Did Muhammad exist as a real historical figure?

sk0rpi0n

Active member
Again, you're taking things out of context. Isaiah 53 specifically mentions peace, justification, and intercession while Ezekiel is illustrating a sign of the impending siege of Jerusalem (Ez 4:7). Ezekiel is about judgment and destruction upon the city and his lying on his side doesn't justify anyone, rather it is an illustration of the coming judgment on the land. Isaiah is all about promise and peace and justification and life based upon the one who bore the sins. Ezekiel doesn't bear the sins as to justify anyone but as a sign to the people of judgment of sin.

I am aware of the contextual and thematic differences between Isaiah 53 and Ezekiel 4.

But the idea of one man "bearing the sins" of others can only mean the same thing. You're just arbitrarily claiming Ezekiel "bearing the sin of others" is somehow different from Jesus "bearing the sin of others".

Ezekiel doesn't bear the sins as to justify anyone but as a sign to the people of judgment of sin.

I know. But if Ezekiel bearing sins was just a sign, and doesn't mean he literally bore the sins of people, then the same applies to Jesus as well.

After all, every man is responsible for his own deeds and will be judged according to his deeds. There's no question of one man literally bearing the sins of others.
 

Andreas

Active member
I am aware of the contextual and thematic differences between Isaiah 53 and Ezekiel 4.

But the idea of one man "bearing the sins" of others can only mean the same thing. You're just arbitrarily claiming Ezekiel "bearing the sin of others" is somehow different from Jesus "bearing the sin of others".



I know. But if Ezekiel bearing sins was just a sign, and doesn't mean he literally bore the sins of people, then the same applies to Jesus as well.

After all, every man is responsible for his own deeds and will be judged according to his deeds. There's no question of one man literally bearing the sins of others.

You are making a common mistake in Bible reading and that is not reading the entire context. You are taking one phrase "bearing the sins" and ignoring the context. Isaiah also uses phrases like "He was beaten so we could be whole", "He was whipped so we could be healed" (Is 53:5), "my righteous servant shall make it possible for many to be counted righteous for he shall bear all their sins" (v11). Ezekiel is told to prophesy of Jerusalem's destruction while he is lying on his side (Ez 4:7). The servant of Isaiah 53 sheds his blood and dies and is "put in a rich man's grave (Is 53:9). Ezekiel is lying on his side and sheds no blood and doesn't die. In the Bible the shedding of blood for sins is a theme from Genesis to Revelation. Ezekiel 4 and Isaiah 53 are different like night and day.


You're killing the context in order to justify yourself. You're still in the mode of thinking that your sins are "not that bad" and a few good deeds can somehow erase all the bad you've done and Allah is going to let you into heaven because in your mind "you've tried to be a good person". Man's standard of right and wrong is far less than God's, right? The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ. Why not believe in Jesus and receive his gift of eternal life and stop the nonsense of trying to think you can justify yourself.
 
Last edited:

sk0rpi0n

Active member
You are making a common mistake in Bible reading and that is not reading the entire context

You're killing the context in order to justify yourself
Look, I get the "context" just fine. I also get that there are thematic differences between Isaiah 53 and Ezekiel 4.

But the fact is that Ezekiel set the precedent for "bearing the sins of other people". If Ezekiel "bore the sins of others" but he did not literally take on their sins, then the same applies to Jesus.

Your only argument is that Jesus' bearing the sins of other people is somehow different from Ezekiel doing the same.


Why not believe in Jesus and receive his gift of eternal life and stop the nonsense of trying to think you can justify yourself.

According to the Bible, every man is held responsible for his own works. (Matthew 16:27, Jeremiah 17:10, Lamentations 3:64)

So stop deceiving yourself into thinking Jesus somehow took away all your bad works. That is not a biblical idea.

In the Bible the shedding of blood for sins is a theme from Genesis to Revelation. Ezekiel 4 and Isaiah 53 are different like night and day.

The "context" surrounding the sin sacrifice passages in the OT and that of the crucifixion passages in the NT are different like night and day. Would you like me to list the differences?
 

Andreas

Active member
Look, I get the "context" just fine. I also get that there are thematic differences between Isaiah 53 and Ezekiel 4.

But the fact is that Ezekiel set the precedent for "bearing the sins of other people". If Ezekiel "bore the sins of others" but he did not literally take on their sins, then the same applies to Jesus.

Your only argument is that Jesus' bearing the sins of other people is somehow different from Ezekiel doing the same.




According to the Bible, every man is held responsible for his own works. (Matthew 16:27, Jeremiah 17:10, Lamentations 3:64)

So stop deceiving yourself into thinking Jesus somehow took away all your bad works. That is not a biblical idea.




The "context" surrounding the sin sacrifice passages in the OT and that of the crucifixion passages in the NT are different like night and day. Would you like me to list the differences?
Not only is reading a passage in context important, but a good Bible student shouldn't approach scripture as something where you force your own narrative.

You do not know me and you are not aware of the truly awesome and living relationship I have with Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't speak boastfully of myself but I am compelled to witness of my own experience in hope that others will receive Christ too.

I'm coming from more than the perspective of one who believes a religion, but from someone who started out as nothing and searched for God among many religions (including Islam) and philosophies. When I came to Christ in repentance and in obedience was baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of my sins (Acts 2:38) the peace and transformation in my life was tangible. I was filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave me the utterance (just as those in Acts 2). That was forty years ago and my relationship with Christ is deeper than ever. I can simply raise my hands and worship God and feel his presence and strength and peace and joy. Jesus said, whosoever will let him come and drink. The Holy Spirit infilling is like rivers of living water flowing from your belly (John 7:37-38). I wouldn't even consider leaving such a wonderful life and Savior to exchange it for a political religion that offers uncertainty and urges me to go to Mecca and kiss a meteorite. Are you kidding?

The Father seeks those who will worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. Islam was a Johnny come lately claiming moral authority, but it's just a manmade attempt to control people.
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
Not only is reading a passage in context important, but a good Bible student shouldn't approach scripture as something where you force your own narrative.

Again, I am aware of the context of the passages I am referring to. I am not forcing my narrative on anything.

The fact is that Ezekiel 4 says Ezekiel "bore the sins of others". If Ezekiel did not literally bear the sins of others, then the same applies to Jesus. So Jesus simply "bore the sins of others" in the same way that Ezekiel did, i.e., symbolically not literally.

Since Jesus did not literally bear your sins, that radically alters the Christian concept of salvation. Jesus was not anyone's scapegoat. Nobody's sins were transferred to Jesus. You (just like me and everyone else) are accountable for our own sins. We will all be judged according to our works. That's what it says in the numerous passages in the OT and the NT.

Maybe Christianity is more appealing to you because it offers easy salvation. Literally all you need to do to be saved is to believe Jesus died for your sins. It's so easy! But that is not what Jesus taught. Instead, he taught that the road leading to salvation is narrow and only a few find it. (Matthew 7:14).
 

Andreas

Active member
Again, I am aware of the context of the passages I am referring to. I am not forcing my narrative on anything.

The fact is that Ezekiel 4 says Ezekiel "bore the sins of others". If Ezekiel did not literally bear the sins of others, then the same applies to Jesus. So Jesus simply "bore the sins of others" in the same way that Ezekiel did, i.e., symbolically not literally.

Since Jesus did not literally bear your sins, that radically alters the Christian concept of salvation. Jesus was not anyone's scapegoat. Nobody's sins were transferred to Jesus. You (just like me and everyone else) are accountable for our own sins. We will all be judged according to our works. That's what it says in the numerous passages in the OT and the NT.

Maybe Christianity is more appealing to you because it offers easy salvation. Literally all you need to do to be saved is to believe Jesus died for your sins. It's so easy! But that is not what Jesus taught. Instead, he taught that the road leading to salvation is narrow and only a few find it. (Matthew 7:14).

Wherever you heard "all you need to do to be saved is believe Jesus died for your sins?" is not telling you the truth. "Believe" means more than mental assent in the Bible. To believe the Bible way means to trust in and to be committed. Jesus rejected mere mental assent: John 2:23-25 "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. 24But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man." Same Greek word believe - entrust.
 
Top