My covenant will I not profane, nor alter that which is gone out of My lips. Psalm 89: 34
Christians, to this day are trying to wrap their minds around a trinity doctrine. Now, they're pointing out how wrong the Muslims are about Jesus?
A Challenge to Oneness Christians, Messianic Jews and Hebrew-Christians
Muslims Use the Name of Jesus to Further Islam
"The problem with the Trinity that Muslims have is ridiculous. Although I don’t fully understand the Trinity, the idea of one thing (of any kind) having three distinct aspects is not in the least bit self-contradictory. So why do Muslims often write, “1+1+1=1″ in order to denigrate Christians? So much for interfaith!
Think of the British Government/state which is divided into three: executive, judiciary and legislature – “three in one”.
Or how about (at the simplest level) the human body: bone, tissues and blood?"
“If you want to save Christianity from atheism and Islam, [the] Trinity should be declared a heresy and false [that] Jesus is Jewish [and a] human prophet of God. If not atheism will take over Christianity and Islam will take over atheism.” – Syed Iftekharuddin
In other words, Christians must believe in the Islamic Jesus and reject the Trinity. That is, Christians must become Muslims. Why didn’t Syed Iftekharudin just say that? Why his hidden dawah and taqiyya?
The Islamic “Jesus” shares nothing with the Christian Jesus except (sort-of) the name ‘Jesus’, but Muslims even have a problem with that precise name: ‘Jesus’ in the Koran is called “Issa”, which isn’t even the Arabic equivalent to the Hebrew “Yeshu’”{1} (from which is derived the English “Jesus” via the Greek “Iessous”). In Arabic “Yeshu” becomes “Yassu’”.
The “Islamic Jesus” -Issa:
- Was simply “a prophet on the way to Muhammad”. (K.2:136, 3:84, 4:163,171; 5:46,75; 19:19; 33:7; 61:6)
- He was a Muslim. (Moses, in the Koran, apparently, wasn’t a Jew either.) (K.3:46,49,52; 4:172; 6:85; 61:14)
- He did not die on the cross but “it was made to seem that way”. (K.4:157)
- He prophesied the coming of Muhammad. (K.61:6)
- He was married and had children. {2}
- He was not the son of God. (K.3:59; 5:17,72,116; 9:30-31; 19:19,88,91-92; 42:13)
- He went to Mecca.{3}
- He does things in Islamic texts that no Christian texts acknowledge him doing (e.g., “preaching from the cradle”). (K.3:49; 5:110)
(Note: In the Koran references above traditional Islamic exegesis is used in their assignation. )
The name and deeds of Jesus are just tools which Muslims use – “something we share” – at interfaith meetings (as well as elsewhere) in order to entice gullible Christians into Islam or to hold favourable opinions of Islam … and it often works. In fact, it started with Muhammad himself who used both the Jewish prophets and texts, as well as Jesus, as a neat and deceitful way to create a connection between his new invention, Islam, and those older faiths.
Muhammad knew he had to have a certain degree of shared ground in order to bring “unbelievers” or kuffar into his new religion. And that’s exactly what Muslims are doing today in interfaith meetings, on the BBC, in Guardian articles, etc. You will find that once gullible Christians convert (or “revert”) to Islam (simply because of the “shared Jesus”), Muslims will rarely talk about him. He will then become just another prophet who’s only talked about on religious programmes on the BBC or at interfaith meetings. Muslims, amongst themselves, rarely talk about Jesus – if at all.
The problem with the Trinity that Muslims have is ridiculous. Although I don’t fully understand the Trinity, the idea of one thing (of any kind) having three distinct aspects is not in the least bit self-contradictory. So why do Muslims often write, “1+1+1=1″ in order to denigrate Christians? So much for interfaith!
Think of the British Government/state which is divided into three: executive, judiciary and legislature – “three in one”.
Or how about (at the simplest level) the human body: bone, tissues and blood?
Source:
Source:
****************************************************
Isa (Jesus) is named, or alluded to, in 91 verses over 15 Suras (chapters) in the Koran. For comparison, Moses gets 136 mentions, Noah and Adam get more mentions than Issa and even “Pharaoh” gets 60 mentions.
Despite talking about Issa in approx 2000 words, there is no detail at all other than to say he was a Muslim prophet (“pointing the way to Muhammad”), a few stories from apocryphal fables (e.g., “Isa preached from the cradle”, “Isa made clay birds come alive”) and using him to attack Christian beliefs by putting words in his mouth.
The main point of Issa (the Islamic Jesus) in the Koran is simply to place him in the prophetic line leading to Muhammad “the final prophet”. Apart from serving that purpose, Jesus himself is not at all important in Islam. There are virtually no discussions in the Koran of what Jesus said and did. If his words and deeds do not serve Islam, they are ignored.
Issa is thus a tool of Islam. His memory and name are used by Muslims to further Islam and to persuade Christians to become Muslim or to adopt favourable attitudes towards Islam. That is the purest form of dawah Muslims can indulge in. And bringing Christians “back to Islam” will help secure them a place in Islamic Paradise.
Muslims also use Issa to ‘blackmail’ Christians, saying “We respect your prophet, why don’t you respect ours?” This is pure Taqiyya since the ‘prophet’ Muslims respect isn’t the Biblical or historical Jesus, but the Islamic Issa and the Islamic Issa is simply Muhammad’s mouthpiece used to ‘validate’ Muhammad’s prophetic claims whilst denying the validity of the Biblical Jesus.
Footnotes.
- This is not to enter into how Jesus was actually named, “Yeshu” is the form used in Ben Yehuda‘s Hebrew dictionary and is the nearest equivalent to the Arabic, but it is interesting that the Koran’s “Jesus” has an invented name – should this be taken to imply that the “Islamic Jesus” is not the Biblical or historical one? Or was it merely ignorance that caused “Allah” to misname one of his ‘prophets’ in the Koran?
- This is very much a minority view in Islam, based on a few vague references inapocryphal gospels, what was said/written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad founder of theAhmadiyya Muslim sect, several ideas by Holger Kerstein and others and Dan Brown’s novel “The Da Vinci Code”. It seems to be more an idea with which to attack the Christian view of Jesus than anything actually Islamic. See also here for the latest fragment on this to come to light which bases sensational claims on very meagre evidence.
- This is controversial within Islam. Some Muslims believe that Isa has performed the Hajj, based on Koran 28:27 “He said: “Indeed I intend to marry you to one of these two daughters of mine on condition that you hire thyself to me for (the term of) eight Hajjs (Arabic: Thamaniya Hijajin). Then if you complete ten, it will be of your own accord, and I would not wish to make it difficult for you. God willing, you will find me of the righteous”. Some Muslims see this as a pre-Islamic (but “Muslim”) hajj existing amongst “the righteous” (i.e. proto-Muslims). Others say that he will perform it after his second coming but before the day of judgement as part of his mission to “…destroy the cross[es]…” – i.e. wipe out Christianity. If any further proof were needed that Issa is not Jesus, this mission is it. In point of fact, Issa could not have performed the Islamic hajj since it was only instituted by Muhammad ~ 600 years after Jesus’ death and neither Issa nor Jesus would have performed the pre-existing pagan Hajj. Therefore, the only thing Issa could have done would have been a visit to Mecca to worship at the Kaaba, the “house that Abraham built” (according to Islam – note that the historical evidence denies this contention), but there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus (or Issa) actually did this. What this seems to be is another case of Muslims employing taqiyya to “Islamise” Jesus.
***
Challenge
to Oneness Christians, Messianic Jews and Hebrew-Christians
Ready?
The
Challenge: Simply & honestly answer these questions:WITHOUT
taking anything out of context, mistranslating, or imposing a
pre-conceived notion. (All chapter and verse numbers are according to
Christian bibles.)(It's what they use)
(It's just a sampling of a list, too. There are many more issues than this!)
Why
does the subject of 2 Sam. 7.14 “commit iniquity,” if, according
to Hebrews 1.5, this is Jesus?
Why
does the speaker in Psalms 41.4 say, “I have sinned against Thee,”
if, according to John 13.18, this is Jesus?
Why
does the speaker in Psalms 69.5 mention his “folly” and his
“wrongs” if, according to John 15.25, John 2.17, Romans 15.3, and
John 19.28, this is Jesus?
Why
is the speaker in Psalms 69.31 (who we have already established is
Jesus) declaring that praise and thanksgiving will please God better
than a sacrifice??????? Of all places for Jesus to bring this up
(which would be strange enough in any event), isn’t this the
strangest, right when he’s on the cross??????
Why
does God, in Jer. 31:29-30, make a point of stressing that “everyone
will die for his own iniquity” – immediately before introducing
the new covenant, whereby Jesus will die for everyone else’s
iniquity? Isn’t that a rather strange way for the “tutor to lead
us to Christ?”
When
does the new covenant of Jer. 31:31 come into effect? If it was 2,000
years ago, why hasn’t the first 3/4 of verse 34 happened yet?
Why
will there be sin sacrifices when the messiah comes, when the New
Testament is adamant that there won’t be? (Hebrews 9:28; Heb.
10:10,12,14,18; Ezekiel 3:18,19,21,22,25; Ezek.44: 27, 29; Ezek.
45:17,20,22,23,25)
Why
is Torah law going forth from Zion in the messianic age, in the sight
of all the nations of the world, instead of Jesus, if the law is a
curse and Jesus has fulfilled and replaced it? (Isaiah 2.3, Micah
4.2)
Why
are the Jews keeping (DOING) the Torah law in the messianic age, if
it is a curse and Jesus has fulfilled and replaced it? (Ezek. 37.24)
Why
is no one who is uncircumcised IN THE FLESH allowed to enter the
temple in the messianic age, if “neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision means anything,” according to Paul? (Gal.5.6, Ezek.
44.7) Whose opinion should I trust, Paul’s or God’s?
Why
does “forever” have an expiration date in Christianity? (Romans
10.4; Ps. 119: 44, 111, 152, 160, 172, 142; Deut. 29.29)
How
can Jesus be qualified to be the messiah through Davidic lineage if
he did not have a human father? Can the “Holy Spirit” be of the
seed of David?
How
can Jesus be qualified to be the messiah through Davidic lineage,
even through Joseph, if Joseph came through the cursed line of
Jeconiah? (Jer. 22:28-30, Matt. 1.11,12)
How
can Jesus be qualified to be the messiah through Davidic lineage,
even through Mary, if she came from Nathan, the wrong son of David,
as well as from the cursed line? (Luke 3:31, 1 Chron. 22:9,10, Luke
3:27)
How
could both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies be correct, and
divinely inspired, even if they are of two different people, if they
diverge (at Nathan and Solomon) and then come back together (at
Shealtiel)? How can two brothers have the same grandchildren???
Why
don’t the genealogies in the New Testament agree with each other,
or with 1 Chronicles 3, which came first and CANNOT be incorrect?
Why
is Paul so anxious for you to not study the genealogies? (1 Tim.1:4,
Titus 3:9-11)
Why
is Hebrews 8.9 wrong about what God said in Jer. 31.32?
Why
is Hebrews 10.5 wrong about what God said in Psalm 40.6?
Why
is 2 Corinthians 3 wrong about what God said in Exodus 34.29-35?
Why
is John 19.37 wrong about what God said in Zech 12.10?
Why
are Romans 9.33 and 2 Pet. 2.8 wrong about what God said in Isaiah
28.16?
Why
is Romans 10.6-8 wrong about what God said in Deut. 30.12-14? Why
does it leave out Deut. 30.11, and the last half of verses 12, 13,
and 14???
Why
is Romans 11:26-27 wrong about what God said in Isaiah 59:20-21?
Why
is Matt. 12.21 wrong about what God said in Isaiah 42.4? Why does he
leave out what it really says – “He will not be disheartened or
crushed until he has established justice in the earth”?
Why
is Matt. 1.12 wrong about what God said in 1 Chron. 3.19?
Why
is Matt. 2.6 wrong about what God said in Micah 5.2?
Why
is Luke 4:18-19 wrong about what God said in Isaiah 61:1-2?
In
Romans 9:24-26, why does Paul leave out the first part of Hosea 1.10,
which tells us that the verses he is quoting (the second half of
Hosea 1.10, and Hosea 2.23), refer to the sons of Israel?
Why
does Matt. 2.15 leave out the first half of Hosea 11.1, which says
that Israel is God’s son?
Where
in the Hebrew scriptures is the verse, “And he shall be called a
Nazarene,” quoted in Matthew 2.23?
How
can it be possible that the holy and inspired men of the New
Testament were so ignorant of the Hebrew scriptures?
Why
doesn’t Jesus himself know his own scripture, if he’s God and he
wrote it? (Math. 23.35; Zech 1.1,2; 2 Chron 24.20,21)
Why
is Jesus wrong in Math. 5.43 about what God said in Lev. 19.18?
Why
does Jesus change God’s law (Math. 5.32, Luke 16.18 – declaring
every legally divorced woman an adulteress, and every man married to
a legally divorced woman an adulterer), if “I did not come to
abolish the law,” and “whoever annuls one of the least of these
commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the
kingdom of heaven?” (Math. 5.17,19)
Why
do most Christian translators lie about what God said in Hosea 14.2,
and change His words, “take away all iniquity… that we may
present our lips as bulls” (demonstrating that prayer substitutes
for sacrifice) to “… the fruit of our lips?”
Why
do Christians never mention verses like Hosea 14.2 or 1 Kings 8:44-52
or 2 Sam 12:13 or Lev. 5:11-13 or Ps. 32.5 or Isaiah 6.6-7 which
demonstrate that one does not need a blood sacrifice to have their
sins forgiven, or verses like Proverbs 21.3 or Psalms 40.6 or Hosea
6.6 or Psalms 69:30-31 or 1 Sam. 15.22 which say clearly that God
actually PREFERS other methods of atonement to blood sacrifice, or
Jeremiah 7:22-23 which goes so far as to say that God NEVER EVEN
COMMANDED US ABOUT SACRIFICES???
Why
are there numerous stories in the torah of people who sinned, and
were forgiven through prayer and repentance – WITHOUT A SACRIFICE,
such as David in 2 Sam 12:13, or the city of Nineveh in Jonah – and
not a single story, ever, of someone who sinned and gave a sacrifice
in order to be forgiven?
How
can Jesus be both the high priest (per Paul in Hebrews), who comes
from the tribe of Levi, and the messiah, who comes from the tribe of
Judah?
How
can Jesus be the Passover lamb for the gentiles, especially the
uncircumcised, if outsiders were forbidden to partake of it? (Ex.
12:43,45,48)
Why
is the New Testament so concerned about the laws of the paschal lamb
when it comes to the 2nd half of Ex. 12.46 (see Jn. 19.36), but not
at all concerned with these laws when it comes to Ex. 12:
3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,44, the first half of 46, or 48?
What
good is Jesus as a sin sacrifice to the intentional sinner, since
(with one exception, Lev. 6.2,3) the sin sacrifices were only for the
unintentional sinner? (Lev. 4: 2,13,22,27; 5:15,18)
How
can Zech. 12.10 be referring to Jesus’ crucifixion, as John 19.37
says it is, when Zechariah is clearly describing an end-time
apocalyptic war that has not yet taken place?
How
can Zechariah be making a “dual” prophecy, when according to the
Christians, this passage refers to God being pierced? Is he going to
be pierced again when he returns in glory?
When
was the last supper – the seder night (the first night of passover)
or the night before? (Matt. 26.17-19, Mark 14.12-16, Luke 14.7-15,
John 13.1-2)
When
did Jesus die – the first day of Passover or the day before? (Matt.
26, Mark 14, Luke 22, John 18.28, 19.14)
Why
did God, in Jer. 31.16, tell Rachel that her children would return,
if He was referring to the dead children in Matthew 2.16? Were they
going to come back to life?
Why
are the nations putting their hands on their mouth in Micah 7.16,
much like in Isaiah 52.15? What is it that they’re seeing and being
ashamed of?
Why
did the church put an unnatural chapter break between Isaiah 52.15
and 53.1?
Why
did the Christian translators remove the two plural references to the
servant in Isaiah 53.8 and 9 and replace them with a singular form?
Why
does the servant in Isaiah 53.10 have physical children (“zera”/seed)
if it refers to Jesus?
If
“zera” really means spiritual children in Is. 53, why do all
Christians agree it means physical offspring in every other place in
the bible that it is used to refer to people?
If
“zera”/seed really means spiritual children, which ONE of the
world’s Christians is the true child of Jesus, since according to
Paul in Gal. 3.16, “seed” refers to only one person?
Why
are there many clear prophecies which state that Israel is despised
and afflicted, but none which say this about the messiah?
Why
is the automatic Christian response to the problems of Isaiah 53
ALWAYS to quote the rabbis they otherwise despise and mock and whose
writings they don’t believe in, that Jesus berated and Paul called
“men who turn away from the truth” (Titus 1.14)?
Why
did the disciples not understand what Jesus was talking about in Luke
18:31-34 and Mark 9:32, if it was always common knowledge among the
Jews that the messiah was to suffer, die, and rise from the dead?
Why
did Jesus make predictions that didn’t come true, if that’s a
sure sign of a false prophet? (Math. 16:38, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27,
Deut. 18:20-22)?
Why
does God the Father know something Jesus doesn’t know (Mark 13.32)
if Jesus IS the Everlasting Father, and the Mighty God, according to
Isaiah 9.6?
Why
do the writers of the New Testament translate the word “moshiach”
correctly as “an anointed one” every time it appears in the
Torah, except for in Daniel 9?
Why
do the writers of the New Testament translate the word “ca’ari”
correctly as “like a lion” every time it appears in the Torah,
except for in Psalm 22.17?
Why
do the writers of the New Testament translate the words “y’mei
olom” correctly as “days of old” every time it appears in the
Torah, except for in Micah 5.2?
Why
do the writers of the New Testament translate the word “bar”
correctly to “cleanliness” or “purity” every time it appears
in the Torah, except for in Psalm 2.12? Why is it that 5 verses
earlier King David knew the correct word for “son,” but not in
verse 12?
Why
don’t the writers of the New Testament translate “ha’almah”
as “virgin” in Proverbs 30.19, if that’s what it means? (What
the four “ways” in vs. 19 have in common is that they leave no
trace, as evidenced by vs. 20 that follows.)
Why
did the Septuagint authors use “parthenos” in Genesis to describe
Dina who had just been raped, if it means virgin according to
messianic authorities?
If
Isaiah 7.14 refers to the virgin birth of Jesus, via “dual
prophecy” (since it obviously can’t refer to him via the
context), then whose was the other virgin birth that occurred at the
time of the prophecy?
*
Why are there numerous prophecies about gentiles bowing and
apologizing to the Jews in the last days, and admitting they (the
gentiles) have been wrong, and not a single prophecy the other way
around – of the Jews apologizing to the gentiles – if it is
indeed the Jews who are wrong?
*
Why are we commanded NOWHERE in the Jewish scriptures to believe in
the messiah when he comes, if our salvation depends on it?
*
Why do all the prophecies that Jesus supposedly fulfilled deal only
with the PERSON of the messiah, which the Torah barely mentions, and
have nothing to with the ACCOMPLISHMENTS of the messiah, which the
Torah is very specific about?
*
Why is it that all of the prophecies that Jesus supposedly fulfilled
are all things that are of no practical advantage to anyone, and do
nothing to improve the quality of anyone’s life, while all of the
prophecies that he did NOT yet fulfill are all things that will be of
tremendous benefit to every individual on the planet, and all of
mankind as a whole? (For example, how does a virgin birth that
happened 2000 years ago, or Jesus’ being thirsty and being offered
vinegar, or being born in Bethlehem, or being killed with a robber,
or riding on a donkey, etc… help me out at all? How do any of these
“fulfillments” solve a single problem in my life, or anyone’s?
Yet, on the other hand, when there is world peace, and all the evil
people are gone, and all the sick are healed, etc… now THERE are
some messianic prophecies we can surely use. )
*
Why is it that all of the prophecies that Jesus supposedly fulfilled
are all things that CANNOT BE PROVEN, while all of the prophecies
that Jesus did NOT yet fulfill, on the other hand, are all things
that COULD NOT BE DENIED IF HE HAD fulfilled them – even just ONE
of them?
*
Why is it that the ONLY way to fit Jesus into the torah’s messianic
prophecies is through the use of extreme force? Why is one or more of
the following methods ALWAYS required? 1) taking verses out of
context, 2) mistranslating, 3) placing a 2,000 year gap (at least) in
the middle of a verse – totally unjustified by the context – i.e.
sweeping any failure of Jesus to fulfill the scriptures under the rug
of the 2nd coming, or 4) making verses up? Why can’t the torah ever
just ONCE mention Jesus clearly, if it’s so important that we
believe in him?
ARE
ALL OF THE ABOVE FACTS JUST TREMENDOUS, AMAZING, UNBELIEVABLE
COINCIDENCES???????
If
God changed his mind about so many crucial things He
said in the Torah, as demonstrated above, and now wants us to believe
in Jesus, why didn't he have the decency to come down to
ALL of us, and endorse Jesus in person to make it clear to us, as he
came down to all 3 million of us on Mt. Sinai to endorse Moses, to
make sure we would believe in the Torah forever? (Ex. 19:9.11,17, Ex.
24.17)
Why
does God break one of His own commandments, “You shall
not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Lev. 19.14), since
according to 2 Cor. 3.14 and 4.4 I am blind, and according to Rom.
9.32, 1 Peter 2.8, and 1 Cor 1.23, the above challenges are all part
of “a stumbling stone?”
Why
does God trick us, and present us with such tremendous
difficulties as the above questions, and then throw us into hell for
rejecting an apparent false god, who’s really not false, if “God
our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge
of the truth?” (1 Tim. 2.4)
Why
is the Christian God such a sadist? And why do Christians expect Jews
to want to embrace such a God? **
Jeremiah 31:33 Kiy zo’t habriyt ‘asher ‘ekrot ‘et- beeyt Yisraa’eel’achareey hayaamiym haaheem, n’um- Yahweh, naatatiy ‘et-towraatiy bqirbaam w`al- libaam ‘ektabenaah whaayiytiy laahemlee-’Elohiym wheemaah yihyuw- liy l`aam.
How is this new covenant different from the original? Originally it states we are to write these laws on our own heart and teach them to our children.
Deut 11:18. Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.
19. And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
20. And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates:
Looking at the text,one can see this coming new covenant is God writing the Torah laws on our heart where it will be as instinct to know them rather than learning and no longer need to teach them to our children.
The term “new covenant” is used only once in Jewish text and Jeremiah is it.It’s precepts are direct and simple in meaning, that the Torah law will be written on our hearts. No mention of blood sacrifice of a man and , to be perfectly blunt, no mention of a ritual representation of drinking blood and eating human flesh as the Xian book claims is the New Covenant. The book of Matthew has Jesus saying Matthew 26: 28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. This the translation from the KJV, which translates the Greek word here as testament instead of covenant, as Paul does in his books. You can find the Greek word in Strong’s and it is the same here as in Hebrews. G1242 The same goes for the parallel stories in Mark and Luke.
This raises the question on whether this is added text, whether the authors copied the idea from Paul’s books since those were written first, or Jesus wasn’t familiar with the text of Jeremiah.
More changing what the actual text says in the Hebrew scriptures? The Christian book misquotes Jeremiah in where the original text says in verse 32:….which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: the Greek text changes the wording to Hebrews 8:9….. because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Whether the author of Hebrews was unfamiliar with the Hebrew text or changed the wording to give the impression that God has now,somehow, discarded Israel for the new believers is something the reader will have to discern. Christianity does regard their text as divine.
The Hebrew word in Jeremiah’s verse says ”ba’altee,” which means a “husband.” It in no way can be translated as “to disregard.” To be a “husband” is the precise opposite of “disregarding” someone.
On first look at the text in Hebrews 8, it appears that the author is saying that soon people WOULD have it written on their heart and the old way of learning and study was going to end. Then you get to Hebrews 12 where the author drops any pretense of saying the new covenant is anything like it says in Jeremiah, but changes it to being pivotal on the death of Jesus. Hebrews 12:24. And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Then when one looks at Paul’s book 1 Corinthians 11:24-25
24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” This verse shows a claim as to what the new covenant is completely changed without any pretext.
Under the eternal covenant G-d has with the Jews we are forbidden from consuming blood — even symbolically. Leviticus 17:12. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
13. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
14. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
This is a total abhorrence to a Jew and this “new” covenant is obviously NOT a continuation of the Jewish covenant nor any type of reflection of the prophesy in Jeremiah. The concept shown in the Greek text is not a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, but a completely foreign idea to what it says in the Jewish scripture as far as the Law and the Prophesies.
Compare 2 Samuel 7:14 against Hebrews 1:5. The link in the Christian bible is not such a straight line. Hebrews 1:5 references Psalm 89:26, not 2 Samuel. When you read a few verses preceding that in Psalm 89, you will find a replay of 2 Samuel 7 Then you see that Psalm 89:24 is almost exactly 2 Samuel 7:15 – but who would know, without searching. …then…. you will see something more. Psalm 89, which the book of Hebrews has directed you to, the same book of Hebrews that says the “old” covenant is decaying and about to vanish away (see above) …when you come upon My covenant will I not profane, nor alter that which is gone out of My lips. which just eight verses later and even in the poorly translated Christian version -(this is v.35 in the Jerusalem bible) – says clearly:
"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.”
***
The term “new covenant” is used only once in Jewish text
How is this new covenant different from the original? Originally it states we are to write these laws on our own heart and teach them to our children.
Deut 11:18. Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.
19. And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
20. And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates:
Looking at the text,one can see this coming new covenant is God writing the Torah laws on our heart where it will be as instinct to know them rather than learning and no longer need to teach them to our children.
The term “new covenant” is used only once in Jewish text and Jeremiah is it.It’s precepts are direct and simple in meaning, that the Torah law will be written on our hearts. No mention of blood sacrifice of a man and , to be perfectly blunt, no mention of a ritual representation of drinking blood and eating human flesh as the Xian book claims is the New Covenant. The book of Matthew has Jesus saying Matthew 26: 28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. This the translation from the KJV, which translates the Greek word here as testament instead of covenant, as Paul does in his books. You can find the Greek word in Strong’s and it is the same here as in Hebrews. G1242 The same goes for the parallel stories in Mark and Luke.
This raises the question on whether this is added text, whether the authors copied the idea from Paul’s books since those were written first, or Jesus wasn’t familiar with the text of Jeremiah.
More changing what the actual text says in the Hebrew scriptures? The Christian book misquotes Jeremiah in where the original text says in verse 32:….which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: the Greek text changes the wording to Hebrews 8:9….. because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Whether the author of Hebrews was unfamiliar with the Hebrew text or changed the wording to give the impression that God has now,somehow, discarded Israel for the new believers is something the reader will have to discern. Christianity does regard their text as divine.
The Hebrew word in Jeremiah’s verse says ”ba’altee,” which means a “husband.” It in no way can be translated as “to disregard.” To be a “husband” is the precise opposite of “disregarding” someone.
On first look at the text in Hebrews 8, it appears that the author is saying that soon people WOULD have it written on their heart and the old way of learning and study was going to end. Then you get to Hebrews 12 where the author drops any pretense of saying the new covenant is anything like it says in Jeremiah, but changes it to being pivotal on the death of Jesus. Hebrews 12:24. And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Then when one looks at Paul’s book 1 Corinthians 11:24-25
24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” This verse shows a claim as to what the new covenant is completely changed without any pretext.
Under the eternal covenant G-d has with the Jews we are forbidden from consuming blood — even symbolically. Leviticus 17:12. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
13. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
14. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
This is a total abhorrence to a Jew and this “new” covenant is obviously NOT a continuation of the Jewish covenant nor any type of reflection of the prophesy in Jeremiah. The concept shown in the Greek text is not a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, but a completely foreign idea to what it says in the Jewish scripture as far as the Law and the Prophesies.
Compare 2 Samuel 7:14 against Hebrews 1:5. The link in the Christian bible is not such a straight line. Hebrews 1:5 references Psalm 89:26, not 2 Samuel. When you read a few verses preceding that in Psalm 89, you will find a replay of 2 Samuel 7 Then you see that Psalm 89:24 is almost exactly 2 Samuel 7:15 – but who would know, without searching. …then…. you will see something more. Psalm 89, which the book of Hebrews has directed you to, the same book of Hebrews that says the “old” covenant is decaying and about to vanish away (see above) …when you come upon My covenant will I not profane, nor alter that which is gone out of My lips. which just eight verses later and even in the poorly translated Christian version -(this is v.35 in the Jerusalem bible) – says clearly:
"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.”
“What
you have been taught to believe is no good if it cannot withstand
scrutiny.”
Watch an 8-minute video: "The Question of God's Existence" with Rabbi Moshe Zeldman
http://www.jewishpathways.com/videos/thequestionofgodsexistence
http://www.jewishpathways.com/videos/thequestionofgodsexistence
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
