How should I respond?

[RobHom]

RobHom, you have a very dirty habit of trying to inject guile into people.
.

Do I now… or is it that you have a problem dealing with the reality of situations? I just tell it like it is… I possess no “dirty habits”… I’m just a realist…there is nothing deceitful or cunning about what I told him to do… Or do you have a problem with someone having control over their own earthly affairs?

 

[hays1122]

Acts 2:46 pops in my head first.
46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

I am not aware of any time the term “breaking bread” is used outside of Eucharist in the bible.

Acts 2:46
“And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart.”

In the temple:
This was the public place of worship; and the disciples were not disposed to leave the place where their fathers had so long worshiped God. This does not mean that they were constantly in the temple, but only at the customary hours of prayer; at nine o’clock in the morning, and at three in the afternoon.
And breaking bread,From house to house:
The common interpretation, is that they did it in their various houses; now in this, and now in that, as might be convenient.
If it refers to their ordinary meals, then it means that they partook in common of what they possessed. And the expression in this verse, “did eat their meat,” seems to imply that this refers to their common meals, and not to the Lord’s Supper.
This is so you’ll know how a protestant would interpret the verse.
In case you might be interested.

 

[ralphinal]

Acts 2:46
“And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart.”

In the temple:
This was the public place of worship; and the disciples were not disposed to leave the place where their fathers had so long worshiped God. This does not mean that they were constantly in the temple, but only at the customary hours of prayer; at nine o’clock in the morning, and at three in the afternoon.
And breaking bread,From house to house:
The common interpretation, is that they did it in their various houses; now in this, and now in that, as might be convenient.
If it refers to their ordinary meals, then it means that they partook in common of what they possessed. And the expression in this verse, “did eat their meat,” seems to imply that this refers to their common meals, and not to the Lord’s Supper.
This is so you’ll know how a protestant would interpret the verse.
In case you might be interested.

I had a feeling someone would use that to mean meals. However, every time that phrase is used in the New Testament, it refers to the Eucharist. I found a website done by a BAPTIST of all people who has searched for another time it is used differently, he cannot. I am trying to find the specific page, but I am on a different computer and as usual, Google is giving me new results. It may be Monday, when i am back at work, that I can givde that link. Here are a few others, all from non-Catholics

neednotfret.com/content/view/165/70/

neednotfret.com/content/view/164/97/

querycat.com/faq/daaddc181016c9707aed993ef593a4b2

 

[hays1122]

I had a feeling someone would use that to mean meals. However, every time that phrase is used in the New Testament, it refers to the Eucharist. I found a website done by a BAPTIST of all people who has searched for another time it is used differently, he cannot. I am trying to find the specific page, but I am on a different computer and as usual, Google is giving me new results. It may be Monday, when i am back at work, that I can givde that link. Here are a few others, all from non-Catholics

neednotfret.com/content/view/165/70/

neednotfret.com/content/view/164/97/

querycat.com/faq/daaddc181016c9707aed993ef593a4b2

These links are a real eye opener. I’m so glad you shared them.
Sure makes sense to me.

 

[ralphinal]

These links are a real eye opener. I’m so glad you shared them.
Sure makes sense to me.

I wish I could find the first article again. He was a baptist that laid out a wonderful argument for it.

This is from this website, a non-Catholic one

Acts 2:42 — “And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” (NASB)

The Easy-to-Read Version translates this last phrase: “They ate together and prayed together.” The Message reads: “They committed themselves to the teaching of the apostles, the life together, the common meal, and the prayers.” The Living Bible gives the following rendering: “They joined with the other believers in regular attendance at the apostles’ teaching sessions and at the Communion services and prayer meetings.” The New World Translation suggests the last phrase in the verse should read: “…to taking of meals and to prayers.” As one can see, several translations have chosen to do a bit of interpreting. Most, however, are content to simply translate the original text, although even here there is some “smoothing over” of the phrase.

The Greek of this phrase is literally – te klasei tou artou – which means: “the breaking of the bread.” It is exactly the same phrase, word for word, as is found in the Emmaus account of Luke 24:35, which event most acknowledge to have been a common meal. Although there is a definite article before the word for bread in this phrase, most translators “smooth over” the translation by leaving it out. Thus, instead of the more literal “the breaking of the bread,” they render it: “the breaking of bread,” or just simply “breaking bread.”
As one can quickly see, there is some scholarly debate as to whether this breaking of bread in vs. 42 was a common meal or the Lord’s Supper. Scholars have been divided over this issue for centuries. “Whether this means the Holy Eucharist, or their common meal, is difficult to say” (Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, vol. 5, p. 700). “To ‘break bread’ could designate a common meal or the Eucharist, which included bread as an element” (Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p. 199). The Expositor’s Bible Commentary observes, “The matter is somewhat difficult to determine. … Yet it is difficult to believe that Luke had in mind here an ordinary meal” (vol. 9, p. 289-290). Most scholars feel, given the context within which the phrase is placed, that something far more than a common meal is intended.

Now, that website takes both sides, and in the end he takes neither side, but in most of the verses he says that it cannot be a common meal, but something more without it always being the Eucharist.

 

[kevin3705]

**Comment by Kevin on October 9, 2008
Islam teaches that Christianity is wrong and that the Scriptures are corrupt, I know the muslim talking point all too well – save those that they cherry pick to blast you with. The problem is that muslims have a distorted set of Bible stories from a guy who was an illiterate and don’t see Ishmael in the same light as we do. They tell themselves it is Catholics/Christians who have distorted and changed the Bible and it is we who will go to hades for doing such a thing. But, it has never occurred to them that an illiterate pagan was the one who didn’t know the Bible and he is the one responsible for the distortions.

Allah has the Trinity wrong (Jesus, God, and Mary) and that an all knowing god would not have done that. Allah swore by things where God in the Bible swore upon himself, as there was nothing greater. God tells Moses that his name would always and forever be Yahweh, and that name IS NOT one of the names given to God in the qu’ran.

In all likelihood none of that will matter to you. I disagree with Islam because it continues to distort the Bible and Christianity. I do not hate muslims. This is where Islam fails to understand. We Christians, not just Catholics, have the right to correct a false teaching. Islam has no right to revise history and teach an outright lie about another’s religion.

I speak as a Roman Catholic and you won’t change my mind by posting your erroneous beliefs here. Discussion is always good but it comes from at least two sides. If you quote the qu’ran and the hadith, expect me to quote the Bible and the Church Fathers.

Like it or not, regardless of the history that came after it, the Church (that is, Christ’s church, what was referred to by the term ‘καθολικός’ / ‘katholikos’, meaning “whole” or “complete” as early as the first century A.D.) predates Islam in every place where Islam now predominates. The Church is thoroughly African, Asian, and, yes, also Arab. There is no place where Christianity has not been established, even in the tiny local churches of muslim-background Christians in the Maghreb,or the more solitary examples of people like the martyr Liban Ibrahim Hassan in Somalia. It is best to learn to live together as well as we can, because neither Christianity nor Islam appears to be going away, regardless of what extremists on either side of the discussion might wish; at least Catholicism/Christianity will never die as Jesus told us so.

The Bible was written hundreds of years before even muhammad’s grandfather was born.
The Dead Sea Scrolls also show that the scripture is unadulterated. This means the Bible already ‘foresaw’ what was coming by DISQUALIFYING muhammad as a prophet. It is therefore ridiculous for ANYBODY to appear subsequently and call himself/herself as a prophet. What’s more to accuse the ancient scriptures to be corrupted.

What muslims do not realize is that muhammad’s way of getting ‘anointed’ is NOT typical of how regular prophets get called by God. Ancient prophets get great powers, glowing gowns in light with God speaking to them in PUBLIC with hundreds of witnesses. muhammad however, saw that strange dark being in a dark damp cave…all alone without any other witnesses.

Our problem is muslims are PREVENTED from learning from biblical scripture, that’s why they have a totally warped understanding. **

Anyone with a more in depth knowledge of the qu’ran care to assist me in responding to Dr Wali’s VERY LENGTHY comments?​

 

[kevin3705]

RETURN Comment by Dr.Wali Abdul-Rasheed on October 11, 2008
In 1947 a group of children stumbled upon the first set of scrolls in a cave on the shores of the Dead Sea. These scrolls were immediately identified as the work of a very devout sect of the Jewish community that lived centuries before the birth of Jesus (peace be upon him). Hershel Shanks says in his book Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: “Such was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, manuscripts a thousand years older than the oldest known Hebrew texts of the Bible, manuscripts many of which were written a hundred years before the birth of Jesus and at least one of which may have been written almost three hundred years before the journey of Mary and Joseph to Bethleham.” (Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, Hershel Shanks, pp. 7-8).

An immediate frantic search ensued through the remaining caves in the region in order to find what other ancient scrolls could be discovered therein. A small group of “international” scholars in Israel were given exclusive access to them and the rest of the world was all but totally barred from gaining even the slightest glimpse of the texts (Professor Eisenman observes that one of the major stumbling blocks for the publication of the scrolls was that “in the first place, the team was hardly international”). Professor Robert Eisenman was one of the key players in the drama that finally lead to the release of the scrolls. In his book The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered we read: “In the spring of 1986, at the end of his stay in Jerusalem, Professor Eisenman went with the British scholar, Philip Davies of the University of Sheffield, to see one of the Israeli officials responsible for this - an intermediary on behalf of the Antiquities Department (now ‘Authority’) and the International Team and the Scrolls Curator at Israel Museum. They were told in no uncertain terms ‘You will not see the Scrolls in your lifetimes’”.

This stung them into action, and as a result of this statement, a massive effort was launched and five years later, through a whirlwind of media publicity, absolute access to the scrolls was attained. Professor Eisenman eventually received 1800 pictures of the previously unpublished scrolls. The book goes on to describe how “Eisenman was preparing the Facsimile Edition of all unpublished plates. This was scheduled to appear the following spring through E. J. Brill in Leiden, Holland. Ten days, however, before it’s scheduled publication in April 1991, after pressure was applied by the International Team, the publisher inexplicably withdrew and Hershel Shanks (author of Biblical Archaeology Review) and the Biblical Archaeology Society to their credit stepped in to fill the breach”. However, finally in September 1991, the archives were officially opened and two months later the 2-volume Facsimile Edition was published.

We have already read the words of Mr Tom Harpur in the preface to his book: “The most significant development since 1986 in this regard has been the discovery of the title “Son of God” in one of the Qumran papyri (Dead Sea Scrolls) used in relation to a person other than Jesus…this simply reinforces the argument made there that to be called the Son of God in a Jewish setting in the first century is not by any means the same as being identical with God Himself.” For Christ’s Sake, pp. xii. So why don’t we study these scrolls in a little more detail and see what else we can learn?

The Dead Sea Scrolls consist of fragments from many manuscripts, however, some of the most interesting among them are the Pesher texts. The Pesher texts are strings of interpretations of Biblical verses compiled by the most knowledgeable among the Jews. The word itself is derived from the Hebrew root word p-sh-r, which means, “to explain”. The texts consist of Biblical passages followed by the words pesher ha-davar “the interpretation of the matter is”, and then the interpretation itself.

The basis of all of these texts is the notion that all of history is preordained by God. In other words, God is not restricted to looking at matters as “past”, “present”, or “future”, rather, all of time is an open book to God Indeed, this is the essence of how prophets receive “prophesies”, because God “sees” the future. So, remembering that we are henceforth quoting from texts that have been carbon dated at about 100 years or more before the coming of Jesus (peace be upon him), and that this dating is confirmed by literary analysis, and that the authors were a sect of very religious and devout Jews, considering all of this let us see what they have to say:

Those who have studies the scrolls have noticed a common theme prevalent throughout these manuscripts, that is, most of the pesher texts prophesise the coming of a “Teacher of Righteousness” who will be sent by God to the Jews. This “Teacher of Righteousness” will be opposed by the “Teacher of Lies” and the “Wicked Priest”. These scrolls also predict the coming of two messiahs. These two messiahs are referred to as a 1) priestly and a 2) temporal messiah. What we had here was a society of very devout Jews who were convinced that the time of the coming of the two messiahs was at hand, therefore, they set about preparing for their advent by detaching themselves from the mainstream society, and dedicating their lives to their worship and the preparation for their imminent arrival.
**

 

[kevin3705]

In The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, by Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, we read that the early scrolls spoke of two messiahs, but that later on, the communities of the Jews began to combine them into one messiah: “As we have suggested, contrary to the well-known ‘two-Messiah’ theory of early Qumran scholarship, these references to the ‘Messiah of Aaron and Israel’ in the Damascus Document are singular not plural… and one possible explanation for it is that it is evoking a Messiah with both priestly and kingly implications, like the somewhat similar recitations of Hebrews” (The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, p. 162).

“According to the dominant view in the sectarian texts from Qumran, two messiahs were to lead the congregation in the End of Days, one priestly, and the other lay” (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, pp. 321-322).

The Jews had prophesies of two messiahs. The first was best known to them for his “religious” or “priestly” works which he would perform. The second was best known to them for his “kingly” works; his bringing of an epoch of peace.

These two prophesies refer to Jesus (peace be upon him) and Muhammad . Jesus (peace be upon him) was best know for his “priestly” works. However, he never lead an army, and he never established a kingdom or a government. Quite the opposite, he called to peace and submissiveness and to leave the rule of the land to others (Matthew 22:21). He told his followers that he yet had many things to teach them but they could not bear them yet and that another would be coming after him who would teach them the complete truth (John 16:7-14).

Muhammad too began his ministry preaching submissiveness and passiveness. However, his ministry was nurtured by God almighty to a point where it was able to defend itself and establish justice in the earth and abolish evil. His followers fought several wars in self defence and against injustice. The Islamic empire finally stretched from China to Spain and even those who did not follow Muhammad knew him well. However, what did they know him for? They knew him for his “kingly” actions and not for the “priestly” side of him that his followers knew.

“And fight against them until persecution is no more and religion is for God alone. But if they desist then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers”
(Qur’an, Al-Baqarah 2:193)

“Those unto whom We gave the Scripture recognise him Muhammad as they recognise their sons. But verily, a party of them conceal the truth while they know it”
(Qur’an, Al-Baqarah 2:146)

Over time, the prophesies of the Jews began to become a little blurred, and this in addition to the continuous persecution of many nations towards the Jews eventually lead to their blending of these prophesies into one single prophesy and their aggrandizing of this one all-conquering wondrous event that would finally relieve them of their persecution and pave the way for them to march forth conquering all nations, and establishing themselves as the protectors of the kingdom of God. For this reason, when we read the Gospel of Barnabas, we find that when the Jews ask Jesus (peace be upon him) whether he is “the messiah” he replies that he is not “the messiah” that they are expecting.

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” (Matthew 10:34-35)

This is because he understood their question. They were not asking him for his title, rather, they wanted to know whether he was the one who would finally fulfil all of their prophesies of leadership, power, and grandeur that they had been waiting for for so many centuries. For this reason, he told them that he was not “the messiah”, but that “the Messiah” they were waiting for would not come until later. He was referring to the SECOND messiah in their prophesies. (The Jews had expectations of three prophecies to be fulfilled.)

Lawrence Schiffman says regarding Pesher Habakkuk: “It (Pesher Habakkuk) describes the struggle between the Teacher of Righteousness and his opponents - the Man of Lies (also termed the Spouter or Preacher of Lies) and the Wicked Priest. The Spouter is pictured as heading a community. The dispute between the Teacher and the Spouter is seems to have been based on matters of religious interpretation and law. The Wicked Priest is said to have begun his rule in truth but then to have abandoned the way of truth. He then persecutes the Teacher, confronting him on the holiest day of the year, the Day of Atonement” (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 228).

 

[kevin3705]

This prophesy also continues in Pesher Psalms: “This text also mentions the familiar dramatis personae: the Teacher of Righteousness, termed ‘the priest’; the wicked priest; and the Man of Lies. The Wicked Priest persecuted the Teacher and sought to kill him. The man of lies lead people astray” (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 229). What we begin to see in all of this is the story of the coming of Jesus (peace be upon him), his selection of Judas as one of the apostles, the deviance of Judas from the truth, how a sect of the Jews persecuted Jesus (peace be upon him), how this sect tried to deceive the masses and differed with Jesus (peace be upon him) regarding the truth of God’s message, and finally, how they schemed with Judas to kill Jesus (peace be upon him). The Teacher of Righteousness is thus a reference to Jesus (peace be upon him); the “priestly” Messiah. The Wicked Priest is a reference to Judas, and the Spouter of Lies is most likely the leader of the “chief priests and Pharisees” who persecuted Jesus (peace be upon him) and are mentioned so often in the Bible.

Many Christian scholars have snatched up these prophesies in order to prove the validity of their claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) was indeed sent by God and that the Jews are required to follow him. However, they have been thwarted in their attempts by one other quite amazing piece of evidence that the Jews continually manage to refute their claims with, specifically, that the Dead Sea Scrolls claim that the coming messiah will be persecuted and that the Wicked Priest will try to kill him, but that the Wicked Priest will not be successful and that it is he who will receive the fate he wished for the messiah.

In interpreting Psalms 37:32: “The Wicked watches for the righteous, seeking to put him to death,” the text states: ‘Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest who watched out for the Teacher of Righteousness and sought to put him to death’" (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 233). So Judas will try to kill Jesus (peace be upon him).

“The Wicked Priest began his career with the support of the sectarians, but he quickly lost his way and began to transgress in order to increase his wealth” (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 233).

“And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver”. (Matthew 26:15)
"Various theories have sought to identify the Teacher with Jesus, claiming that he was executed by the Wicked Priest. However, had that been the case, the text would not have gone on to explain how God took vengeance against the priest by turning him over to the ‘ruthless ones of the nations’. And according to this text, the teacher certainly survived the ambush. Indeed the entire passage is an interpretation of Psalms (37:33) where the text continues:

“The Lord will not abandon him (the Righteous), into his hand (the Wicked); He (The Lord) will not let him (the Righteous) be condemned in judgement (by the wicked).” (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, pp. 233-234).

The author goes on to quote Pesher Habakkuk with regard to the Wicked Priest’s intentions and his punishment. He says: "Ultimately, however, the Wicked Priest was punished: ‘… because of his transgression against the Teacher of Righteousness and the men of his council, God gave him over to the hands of his enemies to afflict him with disease so as to destroy him with mortal suffering because he had acted wickedly against His chosen one’.

The Wicked Priest’s enemies tortured him which represents divine punishment for his attacks on the Teacher of Righteousness. The sufferings of the Wicked Priest are even more graphically described in another passage: ‘and all his enemies arose and abused him in order for his suffering to be fit punishment for his evil. And they inflicted upon him horrible diseases, and acts of vengeance in the flesh of his body’. But the one who suffered was the Wicked Priest, not the Teacher of Righteousness.

“The enemies of the Wicked Priest, the nation against whom he had made war, are said to have tortured him, so that his life ended in mortal disease and affliction.” (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 234). If we read the Gospel of Barnabas, we will find that when Judas came with the Roman troops in order to betray Jesus (peace be upon him), God raised Jesus (peace be upon him) unto Him and saved him. He then made Judas look and even speak like Jesus (peace be upon him) so that the Romans dragged him (Judas) away with them kicking and screaming that he was not Jesus (peace be upon him) but Judas. Even the Apostles were totally bewildered.

After the Romans had their fill afflicting Judas with all manner of abuse and torture, he was finally taken to trial. By now he had totally given up hope of ever being believed. So now when he was asked, “art thou Jesus?” He replied “Thou sayest”. In other words, “you will not believe me if I say otherwise, so why fight it any more”. His enemies (the Romans) then took him, mocked him, kicked him, cut him, spat on him, humiliated him, and tortured him. Finally, they put him up on the cross. It appears, however, that shortly after they took him down, he disappeared from his tomb (maybe to live in disease and torment and die later on if he was not already dead). The Gospel of Barnabas then goes on to describe how Jesus (peace be upon him) returned to the apostles to tell them of how God had saved him from the hands of the Jews and the Romans and how the traitor (Judas) was taken instead.

This is exactly what the Qur’an has been saying for 1400 years now; that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not forsaken by God to be killed by the conspiracy of the Jews and Judas, but that “it was made to appear so to them”:

 

[kevin3705]

“But when Jesus became conscious of their disbelief, he cried: Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We will be Allah’s helpers. We believe in Allah, and bear you witness that we have surrendered (unto Him). Our Lord! We believe in that which You have revealed and we follow him whom You have sent. Enrol us among those who witness (to the truth). And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers”
(Qur’an, Al-'Imran 3:52-54)

“And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger, and they slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; for of a surety they slew him not”
(Qur’an, An-Nisa 4:157)

The scrolls then go on to describe how “Kittim” (the Roman empire) and the kings of Greece would both try to take Jerusalem (the symbol of the faithful), but that it would be Kittim (the Romans) who would finally be successful.

“Some texts also speak about an eschatological prophet who will announce the coming of the Messiah, a figure similar to Elijah in the rabinnic tradition” (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 323).

Referring to the manuscript titled The Rule of the Community, verse 9:11-12, Mr. Schiffman says: “this text unquestionably refers to two messiahs who will be announced by an eschatological prophet and based on a the cave 4 manuscripts of Rule of the Community, the original publication team argued that this passage was added to the text later in the history of the sect. However, the evidence in these manuscripts does not sufficiently support such an assertion. As far as we can tell, the ‘two-Messiah’ concept was part of Rule of the Community from the time it was composed”. (Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence H. Schiffman, p. 324).

“And when there came unto them (the Jews) a Scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession though before that they were invoking Allah (for the coming of Muhammad ) in order to gain victory over those who disbelieved, then when there came unto them that which they had recognised, they disbelieved in it. So let the curse of Allah be on disbelievers”
(Qur’an, Al-Baqarah 2:89)

The Dead Sea Scrolls make mention of many more quite amazing and illuminating prophesies and parallels with the teachings of the Qur’an and Islam and there is so much more that could be said about the Dead Sea Scrolls and their confirmation of the Qur’an and the mission of Muhammad , however, that will have to be left to a future article where, God willing, many more detailed examples of this sort shall be analysed in detail.

As you know, Kedar is a descendent of Ishmael {Genesis 25:13}, and Ishmael is the the base for the Family Tree of Prophet Muhammad through Kedar.

An important Fact that I would like you to observe now is how the scribes switched names to illegitimize Ishmael.

The scribes and commentators say that Ishmael is not a legitimate son of Abraham and therefore the covenant was only with Isaac.

Now I will show you in the Scripture that it was Really Ishmael who was to be sacrificed and the covenant was first done with Ishmael and Ishmael was a legitimate son of Abraham even after Abraham’s death.

1. The covenant was first made with Abraham and Ishmael;

Genesis 17:10 This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

Genesis 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Note:-

1. It was really Ishmael and not Isaac who was going to be sacrificed and the Jewish scribes because of vanity, switched the names;

Genesis 16:16 “and Abram [is] a son of eighty and six years in Hagar’s bearing Ishmael to Abram.”

Who’s son? Abraham’s “son”. Now as far as the sacrifice is concerned, Genesis 17:24 “Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.”

That makes Abraham’s son Ishmael 13, how old is Isaac at this time? Genesis 21:5 “Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.”

that means during the circumcision/sacrifice, Abraham’s only “begotten” son is Ishmael and not Isaac as the Bible says.

KJV Hebrews 11:17 “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,”

Therefore we see that Isaac was not the only son, as a matter of fact, Isaac was not even born yet and Abraham’s Only begotten son was Ishmael. Therefore further confirming the Legitimacy of Prophet Muhammad which God says I will make great Nations from Ishmael.

Genesis 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

1. Ishmael was a legitimate son even after Abraham died;

Genesis 16:3 “And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.”

Genesis 25:9 “Then his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him (Abraham) in *the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, facing Mamre,”

Genesis 25:12 “Now these are the records of the generations of *Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s maid, bore to Abraham;”

Was Isaac or Ishmael to be sacrificed ?

 

[kevin3705]

As you know, Kedar is a descendent of Ishmael {Genesis 25:13}, and Ishmael is the the base for the Family Tree of Prophet Muhammad through Kedar.

An important Fact that I would like you to observe now is how the scribes switched names to illegitimize Ishmael.

The scribes and commentators say that Ishmael is not a legitimate son of Abraham and therefore the covenant was only with Isaac.

Now I will show you in the Scripture that it was Really Ishmael who was to be sacrificed and the covenant was first done with Ishmael and Ishmael was a legitimate son of Abraham even after Abraham’s death.

1. The covenant was first made with Abraham and Ishmael;

Genesis 17:10 This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

Genesis 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Note:-

1. It was really Ishmael and not Isaac who was going to be sacrificed and the Jewish scribes because of vanity, switched the names;

Genesis 16:16 “and Abram [is] a son of eighty and six years in Hagar’s bearing Ishmael to Abram.”

Who’s son? Abraham’s “son”. Now as far as the sacrifice is concerned, Genesis 17:24 “Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.”

That makes Abraham’s son Ishmael 13, how old is Isaac at this time? Genesis 21:5 “Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.”

that means during the circumcision/sacrifice, Abraham’s only “begotten” son is Ishmael and not Isaac as the Bible says.

KJV Hebrews 11:17 “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,”

Therefore we see that Isaac was not the only son, as a matter of fact, Isaac was not even born yet and Abraham’s Only begotten son was Ishmael. Therefore further confirming the Legitimacy of Prophet Muhammad which God says I will make great Nations from Ishmael.

Genesis 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

1. Ishmael was a legitimate son even after Abraham died;

Genesis 16:3 “And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.”

Genesis 25:9 “Then his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him (Abraham) in *the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, facing Mamre,”

Genesis 25:12 “Now these are the records of the generations of *Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s maid, bore to Abraham;”

 

[kevin3705]

**HE FINALLY ANSWERED ME!!
My family and I are not in any denomination we are in the Church that can be found in the bible the Church Of Christ

Do not add or subtract from God’s word Dut. 4:2, Proverbs 30:6 and Rev.22:18 It is interesting that God warns against such practices in the beginning, middle, and end of his holy and inspired word.
What we have here is a fundamental difference in doctrine. The decisions of the Church when not in line with direct scriptural back up would fall under adding of subtracting from God’s word. Those decisions made by the Church can not supersede The Bible. The Church should be looking to the Bible for instruction. He inspired men to write down his instructions for life, and I hold firm in the conviction the the Bible is that instruction manual for God favorite creation to follow. The authority to bind and loose was given to the Apostles of whom John was the last to die and he wrote the final instructions as he was inspired. The Greek word Ecclesia is translated into English as Church. The literal translation is the called out, so the Church is the people called out of the world into God’s family. **