this statement by advising: "If ye disclose (acts of) charity, even so it is well, but if ye conceal them, and make them reach those (really) in need, that is best for you: It will atone from you some of your (stains of) evil. And God is well acquainted with what ye do."

However one ought to interpret this passage, it is important here that the passages with noun forms, in contrast to the passages with verb forms, distinguish between different types of bad deeds that can be atoned for. So atonement can be atonement for an oath or atonement for hunting during Ramadan. What has not changed is that the condition for atonement is simply doing a good deed.



Part V - Comparison between Bible and Qur'an

The main difference in the meaning of atonement in the Bible and the Qur'an is easiest to see in the difference between the means of atonement in each instance: the sacrifice in the Bible and the good deed in the Qur'an.

The priestly atonement in the Old Testament and Christ's atonement in the New Testament are based on an understanding of the sacrifice and its spilled blood. Without a blood sacrifice there is no substitutionary death and no taking sin seriously as a reality which kills. Without spilling blood there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22). Qur'anic theology does not acknowledge this type of sacrifice. Instead we read in Sura al-Hajj 22:37 in direct confrontation to what the Old Testament practices imply: "It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him." For this reason Qur'anic theology has neither the possibility of making contact with Allah by means of a sin offering, nor the possibility of a substitutionary death for a sinner. With that every possible means for a free forgiveness based on the grace of God is blocked in Islam.

Instead we find a completely new understanding of atonement in the Qur'an, over and against the Bible: Not the priest through the blood of the sin offering nor Christ through his own blood, but Allah himself covers up the sins of mankind. He does this with only one condition: that they do certain deeds. The basis for this Qur'anic understanding of salvation is summarised in Sura Al Imran 3:195: "I waste not the labour of any that labours among you, be you male or female, " The deeds, in that they are kept by Allah, are basic, the good as well as the bad ones: the good deeds as the means for carrying out the atonement and the bad deeds as a basis for the necessity of the atoning good deeds.

From the biblical point of view, neither the good nor the bad deeds have the power to expose the deadly truth of sin. On the contrary, setting up the good and bad deeds as the basis for the Islamic salvation theology masks not only the reality of sin but also the victory of Christ over sin through his atoning death and his justifying resurrection (Romans 4:25). Only through the substitutionary death of the blood sacrifice can the full meaning of sin and its destructive power be revealed, and in atonement it is revealed as a defeated power.

After we have understood this basic difference between the Qur'anic and the Biblical understanding of atonement, we need not wonder that the Qur'an denies the most important atoning event of the Bible, namely Christ's death on the cross for our sins. This death was and remains a stumbling block not only for the Jews and Greeks, but also for the Muslims - except when the Holy Spirit creates faith in the crucified Saviour in them and allows this faith to grow.

Salvation in Islam versus Salvation in Christianity
November 11, 2007 by converted2islam
Which faith leads to eternal salvation, Islam or Christianity?


By: Converted2Islam

To answer that question we need to go back to the very beginning of human history, to Adam and Eve. Both Christianity’s and Islam’s holy scriptures recount Adam and Eve’s story in the garden. How they were told by God not to eat of a certain tree and how they disobeyed God in that. But when we link the story of Adam and Eve to the belief in eternal salvation, this is where Islam’s and Christianity’s differences begin. Christianity calls Adam and Eve’s sin “the fall of Adam”, when Adam and Eve fell from grace because of their sin. Christians believe that due to Adam and Eve’s sin all of mankind will die (Romans 5:12). This is because Christianity teaches that all the descendants of Adam and Eve have inherited their original sin, or inherited a sinful nature from them. Thus Christians believe in the doctrine of “Original Sin”. According to Christianity we are all born as sinners.

Islam on the other hand does not teach original sin but “original forgiveness”. Islam also recounts the history of Adam and Eve. In Islam Adam is the first Prophet. The Islamic version states that yes indeed Adam and Eve sinned in the garden but unlike Christianity, which makes no mention of their repentance, Islam tells us they did repent and ask God’s (Allah’s) forgiveness (Qur’an 2:37). God then forgave them, and thus Islam teaches “original forgiveness” not original sin. In contrast to Christianity, Islam teaches sin is not inherited from our ancestors but God created us all weak and inclined to sin, as we grow older into the age of reason. We are not born as sinners. Islam views the doctrine of “original sin” as wrong, unjust, and unfair.

Here’s a question: Which belief reflects more of God’s Mercy so far, Islam’s “original forgiveness” or Christianity’s “original and inherited sin”?

Now this leads us to the next difference between Islam and Christianity, let’s talk about

“The Christians need to be absolved of this terrible original sin”

To try and get rid of original sin Christianity came up with another belief, that is: “the redemption of sin through the blood sacrifice of Jesus”. To further complicate the path to salvation Christianity teaches that Jesus is God incarnate, that he was sinless and perfect and the only possible person who could be sacrificed to remove our sins. This Christian belief effectively implies that God is limited in His ability to forgive sin. The Bible says: ““…without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). Therefore Jesus had to die so we could be forgiven and atonement be made.

On the other hand the path to salvation in Islam is much more simple and not complicated. Islam does not demand that a perfect sinless man die on a cross for the sins of mankind. Islam does not demand we belief in such a barbaric doctrine. Islam rejects the crucifixion of Jesus as an unjust, vicious and unnecessary sacrifice. Islam not only questions the historical accuracy of this event (Qur’an 4:157) but it states that it is cruel and unjust for an innocent man to die for the sins of the guilty, This not how God works, this is not how He forgives sins. Islam teaches that God is completely just and merciful at the same time and these two attributes of His never conflict with each other. A Muslim is forgiven of sin just by repenting to God and asking for forgiveness. Prophet Muhammad said: “One who repents from sin is like one without sin” (Ibn Majah vol. 2, p. 418, no. 3427.)

Here’s another question: “If God really loves you and wants to save you He will make it easier for you to get saved, so which path to salvation sounds the most merciful and easiest so far, Islam’s direct access to God or Christianity’s access to God but through the death of the innocent Jesus?

Our next topic is: Responsiblity for sins.


Christianity says Jesus is responsible (1 Peter 2:24) and Jesus became accursed in order to take on the sins of man (Galatians. 3:13)! In Christianity after Jesus allegedly died he became a high priest who acts as a mediator between God and man. Jesus is said to use the merit of his perfect blood sacrifice so that God will not punish a Christian for their wrongs (2 Corinthians 5:19).


You see Christianity teaches that instead of the sacrificial animal of Old Testament times Jesus has become the sacrificial “lamb of God” for us. Jesus is the scapegoat and he is responsible for taking away your sins through his death on the cross. For the Christian, salvation is obtained through having faith that Jesus is God incarnate and that he died for you to be forgiven and saved. All your sins will then be washed away by the power of the blood of Jesus. For a Christian all you need is this faith only, good deeds are not necessary for salvation (Romans 4:5).

This Christian path will appear very attractive to those ignorant of the true teachings of God, because such a path demands very little of it’s followers, faith only. Consequently, righteous deeds become insignificant and those who stress the need for good works are often scorned and derided as being overly ritualistic and lacking in real faith. Islam on the other hand teaches personal accountability for our sins (Qur’an 6:164). It is inconceivable to Muslim thinking that a man should be punished for the wrong actions that others did. Every Muslim is responsible before God to do the best he or she can to avoid evil and do good deeds with faith. Islam teaches that God does not expect us to be perfect but to do our best. We can never be sinless because we were created weak. Prophet Muhammad said, “Religion (Islam) is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded; and gain strength by offering the prayers in the mornings, afternoons and during the last hours of the nights.” (Bukhari 1/38). Muslims must work on their righteousness by faith. God only wants our best effort and if a Muslim strives to be faithful and obedient God will forgive that Muslim of all his or her shortcomings. In Islam the only sacrifice to God is a sacrificed loving heart (Qur’an 22:37). In Islam our sins are not covered by blood but are covered by God’s Mercy and Grace. The danger of believing that you are not responsible for your sins is that you have a blank check for sin.

Islam also teaches that God’s forgiveness is not limited to blood sacrifices only but His Mercy and forgiveness can be obtained through prayer and other channels like giving charity, having faith and good deeds, etc. God will forgive any person who sincerely regrets their sin and asks Him to forgive them with the intention to be a better believer. A Muslim does not have to rely on another human being (like Jesus) to have atonement of sins; every Muslim can take up responsibility for his/her own sin. For the Muslim there is no need of blood sacrifice and mediators between God and man, the Muslim has direct access to God’s offer of forgiveness and salvation through asking God in prayer. The Muslim then should lead a life of faith and good deeds which becomes an easier task to do with God’s help and God rewards us for even the smallest of good deeds (Qur’an 99:7).

The fact is God (Allah) deliberately created man with an inclination to do wrong because pardoning those who turn repentant is a channel through which God divine attributes of Mercy and Forgiveness are made manifest. Prophet Muhammad said: “If you did not commit sins, Allah would sweep you out of existence and replace you by another people who would commit sins, ask Allah’s forgiveness and He would forgive them” (Sahih Muslim, vol. 4, pp. 1436-7, nos. 6620-2).The process of falling into error, realizing the mistake and seeking God’s forgiveness is also a channel for man’s spiritual growth. It develops man’s love for the Almighty and increases his respect and consciousness of God when he turns to Him in humility and devotion.

Question: After all that has been said, which is better?

@Syrup: Did you enjoy the materials?

The original sin of Christianity versus the original forgiveness of Islam.


Which is better?


Christianity’s forgiveness of sin through the atoning blood sacrifice of a cursed Jesus versus Islam’s easy uncomplicated way of obtaining forgiveness by just repenting and asking God’s forgiveness by faith.


Which is better?


Christianity’s scapegoat Jesus who takes responsibility for your sins versus Islam’s personal accountability for sins where a Muslim tries his/her best to be faithful while relying on God’s gift of Mercy and Grace.


Which is better, you decide!

“Say, ‘Oh my servants who have transgressed against their souls! Do not despair of Allah’s mercy, for Allah forgives all sins. He is indeed, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.’” (Qur’an 39:53).

@syrub
Thanks again. I will respond to the issues you raised as follows

syrup:

Interesting. If God demonstrated His power by ratifying the Old Covenant by the blood of animals, was it unthinkable then that His own Blood could do far much more in the case of the NT (new covenant)? The power of God is not to be understood as an abstract quality or virtue (forgiveness, mercy, love, etc). His power is demonstrated on His own terms - and since He says the Blood carries such efficacy, it would make no sense to assume otherwise.

In a sense, yes - the the heinous betrayal by both Judas and the priests of the day is said to be in fulfillment of God's predeterminate counsel (see Acts 4:26-28). But did God's grace stop their at the betrayal? This is what people always miss out!

Judas was indeed offered grace - he outrightly rejected it! What then? The logical outworking of a heart given over to wickedness leads to death, for which Judas was known to have taken his own life. The protests some thinkers offer here to favour Judas as a "hero" is only because they have no clue as to what that "betrayal" entails. I recommend you study it in detail.

What about the priests who did not commit suicide along with Judas but were as guilty? Isn't it remarkable that the same people were offer the grace you queried after Jesus rose from the dead? Here is what Peter said to them:

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,
ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain . . .Now when
they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to
the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said
unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off,
even as many as the Lord our God shall call.(Acts 2:23, 37-39)

These same men who by wicked hands had murdered the Son of God are the same people Peter proclaims the Gospel with such concrete invitation as to state that: "the promise is unto you[/b]"!! How could God forgive such people - and yet grant them to partake of His wonderful promises?

The answer is simple: the grace of God. That is the vital thing people often miss when they assume a scholarship against the NT. It often turns out that such "scholarship" have not travelled the road at all.

Let me first ask you: if you were the one hanging on that Cross, would you have prayed for destruction upon those who bitterly condemned you?

It was necessary for Christ to go to the Cross - and this would come by the hands of sinful men. But the glorious mystery of that work is to defeat Satan on his very presumption (Heb. 2:14-15). Of course, those who condemned Him did not have a clue what they were doing - and so Christ prayed for their forgiveness. The redemption is not a minus - it is a plus! It did not end on the Cross - the Resurrection dignifies it! That is why Peter could make this pivotal statement:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made
that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)

If they did not know what they were doing, by what measure would you be assuming they were doing the "correct" thing?

Not because He was unwilling - rather, the mystery of iniquity is beyond our arguments. You and I may argue back and forth about it, but the arguments prove absolutely nothing and does not remove from the fact that He went to the Cross.

No one has argued to the contrary. What I see here are huge problems arising from presumptions you hold to discredit the NT accounts.

Let's be clear about two huge points here: (a) the condemnation; and (b) the crucifixion itself.

Those who condemned Christ knew in their hearts they were guilty of their act - such was the guilt that drove Judas to suicide. However, the Crucifixion itself was God's mercy for the salvation of humanity. You will never be able to see this until you humbly go back to the significance of the Crucifixion in the prophecies!

Isaiah 53:6 states that "[b]the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" - may I ask you, dear m_nwankwo if it was a sin that the LORD was showing mercy to you in sending His Son to bear your own iniquity? Of course, you do not believe in this divine exchange, so I propose another: what would you say if God had to put you on that Cross to bear your own iniquity by yourself (knowing fully well that you will NEVER survive its grievious consequence) - would that be a sin or a mercy?[/b]It is quite easy to sit aloof and propound questions against what you don't want to believe in the NT - we can do this with more devastating effect on your cherished beliefs as well if we cared to do just that. However, there are two sides to asking intelligent questions - when you force your presumptions to the fore, take a moment as ask the consequences upon yourself if you applied your objections in your own case.

Christ was not the guilty one - so, would it be a sin that He willingly took our iniquity upon Himself?

As above. However, a small subscript here: have you asked [b]yourself if it was God's will for you to REJECT the offer of redemption as prophesied in the OT and fulfilled in the NT in Jesus Christ? have you ever sat down and asked yourself if by rejecting His offer of grace, you are fulfilling "HIS WILL" for your life?

Questions may sometimes pretend to make us "comfortable" - especially when we call the shots. But hey, you're on spot now, and it is time you faced up to your own machinery: did God ever will that you reject the prophecies and fulfillment of His offer of redemption in Jesus Christ?

Let me quote you a verse: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Gen. 9:6). This was a principle that was established long before the Mosaic law was given. But it is interesting to note Lamech's cry earlier in Genesis 4:23 - "I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt". I have often asked those who like those who are adept at proposing objections with an air of superiority to explicate this verse, since it does not appear that Lamech murdered anyone.

I could go into detail here if you are prepared to delve into this with seasoned contributions as well. But suffice to say that the prophets knew that their is no redemption nor remission of sin without the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22). It is not just that blood is involved - but the value of the life is what makes the Blood precious. This is why the Psalmist stated that: "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever" (Psalm 49:7-.

Redemption is a vital subject that you will not find satisfactorily explicated by those who deny the value and significance of the Blood. Out of curiosity, let me ask: did Mr Abd-ru-Shin anywhere give an insight into what redemption actually is as set forth in the Bible?

Already answered, and I'd consider that a repetition.[/b]Cheers.

1. Human sacrifice under any circumstances is wrong. Why will it be different with that of Jesus. If you think that Gods power is not within the terms of his attributes like justice and love, then what exactly is Gods own terms. If the blood of Jesus is efficacious and needed for the redemption of sins, what then is in this blood that gives it that power. The God that is Jesus is not in his physical body. Any ascribing of divine powers to a physical object is in my own perception idolatry. You are yet to explain wheather the blood of Jesus is physical or has God in it. References to the use of animal blood in olden times is not an explanation but another refrence to the use of blood, albeit the animal blood. The question is why does God need blood as you seem to postulate.

2. You agreed that Jesus was murdered. You agreed that the conspiracy, the betrayal is a heinious crime. Yet you assert that the product of this crime (murder) is required for salvation. How can sin (murder) give rise to salvation(good). Does evil seed produce good fruits? Does God use evil as an instrument of good? The point is not the offer of grace to  Judas, the contradiction is that Judas committed a heinious crime against God and the consequence of this heinious crime leads to the salvation of men. In addition if it is the will of GOD that Jesus will be murdered, then a creator that demands the murder of his own son  in order to reconcile himself to his creatures cannot be GOD. GODs commandments is against murder and God himself cannot go against his own commandments. Even on earth, no sane parent will kill his own son for whatever reason. Yet people postulate that that is exaxtly what God did with his son Jesus.

3. God taught us to forgive. Jesus being God demontrated that he lives according to the commandments of his Father by asking for forgiveness on those who plotted his earthly death. Jesus, the son of God demonstrated that he lives what he preaches. The important point is that Jesus knew that they commited a benious crime, hence the prayer of intercessation. It is the law of God that we must forgive and I am no exception to that law.

4. I am aware of those quotations but I do not agree with them. The reason is simple. The shedding of human blood is evil and there are no exceptions.

5. Jesus, the son of God has no sin and is not guilty. Therefore he cannot directly take the sins of others. That is equivalent to contradictiong the justice of God. Even on earth, which Judje will set free a murderer and sentence an innocent person? Yet what will cause moral outrage even in human affairs, men expect God to sacrifice his own son so that men can dump their load of sins on him. Therefore I do not believe that Jesus carried the sins of the world on himself. He brought the TRUTH in his words. His words is the detergent men need to wash there dirty cloths. Therefore only living according to the words of Jesus will bring salvation and redemption.

6. I dispute your view that the offer of grace lies in the blood of Jesus. My point is that the offer of grace lies in Jesus and his words. Those who recognise Jesus and his words have taken up the offer of grace. The words of Jesus will never contradict  Justice and love since these virtues has its origin in GOD and his son Jesus.

7. Once again why will God, the creator of all the worlds require a ransom to save his creatures. The very idea of a ransome for God is grotesque. Why will he demand the blood of his son. You are yet to come up with an explanation of this. References to the animal sacrifices is not an expanation.

8. The Grail Message gave several lectures on the life and mission of the son of God. The explanation of the Grail Message is not derived from the bible or any other work. The NT of the bible presents the mission and life of Jesus as the writers of the bible reports. The Grail Message presents its own explanation of the life and mission of Jesus. People should examine the two and come to there own conclusions.

9. God sent Jesus his son to save mankind from there sins. Recognition of the words of Jesus and living accordingly is the salvation, not his blood or his death. Jesus mission can be likened to a house on fire with your children trapped inside. If you did not intervene, your children will be burnt. The love of your kids makes you to enter the fire to save your children. Bystanders who saw the intensity of the fire predicted that if you enter you will yourself t get burnt. Yet inspite of the danger and dire predictions, love motivated you and you entered the burning house, saved your kids but got burnt and killed in the procees. The correct reporting of the incident should be that you went in to save you kids, saved them but died in the process. It is wrong to say that you went into the burning house to die. It will be wrong also to say that it is your death that saved your kids. It will also be wrong to say that you were destined to die as predicted by the bystanders. This is ofcourse a crude analogy but it fairly reflects the mission of Jesus, the son of God. Besides Jesus faced death as a living expression that he is the son of God. He payed the utimate penalty for his conviction that he is the son of God.

10. If you have any observations or comments that will have "devastitating" effect on the Grail Message, please bring it on.

Thanks again and stay blessed!

@Olabowale,

How are you today?

I took time to carefully read through your response. For the life of me, I admire your penchant to argue on and on and on . . . and yet absolutely miss the point. You tried out trying to "overwhelm" me on the question of "atonement" and "redemption" in Islam; unfortunately, you left me where indeed you actually enunciated those principles in either the Quran, the Hadith or any other Islamic sources.

This is what I said earlier about these issues:

syrup:


It is Blood that the Bible has always taught as the efficacy for -

* atonement

* redemption

* forgiveness

* cleansing of sin

Once you miss the Blood and its efficacy, you lose everything completely.

Even when you tried to fill several pages long of arguments, dear Olabowale, where is ATONEMENT and REDEMPTION by BLOOD in Islam in your treatise? If I have missed it somewhere, could you please summarize the line and simply post it in brief?

Until you show me directly where in Islam you have a teaching on redemption and atonement by BLOOD, please save me the "overwhelming" emptiness.

Cheers.

@justcool,

First, I want to thank you for responding graciously. . . and with a sense of humour!

justcool:

@syrup
Here are a few translations:

“And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.”
(Douay-Rheims Bible)

“And after giving thanks He broke it and said, "This is my body which is about to be broken for you. Do this in memory of me."
(Weymouth New Testament Bible)

Here you see, the first translation added, “which shall be delivered for you.” This will lead the reader to think that Jesus was speaking about His betral by Judas, who sold or delivered Him for crucification on the cross.

That misreading on "delivered" happens for those who read their pretexts into the texts.

justcool:

The second translation added “which is about to be broken for you.” Leading the reader to think that Jesus was talking about His crucification on the cross, which was about to take place.

Could I just ask here: what's your view about the Cross? Was Jesus crucified there or not?

justcool:

You see how meanings are added and lost in translations. You might want to buy at least 3 different versions of the Bible and compare each verse. (I did this when I was a pastor) You will amazed at what you will find. You will find some verses that say exactly opposite what the same verse says in another translation. I can give other verses if you want.

The essential message of the Cross is quite preserved in many versions and translations. I wonder why many people read their pretexts into the texts and then have problems with the contexts. A better way is simply to let the text speak to our hearts - that is a safer ground to occupy that assuming what is not there.

justcool:

Now about the real significance of “the blood of Jesus.”

According to the gospel:
“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.”

Here was he talking about actualy drinking His blood? This is what lead catholics to come up with the idea of transubtantiation. They believe that one actualy  have to eat the flesh and blood of Jesus inorder to abide in Him, hence they turn bread in to the body of Jesus. I used to teach people this when I was a catholic. From the above verse you can tell that He was not talking about actually drinking blood niether was He talking about wine nor bread.  From the verse in red we can deduce what he meant from blood and flesh. The verse said “this is the Bread that came down from heaven” Did His body come down from heaven?
Just as you chew meat, swalow it and digest it, you shuold accept His words, examine it(Chew the meat), understand it(Digest it) and swallow it(implement it in your life. To drink His blood is live in His Truth. Just as blood circulates your physical body and nurishes it, so shall His Words(The Truth) circulate in the body of your spirit and nurish it. The human spirit perpertualy needs the flow of Truth to remain alive. The Truth is food for the the spirit, the spirit grows and matures only in the Truth, and as long as the spirit lives in the Truth, the spirit will live forever. And the this Truth which the spirit is dependant on is the blood of Jesus.This Truth which only comes from Divinity—(Jesus, God, and The Holy Spirit.) This is what is meant by the “blood of Jesus.”

In summary, you have missed the point yet again. I have already shared with you on Biblical symbolisms and figues of speech. That much we seem to argree are used in Scripture.

The problem now is to find out what exactly points to what.

*Does Scripture show that wine is the basis of redemption?
* Does Scripture show that words spoken are the basis of atonement?
* Does Scripture translate the Blood as mere "words"?

These are a few considerations that should help you seriously seek to understand the basis of Biblical redemption and atonement. As to its significance in Scripture, I gave you two verses from both the OT and NT - neither in one or the other does blood translate into "words".

justcool:

My dear, I have to call it a day today. I have to study for my calculus test, and you are distracting me. If I fail my test you will be in trouble.(Just Kidding)

May God help you to pass that test - I might need your numerate brains afterwards to cheat somebody in the marketplace!

Anyhow, much success in your exams/test.

justcool:

I wil post more after my test.

Looking forward to it.

@olabowale,

How bodi? hope you are keeping well,

I will like to appeal to your consciense, and try and answer the following case study in this scenario.

A man was arrested for a serious crime, let's say armed robbery, and was charged to court to defend himself.  The man pleaded guilty as charged and begged for forgiveness.

If the penalty for that offense was to pay a fine of $1million or to go to life imprisonment, as a just judge how would you execute the sentence?

@m_nwankwo,

Thanks for yours - much appreciate your calm and mature rejoinder. I should have followed the same strain in making long repostes as well, but pardon me in saying that they all funnel down to the same things I had already addressed. Repeating myself in new verbiage would not make it any more effective. But just so that our readers don't misconstrue this to mean a laziness on my part, I could once again show why indeed we are engaging with the same questions and nothing creative or new.

That said, let me point out a few areas yet again in summary as to why I feel we're still on the same page - with just the first objection in yours:

m_nwankwo:

@syrub
Thanks again. I will respond to the issues you raised as follows
1. Human sacrifice under any circumstances is wrong. Why will it be different with that of Jesus.

This is a classic objection for those who have never considered two very important issues before assuming to hold unto some beliefs about "Jesus" -
* Biblical prophecies
* Biblical Redemption

People may have ideas about these two issues; but to ignore the prophecies leaves the enquirer without redemption; and to disavow redemption simply means such a person has no Biblical revelation to share - and this is classic with so many who talk about "Jesus" and yet disparage the NT.

m_nwankwo:

If you think that Gods power is not within the terms of his attributes like justice and love, then what exactly is Gods own terms.

I did not make that assumption, m_nwankwo. God's power embraces those attributes; but it is not limited to those abstract qualites. We understand that "love" for example is an abstract quality on its own until it is demonstrated. And what is God's "justice" if it remains only as an abstract quantity - how does God then demonstrate His divine justice?

m_nwankwo:

If the blood of Jesus is efficacious and needed for the redemption of sins, what then is in this blood that gives it that power.

Answer: the LIFE in the Blood gives it that power.

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it
to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls:
for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

This is not my word - it is God's Word, my dear friend. You may choose not to believe it; but then it brings us back to the same thing I alluded to just above - to ignore bothe the Prophecies and Biblical Redemption is to engender endless arguments.

Pretty much of the other points you raised have been addressed in my previous rejoinders, so it would not be necessary to recats them in new verbiage here and then run the risk of repetitions.

I'm open to fresh concerns that may not have been covered previously. For now, please ask yourself what you have done with the prophecies and redemption God declared. To ignore them. . . well, I said so before.

Many blessings.

@Syrub

Thanks too for your objective response. Thanks for quoting leviticus. I do not see that quotation as the word of God. There is nothing for me to do with the biblical prophecies and redemption. This because I do not accept the bible to be the WORD OF GOD. That is why I do not quote the bible in my posts. Therefore you are correct to assert "that I have no biblical revealation to share" Thanks again and stay blessed.

@m_nwankwo,

Much appreciated. Rather than progress into lengthy discourses where our priciples differ, I acknowledge your honest submission and respect your assumptions in their own rights.

Cheers.

@ricadelide
I was going to relpy with a different tone but after reading Justcool's post call us to order, I dicided to give this friendly reply.
My initial anger at you is that:
1) your advice to feelgood. If you had just told him to reread justcool's post, I will have no problem with that. But you made seem that he should diasagree with justcool just because he is a folower of the GM.
I felt that this is like initiating a religious war. (I am sorry if that's not what you mean)
2) You accuse him of criticizing the bible, you gave an example of him not agreeing with Jesus litrally turning water to wine. Okay, but every christian has a potion of the bible where he takes to be methaphor and not litrall. Does this make them critics of the bible? The Jehover witness does not believe that Jesus is the litrall son of God and therefore God Himself. But, I have never seen any body call them critics of the bible.
3) the bible does not belong to any religion, so many base their teachings on it. Your Post made seem as if you feel offened the he "criticizes" the bible(your book) and therfore you retaliate by criticizing the GM(his belief)

Also please search all my posts and tell me where you got the information that I am a cross bearer. I am not a cross bearer, niether am I a muslin. I was born a christian and I don't usually get into religious fights. However i enjoy spiritual discusion and exchanging of religious veiws but once this gets into name calling, judgement and condemnation I get annoyed and replused.

Thanks

Seeing the trend this thread is now leaning to, I wish to clarify why I opened this thread in the first place and why i insist on keeping to the point.
When I asked that we don't get into judging the Grail Message and It's writer, it's not that I am ashamed of the Grail message. Neither do I wish to hide the fact that I live by it. Neither I'm I afraid of having It scrutinized. I want this thread to be based on the bible. Here are my reasons:
1) I have read the bible very well and I know that even scripturally(biblically) the concept of the "crucification of Jesus" or the "physical blood of Jesus" as salvation does not completely agree with the scripture. with this thread I challenge bible readers to prove me wrong. There are other Christian sects that don't believe that the forgiveness of sins is only brought about by faith and the physical blood of Jesus. The catholics believe that forgiveness of sins comes by the sacrament of penance(confession)--I personally don't agree with this.
2) There is no need scrutinizing a book with people who have not read the book. I have read the bible very well and I expect other poster(in this thread) to have read it too. Don't bring is-lam in, because I have not read the Ko-ran very well and it will be unfair of me to judge it based on what other people say. This is why I said what I said about the Grail message earlier. Why scrutinize and judge It only based only on what I say.
3) The Grail message is not based on the bible. The writer draw HIS message from out of the TRUTH Itself, and not out of any book. So it will be irrational using It to prove the point of this thread which is (does the scriptures actually support the doctrine of "By Faith Alone", since It does not deal with bible.

I will be more than willing to examine the Grail Message(which i have found to be foolproof) with any body, provided that the person has read it. I encourgage anybody who has done so to open a thread and voice his disagreement. Infact I if there are such people(people who have read and found it lacking), let me know and I will start the thread myself.

I thank m-nwankwo and syrup for quickly resolving their differences in a matured manner. However I wish to bring Olabowale's and Syrup's attention to where their conversation is leading this thread. I don't want another Mus-lim/ Christian war nor Bible / Ko-ran war so please I beg you two to resolve your issues. This thread is based only on the bible.

I have to go back to my studing for my exam, I will post more on the issue of the thread after my exam. Any body who has read the bible and is willing to share is welcome to contribute.
Thanks

@Olaadegbu: Thanks. Am fine. I hope you are of good cheers, too?

If the penalty for that offense was to pay a fine of $1million or to go to life imprisonment, as a just judge how would you execute the sentence?

Exactly what the penalty called for; a $1M USD or life impresonment. The guilty will have to make his own choice between the two.

@syrup: Am also in good summery mood. I hope you are fine along with every one in the family.

Hi @ seeklove,
thanks for your very polite rejoinder and thanks to justcool for mediating that.
i do not wish to continue to address fallouts from the advice i gave to feelgood. I made my reference to the grail message with no ill intent and i certainly did not expect anyone to take offense. Sincerely I was suprised at the tone of response I got. Consequently, I've apologized for making a reference to the grail message in my advice to him.

Likewise i do not want to engage in semantics as regards what does or does not constitute a critique. The word criticize in my usage merely refers to 'finding fault with'. I sincerely do not have a problem with anyone finding fault with the contents of the bible. Even I, who profess to be a christian, have found fault with some renditions in certain translations of the bible. Thus I wasn't accusing justcool of something that I deem a very grave offense, I was only asking him to extend the same degree of scrutiny that he employs when addressing the bible with his own religious text. That does not constitute 'retaliation', rather IMO that's being fair.

Furthermore, I do not take biblical criticism personal (that does not mean I take what I believe to be the Word of God lightly). If it appeared so from my post, it was unintended. Although I know you're only giving an example, I do not agree that Jehovah's witnesses do not find fault with (in order words, criticize) other bible translations other than their own New World translation. I've had discussions with JW's in the past, and they definitely do find fault with the NIV which I use most of the time.

I hope that addresses your concerns. I hope we can have a calmer discussion henceforth. Cheers.

@Syrup:

Posts: 458

Offline

Re: By Faith Alone?
« #39 on: Today at 10:16:01 AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Olabowale,


Quote from: olabowale on Today at 03:11:06 AM
@Syrup: Is this better than animal sacrificing? Its worse. This is human sacrificing my friend.

I understand your problem with the prophecies of the Biblical prophets. But as I often say, it is not my call to instruct God what He would do - it is His prerogative and His alone.

He spoke of the redemption and atonement that He would grant through His Son long before it was fulfilled. The prophets faithfully declared these things, even though they were constantly ridiculed and their messages and prophecies denied. I understand that in Islam there is no thought of redemption or atonement - and that is why we have been through the question of whether or not you believe in ALL the prophets. Do you see how futile your continual denials are?

Rather than keep denying anything, my stand is rather to receive all that God has spoken by the prophets, even as we find in Jesus' clear warning in Luke 24:25-26 >>

Then he said unto them:
O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

Dear Olabowale, it is a futile exercise to try to instruct the prophets on what to declare or believe - and denying what they have stated as prophecies will not give you peace or reason. I was blessed to believe ALL that the prophets have declared rather than making mere claims and cutting corners. May God help you to take heed and calmly examine your denials and their implications upon your life.

God bless you.

Please read your entry above. Please note that the third line of the second paragraph confirms your statement about I.sl.am not having any means of atonement. There is not statement about blood in the satement. I would just have easily answered you to the affirmative, that Islam does not deal with blood. Our repentance, forgiveness, atonement is very simple and has nothing to do with animal or human blood.

Posted by: syrup
Insert Quote
@Olabowale,

How are you today?

I took time to carefully read through your response. For the life of me, I admire your penchant to argue on and on and on . . . and yet absolutely miss the point. You tried out trying to "overwhelm" me on the question of "atonement" and "redemption" in Islam; unfortunately, you left me where indeed you actually enunciated those principles in either the Quran, the Hadith or any other Islamic sources.

This is what I said earlier about these issues:


Quote from: syrup on Today at 02:03:30 AM

It is Blood that the Bible has always taught as the efficacy for -

* atonement

* redemption

* forgiveness

* cleansing of sin

Once you miss the Blood and its efficacy, you lose everything completely.

Even when you tried to fill several pages long of arguments, dear Olabowale, where is ATONEMENT and REDEMPTION by BLOOD in Islam in your treatise? If I have missed it somewhere, could you please summarize the line and simply post it in brief?

Until you show me directly where in Islam you have a teaching on redemption and atonement by BLOOD, please save me the "overwhelming" emptiness.

Cheers.

You can now see why I responded the way I did above. It was not my intention to overwhelm you with mundane statement. And I did not, except that I pointed out to you that we do have atonement and forgiveness, contrary to the belief of the Christians the world over. No animal have to die. No man have to be killed. No blood. No nothing. My God is not a blood thirsty God. Not for animal and not for a human blood. Maybe your conversation about blood is with another christian participant. Definitely not me.

But why would a God who deemed forgiveness to be a free gift for mankind will decide to demand the blood of anything? Would this blood be enough without the heart truly repenting? Do you see that the blood means nothing without the heart devoid of sins? Now do you see the superior quality of the repentance of the Mu.sl.ims that neither demanded for Bull or Body? I wonder how the Christians will explain the forgiveness received by Adam and mother Eve; by blood or by the inspiration of the words of repentance coming from their hearts through their lips?

@Olabowale,

I was hoping that you'd have left the mundane habit of unnecessary arguments after several discourses between us. It is not my style to keep on being entertained by mere arguments that seek to overwhelm me with aboslutely nothing to the topic being discussed - so I wonder why you often resort to the same ad hominem device?

It is a very simple case I laid out: the Biblical prophets emphatically declare that God had established atonement and redemption on the intrinsic power of the Blood. You may have a problem with the statement in mine that it does not appear Islam predicates the same. Since you felt I was incorrect to have made that allusion, I expected you would have shown me the same to the effect of precisely the same thing as I stated earlier:

It is Blood that the Bible has always taught as the efficacy for -

   * atonement

   * redemption

   * forgiveness

   * cleansing of sin

Once you miss the Blood and its efficacy, you lose everything completely.

All you needed to have done was show me in simple terms that I was mistaken in my allusion, and then demonstrate briefly that allah also predicates the same thing in Islam. To the effect that you could not demonstrate that, what then is the use of your tedious effort to "overwhelm" me with unnecessary arguments?

In summary, I intoned that the Biblical prophets declared that ATONEMENT and REDEMPTION are predicated on the Blood. I do not find that in Islam. You may speak of "forgiveness" by mere pronouncements - but where is REDEMPTION in Islam precisely as the Biblical prophets have taught? If it is non-existent, please save the argument - it is entirely fruitless.

Cheers.

Hi @ justcool,

Interesting post. I think it would be fair to allege that, as has been severally mentioned, the reason you're not willing to accept the consensus of mainstream (evangelical) christianity as regards biblical doctrines (especially justification by faith alone) is because you have certain preconceptions which you read into the text. Naturally, those would have an effect on the interpretation you get from it. Thus, if you request to treat the bible squarely, without any references to the grail message, then you should be willing to make interpretations from the bible on its own merit regardless of what your religious book teaches.

So, to reiterate, if you wish to focus on the bible, no qualms. Just make sure you're not intepreting the bible based on your preconceptions.
That said;

justcool:

3) The Grail message is not based on the bible. The writer draw HIS message from out of the TRUTH Itself, and not out of any book. So it will be irrational using It to prove the point of this thread which is (does the scriptures actually support the doctrine of "By Faith Alone", since It does not deal with bible.

I will be more than willing to examine the Grail Message(which i have found to be foolproof) with any body, provided that the person has read it. I encourgage anybody who has done so to open a thread and voice his disagreement. Infact I if there are such people(people who have read and found it lacking), let me know and I will start the thread myself.

I do not agree that the Grail Message is the truth. I believe a valid discussion can be had about that. Since you want to limit this thread to a discussion on the bible, I wont bring it up here. I was involved in a discussion about the inspiration and validity of the Grail Message with m_nwankwo a while back. I did not continue that discussion when it appeared that we weren't making any headway, perhaps I'd revisit that thread.
Beyond that, I do not believe that one cannot have a discussion about the Grail Message unless one has read it. Certainly it would help but I don't think its a prerequisite. I would really love to read the book but I've tried to obtain it from libraries and have been unsucessful.

All that said:

I have read the bible very well and I know that even scripturally(biblically) the concept of the "crucification of Jesus" or the "physical blood of Jesus" as salvation does not completely agree with the scripture. with this thread I challenge bible readers to prove me wrong. There are other Christian sects that don't believe that the forgiveness of sins is only brought about by faith and the physical blood of Jesus. The catholics believe that forgiveness of sins comes by the sacrament of penance(confession)--I personally don't agree with this.

Now to discussing the bible which is what you want; ignoring at the moment the other christian sects, you have not shown how the crucifixion of Jesus or the blood of Jesus as bringing about redemption is at odds with scripture. The scriptures you quoted in your original post have been addressed. Syrup has addressed the biblical doctrines as regards the blood of Jesus. So,

Can you show us how you arrived at your conclusion?
In so doing can you avoid reading into the scriptures what they do not teach?
Can you accept the totality of scripture for what it teaches?

Best wishes in your exams. Cheers.

@ricadelide
Thanks for your post. I was planning to stay away from the net in-order to study, but since it was you who asked I decided to give a quick reply because I don't want you to feel that I am ignoring you. You raised very interesting and nice points and I will address them quickly. Wait for a more detailed reply after my exam.

ricadelide:

Interesting post. I think it would be fair to allege that, as has been severally mentioned, the reason you're not willing to accept the consensus of mainstream (evangelical) Christianity as regards biblical doctrines (especially justification by faith alone) is because you have certain preconceptions which you read into the text. Naturally, those would have an effect on the interpretation you get from it. Thus, if you request to treat the bible squarely, without any references to the grail message, then you should be willing to make interpretations from the bible on its own merit regardless of what your religious book teaches.

You call my interpretations "preconceptions which I read in the text." They are not preconceptions, they are my interpretation. Yours(evangelical) interpretation is the one that added preconceptions to the text. I gave Syrup some quotes from the gospel and from the posts you can see that Jesus never said that his physical blood or crucification brings redemption. When Jesus spoke of His blood He was speaking of His words(The Truth) which God gave to mankind for the forgiveness of their sins. To allege the He meant His physical blood is absurd. If you allege that then how do you explain when, acording to the gospel, He told His followers to eat and drink His blood. Was He telling them to actually eat His physical body(cannibalism) or was He telling them to drink His physical blood(vampirerisim)? Please answer.

ricadelide:

So, to reiterate, if you wish to focus on the bible, no qualms. Just make sure you're not interpreting the bible based on your preconceptions.

In this thread, I have quoted the bible in almost all my posts(something I don't usually do in other threads) to show that my argument is based on the bible. Just because my interpretations is not the mainstream(evangelical) interpretation does not mean that it is only a preconception. The mainstream(evangelical) idea that redemption is by faith alone started with Martin Luther. Earlier Christians did not believe in that because that is not what Christ taught. The oldest surviving Christian sect(catholic) still does not believe in it, although they added their own prerequisite(confession) for salvation due to their misunderstanding of the scriptures. So my interpretation is not just a preconception, it is based on the Bible. If you can give me just one quote where Jesus said that all you need to do to be saved is to simply believe that His physical blood has washed away your sins, and therefore you do not have to be righteous, then you will win this argument. I have given quotes where He urged people to be righteous and doers of His words not just hearers. In so many instances the scriptures made it clear the faith alone is not enough, faith has to be accompanied with work(good works) which is what brings salvation. Faith without work is dead.

ricadelide:

I do not agree that the Grail Message is the truth. I believe a valid discussion can be had about that. Since you want to limit this thread to a discussion on the bible, I wont bring it up here. I was involved in a discussion about the inspiration and validity of the Grail Message with m_nwankwo a while back. I did not continue that discussion when it appeared that we weren't making any headway, perhaps I'd revisit that thread.
Beyond that, I do not believe that one cannot have a discussion about the Grail Message unless one has read it. Certainly it would help but I don't think its a prerequisite. I would really love to read the book but I've tried to obtain it from libraries and have been unsuccessful.

The only reason why I tell you to read the book personally is that the Book was written for "mankind" irrespective race, religion or gender. It speaks to the heart and anybody, with an alert spirit, can understand It. If we discuss It only based on my perception of It, this unfair to both you and the book. Because if my perception is wrong then you will take it as if the fault is from the Grail Message and therefore you will perpetually consider It faulty and never read It. Another thing is that due to our(Nigerian) attitude, we labell everything that is not mainstream as secret society. I remender the first time I picked up the book, a friend told me that It is a secret society, Antichrist, and etc. I didn't expect what I saw in the book when I read. believe me I felt sorry for book. One thing is certain, if you are honest, after reading the book you will never call it a secret society or Antichrist. The book actually condemns all forms mysticism and It was not written for any society, neither did It bring any religion. It does not force anybody to accept, It actually encourages the reader to "weigh and examine everything" including the contents of the book. It encourages the reader the examine the matter objectively. I once gave It to born again Christain friend who used to call It secret society. After reading, he said and I quote: " for sure that book does not deserve the bad reputation people give It. I was surprised It actually glorifies Jesus."
The book does not even urge people to leave their religion or join another religions. It simply deals with life, spiritual life, Jesus, God, etc. It covers all the spectrum of life, Its not something you can merely discuss without being conversant with It. The lectures are arranged in sequence and the reader is encouraged to read it in sequence.
How can I engage in fruitfull discussion with you about the book when you are not even conversant with the book. You will only argue based on what you heard from people who may be biased.
If you really want a copy, give me your e-mail add and I will write you and get your mailing address. I definitely and gladly will send you a copy.

ricadelide:

I do not agree that the Grail Message is the truth.

You are entitlled to you opinion. Even after reading the book, you are entitlled to you opinion. But then that would be a more informed opinion since you have heared from the Book Iself. you can then voice your dissagreement objectively because you will (1) be conversant about the book, (2) know exactly where your dissagrements are.


Now I have to return to my studies.
Thanks and remain blessed

@Syrup: Thanks. I will let the argument rest, since a woman married to a Nigerian, is a wife to all Nigerians. You are our queen. So you win the argument. We have no redemption, in Isl.a.m like that of the jews and the Christians, since there is no need for blood in our pronouncement of seeking forgiveness for our sins.

I am very grateful to God who has spared me of the agony of spilling the blood of animal or hanging my hope on a supposed sacrifice on the cross of an innocent man. A man who kicked and struggled and was even reluctant on the cross to accept his condition, whereby he yelled about been left to die as he complained of being forsakened.

I wonder if such a reluctant sacrifice are really acceptable by the One Who it is offered to, from the one who offered it? I mean it was not wholeheartedly that the sacrifice was made.

Have a great Night and a wonderful morning.

Hi Olabowale,

olabowale:

So you win the argument.

I was going to be reserved, but just wanted to highlight that my efforts were not geared to winning any arguments. I'm sorry if it came across otherwise; but you could see that it would not bring out much fruit to discuss this important subject if we are all trying to argue from different sources. As consequently expressed between myself and m_nwankwo - and finished nicely.

Second, I think the originator (justcool) has reminded discussants that his focus is to discuss the subject with particular recourse to the Bible.

All the same, thank you for your warm remarks. Kind regards.

@olabowale,

Good morning this morning, I hope the weather is fine where you are.

olabowale:

@Olaadegbu: Thanks. Am fine. I hope you are of good cheers, too?
Exactly what the penalty called for; a $1M USD or life impresonment. The guilty will have to make his own choice between the two.

That was a good judgment, making you a just judge. Now another scenario is if or when you die and face God at the judgment throne and you are found guilty of breaking God's commandment on earth, and God who is a righteous judge, has to decide, will He be right and just to sentence you to hell even if you plead guilty and that you are sorry?