[quote author=Demmzy15 post=35434879][/quote]

Apparently when you are faced with SUPERIOR position on an issue you 'run for cover'. And strikethroughs are your best defence!

plainbibletruth:


Apparently when you are faced with SUPERIOR position on an issue you 'run for cover'. And strikethroughs are your best defence!

Which superior position?! You want me to be saying the same thing over and over again?! O boy I no get time, understand my position by reading by posts from the beginning!

Demmzy15:

Which superior position?! You want me to be saying the same thing over and over again?! O boy I no get time, understand my position by reading by posts from the beginning!

Let's start with this:

You used this Bible passage:
"...Abraham took ..... all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him." Genesis 17:23
to say that Ishmael was INCLUDED in the covenant or "that God has a covenant with Ishmael." because, according to you, "This shows the covenant is about 'circumcision'." 

Notice that it was not only Abraham and Ishmael that were circumcised; ALL MALES were circumcised.

So, do you think that EVERY MALE in Abraham's house, simply by virtue of being circumcised AUTOMATICALLY became part of God's covenant with Abraham?

plainbibletruth:
[s]

Let's start with this:

You used this Bible passage:
"...Abraham took ..... all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him." Genesis 17:23
to say that Ishmael was INCLUDED in the covenant or "that God has a covenant with Ishmael." because, according to you, "This shows the covenant is about 'circumcision'." 

Notice that it was not only Abraham and Ishmael that were circumcised; ALL MALES were circumcised.

So, do you think that EVERY MALE in Abraham's house, simply by virtue of being circumcised AUTOMATICALLY became part of God's covenant with Abraham?[/s]

I'm done with this issue, I've answered this similar question so search for my reply. I can't reply myself!

Demmzy15:

I'm done with this issue, I've answered this similar question so search for my reply. I can't reply myself!

I'm glad other readers can see things clearly and decide for themselves which position is reasonable and which one is not!
They can also see the person who wants to give a clear and simple answer and who it is who wants to 'run for cover'.
Cheers!
PS
Another strikethroughs?

plainbibletruth:


I'm glad other readers can see things clearly and decide for themselves which position is reasonable and which one is not!
They can also see the person who wants to give a clear and simple answer and who it is who wants to 'run for cover'.
Cheers!

Of course, readers would surely judge because I've done justice. You want me to keep repeating myself like I gat nothing to do?! No! No! No! Dats not possible! I can't repeat myself, check my replies to 'Scholar' it's there!

Demmzy15:

Of course, readers would surely judge because I've done justice. You want me to keep repeating myself like I gat nothing to do?! No! No! No! Dats not possible! I can't repeat myself, check my replies to 'Scholar' it's there!

Hey guy, you never stated why Ishmael was included in the covenant by reason of 'circumcision' alone while other males who were equally circumcised were excluded.
Show us!

Matters Arising - 2
1. It is undisputed that Abraham was married to Sarah. 
2. It is undisputed that Abraham asked for a son. 
3. It is clear that the Quran never directly mentions the name of the intended sacrificial child. 
4. It is clear, however, that there is emphasis in the Quran as to the good news of the birth of Isaac - AND WE GAVE HER THE GOOD NEWS OF ISAAC (Q.11:71). 
No such emphasis is placed on the birth of Ishmael. 
5. It should be obvious that since Sarah (and not Hagar) was the one barren, Abraham’s  prayer to God to grant him a righteous son (Q.37:100) could not have been for a son through Hagar. 
6. Sarah's comment in Q.11:72 buttresses this. 
7. The son born through God's promise - the good news- and miraculous intervention was therefore Isaac. The Covenant was to be perpetuated through him. 
8. So, a careful reflection on relevant portions of the Quran points to Isaac and not Ishmael. 
9. Historically being FIRSTBORN does not necessarily confer any special status on that one. In many cases even ADOPTED SONS were given position of privilege. 
10. If the issue of FIRSTBORN is to be stressed, then it is only logical that the FIRSTBORN of the legitimate wife should have precedence or preference.

plainbibletruth:


Hey guy, you never stated why Ishmael was included in the covenant by reason of 'circumcision' alone while other males who were equally circumcised were excluded.
Show us!

the guy is soo deluded, he think circumcision is a genuine reason ishmael was a covenant son.

PLS NOTE: I RUN A GROUP ON WHATSAPP CALLED HIDDENSIMPLICITIES. AND I HAVE LOTS OF CHRISTAINS THERE WHO CONDEMN ME ABT MY OPINIONS CONCERNING THE MUSLIMS. I AM CHRISTAIN TOO. BUT AN ENLIGHTENED ONE, NOT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INDOCTRINATION. SO I BESEECH ANY ONE WHO CAN JOIN ME IN MY CAUSE OF SHOULD PLEASE CONTACT ME ON WHATSAPP@ 07051065548, SO THAT I CAN ADD U UP IN THE GROUP SO AS TO INCREASE OUR VOICE OUT THERE. BELOW IS AN ARTICLE I PREPARED YESTERDAY IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF MY PERSECUTORS. YOU CAN FIND MORE OF MY WRITINGS AT hiddensimplicities.

Thanks for your contribution.






WHY I AM STILL DOUBTING IF THE QURAN TOLD A LIE CONCERNING ISHMAEL BEING THE SACRIFICIAL SON AND NOT ISAAC.


By Dr. Odia A. Ogbebor




My mum recently told me that sometimes your helpers could take the image of those who fight and condemn you. The only prove of your faith in God( surrendering to his will ) is to never give up the fight. Never surrender to no one's will except God. There is a future your persecutors are helping you build. Even when you think that you are down, the spirit of the Most High is there to pick you up. Just keep moving.

I remember the first time i heard about Ishmael been the sacrificial son and not Isaac from an Islamic program on television. I smiled because it was a odd to me and yet funny. I did not accept it neither did i condemn them due to the understanding that everyone wants to claim a good story to themselves. So i never bothered to know why they thought so. Atleast, there was no need to dig deep into such knowledge until now that i am being questioned in defence of my cause in proving that the muslims are also God's children and are also saved. And so, they deserve no condemnation.

I went ahead to make my research this time to provide answers to my examiners. Here is the little i have found out.

Hagar which is known as the bond woman, servant of sarah and mother of Ishmael, was the daughter of King Pharoah of Egypt. She chose to be a slave to Sarah when she saw the the wonders God worked through Abraham on her father, King Pharoah. For she said that it is better to go serve the house of Abraham than be a princess in her father's house. So it is my theory to say that the real intention of Hagar serving the house of Abraham was to get closer to his God and not to get a reward from Abraham nor to be condemned nor looked down on as an inferior or insignificant being. Though she was serving Sarah, but in truth, she was serving God. And in our path to walking closer to God, none should be condemned, nor sidelined, nor looked down on, for we all are his children.

Now we know that Abraham has been childless for several years before he had his first son, Ismael at age 86. And it was 13 years later, at the age of 99, Abraham had his second son, Isaac. But before Ishmael and Isaac was born, Abraham had someone who was like a son to him from a concubine. He is called Eliezer Dam - Meshek. Eliezer was not his biological son as far as the scripture can say and everyother available source i have seen.

Genesis 15:2-5;

But Abram said, " O lord God, what will you give me, for i continue [a] childless and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus? " Then Abram said, " Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir! " And behold, the word of the Lord came to him saying, " This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body( son ) shall be your heir. "

Now, when God said i shall make one from your own body( your own son) heir to Abraham, he did not mention a particular son. And the word, Son, could have mean't just one person if he was blessed with only one son. And for the fact that nations would spring up from the seed of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac are both heirs to the inheritance.

Every sincere heart would understand that the both children may become rivals concerning who takes the greater share of the inheritance. And mothers are always the architect of this act, not the fathers. This is clearly seen in the story of Esau and Jacob. Jacob luring the elder brother Esau to taking the birth right as the first born from him. Their mother was the brain behind it.

Lets look into the world of Sarah and Hagar, utilising our imagination to percieve what it could have been like.

Sarah was the first wife of Abraham, who was his half sister. So after years of trying to produce a child for Abraham and couldn't, she then asked Abraham to take in Hagar as his wife. Before now, Hagar has been serving Sarah as her maiden. At 86, Abraham had his first seed from Hagar. And he was called Ishmael. If you were to be in Abraham's shoes, wouldn't you be exceedingly happy that God has finally given you a son from your own flesh and blood? If you were foretold about the coming of Ishmael, wouldn't they call it a good-tiding? Is it not a good news?

Most Islamic critics( the christains most especially) claim that the word, good-tidings was only associated to Isaac and not Ishmael. This i cannot agree to. Who in Abraham's shoes would not be pleased and very happy on having his first child at the age of 86? And not just a child but a son. Would this not give him a relief that his kingdom has been secured in his own flesh and blood? How can this not be a good news to Abraham?

Most of the christains who criticizes who criticizes the Ishmael theory as the sacrificial son, claim that his birth wouldn't have brought any Joy to Abraham, and so does not deserve to be called a good news. Who can truly support this judgement with a sincere heart?

Here is the verse of the Quran which the present age Islamic scholars used in proving their views that Ishmael is the son to be sacrificed and not Isaac.



Surah 37:99-105


99. He said: "I will go to my Lord! He
will surely guide me
100. "O my Lord! Grant me a
righteous (son)!"
101. So We gave him the good news of
a forbearing son.
102. Then, when (the son) reached
(the age of) (serious) work with him,
he said: "O my son! I have seen in a
vision that I offer thee in sacrifice:
now see what is thy view!" (The son)
said: "O my father! Do as thou art
commanded: thou will find me, if Allah
so wills, one of the steadfast!"
103. So when they had both submitted
(to Allah), and he had laid him
prostrate on his forehead (for
sacrifice),
104. We called out to him "O
Abraham! ...
105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the
vision!" - thus indeed do We reward
those who do right.


There was a particular time in the old age where some muslims actually accepted the interpretation of the christains concerning the same verses in the Quran. I would not be suprised at their interpretation since my experience with most christains has proven to me that they read and take the message, even of their own scriptures too literally.

The christains who claimed that the verses was refering to Isaac used the sayings in Surah 37:112; which is;


" And we gave him the good news of Isaac- a prophet- one of the righteous. "


And also in Surah 51:28;


" They said ' fear not, ' and they gave him glad tidings of a son endowed with knowledge. "


Now, does it seem to you that the christains and some of the muslims who also believe in this are right concerning the Isaac theory? One is easily tempted to say yes. But lets see a further arguement of the muslims in favor of Ishmael.



" Some points have to be made clear in this concern.


1. It is well known that Abraham got
his first child in his old days (more
than 80 years old). By all means, when
he was given the news of his first son,
Ishmael , the news were great and
not only good. It seems reasonable to
think that the news of having his
second son, Isaac would be equal or
less because in the first time the
surprise factor has certainly increased
his happiness.

2. More to the point, using the same
argument as the opposition, one can
safely say that the sacrificed was
described as forbearing and steadfast
in the Qur'ân and if we search the
whole Qur'ân we will find the name of
Ishmael associated to patience and
steadfastness and not Isaac !

3. Indeed verse 21:85 reads

"And (remember) Ishmael, Idris, and
Zulkifl, all (men) of constancy and
patience ".

Conclusion: The sacrificed is Ishmael
according to the opponent's own
logic. "


Do their reasons not satisfy you? Lets see more of what they said again.




" Further scrutiny requires that we
quote the full passage in surah 37: From verse 99-105 has been given above. So we would produce only the remaining verses from 105-113, below.



" 105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the
vision!" - thus indeed do We reward
those who do right.
106. For this was a clear trial-
107. And We ransomed him with a
momentous sacrifice:
108. And We left for him among
generations (to come) in later times:
109. "Peace and salutation to
Abraham!"
110. Thus indeed do We reward those
who do right.
111. For he was one of Our believing
Servants.


112. And We gave him the good news
of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the
Righteous.


113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of
their progeny are (some) that do
right, and (some) that obviously do
wrong, to themselves. "


It is very obvious that, in this passage,
there are two distinct good news, the
first one about a forbearing son (the
one to be sacrificed) and the second
one about Isaac . Thus, the
sacrificed cannot be Isaac at least
not according to the Qur'ân. But, once
again, the opponent avoided
(willingly?) to quote the full passage
and this is frequently their way of
doing things. Moreover, those who
support that the two news are actually
the same show their incompetence
with the Qur'ânic style. Such a
repetition cannot be imagined nor
accepted by anyone who studied the
Qur'ân, God's Final Book.



Let us also look at the opinion of Ibn Kathir for further clarification with regard to the exegesis of verse 37:101;

" So we gave him the good news of a forebearing son "

Then after this, we would look at the biblical view to judge the subject matter.


Here is the translation of the above passage by Ibn Kathir.



" And this son is Ishmael
for he is the first son whose
good news was brought to
Abraham . He is older than
Isaac according to Muslims
and ahl al-kitâb (i.e., the
People of the Book) too. It
is even said in their
Scripture that Ishmael was
born when Abraham was 86
years old and Isaac was
born when Abraham was 99.
In their Scripture as well,
God is said to have ordered
Abraham to sacrifice his
only son and in another
version his firstborn. And,
at this spot, they inserted
falsely the name of Isaac
against the text of their
very Scripture. The reason
they inserted Isaac is that
he is their father whereas
Ishmael is the father of
the Arabs. They added Isaac
out of envy and brushed away
"only son" by saying that
Ishmael and his mother had
already been to Makkah. This
is a mere [farfetched]
explanation since we never
say "only son" except to a
person who hasn't got but one
son. Moreover, the firstborn
has got a special place [in
the heart of his father] that
is not given to the following
children and the order to
sacrifice him is therefore a
greater test. Some
knowledgeable people were
inclined to say that the
sacrificed was Isaac . This
was reported from some people
of the salaf (i.e. people of
the previous generations) and
it was even reported from
some Companions but [this
opinion] does not have any
bearings from the Book
[i.e., the Qur'ân] nor from
the Sunnah. I think such
opinion was received from the
Rabbis of ahl al-Kitâb as is
without evidence. Moreover,
God's Book is a witness and
points to the fact that it is
Ishmael because the glad
tiding said that the son was
patient and that he is the
sacrificed. Only afterwards,
He said: "And We gave him
the good news of Isaac - a
prophet,- one of the
Righteous." and when the
Angels brought the good news
of Isaac to Abraham they
said: " "Fear not," and they
gave him glad tidings of a
son endowed with knowledge."
And the Most High said: " We
gave her [Sarah] glad tidings
of Isaac, and after him, of
Jacob." [11:71] meaning that
in the lifetime of Abraham
and Sarah , Isaac will
beget a child that he will
call Jacob implying that
Isaac will have a progeny.
We have already explained why
it is not possible that Isaac
be sacrificed while still
a child i.e., because God
promised them [Abraham and
Sarah] that he will have a
progeny. On the other hand,
Ishmael was described as
forbearing and he fits that
description.



[Note that many commentators
including Ibn Kathîr believe
that "forbearing" does not
fit a child, it can at least
describe teenagers for they
are old enough to be
described as such.]



Now lets see if their opinion have any element of truth in it, utilizing the biblical version.


Genesis 22:2;

Then he said, " Take now your son, your ONLY SON Isaac, whom you love and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which i shall tell you. "


Genesis 22:16

and said: By myself I have sworn says the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your ONLY SON-


Here are my reasoning questions to the christains.


Why will God address Isaac as the ONLY SON of Abraham? Does it mean that it wasn't God who gave Ishmael to Abraham? Or has God forgotten that Isaac is the second son of Abraham?

Or could it be that there was only one son in the life of Abraham as at when he was given the order to make such sacrifice? If you say he had one son as at then, who do you think it would have been?


Continue reading@

/p6KAbW-1d

Pastopreneur:
PLS NOTE: I RUN A GROUP ON WHATSAPP CALLED HIDDENSIMPLICITIES. AND I HAVE LOTS OF CHRISTAINS THERE WHO CONDEMN ME ABT MY OPINIONS CONCERNING THE MUSLIMS. I AM CHRISTAIN TOO. BUT AN ENLIGHTENED ONE, NOT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INDOCTRINATION. SO I BESEECH ANY ONE WHO CAN JOIN ME IN MY CAUSE OF SHOULD PLEASE CONTACT ME ON WHATSAPP@ 07051065548, SO THAT I CAN ADD U UP IN THE GROUP SO AS TO INCREASE OUR VOICE OUT THERE. BELOW IS AN ARTICLE I PREPARED YESTERDAY IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF MY PERSECUTORS. YOU CAN FIND MORE OF MY WRITINGS AT hiddensimplicities.

Thanks for your contribution.






WHY I AM STILL DOUBTING IF THE QURAN TOLD A LIE CONCERNING ISHMAEL BEING THE SACRIFICIAL SON AND NOT ISAAC.


By Dr. Odia A. Ogbebor




My mum recently told me that sometimes your helpers could take the image of those who fight and condemn you. The only prove of your faith in God( surrendering to his will ) is to never give up the fight. Never surrender to no one's will except God. There is a future your persecutors are helping you build. Even when you think that you are down, the spirit of the Most High is there to pick you up. Just keep moving.

I remember the first time i heard about Ishmael been the sacrificial son and not Isaac from an Islamic program on television. I smiled because it was a odd to me and yet funny. I did not accept it neither did i condemn them due to the understanding that everyone wants to claim a good story to themselves. So i never bothered to know why they thought so. Atleast, there was no need to dig deep into such knowledge until now that i am being questioned in defence of my cause in proving that the muslims are also God's children and are also saved. And so, they deserve no condemnation.

I went ahead to make my research this time to provide answers to my examiners. Here is the little i have found out
,..............,..
....................

Dear Dr,
1. The documentation in the Bible was several hundreds of years before that in the Quran. This should count for something when considering accuracy of information.
2. The Bible is more chronological than the Quran.
3. In the Bible narrative God specifically indicated that the son he recognized was the son between Abraham and Sarah.
4. This was because he was the 'miracle child' - a dead womb had to be made alive and a sexually dead man was made sexually alive again.
5. It should be clear that a child born out of such a situation can only be seen as UNIQUE and no other one can be considered so.
6. Like I've mentioned in an earlier post, Abraham could only pray to God for a child from Sarah because she was the barren one. There is no point in praying for what you already have.
7. So Abraham's prayer to God in Q37: 100 could not have been for a son through Hagar.
8. Sarah's comment in Q11:72 supports this position.
9. Sarah was clearly Abraham's legitimate wife.
10. There is more reference to Abraham, Sarah and Isaac than Abraham, Hagar & Ishmael even in the Quran.
11. In the Bible narrative we do not need to make ' deductions of any kind; it is clear who was to be sacrificed - Isaac.
12. An objective consideration of the Quran can only come up with the conclusion that Isaac was more in focus than Ishmael.

Pastopreneur:


Why will God address Isaac as the ONLY SON of Abraham? Does it mean that it wasn't God who gave Ishmael to Abraham? Or has God forgotten that Isaac is the second son of Abraham?

Or could it be that there was only one son in the life of Abraham as at when he was given the order to make such sacrifice? If you say he had one son as at then, who do you think it would have been?


Continue reading@

/p6KAbW-1d

Abraham marriage to sarah was approve by God, after God promise of a son was delay, sarah advice abraham to take the bond woman hagger as a wife. Alright, how does it sound to you ? This imply, sarah did NOT patiently WAIT until the appropriate time, she chose her OWN WAY on how abraham will have a child, in fact, there NO verse in the bible were God address hagger as the wife of Abraham, God call her the bond woman.

If man believe that the son of your concubine is your legitimate son, that does not mean God does. God said that marriage is between a man and a woman ,not a man and a woman and her concubine. Hence, God didn't recognize Ishmael as Abraham's son. ONLY Isaac .

@ Pastopreneur, Moreover, the previous chapter indicate, ishmael and hagger has already been LONG GONE Before God command the sacrifice. Abraham had ONLY one son living with him.

Everything we are experiencing now started from the days of Abraham
Understand that Ishmael's birth was not a coincidence. Ishmael and Hagar represent the law... there came muslim and islamic religion. If you check this people they live by the law.
On the other hand Sarah and Isaac carried God promise and from their seed came forth the saviour which brought mankind the nature of righteousness.
You see the difference... christians don't live by the law, we are under grace.
Muslims live by the law, so they are fallen from grace.
For anyone who chooses to live by the law. Christ profit you nothing. For you have not believed in his finished work on the cross.
But to answer your question, the promised son was Isaac not ishmael.

talking about Abraham's wife. Hagar is not recognized as a wife to Abraham. Abraham had two wives. Sarah which we all know then Keturah, after sarah died.