Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun’s article

A Series of Answers to Common Questions

By

 

 

 

He wrote:

 

3. THE PLAN OF SALVATION

 

Muslim Argument:
Jesus' death is a violation of the clear OT commands prohibiting human sacrifices. Since Jesus was also under the Law (Cf. Gal. 4:4), his death would be an express violation of the commands of God which did not allow for humans to be put to death, only animals.

 

Christian Reponse:

Actually, there is no express command forbidding adult human sacrifices. What is forbidden is the sacrifice of children as a means of appeasing the pagan gods. (Cf. Lev. 18:21, 20:2-5; Deut. 12:31, 18:10; 2 Kings 16:3, 17:31, 21:6, 23:10; Jer. 7:31, 32:35; Ezek. 20:31) This is not to imply that the Bible allows for adult sacrifices, but rather to point out what is actually stated within inspired Scripture itself.

Secondly, the reason why these pagan rituals were abhorrent to God is because it not only entailed idol worship which was an abomination all by itself, but also included the death of innocent lives:

 

"They did not destroy the peoples as the Lord had commanded them, but they mingled with the nations and adopted their customs. They worshiped their idols, which became a snare to them. They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood." Psalm 106:34-38

"... for they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands. They committed adultery with their idols; they even sacrificed their children, whom they bore to me, as food for them." Ezek. 23:37

 

Again, the "blood on their hands" is linked with Israel sacrificing their children to idols.

 

"For they have forsaken me and made this place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal- something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind." Jer. 19:4-5

 

Israel is accused of filling the land with innocent blood, i.e. the murder of innocent lives who had committed no transgressions. Hence, child sacrifices were not only wrong because they were done to appease the pagan deities, but because it was murder and this is expressly forbidden in the Bible (Cf. Ex. 23:7: do not put an innocent or honest person to death)

 

However, the Mosaic Law did allow for the guilty to be put to death if they intentionally broke an express command which carried with it the death sentence. (Cf. Ex. 31:14-17; Deut.19:11-13)

 

Since Jesus "became sin for us" (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24) and since "the LORD laid upon him the iniquity of us all" (cf. Isa. 53:6) his death, judicially speaking, fell under the bounds of the Law since he was guilty after that point. Therefore, Jesus' death from a legal standpoint was morally acceptable since his purpose in coming to this world was to take upon himself the punishment we deserved because of our sins.

To summarize, the Holy Bible prohibits the death of innocent children who committed no wrong. Since Jesus was neither a child nor innocent after taking our sins, his death did not violate an express command.

 

Thirdly, Jesus willingly died in order that others might live. (Cf. Mark 10:45; John 10:17-18) We often consider individuals who sacrifice their lives for others as heroes, i.e. a person who takes a bullet in order to save his friend or soldiers who die to protect their country etc. In the same manner, Jesus' willingness to die on the cross was the greatest display of his unconditional love for others, sparing them from the eternal wrath of God in hell.

 

Finally, God willed for Jesus to be the final and perfect atoning sacrifice, being "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." (Cf. John 1:29) God is sovereign and can make such decisions without anyone holding him accountable for it. Man answers to God, God answers to no one.

 

My Response:

 

Let me quote something very interesting to what Shamoun said which back fires against him and every Christian:

 

Secondly, the reason why these pagan rituals were abhorrent to God is because it not only entailed idol worship which was an abomination all by itself, but also included the death of innocent lives.

 

Very interesting indeed. According to you and every Christian Jesus was an innocent and sinless man, yet he was put to death for the sins of others. Basically the core of Christian doctrine is that an innocent man was sacrificed and killed for other people's sin, no difference than human pagan sacrifices of innocent people! So Shamoun has to eat his own words, so does every other Christian. The fact is that the sacrifice of Jesus is no different than any other pagan ritual sacrifice. Jesus was an innocent man according to you, yet he died for something he did not do. Where is the justice in that? The fact is that there is no justice in that and it makes no sense and is a joke and is no difference than human pagan sacrifices.

 

Shamoun then goes on to say:  his death, judicially speaking, fell under the bounds of the Law since he was guilty after that point. Therefore, Jesus' death from a legal standpoint was morally acceptable since his purpose in coming to this world was to take upon himself the punishment we deserved because of our sins.

 

Amusing indeed! So it was morally acceptable that Jesus an innocent man who did nothing wrong according to you, died for something he did not do and died for something you did.

 

No wonder why America separates Church and state! According to Christians it was morally okay for Jesus to die for something he did not do! It was morally okay for an innocent man to be murdered and executed for a crime he did not commit. Am I the only one who wouldn’t want to live under the Christian legal system? Jesus was guilty of what? I would like to know what Jesus was guilty of. Aha as Shamoun would answer, Jesus became sin for us and paid for our sins. That was what Jesus was guilty of peculiar indeed!

 

You would like to think that Jesus would at least not go through pain or die a nice painless death for taking our sins upon himself and becoming sin for us, but no the Father still looks at him as a guilty sinner worthy of torture and pain and a crucifixion. Very fair indeed, even when Jesus does something honourable he still gets treated very badly, still no justice! So either way round there is no justice at the end, Jesus an innocent man died for your crime, there is no justice in that and there is no difference between the pagan human sacrifices of innocent people.

 

Secondly Jesus was still put through a hell of a lot of pain for taking your sins and becoming sin for you, one would think the Father would be nicer to him for doing such an honourable thing, but yet the Father still looks down on him as a sinner and punishes him very badly, no justice in that at all.

 

As for Shamoun's third point of Jesus willing to sacrifice himself. This is very illogical. Shamoun claims it is like someone who takes a bullet for someone else or becoming a hero etc. However so why does Jesus need to go through such pain and die! He is God and is within the Godhead and the Father knows Jesus very well and could have definitely just given him the easy way out. Basically there is no reason why Jesus had to go through pain or suffering as a person would when he takes a bullet for some one else. People who sacrifice themselves to help others do have to go through pain and suffering most of the times. However Jesus is a totally different case, HE IS GOD AND A MEMBER OF THE GOD-HEAD WHO THE FATHER KNOWS WELL, so why wouldn’t the Father help Jesus out and cause him no pain? This actually show's the Father probably enjoyed hurting Jesus and causing him to suffer for some one else's crime. Another point I must ask is was it the Father's will that Jesus took on our sins? Or was it Jesus' own will? As Jesus said he does not his own will but his Father's will. It indeed was the Father's will that Jesus do such a thing, so Jesus saying he did it on his own accord is a lie and an invention, Jesus himself begged to be saved and did not want to die:

 

https://www.answering-christianity.com/jesus_hypocrite.htm

 

 

 

He wrote:

 

Muslim Argument:
Why was it necessary for God to send his eternal Son to die for sinners. Couldn't God have simply forgiven sinners instead of having his Son murdered?

 

Christian Reponse:
We must first point out that God did not murder his Son. It was the will of The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit that the Son should lay his life down for sinners. This was to demonstrate both God's holiness and infinite love for man:

 

"For even the Son did not come to be served, but to serve, and lay his life down as a RANSOM for many." Mark 10:45 NIV

 

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. THIS BREAD IS MY FLESH WHICH I WILL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD." John 6:51 NIV

 

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father- AND I LAY DOWN MY LIFE FOR THE SHEEP... The reason my Father loves me is that I LAY DOWN MY LIFE- ONLY TO TAKE IT UP AGAIN. NO ONE TAKES IT FROM ME, BUT I LAY IT DOWN OF MY OWN ACCORD..." John 10:14-15, 17-18a NIV

 

"God presented him (Jesus) as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left sins unpunished- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." Rom. 3:25-26 NIV

 

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Rom.5:8 NIV

 

Christ willingly laid down his life in order that others might live. We often look up to and admire men who willingly give up their lives to defend either their families or country. Their deaths are considered heroic and a demonstration of unconditional love, not murder or suicide. Hence, Jesus' willingness to die for unworthy sinners is the greatest display of God's infinite and unconditional love for fallen humanity.

As Scripture indicates, Christ's death was necessary in order to satisfy God's infinite holiness and justice. For sin to be forgiven, a sacrifice needed to be made in order for God to maintain his holiness. Otherwise, God's justice and holiness would be severely compromised. The Bible indicates that God cannot dwell in the presence of sin without incurring his wrath:

 

"For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil will not sojourn with you. The boastful will not stand before your eyes; you hate evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies; the LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful." Psalm 5:4-6 NRSV

"Your eyes are too pure to behold evil, and you cannot look on wrongdoing..." Habakkuk 1:13 NRSV

This is precisely why God cannot let sin go unpunished, since his holiness will not allow it to continue. He will not acquit the sinner without there being a payment for the crimes committed:

 

"Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and those in the right, for I will not acquit the guilty." Exodus 23:7 NRSV

 

God also does not take pleasure in the death of any soul, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live. (Cf. Ezek. 33:11; 2 Pet. 3:9)

 

Therefore, in order for God to pardon repentant sinners while remaining holy and just, someone had to take the consequences of sin which entailed physical and spiritual death. By death is meant the soul separating from the body in the physical sense, with the body returning to the dust. And in the spiritual sense it refers to broken communion with God:

 

"And to the man he said, `Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, "You shall not eat of it," cursed it is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat the bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return'." Genesis 3:17-19 NRSV

 

"Rather, your iniquities have been barriers between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear." Isa. 59:2 NRSV

 

The sacrifice had to be made by one who had infinite value since man's value is finite and cannot atone for all of mankind's sin:

 

"Truly no ransom avails for one's life, there is no price one can give to God for it. For the ransom of life is costly, and can never suffice that one should live on forever and never see the grave." Psalm 49:7-9 NRSV

 

This is precisely why God had to come down and ransom man, since only God is infinite in value:

 

"But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol for he will receive me." Psalm 49:15 NRSV

 

But in order for God to pay the price of sin fully and satisfy his infinite holiness he had to take on a human nature. As was noted, part of the consequence of sin is that the soul of man separates from his body as the flesh returns to the dust. God is Spirit (John 4:24), and must therefore take on a human nature in order to experience physical death.

This nature also had to be free from the stain of original sin, since all who are descended from the first man inherit a corrupt human nature. (Cf. Rom. 5:12-14; Gen. 8:21; Psalm 51:5, 58:3)

 

Therefore, the Savior had to be born of a virgin whose womb would be made holy in order for him to be without sin:

 

"And Mary said to the angel, `How can this be since I have no husband?' And the angel said to her, `The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the most high will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.' " Luke 1:34-35 RSV

 

Had he not been born supernaturally by God's Holy Spirit, he would have then needed a savior to free him from sin.

 

The cross becomes necessary for God to demonstrate both his love and holiness. If God were to simply forgive without demanding payment for sin, his holiness would have been less than his love. On the other hand, if God were to just punish without allowing the possibility of reconciliation and forgiveness than his love would have been severely compromised. Either way, God would be less than perfect since he would be greater in one of his qualities, and less than perfect in the other.

 

Hence, Jesus' death on the cross clearly demonstrates both God's perfect holiness and his infinite love for man. No other religion is able to claim this perfect balance for their deities.

 

 

 

 

My Response:

 

To start off, it was not Jesus' will to die. That is a joke and a lie. Jesus cried and begged to be saved. Jesus himself said and did whatever the Father willed him to do, not what he willed to do. So he did not lay down his life on his own accord and will (*)(*).

 

Secondly you basically admit that a sacrifice had to be made to make up for the sins, what was that sacrifice? An innocent man who did no crime? There is no difference between this sacrifice and those pagan sacrifices of innocent humans. The Father did indeed murder his son. He was in control of everything and looked down on Jesus as a sinner so put him through the punishment of a sinner as Shamoun himself stated earlier. So yes the Father did murder Jesus. Let me quote something Shamoun said: The cross becomes necessary for God to demonstrate both his love and holiness. If God were to simply forgive without demanding payment for sin, his holiness would have been less than his love.

 

Show his love? Well I don’t want any of your God's love. If love to you is condemning an innocent man for the sins of others then I must say you need some help in your logic. As for God forgiving sins without payment for the sin, is the payment of sin the death of an innocent man? This sound's no different than a mob boss. Why does payment of sin have to be the death of an innocent man? No justice at all. As for Shamoun trying to make a point of Jesus being called holy, this has already been dealt with here (*). Indeed Islam has no such silly dogma. Islam does not need salvation by the death of an innocent man for their sins.

 

He wrote:

 

Muslim Argument:
The Bible indicates that Christ was not the only sinless person. Oftentimes, scripture uses the term "righteous" to indicate one who is blameless:

 

"And they (Zachariah and Elizabeth) were righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." Luke 1:6

 

"My little children, these things I write to you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." 1 John 2:1

 

"I say unto you, that even so there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance." Luke 15:7

 

"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners into repentance." Luke 5:32

 

"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." 1 John 3:7

 

All these verses affirm that there were many who were sinless like Christ, and did not need Christ to die for them.

 

Christian Reponse:

We provide a verse by verse refutation of this erroneous understanding of Scripture. First, it should be pointed out that the word for "righteous" is the Greek term dikaioo. The word, dikaioo and its various forms, is a legal term used judicially to declare one just, not guilty. It does not mean one who is sinless.

There are two ways one can be declared just before God. The first is to be completely perfect in every aspect of one's life, something which no one can ever attain. The only person to be absolutely perfect is Jesus Christ. The second manner is to be declared righteous solely by God's grace. This entails a blood sacrifice for the covering over of sins:

 

"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." Leviticus 17:11 NIV

 

"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Hebrews. 9:22 NIV

 

The only problem with animal sacrifices is that in the eyes of God animals are not equal in value to man. Therefore, animal sacrifices could only cover sin temporarily. This is why the Israelites had to continuously offer sacrifices.

God sent Christ as the sacrificial Lamb who by his death on the cross, offered himself as a sacrifice of infinite value covering over the sins of the whole world. His blood not only covers sin, but it completely eradicates it; something which animal sacrifices could not do:

"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!' " John 1:29 NIV

 

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, purifies us from all sin." 1 John 1:7

 

"For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:24-26 NIV

 

Keeping in mind that it is the blood that justifies one before God, we proceed to the verses in question.

 

In regards to Zachariah and Elizabeth being blameless, one of Zachariah's duties as a Levitical priest of the division of Adonijah (Cf. Luke 1:5) was to offer sacrifices once a year, first for his own sins and then for the people. (Cf. Lev.16:1-34). Therefore, Zachariah was blameless before God because of his observance of the commands which included animal sacrifices for his sins. His righteousness was not based on him being sinless.

 

As far as 1 John 3:7 is concerned John is not implying that believers are sinless, since he also states:

 

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us... If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in us." 1 John 1:8, 10 NIV

 

John's point is that we have been made righteous in Christ, since "the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin." (Cf. 1 John 1:7)

The part about the ninety-nine righteous who do not need to repent in Luke 15:7 was not due to the fact that they were sinless. Jesus was mentioning a parable about a Shepherd who would leave ninety-nine of his sheep in order to chase after that one who is lost. (Cf. Luke 15:1-6)

 

Christ was addressing the self-righteous Pharisees who were murmuring against him for sitting and eating with sinners. Jesus' point was not that there were sinless individuals, but rather that God rejoices over those persons who acknowledge their sins, humbling themselves before their Creator. This was the purpose for Christ coming into the world, to search after lost sinners and bring them back to the flock of God. Furthermore, God does not take pleasure in self-righteous hypocrisy, individuals who think they are more righteous and better than others. This is precisely what the Pharisees thought of themselves, Jews who were far more righteous than the sinners and tax collectors whom Jesus was dining.

 

Finally, Jesus elsewhere likens himself to a Shepherd:

 

"I am the good Shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father- and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." John 10:14-16 NIV

 

It is Jesus, as the Shepherd, who searches after the lost sheep, leaving behind the ninety-nine. This indicates that the ninety-nine were not righteous because they were sinless, but because they belonged to Jesus. Therefore, the point of the parable is to show that it is Jesus who both brings the sheep into the flock and who also justifies them; it has absolutely nothing to do with one being sinless.

(Note: For the answer to Luke 5:32, see the above point on Luke 15:6.)

 

My Response:

 

Jesus may be the good shepherd but he is not good in the sense that he is God, this has already been noted in the previous section of this rebuttal.

 

He wrote:

 

Muslim Argument:
According to Jesus in Matthew 18:6, children are sinless:

 

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

 

Jesus is basically indicating that children are without sin since someone must cause them to sin.

 

Christian Reponse:

Again, Jesus is not saying that children in and of themselves are sinless. Rather, Jesus is affirming that those children WHO BELIEVE IN HIM are declared righteous, since they have been justified through Christ. This is reiterated in the verse before it:

\

"And whoever welcomes a little child like this IN MY NAME welcomes me." Mat. 18:5

 

Again, in Matthew 19:13-14 we are told:

 

"Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, `Let the little children COME TO ME, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.' "

 

Hence, a person must come and wholeheartedly embrace Christ like the children did. This is the kind of devotion Christ demands, total dependency upon him in all aspects of one's life.

This again affirms that justification comes solely through Christ.

 

My Response:

 

So basically the children are sinners? Indeed you have a very strange and twisted doctrine in original sin. Just to show how illogical the original sin is on children is that since children are sinners, and since they aren’t knowledgeable enough to know what to believe, and since many of them are born into non-Christian families, then many of them will die not believing in Christ and will die as sinners since they are already sinners. Hence they will end up in hell! So according to original sin and Christianity, kids who do not accept Jesus as their saviour are going to hell! Since they die as sinners who do not believe in Christ. There is no way around to say that they are just kids and cannot understand so it was okay if they did not believe in Christ or if they never knew about Christ. This does not work because according to you they are still sinners! And where do sinners go according to you? The sinners who do not believe in Christ go straight to hell! No way around it. For the kids to be accepted to heaven is to under mine Christ and God, because technically you are allowing sinners who do not believe in Christ into heaven. Either way you are left with a major problem, according to original sin all kids who die without believing in Jesus go to hell, for them not to go to hell and enter heaven means God compromises his own law and commands for letting sinners who do not believe in Christ into heaven.

You can choose which option you want, or choose the best option which is option 3 which is to leave Christianity and embrace Islam!

 

He wrote:

 

Muslim Argument:
Salvation according to Jesus comes from observing the commandments:

 

"And behold, one came up to him, saying, `Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?' And he said unto him, `Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.' " Mat. 19:16-17

 

"And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, `Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus said, `What is written in the Law? How do you read?' And he answered, `You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.' And he said to him, `You have answered right; DO THIS, and you will live.'" Luke 10:25-28

 

"For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." Mat 5:20 NASB

Christian Reponse:

Jesus is actually teaching the exact opposite. His point is to show the impossibility of achieving salvation by works of the Law. This point is clearly brought out by Christ throughout his sermon in Matthew:

 

"You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Mat 5:27-28 NIV

 

"You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be PERFECT, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Mat. 5:43-48 NIV

 

These are just some examples of the righteousness which Jesus demands that surpasses the righteousness of the Pharisees and scribes. This righteousness is impossible to attain by human efforts since it must perfectly duplicate God's righteousness. This demand for perfection is reiterated by Christ to the rich man:

 

"Jesus answered, `If you want to be PERFECT, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.' " Mat. 19:21 NIV

 

The perfection that God demands comes from surrendering one's life to Christ. It is Jesus who justifies believers by the righteousness he attained through his perfect obedience to the Law.

 

When someone surrenders his life to Jesus, God imputes Christ's righteousness to his account. From there, God empowers the individual by the Holy Spirit to fulfill God's righteous requirements. This righteousness is not to achieve salvation, but is a sign that one has been saved:

 

"But now a righteousness from God, apart from the law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Rom. 3:21-22 NIV

 

As the apostle Paul states, the righteousness that comes through faith in the Messiah had been foretold beforehand in the Old Testament:

 

"After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities." Isa. 53:11 NIV

 

"The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Jer. 23:5-6 NIV

 

"Seventy `sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy... after the sixty `sevens,' the Anointed One (Messiah) will be cut off and have nothing." Daniel 9:24, 26

 

According to these passages, Messiah's death would usher in the righteousness of God and would also atone for sin.

 

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit." Rom. 8:1-4 NIV

 

"God made him sin who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Cor. 5:21 NIV

 

"For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; it is not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, and not of works lest anyone should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10

 

Hence, it is the unanimous testimony of Scripture that man is justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ, since one can never achieve the perfect righteousness of God apart from him.

 

As far as Jesus' statement to the lawyer in Luke 10:25-28 is concerned, again Christ's point is that if the lawyer is able to do all that is required in the Law he will obtain salvation. But the problem is that no one can attain the perfection which God demands, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Cf. Rom. 3:23)

Because "there is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins," since "all have turned aside," and "have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one," each individual needs Christ's imputed righteousness. Otherwise, no one can stand justified before God. (Cf. Ecclesiastes 7:20; Psalms 14:3)

 

My Response:

 

I must say Shamoun has lost it. Note what he says about the verses the Muslim proposes: Jesus is actually teaching the exact opposite.

 

Let us quote the verses again:

 

"And behold, one came up to him, saying, `Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?' And he said unto him, `Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.' " Mat. 19:16-17

 

The verse is very clear. Jesus tells the man to keep the commandments! But no according to Shamoun he is saying the exact opposite! Indeed that is very funny as nowhere in the text does it support that view. If Jesus were indeed teaching the exact opposite then this would mean to not keep the commandments! Meaning you could kill, steal, do whatever you want since you don’t have to keep the commandments.

 

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, `Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus said, `What is written in the Law? How do you read?' And he answered, `You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.' And he said to him, `You have answered right; DO THIS, and you will live.'" Luke 10:25-28

 

Aha so Jesus was lying and meant don’t do this. Do not love God with all your heart and your soul and strength and mind and your neighbour. So now we don’t have to love God anymore nor our neighbour! Shamoun just keeps making things worse for himself.

 

For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." Mat 5:20 NASB

 

So basically you have to be worse than them to get into heaven, very nice indeed.

 

 

He wrote:

 

Muslim Argument:

Jesus taught, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." John 6:54-55 NIV

 

According to Matthew 26:27-28, Jesus gave the disciples the cup of wine and said, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." NIV

 

If this is meant to be taken literally, why do we not find anyone preserving the blood of Jesus as it flowed from his body while on the cross? Furthermore, this would be teaching cannibalism, something forbidden in scripture.

 

Christian Reponse:
Jesus' point is not that we are to partake of his flesh in a literal sense, but in a spiritual manner. This partaking of Christ comes from embracing his words in our lives:

 

"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." John 6:63-64 NIV

 

Jesus was indicating that he was going to lay his life down that the world might live through him:

 

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." John 6:51 NIV

 

Blood symbolizes the life of the creature as it is written, "For the life of the creature is in the blood..." (Cf. Lev. 17:11) Therefore, the cup was symbolic of Jesus' life being laid down for sinners:

 

"Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Mat. 20:28 NIV

 

It does not mean that one literally drinks Jesus' blood. Furthermore, as was indicated, Jesus' blood being shed was necessary to appease God's holiness so that sinners could stand justified before him. There is no hint of cannibalism whatsoever.

 

My Response:

 

Good enough response by Shamoun, however so it does not mean Jesus is God if we embrace his words since his words are not even his but God's. Visit these rebuttals for more information (*)(*)(*)(*)

 

He wrote:

 

Muslim Argument:
According to Christians, Adam's sin brought condemnation on all flesh. This necessitated a divine Redeemer to come down from heaven to save man. But according to Ezekiel 18:1-24 a person will not be held accountable for someone else's sins.

 

Christian Reponse:

This is a misunderstanding of what Christians mean by Original Sin. It is our belief that we are not condemned because of Adam's sin, but because of Adam we inherit a sinful nature.(Cf. Psalm 51:5, 53:8; Ephesians 2:3) Because of this sinful nature, we are naturally inclined to sin. (Cf. Rom. 7:15-24)

Ezekiel's point is that anyone who sins shall die. Yet, all have sinned and become deserving of death. Hence, freedom from the bondage of sin and death comes only through Jesus Christ:

 

"Jesus replied, `I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.' " John 8:34-36 NIV

 

My Response:

 

Ezekiel's point is that no man dies for the sins of another man.

 

1 The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, 2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? 3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. 5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, 6 And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, 7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; 8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, 9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.

10 If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things, 11 And that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour's wife, 12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, 13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. 14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like, 15 That hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbour's wife, 16 Neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment, 17 That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. 18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity. 19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

He wrote:

 

Muslim Argument:
According to Hosea 6:6, God does not desire sacrifices. He rather desires one to be merciful and obedient to him. This point is reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 9:13.

 

Christian Reponse:
It is not either/or, but rather God desires both. The point in Hosea is that sacrifices in and of themselves are insufficient. Sacrifices must follow sincere repentance and obedience to God's commandments, something Israel did not do:

 

"Like Adam, they have broken the covenant- they were unfaithful to me there. Gilead is a city of wicked men, stained with footprints of blood. As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes. I have seen a horrible thing in the house of Israel. There Ephraim is given to prostitution and Israel is defiled." Hos. 6:7-10 NIV

 

Hence, Israel's sacrifices were abominable to God since they were being offered by unrepentant sinners. God does not except such acts.

Sacrifices must be offered with a sincere, repentant heart. David brings out this point clearly in the Psalms:

 

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you did not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. In your good pleasure make Zion prosper; build up the walls of Jerusalem. Then there will be righteous sacrifices, whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls will be offered on your altar." Psalm 51:16-19

 

It is precisely the same with Christ's sacrifice. Jesus died for the sins of the world, yet not all shall be saved. The reason being is that not all shall repent and embrace Christ as their Savior. Therefore, it is necessary for a person to come into sincere repentance before offering up his sacrifice, since without repentance the sacrifice becomes void.

 

My Response:

So God accepts the death of an innocent man who did nothing contradicting his very own words that man will not bear the sin of another man?

 

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
In order to refute the idea that Jesus died for sinners, Muslims often point to verses where Jesus is pictured as committing sins.

 

Christian Reponse:

If it can be shown that Christ did sin, then he is disqualified from being a perfect sacrifice. We will present the verses in question and offer our responses.

 

According to Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus taught that getting angry was a sin. Yet, Jesus often got angry with others as documented in the Bible. (Cf. Mat. 11:22-24, 12:22-31, 21:12-15, 19; Mark 3:5, 20-30; 11:12-19; Luke 10:13-15, 19:45-47; John 2:13-17)

 

Response:

Jesus did not say anger in and of itself was wrong, but that unjustified anger especially towards a fellow believer, i.e. a "brother," was wrong. Jesus tells us who his brethren are:

 

"He replied to him, `Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' Pointing to his disciples, he said, `Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.' " Mat. 12:48-50 NIV

 

And what is the will of God according to Jesus?

 

"Jesus answered, `The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent' ... `For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.' " John 6:29, 40 NIV

 

Therefore, all who reject God's Messiah are not Jesus' brethren. In all the passages cited above, Jesus' anger is directed towards those who have rejected both God `s commands and him. (Cf. Mark 7:6-8) Hence, his anger was not sinful but a demonstration of God's holy and just indignation against persistent sinners and unbelievers.

 

According to the Gospels, believers are commanded to be honest. (Cf. Mat. 15:19; Mark 7:22; John 8:44) Yet, according to John 7:2-10 Jesus lied to his brothers about not going up to Jerusalem, when he actually did in fact go.

 

Response:

Jesus was not denying that he would go to Jerusalem, but rather that he would not go as a public participant of the Feast as his brothers were suggesting. That is why the text says, "that he stayed in Galilee," and that "after his brothers left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret." (Cf. John 7:9-10)

 

Accordingly, John states that "not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up to the courts and begin to teach." (Cf. John 7:14) Hence, there was no sin on Jesus' part but a misunderstanding of the text on the part of the questioner.

During the trial before the high priest, Jesus stated: "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in the synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I never spoke secretly." John 18:20

 

But according to Mark 4:11-12, Jesus taught his disciples "the secret of the kingdom of God," whereas "to those on the outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn about and be forgiven." Furthermore, Christ also taught on the mount (Mat. 5:1-7, 28), by the sea (Mat. 13:1), on the plain (Luke 6:17-49), and in other places.

 

Response:

Jesus' usage of "always" does not mean that he did not teach elsewhere, rather it has to do with the claims that Christ made about himself. Jesus was indicating that there was nothing in relation to himself which he had not proclaimed before eyewitnesses in synagogues and the Temple. The argument centered on who Jesus claimed to be, something which Jesus had stated both privately to his disciples, and publicly to others. Hence, if the high priest wanted to know what Jesus' personal claims were, he would have no difficulty finding eyewitnesses who could testify. This is precisely what Jesus goes on to say:

 

"Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said." John 18:21 NIV

 

That the trial centered around Jesus' identity is clarified in the following passages:

 

"At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. `If you are the Christ,' they said, `tell us.' Jesus answered, `If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.' They asked, `Are you then the Son of God?' He replied, `You are right in saying I am.' Then they said, `Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.' " Luke 22:66-71 NIV

"Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, `We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.' " Luke 23:1-2 NIV

 

"Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, `Are you the king of the Jews?' `Is this your own idea,' Jesus asked, `or did others talk to you about me?' `Am I a Jew?' Pilate replied. `It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?' " John 19:33-35 NIV

 

"The Jews insisted, `We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.' " John 19:35 NIV

 

Hence, Jesus had committed no sin since the trial centered on what Christ claimed about himself, not on what he had taught. Jesus claimed that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God, a fact which he affirmed both privately and publicly. (Cf. Mat. 16:16-17; John 10:36-38)

 

John's baptism was for repentance of sins. (Cf. Acts 19:4) Jesus was baptized. (Cf. Mark 1:4)

 

Response:

Jesus came to fulfil the Law and to serve as God's priest. (Cf. Mat. 3:13-15, 5:17; Heb. 4:14-15) Priests were required to be at least 30 years old, and had to be washed in water and anointed with oil. (Cf. Exod. 29:4, 7; Num. 4:3, 43) The anointing with oil symbolizes being anointed with God's Spirit. (Cf. 1 John 2:27- John 14:26)

 

Therefore, in order for Christ to serve as priest he had to be at least 30 years of age, washed in water and anointed. This is precisely what we find, that Jesus began his ministry at the age of 30, was washed in water, and was anointed by the Spirit. (Cf. Luke 3:21-23)

 

Furthermore, the baptism was necessary in order for John to know and identify who the Messiah was. God had promised John that when he saw the Spirit descend on the One this would be the Messiah. (Cf. John 1:29-34)

Jesus' baptism had nothing to do with him being a sinner, but everything to do with fulfilling God's set purpose.

 

In John 7:53-8:11, we are told that an adulteress was caught in the act of sin. The Jews brought her before Jesus and wanted to stone her. Jesus replied, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." No one could stone her, since all had sinned. Yet, Jesus himself did not cast a stone upon her, proving that he also was a sinner. Had Jesus been sinless, he would have been the first to cast a stone.

 

Response:

Jesus did not stone her because he wanted to save her from sin:

"Jesus straightened up and asked her, `Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' `No one sir,' she said. `Then neither do I condemn you,' Jesus declared. `Go now and leave your life of sin.' " John 8:10-11 NIV

 

The point in Jesus coming to this world was "to save his people from their sin." (Cf. Mat. 1:21) Christ had "not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Cf. Luke 5:32)

Hence, Jesus did not stone her because he wanted her to be saved, not because he was a sinner.

 

 

 

My Response:

 

That is all nice but however let me just respond to two points of Shamoun which in fact do hurt his cause. Let me start with his last point of Jesus not stoning the adulteress. To start of Shamoun's cheap weak response of Jesus wanting to save her does not work, the law is clear, you stone the adulterer and the adulteress, so Shamoun goes against his own book. And since Jesus was God he would have known this very well, however so he still did not stone her because he to knew he was without sin, Shamoun's response does not cut it. Now let me quote John 7:6-10:

 

6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. 7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. 8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. 9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. 10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret

 

Jesus made it perfectly clear to his disciples that he would not go to the feast, whether Jesus stayed and left later and joined up half-way through the feast and did so in secret this will still not chance the fact that he still joined the feast when he said he would not. Shamoun could say whatever he wants but the text is clear, Jesus said he would not go but he still did, whether it be 3 hours later, or whether it be him doing it in secret, it changes nothing.

 

Also this was discovered to be an interpolated passage into the bible. Notice the commentary from the NIV BIBLE.

 

The earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.

 

 

He wrote:

Muslim Argument:
Christians believe that Isaiah 53 is an eighth century B.C. prophecy foretelling the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. In attempt to refute the prophetic significance of the passage, Muslim apologists present the following arguments:

 

The prophecy actually begins at Isaiah 52:13 and ends at 53:12. It begins with God addressing his "servant" and promises that his "servant" will prosper and be highly exalted. The term "servant" is consistently used to refer to the nation of Israel. (Cf. Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20) This proves that Isaiah 53 is speaking about national Israel, not the Messiah.

 

Response:

This erroneously assumes that every single usage of the term "servant" must be referring to Israel, when in fact the term is used for others as well. For instance, in Isaiah 42:1 God states that his Spirit will rest upon his servant. In Isaiah 11:1-2 the one whom the Spirit shall come to rest upon is identified as the one who comes out of the stem of Jesse. The fact that Jesse is also king David's father (Cf. Ruth 4:22) affirms that the servant is the messianic descendant of David.

This is solidified by the fact that Isaiah 11:1 also identifies the stump of Jesse as the Branch. Elsewhere, Branch is used as a title for the Davidic King Messiah:

 

"The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous BRANCH, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. And this is the name by which he will be called: `The LORD is our righteousness.' " Jer. 23:5-6 NRSV

 

In Isaiah 61:1-2 we read: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor..."

In Luke 4:16-21, Jesus claims that this prophecy finds its fulfillment in him:

 

"When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:

 

`The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.'

 

"And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. Then he began to say to them, `Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.' " NRSV

 

Finally, there are places where the servant is identified as being distinct from national Israel. In Isaiah 49:1-7, the servant is identified as one who restores national Israel to God:

 

"And he said to me, `You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.' But I said, `I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity; yet surely my cause is with the LORD and my reward with my God.' And now the LORD says, who formed me in the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the sight of the LORD, and my God has become my strength - he says, `It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach the end of the earth.' " (Cf. 49:3-6)

 

This passage indicates that God's servant is a specific individual whose name happens to be Israel, and yet is distinct from the nation of Israel whom he will eventually restore. God will also use this servant to bring his salvation to the ends of the earth.

 

These factors affirm that certain servant passages, specifically 42:1-9 and 49:1-7, do not refer to national Israel. Rather, they must be referring to the Messiah.

There are three lines of evidence to support that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Christ. First, both Jesus and the apostles affirm that portions of Isaiah 53 are messianic in nature. In Luke 22:37, Jesus states: "For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, `And he was counted among the transgressors'; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled." Christ is quoting Isaiah 53:11 and affirms that it is prophecy about him.

 

In Acts 8:26-35, the apostle Philip discovers an Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah 53:7-8. The eunuch then asks, " `About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?' Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus."

The apostle Peter writes:

 

"To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps.

`He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.'

"When they hurled insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." 1 Pet. 2:21-25 NIV

 

Peter alludes to Isaiah 53:4-7, 9 and 11 and indicates that they were literally fulfilled in Jesus' crucifixion and justification of believers.

Secondly, according to Isaiah 53:9 the servant "had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth." It also states that the servant is to be a guilt offering, an asham. (Cf. Isa. 53:10) According to Leviticus 5:15 a guilt offering had to be perfect. Yet, according to Isaiah, Israel was anything but perfect:

 

"And I said: `Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!' " Isa. 6:5 NRSV

"See, the Lord's hand is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. Rather, your iniquities have been barriers between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness... For our transgressions before you are many, and our sins testify against us. Our transgressions indeed are with us, and we know our iniquities." Isa. 59:1-3, 12 NRSV

 

Thirdly, Isaiah declares that the servant is stricken "for the transgression of my people." (Cf. 53:8) The phrase "my people" is used elsewhere by Isaiah to identify the nation of Israel. (Cf. 22:4; 26:20; 32:13) It makes absolutely no sense to say that Israel was dying for Isaiah's people, who happened to be Israel! It only makes sense if the servant is a specific individual who is distinct from corporate Israel.

 

In Isaiah 53:5 the Hebrew term min is more correctly translated as "from." Therefore, Isaiah was not saying that the servant was wounded for transgressions, but from transgressions.

 

Response:

This assumes that the preposition min has only one meaning, which it does not. The word must be translated in accordance with the way it is being used in a given context. One way the word is used is in a causal sense such as we find in the following citations:

 

"Because of the multitude of your iniquities... you have profaned your shrines." Ezek. 28:18

 

"It was not (because of) the king's will..." 2 Sam. 3:37

 

"All flesh shall not again be cut off by the flood waters." Gen. 9:11

 

This is the way Isaiah uses the term, that because of or for the sins of his people the servant was being wounded and crushed. This is how even non-Christian scholars understand it:

 

"He was pained because of our rebellious sins and oppressed through our iniquities..." (Rabbi Nosson Scherman / Rabbi Meir Ziotowitz, The Stone Edition Tanach- ArtScroll Series, Published by Mesorah Publications, ltd., 1998)
(Note: For a more thorough study on the different usages of min consult Bruce K. Waltke & M. O. Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Eisenbrauns; Winona Lake, Indiana, 1990], pp. 212-214)

 

In 53:8b Isaiah states, `for the transgression of my people he was stricken." The phrase Isaiah uses is lamoh and is plural, i.e. "they were stricken." This identifies the servant as national Israel since the term cannot be used in the singular.

 

Response:

The Muslim contention that "lamoh" cannot be used in the singular case is erroneous. Dr P.J. Williams, affiliated lecturer in Hebrew and Aramaic Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Cambridge, responds to one Muslim writer's contention that the Hebrew term always refers to the plural:

 

"... The author claims that 'anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew' will recognize his point that 'lamoh' is always plural. In fact one of the latest Hebrew grammars, and a great number of older ones disagree at precisely this point. P. Jouon, ed. by T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Rome, 1991, section 103 f, records that 'lamoh' may be used as a pausal form of 'lo' "to him". This phenomenon is illustrated well in Genesis 9:26 and 27, and Isaiah 44:15. The suffix -mo is indisputably singular in Psalm 11:7. The phrase may satisfactorily be translated 'from the transgression of my people the blow was his', i.e. he was wounded for the transgression of my people, where 'my people' is distinct from the one who suffers." (bold emphasis ours)

 

The term for death in Isaiah 53:9 is plural in Hebrew and should be "deaths." This indicates that Isaiah had national Israel in mind.

 

Response:

The term is understood to refer to the intensity of the servant's sufferings, not to a plural number of actual deaths. This becomes evident when reading the term in its intended context:

 

"They made his grave with the wicked and his death with the rich, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth."

 

The term grave, qeber, is singular and is used synonymously with death. John N. Oswalt notes, "The last members of each colon in Hebrew, his grave and his death, are synonymous." (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament - The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66 [Grand Rapids; Eerdmans's Publishing Company, 1998], p.397)

 

According to Edward J. Young, "The two words grave and death are to be taken together; in his death and burial the servant was with the rich and with the wicked." (The Book of Isaiah, A Commentary, vol. 3 Chapters 40-66 [Eerdmans's, rpt. 1996], p. 353)

 

This argues the fact that the plural "deaths" refers to the servant's intense suffering. In fact, The Stone Edition Tanach identifies the plural usage as referring to the servant's executions:

 

"He submitted himself to his grave like wicked men; and the wealthy [submitted] to his executions."

I

n fact, certain rabbis understood the plural to refer to the intensity of the Messiah's death:

 

"The sense of the whole is, And he made in His deaths His grave with the wicked, and the rich: the plural `deaths' is used because piercing Him as cruel men do, through and through, they would, so to speak, be putting Him to death again and again."

 

Isaiah 53:10 speaks of the servant seeing "his seed." The term "seed" is always used to refer to physical offspring. (Cf. Gen. 12:7, 15:13, 46:6; Ex. 28:43) But Jesus had no children since he was never married.

 

Response:

The term "seed," zera, does not always refer to physical offspring. The word is also used metaphorically:

 

"And the LORD God said to the serpent... `And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.' " Gen.3:14, 15 NASV

 

Seed cannot possibly mean that the serpent, who is actually the Devil (Cf. Rev. 12:9), will have literal, biological offspring who will fight with the woman's seed. Rather, it is referring to individuals who carry out the Devil's will. (Cf. John 8:44)

Zera can also mean race or generation:

 

"For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy race has intermingled with the peoples of the lands..." Ezra 9:2 NASV

"And a mongrel race will dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines." Zech. 9:6 NASV

 

Therefore, seed does not necessarily imply that the servant shall have biological offspring. It can be referring to the children God has given the Messiah to justify and redeem:

 

" And again, `BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME.' " Hebrews 2:13 NASV

 

"And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." John 6:39-40 NASV

 

Finally, the text does not say that the servant shall see his seed, but rather that he shall see seed. The seed he shall se can be referring to the posterity that will come to serve God through the servant as stated in Psalm 22:30-31:

 

"Posterity (zera) will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn - for he has done it."

 

In conclusion, the evidence supports the messianic understanding of Isaiah 53. The evidence presented against it does not stand under careful analysis and exegesis

 

 

 

My Response:

 

And even after all that it does not prove Jesus is God. And if everything you say is true, then once again why don’t the majority of Jews believe it to! If it were that simple they would have simply believed it but the fact is that they do not believe it showing there is more to it. Here are links to Jewish refutations of Isaiah referring to Jesus:

 

http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah53.html

http://www.jdstone.org/cr/pages/ssss_isa53.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq136.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq006.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq014.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq019.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq021.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq038.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq039.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq040.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq044a.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq045.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq046.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq047.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq054.html

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq078.html

 

More information regarding this chapter from http://qumran.com/For_a_Better_Understanding/is_isaiah_53.htm:

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

 

Before we examine Isaiah 53 verse by verse some preliminary issues must be considered . Isaiah 53 is only understood properly when read in the context of the Jewish Bible as a whole .

 

Earlier on in the book of Isaiah, God had predicted exile and calamity for the Jewish people. Chapter 53, however, occurs in the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation", which tell of the supposed restoration of Israel to a position of prominence and a vindication of their status as God's "chosen people".

In chapter 52, for example, Israel is described as "oppressed without cause" (v.4) and "taken away" (v.5), yet God promises a brighter future ahead, one in which Israel will again prosper and be redeemed in the sight of all the nations (v.1-3, 8-12).

Chapter 54 further elaborates upon the redemption which awaits the nation of Israel. Speaking clearly of the Jewish people and their status (even according to all Christian commentaries), chapter 54 ends as follows:

"`This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication is from Me,'declares the Lord."

 

In the original Hebrew texts, there are no chapter divisions, and Jewish and Christian scholars agree that chapter 53 is actually a continuation of the prophecy which begins at 52:13. Accordingly, our analysis must begin at that verse.

52:13 "Behold, My servant will prosper."

 

Israel in the singular is called God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10) - Other references to Israel as God's servant include Jer. 30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by God , as in Isa. 53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22; Lk. 1:54.

 

52:15 - 53:1 "So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who would believe what we have heard?"

Quite clearly, the nations and their kings will be amazed at what happens to the "servant of the L-rd," and they will say "who would believe what we have heard?".

 

52:15 tells us explicitly that it is the nations of the world, the gentiles, who are doing the talking in Isaiah 53.

 

53:1 "And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"

In Isaiah, and throughout the Jewish Bible , God's "arm" refers to the physical redemption of Israel from the oppression of other nations (see, e.g., Isa. 52:8-12; Isa.

 

63:12; Deut. 4:34; Deut. 7:19; Ps. 44:3).

 

53:3 "Despised and rejected of men."

While this is clearly applicable to Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be reconciled with the Christian Bible account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly "praised by all" (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25), who would later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9-11).

 

Even as he was supposedly taken to be crucified, a multitude bemoaned his fate (Lk. 23:27). Jesus had to be taken by stealth, as the rulers feared "a riot of the people" (Mk. 14:1-2).

 

53:3 "A man of pains and acquainted with disease."

Israel's adversities are frequently likened to sickness - see, e.g., Isa. 1:5-6; Jer. 10:19; Jer 30:12.

 

53:4 "Surely our diseases he carried and our pains he bore."

In Matt. 8:17, this is incorrectly translated, and said to be literally (not spiritually) fulfilled in Jesus' healing of the sick, a reading inconsistent with the Christian mistranslation of 53:4 itself.

 

53:4 "Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted."

See Jer. 30:17 - of God's servant Israel (30:10), it is said by the nations, "It is Zion; no one cares for her."

 

53:5 "But he was wounded FROM (NOTE: not FOR ) our transgressions, he was crushed FROM (AGAIN: not FOR) our iniquities."

Notice above how the Christians mistranslate and write "FOR our transgressions " rather than " FROM our transgressions " .

Whereas the nations had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant's sufferings stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further developed throughout the Jewish Bible - see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25. ALSO: Note that the Davidic Messiah according to the Jews "shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the earth" (Isa. 42:4).

 

53:7 "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth."

Note that in the prior chapter (Isa. 52), Israel is said to have been oppressed and taken away without cause (52:4-5). A similar theme is developed in Psalm 44, wherein King David speaks of Israel's faithfulness even in the face of gentile oppression (44:17- 18) and describes Israel as "sheep to be slaughtered" in the midst of the unfaithful gentile nations (44:22,11).

Regarding the claim that Jesus "did not open his mouth" when faced with oppression and affliction, see Matt. 27:46, Jn. 18:23, 36-37.

 

53:8 "From dominion and judgment he was taken away."

Note the correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslate, since - by Jesus' own testimony - he never had any rights to ruler-ship or judgment, at least not on the "first coming." See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.

 

53:8 "He was cut off out of the land of the living" and 53:9 "His grave was assigned with wicked men."

See Ez. 37:11-14, wherein Israel is described as "cut off" and God promises to open its "graves" and bring Israel back into its own land. Other examples of figurative deaths include Ex. 10:17; 2 Sam. 9:8; 2 Sam. 16:9.

The Jewish Bible repeatedly says that if a descendant of David is righteous, he will not be "cut off " (karet). For example, see 1Kings 2:4, 8:25, 9:4-5; Jeremiah 33:17; 2Chronicles 6:16, 7:18. But if a descendant of David or priests are unrighteous, they will be cut off (karet). For example, see Jeremiah 33:18; Joel 1:9.

Therefore, if this verse is speaking of Jesus being "cut off", then that must mean he was unrighteous and was cut off from his (supposed) royal heritage.

 

53:8 "From my peoples' sins, there was injury to THEM ."

Here the Prophet makes absolutely clear, to anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew, that the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual.

The Hebrew word "lamoh", when used in the Jewish Bible , always means "to them" never "to him" and may be found, for example, in Psalm 99:7 - "They kept his testimonies, and the statute that He gave to them."

 

53:9 "And with the rich in his DEATHS ."

Perhaps King James should have changed the original Hebrew, which again makes clear that we are dealing with a collective Servant, i.e., Israel, which will "come to life" when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14). "DEATHS" (Plural)

 

53:9 "He had done no violence."

See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether this passage is truly consistent with the Christian Bible account of Jesus . Actually this denotes that the servant is suffering at the hands of the Gentile nations without provocation .

 

53:10 "He shall see his seed."

The Hebrew word for "seed", used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants in the Jewish Bible . See, e.g., Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen. 46:6; Ex. 28:43. A different word, generally translated as "sons", is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1, e.g.).

 

53:10 "He will prolong his days."

Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God himself ?

 

53:11 "With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just."

Note again the correct translation based upon the Hebrew translation : "the Servant will cause many to be just" he will not.... "justify the many."

Israel is to serve as a "light to the nations" which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true God of Abraham, this by example and preserving the word of God (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) .

 

53:12 "Therefore, I will divide a portion to him with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty."

If Jesus is God, does the idea of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jews -righteously suffered "FROM" the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God (Ps. 44) ? -

Dr.Raphael Patai a noted anthropologist, Biblical scholar and author writes in his book " Messianic Text " page 1-2 that :

"... it also must be pointed out that several of these Biblical Messianic prophecies are Messianic only in the light of these later interpretations . At the time of their composition ,these passages may have had other meanings .The important prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah about the Suffering Servant for instance, are considered by Jewish as well as Christian scholars as referring to the people of Israel as a whole .

In Isaiah 49:3 the Suffering Servant is explicitly identified with Israel . On this basis, as well as on the basis of certain other features, all the so called "Servant Songs " ( Isa.42:1-4 , 49:1-6 , 50:4-9 and 52:13 -53:12 ) have long been taken to speak of the sufferings of exiled Israel as personified in "The Servant of the Lord ".

Yet these same passages became IN TALMUDIC TIMES identified with the Messianic theme , and so they have remained in Jewish FOLK CONSCIOUSNESS throughout the ages . In fact it is quite probable that the concept of the suffering Messiah, fully developed IN THE TALMUD , THE MIDRASH , AND THE ZOHAR "

 

What Dr Raphael Patai is telling us is that Isaiah 53 at the time of its composition had no Messianic connotations whatsoever .

The Jewish concept of a Davidic Messiah who would rule the world from Jerusalem and suffer with and for the Jewish people (not for the sins of the Jewish people or for humanity as a blood sacrifice ) began to develop during the Jewish exile in Babylon.

 

The Jews reminisced of the "better days " when they were a powerful and sovereign nation under the ruler-ship of David and Solomon . The Idea of a Davidic Messiah developed due to the suffering and frustration of a nation in exile who yearned for their homeland and for a day their enemies would bow before them and serve them .

Christians have taken Jewish Messianic folklore completely out of context by interpreting Midrashic homilies in a literal sense .The result is a non-Semitic distortion of Jewish folklore woven with Greek/Roman Mythos " Christianity " .

Now that most non-Jewish scholars concede that Isaiah 53 refers to the Jewish people... Some Christians have tried to find support for their beliefs in Rabbinic writings. Traditional Judaism NEVER believed that there would be a supernatural virgin-born Messiah who would be killed as an atonement for sin. If this had been the traditional Jewish belief all along, it certainly came as a shock to the Jewish followers of Jesus.

 

When the Nazarene told his followers that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer...Peter protests, "GOD forbid it lord, this shall never happen to you." (Mat. 16:22) Peter didn't joyfully exclaim: Praise GOD, you are the suffering servant of Isaiah 53! The Disciples never knew that the Messiah was supposed to suffer - (Mat. 17:23, Lk. 18:34, Jn. 20:9)

 

Jesus' enemies, such as Herod (Mat. 2) certainly didn't think that the Messiah was supposed to be killed - otherwise why help his cause by trying to kill him!?

In reality, the Jewish people expected the Messiah to rule as king over a restored Israel in an age of universal peace and belief.

 

( Jer. 23:5- 6, Isaiah 11:1-9, 2:1-4, Ezekiel 37:21- 28...) This had always been the Jewish understanding of Messiah, and Isaiah 53 was understood as referring to the Jewish people all along. It's not an idea invented by Rashi in the Middle Ages.

The church father Origen reports that this was the Jewish understanding in his time, hundreds of years before Rashi. (Contra Celsum) Actually, there are ancient sources that have explicit reference to a supernatural, virgin-born savior, who dies by murder to achieve salvation for believers who can experience him by eating of his flesh...You can read all about it in the mythologies of Mithra, Osiris, Krishna, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus, Bacchus, Isis, etc.

 

Those Christians who desperately ransacked the Talmud to find support for their preconceived ideas are not students of the Talmud with any interest in the actual teachings of Rabbinic Judaism. They merely use the Talmud like a drunk uses a lamp post - not for illumination, but for support.

 

Most Christians who read the Talmud are not really in the position to know what it means (although some well educated honest Christian scholars do) much as they would claim that a non-Christian can't really understand the New Testament. (I Cor. 1:18). Some have the audacity to say Christians know Tanach (Jewish Bible) better than the Jews ( comical to say the least).

 

Most of these Christian Talmudists don't even own a Talmud much less read it themselves . They rather get their information from collections of secondary sources put together by other Christian Talmudist .

 

When these collections are checked, the Talmudic passages are frequently incorrectly cited, usually quoted out of context, and occasionally completely manufactured.

 

Did the Rabbis ever notice that there are two different pictures of the Messiah in the Bible? Did they resolve this tension by proposing a theory of 2 Messiahs, a Messiah son of David and a Messiah son of Joseph? That depends on whether you read what the Talmud actually teaches, or accept the propaganda of the so Christian-Talmudists.

 

R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven; whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh unto thee...] lowly, and riding upon an ass! - If they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass. - Sanhedrin 98A

 

The minor figure of a Messiah son of Joseph has nothing to do with how Talmudic sages perceived contradictory passages in the Bible. He does figure into Rabbinic Apocalyptic-Midrashic speculation.

Ask a "Christian-Talmudist" to explain the difference between "PSHAT" and "DRASH".

Ask a "Christian-Talmudist" about why the Talmud applies Isaiah 53 to Moses, any pious person who suffers, and sick men who have had an ejaculation (he will see his seed, he will prolong his days...)

Ask a "Christian-Talmudist" why most non-Jewish Biblical scholars, (many of them Christian) accept the real traditional Jewish understanding of Isaiah 53, Daniel 9:24-27 , and Isaiah 7:14; without having a "Jewish" ax to grind. They have more in common with Rabbi Akiba, Rashi, and Rambam than Oral Roberts and Martin Luther.

 

If you would like to learn the Jewish perspective on the Issues dont go to your Christian Bookstore or rely on the 700 Club and the "Zola Levite Show " for your Information . 

 

More links regarding Jewish Responses to Isaiah 53  reffering to Jesus: 

http://www.faithofyeshua.faithweb.com/

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/isaiah2.html

 

I challenge Shamoun and Christians to go on each website I posted and read what they have to say, because the fact is Isaiah does not refer to Jesus.

This concludes the 3rd part of the rebuttal to Shamoun's article.

To continue to part 4 click here.