At 9:47, Mustafa pointed out that Jesus said to the Jews, "If you were Abraham's children, then you would do the things Abraham did." (John 8:39)
But isn't the Law only given some centuries AFTER Abraham? Abraham walked in faith with God and was given grace outside the Law. But even someone as significant as Abraham needed a sacrifice to cover his sins. So, if Mustafa really wants us to do as Jesus told us to do, then we are to live by faith with God and have a close intimate relationship with him as children to a father and seek the ultimate sacrifice to cover all of our sins, and that is Jesus Christ. =)
Oh this is classic. In the first rebuttal, the Muslim disputes a hadeeth. He says words to the effect "and either way their are scholars who refute this hadeeth".
Then later on he talks about the methodology of the hadeeth, and says "The methodology of the Hadeeth is superior to the historical method. Because the historical method tells us something is early, but the Hadeeth methodology tells us something is early and TRUE."
But if the Hadeeth methodology tells us something is true, then why is are so many "True Hadeeths" that are refuted by scholars. Like I said classic.
He also says in passing that the suffering servant passages are about Israel not about a person.
So Israel is with out violence, Israel, is with out deceit, Israel heals other nations, like Palestine. Do these guys even listen to themselves?
A few thoughts...Good debate, though some of Mustafa's "machine-gun" comments weren't really related to the topic. An entire debate could be done on Paul, but in reference to Matt 5:19 - this was applied to the Jewish people who were born into the Mosaic covenant. Many of the commandments were not sin related - foods, uncleanliness, etc, but were for the general working health of the people as a whole. It's not that the sin related commandments are not important, but some of them simply no longer apply in light of Jesus's atoning sacrifice. Paul's mission was largely to the gentiles. Things such as circumcision simply did not have meaning to them in the age of Salvation.
Another reference in Isaiah 53 to the servant not opening is mouth was made. This is largely interpreted as Jesus not responding to his accusers or defending himself against accusations. All four Gospels testify to this to some extent: Matt 26:62-63 and 27:12-14, Mark 14:60-61 and 15:5, Luke 23:9, John 19:9. Mustafa's rant about ransoming not being like sacrificing was simply not convincing, and it was evident that he had no good answer. The fact that blood sacrifices were a mainstay of the Law of Moses should alone point to the legitimacy of Jesus's act on the cross. Mustafa seems to get lost in the details of OT sacrificial procedures and doesn't understand the whole purpose of it.
Paul's overall message is confirmed not only in the Gospels (Mark and possibly Matthew even predate Paul's death), but non-Pauline letters in the NT also confirm his teaching. Peter even acknowledges him by name and the validity of his letters in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Hebrews, Peter, John, Jude, James, and Revelation all confirm Paul and the Gospel accounts as to Jesus's sacrifice for sins.
There were a number of points that could have been mentioned about Jesus predicting his death, though the synoptics don't go into as much detail as John as to why. Lastly, it should be pointed out that John has a different focus than the other Gospels as its intentions are not to repeat known accounts but to prove that Jesus is the Son of God. John 20:30-31 reads, "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not recorded in THIS book." Also see John 21:25.
No Mr. Green, I mean, before your family immigrated to Australia, was your family from Ireland?
I know a lot of Irish were sent to Autralia, but the only reason I am wondering about you is that you have such a neat way of being relaxed, and making your audience relax, and pretty much sit back and enjoy your story.
9 comments:
Mustafa's First Presentation (I've watched til here so far...)
Is it just me, or did Mustafa just deny God's self-sufficiency?
At 5:11, Mustafa Arja said, "One of the purposes for God creating us is to exercise His ability to forgive sins."
Still at Mustafa's First Presentation....
At 9:47, Mustafa pointed out that Jesus said to the Jews, "If you were Abraham's children, then you would do the things Abraham did." (John 8:39)
But isn't the Law only given some centuries AFTER Abraham?
Abraham walked in faith with God and was given grace outside the Law.
But even someone as significant as Abraham needed a sacrifice to cover his sins.
So, if Mustafa really wants us to do as Jesus told us to do, then we are to live by faith with God and have a close intimate relationship with him as children to a father and seek the ultimate sacrifice to cover all of our sins, and that is Jesus Christ. =)
Thank you, Mustafa.
Good job Brother Samuel.
Oh this is classic.
In the first rebuttal, the Muslim disputes a hadeeth. He says words to the effect "and either way their are scholars who refute this hadeeth".
Then later on he talks about the methodology of the hadeeth, and says "The methodology of the Hadeeth is superior to the historical method. Because the historical method tells us something is early, but the Hadeeth methodology tells us something is early and TRUE."
But if the Hadeeth methodology tells us something is true, then why is are so many "True Hadeeths" that are refuted by scholars. Like I said classic.
He also says in passing that the suffering servant passages are about Israel not about a person.
So Israel is with out violence, Israel, is with out deceit, Israel heals other nations, like Palestine. Do these guys even listen to themselves?
Oh, Mr Green, you are such a good speaker!
A few thoughts...Good debate, though some of Mustafa's "machine-gun" comments weren't really related to the topic. An entire debate could be done on Paul, but in reference to Matt 5:19 - this was applied to the Jewish people who were born into the Mosaic covenant. Many of the commandments were not sin related - foods, uncleanliness, etc, but were for the general working health of the people as a whole. It's not that the sin related commandments are not important, but some of them simply no longer apply in light of Jesus's atoning sacrifice. Paul's mission was largely to the gentiles. Things such as circumcision simply did not have meaning to them in the age of Salvation.
Another reference in Isaiah 53 to the servant not opening is mouth was made. This is largely interpreted as Jesus not responding to his accusers or defending himself against accusations. All four Gospels testify to this to some extent: Matt 26:62-63 and 27:12-14, Mark 14:60-61 and 15:5, Luke 23:9, John 19:9. Mustafa's rant about ransoming not being like sacrificing was simply not convincing, and it was evident that he had no good answer. The fact that blood sacrifices were a mainstay of the Law of Moses should alone point to the legitimacy of Jesus's act on the cross. Mustafa seems to get lost in the details of OT sacrificial procedures and doesn't understand the whole purpose of it.
Paul's overall message is confirmed not only in the Gospels (Mark and possibly Matthew even predate Paul's death), but non-Pauline letters in the NT also confirm his teaching. Peter even acknowledges him by name and the validity of his letters in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Hebrews, Peter, John, Jude, James, and Revelation all confirm Paul and the Gospel accounts as to Jesus's sacrifice for sins.
There were a number of points that could have been mentioned about Jesus predicting his death, though the synoptics don't go into as much detail as John as to why. Lastly, it should be pointed out that John has a different focus than the other Gospels as its intentions are not to repeat known accounts but to prove that Jesus is the Son of God. John 20:30-31 reads, "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not recorded in THIS book." Also see John 21:25.
I'll stop there for now.
Samuel Green, you told the story of Jesus so perfectly, that I want to sit here, curl my legs up and listen to you all over again.
Are you Irish?
Hello Donna66, no I am Australian. Thanks for your comments everyone.
No Mr. Green, I mean, before your family immigrated to Australia, was your family from Ireland?
I know a lot of Irish were sent to Autralia, but the only reason I am wondering about you is that you have such a neat way of being relaxed, and making your audience relax, and pretty much sit back and enjoy your story.
My father was much the same way.
Post a Comment