tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post5286942701538580611..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: Islamic Studies - some recommended resources (at no cost)David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-19233831453511816622018-05-25T11:37:39.203-07:002018-05-25T11:37:39.203-07:00Hello again Sean,
Yesterday, you wrote:
==Where ...Hello again Sean,<br /><br />Yesterday, you wrote:<br /><br />==Where he does better is with regard to certain Messianic prophecies. In fact, he believes some used in the NT and Gospels in particular are not. Isaiah 53 is his example. He suggests it was about Jeremiah and notes that Jews view it about Israel as a whole. But even in applying it to Jeremiah he says that nothing is said that the Jeremiah dies or suffers for the sins of the people, but that he suffers because the people are sinful and sin against him personally. However, bracketing whether this is about Jeremiah or no, it is a false fillema. Or has he not heard of the idea good the righteous who suffer expiate the sins of their generation of Israelities? (Which, was fulfilled par excellence in Christ.)==<br /><br />4th Maccabees provides an example of, "the righteous who suffer expiate the sins of their generation of Israelities". See <a href="https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=dUsIW7TPIJjmjwPRp5nQBg&q=vicarious+sacrifice+in+Maccabees&oq=vicarious+sacrifice+in+Maccabees&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2014474.2023580.0.2024586.24.21.0.3.3.0.163.1833.20j1.21.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.21.1707...0j0i131k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1.0.3B9uf29jMbE" rel="nofollow">THIS GOOGLE SEARCH</a>.<br /><br />==I didn't see any citations in this art link. Perhaps I'll check his thesis. But do you know who says Isaiah 53 is meant about Jeremiah? And why they say it. Im fairly familiar, or was anyway, with why Jews tend to apply Isaiah 53 to Israel as a whole, others to Isaiah himself, so on, but I don't think this holds water. Tim McGrew has a brief discussion of this, and Psalm 22, somewhere. Im not sure the name of the lecture, but it can easily be found with Google.==<br /><br />The <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=yErYBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">Jewish Study Bible</a> (I own the first edition) provides a concise, but informative, commentary on Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (pp. 890-892 - 1st edition). It points out that Jewish commentators have suggested three options as to who/what the "servant" is: the Jewish people; the Messiah; Jeremiah. All three options have quite old beginnings, and supporters throughout history, but the "Jewish people" option seems to have obtained the major opinion.<br /><br />Interestingly enough, Baha'is interpret the "servant" as Baha'u'llah.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04577758667034909467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-47620867931126299982018-05-24T11:35:22.559-07:002018-05-24T11:35:22.559-07:00Where he does better is with regard to certain Mes...Where he does better is with regard to certain Messianic prophecies. In fact, he believes some used in the NT and Gospels in particular are not. Isaiah 53 is his example. He suggests it was about Jeremiah and notes that Jews view it about Israel as a whole. But even in applying it to Jeremiah he says that nothing is said that the Jeremiah dies or suffers for the sins of the people, but that he suffers because the people are sinful and sin against him personally. However, bracketing whether this is about Jeremiah or no, it is a false fillema. Or has he not heard of the idea good the righteous who suffer expiate the sins of their generation of Israelities? (Which, was fulfilled par excellence in Christ.) <br /><br />I didn't see any citations in this art link. Perhaps I'll check his thesis. But do you know who says Isaiah 53 is meant about Jeremiah? And why they say it. Im fairly familiar, or was anyway, with why Jews tend to apply Isaiah 53 to Israel as a whole, others to Isaiah himself, so on, but I don't think this holds water. Tim McGrew has a brief discussion of this, and Psalm 22, somewhere. Im not sure the name of the lecture, but it can easily be found with Google.Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683592785735127212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-90365487444715130682018-05-24T10:59:22.954-07:002018-05-24T10:59:22.954-07:00Hi Sean,
Thanks much for taking the time to comme...Hi Sean,<br /><br />Thanks much for taking the time to comment. Certainly some portions of Ataie's book are stronger than others; and I would agree that his understanding on the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus is perhaps his weakest. One glaring weakness concerns the following he wrote:<br /><br />>>The Qur’an is quite emphatic in its categorical rejection of Christ’s death by crucifixion and simply states that “God raised him up unto Himself”>> (Page 112)<br /><br />He then lists two theories: the Swoon Theory and the Substitution Theory (Pages 112, 113.)<br /><br />He completely ignores a third possibility, that the denial of the death of Jesus pertains to his soul/spirit and not his physical body. This view was held very early by some Muslims, and though certainly a minority position, has been held by a few Muslims throughout the history of Islam. <br /><br />See the threads listed under <a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/search/label/Surah%204.157" rel="nofollow">THIS LINK</a> for examples.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04577758667034909467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-20420840776246252622018-05-23T21:40:42.020-07:002018-05-23T21:40:42.020-07:00I had opportunity to skim through the last link. S...I had opportunity to skim through the last link. Some of the points are challenging, though, I don't be live that Ali pulls his case off even in those respects. Others are less so. His speculations about Simon and Alexander on p. 145, are, well, less than convincing.Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683592785735127212noreply@blogger.com