An E-book collecting my website articles

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled

Especially when I see that the Bible is dealing with Ishmael who is 16 years old as baby and I see a clear inconsistency as expressed here, you haven't addressed this till now by the way:
http://jesus-is-muslim.net/corruptio...-son-to-isaac/

---

M.Khaled, your article is quite long... I did not realise I am expected to address everything!!! :) how do you arrive at the conclusion the Bible portrays Ishmael as a baby? He is clearly at least 16 possibly 17. Look at the verse in question...

8 The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. 9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10 and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”


11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”


14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the Desert of Beersheba.


15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. 16 Then she went off and sat down about a bowshot away, for she thought, “I cannot watch the boy die.” And as she sat there, she began to sob.


17 God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. 18 Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.”

Point 1 Abraham and Hagar never married.. On that basis Isaac was at that time Abrahams only legitimate son. Although Ishmael was still of Abrahams seed. The child of promise according to God was through the union of Abraham and Sarah. The Quran does not deny this.. And it does not confirm Hagar's standing.

Point 2 Abraham was clearly distressed at being asked to send them away, as he was obviously fond of Ishmael. Yet he bowed to Sarah's demands because firstly Hagar had no other claim on him but as Sarah's maid servant.. And secondly God reassured Abraham that he should not be distressed about it. God had other plans for Ishmael.

Point 3 the food and water was put on Hagar's shoulders and she and Ishmael were sent off. Now, I know you feel that some translations may imply that Ishmael was also put on Hagar's shoulders as well as the food and water. Now she may have been strong but to carry food and water was task enough without carrying the weight of a 16 year old.. Even if boys of that age may have been smaller in stature then.. It was still a big ask.. There are many pointers as to why this was not likely.. No woman would ever have carried a child on her shoulders. Maybe on her hip or more likely on her back as children are still carried thus today. Tho not 16 year olds.. ;) be honest.. How many women do you see carrying their children around on there shoulder?

Point 4.. Put the boy under bushes.. Not out of the question.. She could have suggested he sit there out of the sun, or even pushed him under the bushes. Mothers will always put their children's needs first.

Point 5. God recognises Hagar's distress and tells her to lift up the boy and take him by the hand ... To pull him up from his sitting position from under the bushes? Well.. Take one by the hand seems a reasonable way to achieve this.
Then we have God repeating the promise He made to Abraham that he would bless Ishmael and make him into a great nation. It ought to be said that there is nothing to suggest that Abraham had shared this knowledge with Hagar before sending them both away. Another reason to suppose Hagar did not share the status of a wife... But as His wife's maidservant Abraham did not feel obliged to give any explanation of his actions.
If you don't mind I will address your other points raised in your post later.... :)
Peace :11:

[/QUOTE]

اقتباس:

---

Well, if the circumcision was never applied to the Gentiles, then on what basis that the Gentiles were preached? Either they have the covenant of Isaac, or that they have nothing to do with it. In Islam, circumcision is not for just for the Arabs but for the whole people, and we are talking about the concept of circumcision not the full details, otherwise Abraham was circumcised at 80 years old. Besides, Jesus said in Matthew 21:43 that the Kingdom of God shall be taken away from the Jews and given to a nation working with it's fruits. If this nation were the Christians, then actually Paul stopped working with any fruits either circumcision or anything else as he considered faith only is enough. And if you considered the everlasting covenant shall be in the seed of Abraham, then Jesus says that it shall be taken away from the sons of Isaac, you can gesture who are the other sons of Abraham, the stone which was rejected "and he will dwell (settle, encamp) in the presence (“in the face”) of his brothers" ;)

---

Jesus fulfilled the need for circumcision, followers of Christ are grafted to the Abrahamic covenant.. Spiritually.. Through the redeeming work of Jesus. At the risk of repeating myself..Circumcision on the eighth day was a mark of the covenant for direct descendants of Abraham. This was what God ordained.. The requirement was this should be done on the eighth day. How can you just apply the concept of circumcision but not uphold the conditions? If muslims are part of the abrahamic covenant then the conditions laid down by God of the covenant should be followed to the letter. Muslims do not uphold this part of the covenant as circumcision is done at any time. In fact I don't even think it's a requirement upon muslims in the Quran .. Is it? You didn't answer that bit. Is it a condition in the Quran or is it Sunnah? By denying the work of Jesus you exclude yourself from being "spiritually grafted" as with Christians. I'm really not sure where muslims stand on this issue, and I don't think the Quran is clear on this very important point. Gods covenants are of great importance and many were made between God and His people, some conditional some unconditional. The final one being eternal.. That being the covenant of grace through Christ.

Jesus, as the Seed of Abraham. God’s promises in the Abrahamic Covenant find fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus, Until His coming, the promises could never achieve their full realisation. When Mary learned she would bear the Jesus the Messiah, she praised God for giving help to...."his servant, Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed forever" (Luke 1:54-55) Zackarias the priest, and father of John the Baptist, likewise tied Jesus’ birth to the Abrahamic promises providing "the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he swore to our father, Abraham" (Luke 1:72-73). Paul confirmed that Jesus came to fulfil the Abrahamic promises, not only for the Jews but also for the Gentiles....Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers (Abraham), And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy (Rom. 15:8-9).


The New Testament expands the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant to include both Jewish and Gentile Christians. Paul stated that the seed of Abraham consists of all believers.. "And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise". The blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant are available to everyone in the gospel of the Jesus Christ. In fact, the Abrahamic Covenant is actually the gospel in Advance! The good news...or gospel...consists of God providing the blessing of justification to Gentiles who believe in Jesus, who is the seed of Abraham, so in Christ we are all the spiritual "seed of Abraham"

Well, we are saved by faith, faith and by the grace of God. Our good works alone are not sufficient but being saved by faith alone does not mean that good works are not required of a person.. They are, it's a fundamental belief that in order to have any hope of salvation we should treat others as we would wish to be treated, love our neighbours and enemies alike and forgive those who trespass against us. In short, our good works follow from the example of Jesus...the man and His teachings. It's a given. But salvation is a gift from God and that comes by Gods grace, our faith in the person and teachings of Jesus is what builds the bridge towards that goal. To put ones faith in good deeds alone I cannot see how that could work. How does one ever know if ones good deeds are enough? To balance ones good deeds against sin one also has to fully understand how God views sin.. That is all sin big and small. If God is Holy then all sin is an affront to that Holiness. Can we measure that?

Jesus never said the covenant would be taken away from Isaac. The only one who can remove a covenant is the author of that covenant. The author of the abrahamic covenant was God. Am I to understand you are implying Jesus status as equal to God the Father if you see Jesus has the power to remove a covenant and bestow it on another? Dangerous ground you tread.. Even Christians would not say this was something in the remit of Jesus..but purely for God alone.

I'll address the Isaiah question in another post. By quoting Isaiah do you accept his words as a prophet of God? I mean is Isaiah a prophet in Islam?

Peace.

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة pandora

M.Khaled, your article is quite long... I did not realise I am expected to address everything!!! :) how do you arrive at the conclusion the Bible portrays Ishmael as a baby? He is clearly at least 16 possibly 17. Look at the verse in question...

---

The case is that the event when he went away with Hagar is actually before he was 16, the writer of the Bible just rearranged the paragraph telling that Isaac was born and he became 16 to be before the rest of the chapter just before the sacrifice event to say that Isaac was the one who was sacrificed when actually Isaac hasn't yet been born when the sacrifice event occurred.

اقتباس:

---

Point 3 the food and water was put on Hagar's shoulders and she and Ishmael were sent off. Now, I know you feel that some translations may imply that Ishmael was also put on Hagar's shoulders as well as the food and water. Now she may have been strong but to carry food and water was task enough without carrying the weight of a 16 year old.. Even if boys of that age may have been smaller in stature then.. It was still a big ask.. There are many pointers as to why this was not likely.. No woman would ever have carried a child on her shoulders. Maybe on her hip or more likely on her back as children are still carried thus today. Tho not 16 year olds.. ;) be honest.. How many women do you see carrying their children around on there shoulder?

---

Well, you still gave no justification on what putting Ishmael on her shoulders mean. As for your question, actually I see you have no point about it because actually when mothers carry children, the child's head is most probably on her shoulders. not necessarily that his legs are standing on her shoulders.

اقتباس:

---

Point 4.. Put the boy under bushes.. Not out of the question.. She could have suggested he sit there out of the sun, or even pushed him under the bushes. Mothers will always put their children's needs first.

Point 5. God recognises Hagar's distress and tells her to lift up the boy and take him by the hand ... To pull him up from his sitting position from under the bushes? Well.. Take one by the hand seems a reasonable way to achieve this.

---

Are you sure you really see these justifications logic? I don't think so, Actually putting is not like leaving, and lifting is not as helping one standing up. In addition that Abraham put Ishmael on Hagar's shoulders. I think that any guy looking at these without motivation to justify his belief will never think this is a 16 year old guy but actually a baby.

اقتباس:

---

Jesus fulfilled the need for circumcision, followers of Christ are grafted to the Abrahamic covenant.. Spiritually

---

Spiritually?? Actually these are same as excuses of some ignorant Muslims who don't pray, they say we spiritually pray. Actually if God made a covenant, then people should abide to it, spiritual excuses have no meaning.

اقتباس:

---

Muslims do not uphold this part of te covenant as circumcision is done at any time. In fact I don't even think it's a requirement upon muslims in the Quran .. Is it? You didn't answer that bit. Is it a condition in the Quran or is it Sunnah? By denying the work of Jesus you exclude yourself from being "spiritually grafted" as with Christians.

---

Well, We as Muslims have the same concept of circumcission whether it is in the eighth day or not. I see that's enough especially when you actually don't circumcise at all nor did Jesus tell you not to circumcise or stop working with the Old Testament except for some issues but it was actually Paul who negated circumcission and the law, so Jesus has nothing with you not to circumcise, and you are trying to explain this with no single quote from Jesus but all from Paul, you are not actually following Jesus but Paul.

اقتباس:

---

Jesus never said the covenant would be taken away from Isaac. The only one who can remove a covenant is the author of that covenant. The author of the abrahamic covenant was God.

---

This means that since Jesus couldn't remove from the covenant because only the author of the covenant is the one who could do that, and since the author of the covenant is God, then Jesus is not God. Well said:36_1_55:

اقتباس:

---

Am I to understand you are implying Jesus status as equal to God the Father if you see Jesus has the power to remove a covenant and bestow it on another? Dangerous ground you tread.. Even Christians would not say this was something in the remit of Jesus..but purely for God alone.

---

For me no, he is just telling what God said not that he is the one who removes or not.

اقتباس:

---

I'll address the Isaiah question in another post. By quoting Isaiah do you accept his words as a prophet of God? I mean is Isaiah a prophet in Islam?

---

Well, Islam didn't mention the names of all prophets as in Sura 40:79 below, but it seems he was.
78. We did aforetime send apostles before thee: of them there are some whose story We have related to thee, and some whose story We have not related to thee. It was not (possible) for any apostle to bring a sign except by the leave of Allah. but when the Command of Allah issued, the matter was decided in truth and justice, and there perished, there and then those who stood on Falsehoods.

Hello M.Khaled, sorry I don't have a lot of time to spare this evening but would just like to address a couple of points if I may... I will continue another time.

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled

The case is that the event when he went away with Hagar is actually before he was 16, the writer of the Bible just rearranged the paragraph telling that Isaac was born and he became 16 to be before the rest of the chapter just before the sacrifice event to say that Isaac was the one who was sacrificed when actually Isaac hasn't yet been born when the sacrifice event occurred.

---

What case are you trying to make here? Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that Ishmael was younger than 16 when they were sent away...and someone rearranged the sequence of events to show the sacrifice happened before the birth of Isaac ergo .. It must be Ishmael as the child of promise? On that basis then the covenant was with Ishmael all along and there was no need for Jesus or God to transfer the covenant to Ishmael at all????!!!!!

Question is why? For what reason would the Jews have to rearrange the verses in favour of Isaac over Ishmael? And why did they not think to remove all other verses that referred to the covenant with ?? May one ask where do you get your evidence for this remarkable hypothesis? It's not the Quran.. Because I don't believe the Quran ever names Ishmael.. And is silent on which child it was. It's not the Bible.. For obvious reasons.. Another question why is it essential to you to believe it was Ishmael?

اقتباس:

---

Well, you still gave no justification on what putting Ishmael on her shoulders mean. As for your question, actually I see you have no point about it because actually when mothers carry children, the child's head is most probably on her shoulders. not necessarily that his legs are standing on her shoulders.

---

The food and water skin was put on Hagar's shoulders other than the fact that Ishmael was a strapping lad of 16+ years then I just think the likely impossibility of Hagar.. A woman.. And although as a slave was no doubt no stranger to hard work and lifting heavy objects. I still think carrying a 16 year old.. And food.. And water.. On her shoulders is quite a big ask. I know I could not carry a 16 year old lad very far... Shoulders or not! I think that is justification enough.. It's called common sense. You are splitting hairs here when you say such as.. The child's head resting on ones shoulder is akin to carrying a child on ones shoulder.. If the child's head is resting on a mothers shoulder she would be carrying the child on her hip or back. Except if the child was 16.. Then his head would likely be at a higher level than her shoulder.. Even if she could physically carry him on her hip or back. Standing on her shoulders!!!!! What are we now? Acrobats!!!

اقتباس:

---

Are you sure you really see these justifications logic? I don't think so, Actually putting is not like leaving, and lifting is not as helping one standing up. In addition that Abraham put Ishmael on Hagar's shoulders. I think that any guy looking at these without motivation to justify his belief will never think this is a 16 year old guy but actually a baby.

---

I'm still not seeing this Abraham putting Ishmael on Hagar's shoulders as a going concern.. Think of the logistics... Abraham already of advanced years.. He was 100 when Isaac was born, Ishmael and Hagar were sent away after Isaac was weaned.. That's usually about 2 or so.. So you've got an old guy of 102 lifting a 16 year old onto the shoulders of a woman. I can see he could place the food and water on Hagar's shoulders and I can see him handing over Ishmael to her care and I can see him sending them off. Seems logical to me.

اقتباس:

---

Spiritually?? Actually these are same as excuses of some ignorant Muslims who don't pray, they say we spiritually pray. Actually if God made a covenant, then people should abide to it, spiritual excuses have no meaning.

---

Maybe you do not place the same importance on spirituality as Christians do.

اقتباس:

---

Well, We as Muslims have the same concept of circumcission whether it is in the eighth day or not. I see that's enough especially when you actually don't circumcise at all nor did Jesus tell you not to circumcise or stop working with the Old Testament except for some issues but it was actually Paul who negated circumcission and the law, so Jesus has nothing with you not to circumcise, and you are trying to explain this with no single quote from Jesus but all from Paul, you are not actually following Jesus but Paul.

---

having the concept of something is not the same as following as set down.

اقتباس:

---

This means that since Jesus couldn't remove from the covenant because only the author of the covenant is the one who could do that, and since the author of the covenant is God, then Jesus is not God. Well said:36_1_55:

---

That is your twisting and wilful misunderstanding of what I said. I forgive you that because you don't understand how Christians see the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. Jesus is subordinate to God the Father and does nothing but not by the will of the Father. Which is to say .. If Jesus did transfer the covenant... Which He didn't... It would be Gods will. As God the Father authored the covenant then God the Father has the power to transfer it.. If He wished.. But He didn't.. And the covenant went with Isaac and through his descendants until it came to fulfilment in Jesus.

اقتباس:

---

For me no, he is just telling what God said not that he is the one who removes or not.

---

We'll agree to disagree on this point. :)

اقتباس:

---

Well, Islam didn't mention the names of all prophets as in Sura 40:79 below, but it seems he was.
78. We did aforetime send apostles before thee: of them there are some whose story We have related to thee, and some whose story We have not related to thee. It was not (possible) for any apostle to bring a sign except by the leave of Allah. but when the Command of Allah issued, the matter was decided in truth and justice, and there perished, there and then those who stood on Falsehoods.

---

I think I see what you mean... Though it strikes me as odd, as Isaiah is considered a prophet of some importance in the Bible... And I believe muslims use Isaiah to claim Mohammed is the suffering servant mentioned rather than Jesus. Yet Isaiah does not get a mention in the Quran by name.

Anyway.. Time is short and I have a lot of stuff and things to do..

blessings to you. :)

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة pandora

Hello M.Khaled, sorry I don't have a lot of time to spare this evening but would just like to address a couple of points if I may... I will continue another time.

---

No problem take your time, I also may not have much spare time as well.

اقتباس:

---

What case are you trying to make here? Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that Ishmael was younger than 16 when they were sent away...and someone rearranged the sequence of events to show the sacrifice happened before the birth of Isaac ergo .. It must be Ishmael as the child of promise? On that basis then the covenant was with Ishmael all along and there was no need for Jesus or God to transfer the covenant to Ishmael at all????!!!!!

---

Sacrifice is not necessarily the covenant, we believe actually that Prophets before Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) were from Isaac's seed and no prophet from Ishmael's seed before Prophet Muhammad and that God chosen the people of Israel in the beginning, we as Muslims already acknowledge that, but this is other than the point of the offered son.

اقتباس:

---

Question is why? For what reason would the Jews have to rearrange the verses in favour of Isaac over Ishmael? And why did they not think to remove all other verses that referred to the covenant with ?? May one ask where do you get your evidence for this remarkable hypothesis? It's not the Quran.. Because I don't believe the Quran ever names Ishmael.. And is silent on which child it was. It's not the Bible.. For obvious reasons.. Another question why is it essential to you to believe it was Ishmael?

---

Well, this was an honor to Ishmael, and they tried to show him in a bad way. May be they couldn't have removed everything that honors him, but through the evidence I see here, I find it clear that they tried to do so, and the point regarding the age of Ishmael here is a remarkable evidence, and in the Quran it's clear that the event of offering was before the birth of Isaac. So, it is not the point that I find it essential, but I see this is more clear through the Quran and the manipulation regarding Ishmael's age in the Bible.

اقتباس:

---

The food and water skin was put on Hagar's shoulders other than the fact that Ishmael was a strapping lad of 16+ years then I just think the likely impossibility of Hagar.. A woman.. And although as a slave was no doubt no stranger to hard work and lifting heavy objects. I still think carrying a 16 year old.. And food.. And water.. On her shoulders is quite a big ask. I know I could not carry a 16 year old lad very far... Shoulders or not! I think that is justification enough.. You are splitting hairs here when you say such as.. The child's head resting on ones shoulder is akin to carrying a child on ones shoulder.. If the child's head is resting on a mothers shoulder she would be carrying the child on her hip or back. Except if the child was 16.. Then his head would likely be at a higher level than her shoulder.. Even if she could physically carry him on her hip or back.

---

So you are just answering yourself, this means that either you are denying what the Bible says, or that Ishmael wasn't actually 16 years old. Well done.

اقتباس:

---

I'm still not seeing this Abraham putting Ishmael on Hagar's shoulders as a going concern.. Think of the logistics... Abraham already of advanced years.. He was 100 when Isaac was born, Ishmael and Hagar were sent away after Isaac was weaned.. That's usually about 2 or so.. So you've got an old guy of 102 lifting a 16 year old onto the shoulders of a woman. I can see he could place the food and water on Hagar's shoulders and I can see him handing over Ishmael to her care and I can see him sending them off. Seems logical to me.

---

Well, actually that's not what the Bible says, the Bible says :"Put Ishmael on her shoulders, she put him near the tree, she lifts him up". Ishmael is totally silent except for crying, these are all indications that he is not a 16 year old guy, but a baby. A 16 year old guy is old enough in our age, only 2 other years and he is no more a minor, these are not the actions of Ishmael in the chapter in question.

اقتباس:

---

That is your twisting and wilful misunderstanding of what I said. I forgive you that because you don't understand how Christians see the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. Jesus is subordinate to God the Father and does nothing but not by the will of the Father. Which is to say .. If Jesus did transfer the covenant... Which He didn't... It would be Gods will. As God the Father authored the covenant then God the Father has the power to transfer it.. If He wished.. But He didn't.. And the covenant went with Isaac and through his descendants until it came to fulfilment in Jesus.

---

Exactly, Jesus is subordinate to God, not equal to God as phil 2:5 says. Simply becaus he is not God.

اقتباس:

---

I think I see what you mean... Though it strikes me as odd, as Isaiah is considered a prophet of some importance in the Bible... And I believe muslims use Isaiah to claim Mohammed is the suffering servant mentioned rather than Jesus. Yet Isaiah does not get a mention in the Quran by name.

---

Actually it is not only Isaiah which is foretelling Prophet Muhammad, the Quran generally tells us the stories of the prophets that we might need in our life and the morals of the stories rather than just chronology.

اقتباس:

---

Anyway.. Time is short and I have a lot of stuff and things to do..

blessings to you. :)

---

Take your time and have a nice day. :)

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled

No problem take your time, I also may not have much spare time as well.

Sacrifice is not necessarily the covenant, we believe actually that Prophets before Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) were from Isaac's seed and no prophet from Ishmael's seed before Prophet Muhammad and that God chosen the people of Israel in the beginning, we as Muslims already acknowledge that, but this is other than the point of the offered son.

---

I don't recall anyone saying sacrifice was part of the covenant. What is part of the covenant is circumcision on the eighth day for males. Which has been discussed and muslims do not follow this except by their own interpretation. However, the sacrifice does have a link with Jesus and it is a link the Bible clearly shows.

"Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' 2 And He said, 'Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.'"(Gen. 22:1-2).

God told Abraham to kill his son Isaac because their actions are pointing ahead to the person of Jesus in an example of the true sacrifice. Firstly God says to Abraham to take his "only son", But, we know that 13 years earlier Ishmael had been born to Abraham. So why would God call Isaac the only son? The Bible shows many similarities between the sacrifice of Isaac and the future sacrifice of Jesus. Both are referred to as the only begotten son.. As we know Isaac already had a brother in Ishmael.. But God refers to Isaac by this term because we know it was not Ishmael who was the son of the promised covenant.. it was Isaac. That is why God called Isaac Abraham's only son. Isaac was representing the future Messiah. Jesus was also called the only begotten son. There are many close parallels between the sacrifice of Isaac and the sacrifice of Jesus. Abraham represented God the Father. Isaac represented God the Son. The sacrifice of Christ was typified in the sacrifice of Isaac. Just as God provided the ram in place of Isaac God provided Jesus.. The lamb of God in place of us. Abraham showed the ultimate obedience in offering his son born out of complete faith in God.. This reflects the same depth of obedience in Jesus. If we see this covenant fulfilled in Jesus then I'm not sure why the need to transfer it to Ishmael would ever be an issue. But of course we know nothing of the kind happened according to both the Quran and the Bible.

اقتباس:

---

Well, this was an honor to Ishmael, and they tried to show him in a bad way. May be they couldn't have removed everything that honors him, but through the evidence I see here, I find it clear that they tried to do so, and the point regarding the age of Ishmael here is a remarkable evidence, and in the Quran it's clear that the event of offering was before the birth of Isaac. So, it is not the point that I find it essential, but I see this is more clear through the Quran and the manipulation regarding Ishmael's age in the Bible.

---

Ishmael is honoured in the Bible and I don't know where you get the impression that he is not. God honoured Ishmael through the promise of making him the father of many nations.. Which he was. It seems like you are trying to prove corruption of the Bible to imply Ishmael was hard done by when not even the Quran gives you reason to suppose he was!! Any manipulation here is really your own.

اقتباس:

---

So you are just answering yourself, this means that either you are denying what the Bible says, or that Ishmael wasn't actually 16 years old. Well done.

---

:) nope.. The Bible is quite clear on the age of Ismael when the sacrifice of Isaac took place. If you look at the rest of the text and the ages of all concerned in the time frame.. Then Ishmael is at least 16 years old. But thank you kindly for the well done.... But I guess you could be applying a modicum of sarcasm here.. ;)

اقتباس:

---

Well, actually that's not what the Bible says, the Bible says :"Put Ishmael on her shoulders, she put him near the tree, she lifts him up". Ishmael is totally silent except for crying, these are all indications that he is not a 16 year old guy, but a baby. A 16 year old guy is old enough in our age, only 2 other years and he is no more a minor, these are not the actions of Ishmael in the chapter in question.

---

not it does not... As for Ishmael being silent except for crying.. Well.. He had just been told to leave all he knew and was cast out along with his mother. Even 16 year olds are allowed to get upset at such a prospect .. Crying is sometimes a consequence of that. I can't imagine why it would be thought to record any dialogue he and Hagar may have had on their journey.

اقتباس:

---

Exactly, Jesus is subordinate to God, not equal to God as phil 2:5 says. Simply becaus he is not God.

---

That's your opinion and I respect that and of course you don't expect me to agree. Jesus submitted to the Father’s will and obeyed His commands. How then you may ask could they be equal? Both are equally God, yet according to the divine order, each has a different rank or position in the hierarchy of God. Just as man and woman are equal, so are the Father and the Son. The different rank a woman has does not make her any less of a Christian... or human for that matter. Neither does the different rank of Christ make Him any less Deity. The different rank that each person holds simply means that there are different roles and responsibilities that each one fulfils. All three persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) represent Deity, though each person of the Godhead is distinguishable from the other. Each person of God is distinct in the sense that each one has a different role that each one fulfils. The Word and the Spirit cannot act independently of God the father because they are ONE.

اقتباس:

---

Actually it is not only Isaiah which is foretelling Prophet Muhammad, the Quran generally tells us the stories of the prophets that we might need in our life and the morals of the stories rather than just chronology.

---

I can see that could put you at a disadvantage and explains the random claims muslims make in regards to the foretelling of Mohammed in the Torah and the Gospel. You miss the bigger picture and the chronological order in the Bible puts things into context. So we are left with no doubt. I think it's a shame you don't have the greater picture of the prophets instead of a snap shot. You miss out on a lot.

اقتباس:

---

Take your time and have a nice day. :)

---

Thank you. Have a good day also. :)

Well, regarding the point of Ishmael, I see we are just keeping on repeating ourselves, so I see that keeping on discussing this issue is a waste of time. You may try to make analogy of the offered son with the sacrifice of Jesus, but that does nothing if the point that Jesus died for our sins is not applicable.
I will just answer some other points raised, well giving the analogy of Jesus and the Father as man and woman is actually not applicable to the Trinity as man and woman are two different people, no one can be a man and a woman at the same time. You are saying that the son and Holy Spirit cannot act independently of the Father? Is the opposite true that the Father is dependent on the Son and the Holy Spirit? And if they are one, how can they have different roles and responsibilities? Different roles are between parts, not that each of them is God but they are one God.

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled

Well, regarding the point of Ishmael, I see we are just keeping on repeating ourselves, so I see that keeping on discussing this issue is a waste of time. You may try to make analogy of the offered son with the sacrifice of Jesus, but that does nothing if the point that Jesus died for our sins is not applicable.

---

Yes, I agree, we are travailing over old ground on the issue of Ishmael. I'm afraid I don't see your arguments as convincing enough for me to change my opinion that the account in the Bible seems more realistic and makes better sense. On this I feel we must agree to disagree. I see it has everything to do with Jesus as the offered sacrifice but I respect you do not see this and on that point we also beg to differ. :) I have enjoyed dialogue with you though and you have put your points across well. Would you care to discuss another topic?

اقتباس:

---

I will just answer some other points raised, well giving the analogy of Jesus and the Father as man and woman is actually not applicable to the Trinity as man and woman are two different people, no one can be a man and a woman at the same time. You are saying that the son and Holy Spirit cannot act independently of the Father? Is the opposite true that the Father is dependent on the Son and the Holy Spirit? And if they are one, how can they have different roles and responsibilities? Different roles are between parts, not that each of them is God but they are one God.

---

Hmm.. Maybe not such a good analogy.. I thought it kind of got my point across, obviously not tho. :) the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot act independently of the Father.. They do the Fathers will at all times.. The Father is not dependant on the Son or the Holy Spirit in the way you seem to be implying, for there to be independence then they would have to be three separate distinct beings..if we take that Jesus is Gods uncreated Word, and the Holy Spirit as Gods uncreated Will.. Then they have always existed in unity.. As ONE. The Word communicates with mankind.. The Will (Holy Spirit) grants understanding. I'm sorry this does not make sense to you and I truly wish I could explain it to you better. Yet truly, I believe God is a mystery and we are not meant to fully understand God except in terms has He chooses to reveal Himself to us. I don't think I would want to condense my understanding of God to something logical I could place on a postage stamp.. I want God to be more than that.. I believe my God is.. Or my view of our God if you like.. ;)

Blessings.

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة M.Khaled

No problem take your time, I also may not have much spare time as well.


Exactly, Jesus is subordinate to God, not equal to God as phil 2:5 says. Simply becaus he is not God.

---

If you don't mind me joining in here, Christians and Muslims agree that Jesus was subordinate to God. Let's look at the verse in context 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

From these verses and the fact that Jesus said "the father is greater than I," we Christians understand that the father was greater in position, function and office than Jesus, but they were always equal in nature, character and essence, but Jesus didn't claim His deity rights as the son of man on earth; therefore, Muslims, IMHO, fail to know who Jesus is. That is why Jesus said, "You will die in your sin unless you believe I am he...and no man comes to the father except through me" Christians and Muslims agree that Jesus is the word of God, but Muslims are unable to see that it is impossible for the word of God to be created; IOW, the Word is uncreated; therefore, the Word is eternal. As in Jn. 1 In the beginning (which is as far back as a human can imagine) was the word, who was with God and who was God. Jesus is the eternal word of God. This is the only inference that can be made. Jesus is all that God is but not all there is to God.

Muslims focus more on the trinity than Christians, because it is only too obvious they are trying to trap us Christians into explaining what can not be explained by finite beings such as ourselves. It is like me asking you explain how God is everywhere and knows all things or how could God have no beginning or how can he say be and it is ? Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I am,"and I am is a form of "Be" Allah says "be" and it is. Jesus is the I am or the word God used to create all things. That is why the Scripture states all things were made by Him for Him and through Him. It is written that God exalts His word above all His name, but Muslims don't know the name of God, but Christians do know His name and do know God and we want all people to know the truth who is Jesus. Jesus said it. I am the truth he didn't say show the truth for now He said I am. I am is the name God gave to Moses I wonder if you will know Jesus today like true Biblical Christians know Him? To know Him is to have eternal life!

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة pandora

Yes, I agree, we are travailing over old ground on the issue of Ishmael. I'm afraid I don't see your arguments as convincing enough for me to change my opinion that the account in the Bible seems more realistic and makes better sense. On this I feel we must agree to disagree. I see it has everything to do with Jesus as the offered sacrifice but I respect you do not see this and on that point we also beg to differ. :) I have enjoyed dialogue with you though and you have put your points across well. Would you care to discuss another topic?

---

If you want to discuss another topic, you can raise it. :)

اقتباس:

---

Hmm.. Maybe not such a good analogy.. I thought it kind of got my point across, obviously not tho. :) the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot act independently of the Father.. They do the Fathers will at all times.. The Father is not dependant on the Son or the Holy Spirit in the way you seem to be implying, for there to be independence then they would have to be three separate distinct beings..if we take that Jesus is Gods uncreated Word, and the Holy Spirit as Gods uncreated Will.. Then they have always existed in unity.. As ONE. The Word communicates with mankind.. The Will (Holy Spirit) grants understanding. I'm sorry this does not make sense to you and I truly wish I could explain it to you better. Yet truly, I believe God is a mystery and we are not meant to fully understand God except in terms has He chooses to reveal Himself to us. I don't think I would want to condense my understanding of God to something logical I could place on a postage stamp.. I want God to be more than that.. I believe my God is.. Or my view of our God if you like.. ;)

---

It's ok :) the problem I have with Trinity is not that we are not able to understand it although I don't like what some Christians do when they try to make it logical by some analogies which are actually irrelevant. We in Islam believe in attributes of God and we don't try to explain how, but we just believe in them the way God told about. The real problem in the Trinity is that it has no evidence.