pawnraider
Member
It was not Ishmael that was the attempted sacrifice but Isaac. And is the writer trying to say that whoever was being sacrifice was to be the ransom for sins or is the writer referring to someone else?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Continuing Revelation
- Thread starter smaneck
- Start date
- Status
jackcv
Newbie
You know very well that I had no intention to establish partristic authority.
In very fact, the theology that God restored in this dispensation through the "unlearned prophet" Joseph Smith is clearly more congruent with the Old and New Testament than your Trinitarian, ex nihilo theologies that the late patristic philosophers created.
Why can you not explain in simple terms what you think "in the name of Jesus Christ" means?
Upvote
0
...which just gives credence to the prospect that there was, in fact, divine assistance of some sort.
As it is, I think most people know at least one or two words in a foreign language.
Upvote
0
Jews believe it was Isaac and Muslims believe it was Ismael. Baha'u'llah states the following:
The question is that whereas in past Scriptures Isaac is said to have been the sacrifice; in the Qur’án this station is given to Ishmael. This is, undoubtedly, true. All, however, must fix their gaze upon the word which hath dawned from the Divine Horizon: it is incumbent upon every soul to ponder upon its sovereignty, influence, might, and on its all-encompassing nature. There hath never been any doubt whatsoever that all these things are confirmed and corroborated only by the Word of God. It is the Word of God that transcendeth all things, creates the universe, educateth the people, guideth them who are sore athirst from separation unto the ocean of reunion, and penetrateth through the darkness of ignorance with the light of understanding. Consider: all those who believe in past Scriptures think of Isaac as the Sacrifice; likewise, the people of Qur’án confirm this station for Ishmael. It is clear and evident to every possessor of insight and every religious person that no one was, outwardly sacrificed; all agree that an animal was sacrificed. So, ponder upon this: Why is it that a person who hath gone to the altar of sacrifice for the Beloved and yet hath come back [alive], is adorned with the raiment of ‘Sacrifice of God’ and accepted as such? There is no doubt that this is so because of the Word of God. Therefore, the criterion for the manifestation of all names and for confirmation and fulfillment of all stations is dependent upon the Word of God. Likewise, there is no doubt, that the Inaccessible, Unknowable [God] doth not talk as He is, and hath always been, sanctified from such conditions; rather, He speaketh through the tongue of His Manifestations. Thus the Torah issued from the tongue of Moses. The same is true of other Holy Scriptures: all were revealed by the tongues of Prophets and Messengers but, the real Speaker in all these Holy Books is the One true God.... It is now, therefore, established and confirmed that the station of ‘Sacrifice of God’ was, according to past Books, given to Isaac by Abraham and that very same station is, according to Divine Revelation, Ishmael’s in the Qur’ánic Dispensation
Last edited:
Upvote
0
...which they are,...
In all seriousness, a shockingly large percentage of the arguments used against the LDS faith could just as easily be used against Christianity in some fashion. All these arguments do is indicate that the person making them lacks basic familiarity with their own faith tradition.
Upvote
0
As far as the KJV goes -
The KJV was based on the Textus Receptus, which uses documents from the 11th century. Since then, older documents have been recovered. These older documents read differently, and some do not have verses or even entire passages present in the newer documents. This has led to a debate as to whether or not these items in question were in the original source material or if they were later additions.
In response to this debate, some newer translations have chosen not to include these items. For example, the RSV moves them to the footnotes so that they aren't in the main text; people can still read them, but the dispute over their placement is thus noted.
The KJV was based on the Textus Receptus, which uses documents from the 11th century. Since then, older documents have been recovered. These older documents read differently, and some do not have verses or even entire passages present in the newer documents. This has led to a debate as to whether or not these items in question were in the original source material or if they were later additions.
In response to this debate, some newer translations have chosen not to include these items. For example, the RSV moves them to the footnotes so that they aren't in the main text; people can still read them, but the dispute over their placement is thus noted.
Upvote
0
pawnraider
Member
No, I did not.
There's no reason to believe that this is the case. In fact, the Bible cautions its readers against believing such. Galatians 1:8, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Let's let Jesus Christ Himself explain it. John 14:13, "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."
Upvote
0
pawnraider
Member
That's all very unconvincing since that "divine assistance" was unable to tell him what the correct word was or is.
Upvote
0
pawnraider
Member
Not only would I disagree with this but so would an overwhelming number of Christians and Jews.
But only insofar as Mirza Husayn Ali would agree with it. Therefore he is free to state that it was Ishmael and not Isaac that was nearly sacraficed. One has to wonder what Muhammad's source is since he was many hundreds of years removed from this event and Mirza Husayn Ali even more so.
Upvote
0
pawnraider
Member
Not at all. We believe what is written as it is written. So do the Jews. They just refuse to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and that He is indeed the Messiah and have come up with some rather interesting reinterpretation of texts we and the Apostle Paul use to prove that Jesus Christ fulfilled these prophecies. We do not appeal to any outside sources as Mirza Husayn Ali and Muhammad most certainly are. We do not accept so-called "manifestations" outside of the Judeo-Christian fold nor have we and others referred to the prophets and others as "manifestions". This terminology has never been employed by us in referring to the prophets or Jesus Christ and we don't intend to start anytime soon.
Upvote
0
When I took the Mormon missionary lessons as a teenager the elders not only urged me to pray for guidance, but they were quite insistent that the prayers be said in Jesus' name even though I wasn't a Christian.
Upvote
0
I quoted directly the the Bahai website and exposed the truth. Now someone is in denial. So let's get this straight: "Do Bahai's believe that for those who are outside of Christ after death (Bahais) there is (a) a progression to perfection (as per the Bahai website) or (b) a Great White Throne judgement to Hell? (as per the Holy Bible)".
Upvote
0
Would disagree that the Qur'an indicates that it was Ishmael who Abraham tried to sacrifice? There aren't many Jews or Christians sufficiently knowledgeable in this area to comment.
Apparently you missed the point of Baha'u'llah's statement. He never says that Isaac was not nearly sacrificed. Read it again.
As was the writer of Genesis.
Upvote
0
All I'm saying is you weren't quoting Baha'i scripture.
Not a statement that would even make sense to a Baha'i since we all believe in Jesus. In any case, Rev. 20:11-15 which alone speaks of a"great white throne" indicates that the dead will be judged by what they have done.
Upvote
0
A Jew would beg to differ.
They see Christians as the ones who have come up with some pretty creative reinterpretations.
Yet you happily adopted terms like "Trinity" and "incarnation", neither of which were found in the Bible.
Upvote
0
- Jul 10, 2012
- 7,381
- 2,352
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
(you were referring to my comment below (@cloudyday2):
)
It seemed that @smaneck said the fruits we must judge to distinguish between real and phony Manifestations are the religious teachings such as the Torah or the Quran. The problem is that only "never-theist" atheists can judge the wisdom of these religious texts without bias. A believer is not qualified to make these judgments. Even an atheist like myself with a religious background is not qualified. When I read quotes from Muhammad or Baha'u'llah, I am unimpressed. When I read quotes from Jesus, I am still impressed. Why? Because I used to be a Christian, but I was never a Muslim or a Baha'i. I suspect that if I was never any kind of believer, then all these religious texts would be equally uninspiring.
So we need some objective standards for these proposed Manifestations.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
jackcv
Newbie
jackcv said: ↑
You know very well that I had no intention to establish partristic authority.
jackcv said: ↑
In very fact, the theology that God restored in this dispensation through the "unlearned prophet" Joseph Smith
jackcv said: ↑
Why can you not explain in simple terms what you think "in the name of Jesus Christ" means?
SUGGESTION: Start by looking up "name" and "in" in a college dictionary. Then you might consider the alternate, and apparently acceptable ways that Christian preachers close their prayers. E.g. "for Jesus sake"
You know very well that I had no intention to establish partristic authority.
jackcv said: ↑
In very fact, the theology that God restored in this dispensation through the "unlearned prophet" Joseph Smith
jackcv said: ↑
Why can you not explain in simple terms what you think "in the name of Jesus Christ" means?
That is the sort of answer one expects from junior sunday school children. I expect more real thought from a senior contributor like yourself.
SUGGESTION: Start by looking up "name" and "in" in a college dictionary. Then you might consider the alternate, and apparently acceptable ways that Christian preachers close their prayers. E.g. "for Jesus sake"
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
