Jesus 44 – Trinity Atonement Blood Sacrifice 11 Crucifixion 3

Welcome once again to Salman focus. Today inshallah we will have our 44th on our series, Jesus to beloved messenger of Allah, and the 11th on Trinity atonement under sacrifice. You continue with crucifixion. My name is a sharp image in here once again from St. Mary's University is Dr. Jim Oh, by the way,

we really are on a very hot topic here for

the summit. inshallah, for our viewers who may have missed the previous program, or maybe just as a reminder, could you give a summary of last week's probiotics? Okay, I enjoy it very briefly, because we might be going places this productive? Well, we started with some of the continuous I should say with some of the

prophecies that some theologian initially thought it applies to the crucifixion of Jesus, and the sons of David. And we have found that if you look carefully into the totality of each of these sons, it does not really apply to Jesus. And if it does, it shows that you will be saved, and that the one who conspired against him actually will be crucified.

In the all of the previous programs, we touched on quite a few of those sounds. Last time, we covered more specifically 30 530-740-1920.

Or I don't know whether we reach that far, but we covered quite a few of them. And in all of them, we have seen similar elements. That really goes Not really, with the story of Jesus being crucified.

We have seen also the sound those sounds like 69

does not really apply to Jesus, even though some attributed to Jesus, because the person who speaks there, admits that you committed sins and follies which, of course doesn't apply to such a holy person and righteous individual like Jesus.

And we ended simply by saying that

the kind of references that we made are not the only ones that seem to go against the notion of Jesus being crucified.

I like to start off first by

asking you to maybe go outside the the Psalms, and lastly, we concentrated on those. But maybe if you could tell us any, anything that may have been outside these that were misinterpreted? Yes, there are so many, and the references I'm using, I'm using here is not in western reference. It's actually one of the more the most famous biblical scholar, john Central, E and T are and

the issue relates to the betrayal of Judah. Just to refresh the memory of our viewers.

If you refer to the gospel, according to Matthew, chapter 27, verses special verses three to 10. It speaks

about Judas, that after he took the 30 pieces of silver from the priests in return for betraying Jesus when he realized that Jesus, according to the Bible, of course, the story as it goes,

wouldn't be condemned, he repented. And then he returned that money back to the temple, to the chief priests, they didn't accept it from him because it was blood money. So he threw it still in the temple. So they took that money,

because it's illegitimate money, they didn't put it in the treasury of the temple. So they use the money to buy the potter's field for the burial of strangers.

Now,

the interesting part is that Matthew continues in chapter 27, in verses nine and 10. And then he says, with this action on the part of Judah that is, so that

it was fulfilled, or was fulfilled what the prophet Jeremiah said. In other words, he said that this was in fulfillment of prophecy made by prophet Jeremiah.

Now according to john Fenton, a biblical scholars, the first mistake here and that statements made by Matthew, is that this story about the 30 pieces of silver and the potter's field and all

That is not in Jeremiah. Actually it comes from zecharia. In chapter 11, verse 12, we can check it. The Korea chapter 11, verse 12, but it's not where in Jeremiah, okay? But the mistake which is even more important that shows that Matthew was really obsessed, as some biblical scholars pointed out with the question of prophecies, but anything, he says, Yes, this happened to us because it was predicted or prophesied by prophecy goes to great access in this.

Because if you compare the elements of the story of Judah, with what happened with zecharia, you find that there are at least three major differences or contradictions, that makes the story is really, or make the statement in Zechariah. unfit to be a prophecy about Judah, one,

the hero in the Old Testament story in Zechariah. Chapter 11, is the great prophet, Prophet Zechariah. And the New Testament, the hero, if we were to call him a hero, is a person who betrayed Jesus is a wicked person, Judas to

Prophet Zechariah, if you go to the context of that chapter, you'll find that he received 30 pieces of silver as a legitimate payment for his work that he did for his people.

But in contrast, Judas received the 30 pieces of silver unlawfully as a price for betrayal of his masters.

So 3d, Zakaria, as a prophet put that money in the temple, because it's legitimate money, so it goes in the temple, there's no problem of using it in the temple.

In the by contrast, Judas returned the money, not because it's legitimate, but because it is the price of his betrayal, so that even the Jews, the priests, they both accepted.

You see, one more observation that some biblical scholars noted also, is that the other gospels say nothing

about the price that Judas received to betray Jesus. And that's quite interesting. It's only mentioned in Matthew.

And they say that historically, Matthew is basically an extended version of an older

gospel, the Gospel according to Mark. And many biblical scholar would say that Matthew based his Bible largely on mark, so his own source mark,

when he tells about the same story, in chapter 14, verses 11 and 12, say nothing about the 30 pieces of silver, which may there's a question again, as to whether this was added because of that zeal on the part of Matthew, to refurbish or re Connect anything that's happened to Jesus, according to the story he received

with the Old Testament, and this is not the only one that others also There has also been subjected to this kind of misinterpretation or application. Now seems to me that there is a lot in reference to the Old Testament processes, in relation to to Jesus. Why is that?

Well, first of all, we must say that we are not saying in any way, that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the Old Testament that might have had prophesied the advent of Prophet Jesus peace be upon him.

But I think the point that must be remembered

is that first of all, many other prophecies in the Old Testament, applied actually, and are applicable more logically, if you analyze it carefully, to the coming of other prophets, there are some that apply to the coming of Prophet john the baptist. There are some that refers to the coming of the last prophet, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, we had a whole series on that topic. So but even if you say that the Old Testament prophecies are some of them, prophesied the coming of Jesus peace be upon him, it does not logically follows from that, that this is a coming of the Divine, nor does it necessarily speak about his crucifixion just as predicted or prophesied the advent of other

prophets. So it did with respect to the coming of Jesus as a prophet, servant and messenger of the second point to remember also by way of reservation on the prophecies

that many of the prophecies on which the writers of the New Testament focused and applied mistakenly to Jesus, especially those related to his divinity, and the question of crucifixion, has proven to be erroneous, according to biblical scholars, Christian biblical scholars,

themselves. So the idea here or the problem is not really rejection of any element of prophecy in the Old Testament. I don't think this will be correct. But like I indicated in my answers to the previous question, the reservation is on the over zeal on the part of songwriters like Matthew to try to connect anything,

or interpret anything in the Old Testament that somehow supports the dogmas that developed after Jesus as supporting this kind of dogma. This was quite obvious in the writing of

non eyewitness and non disciple of Jesus, during his ministry, that's all.

But

as far as reference to the Old Testament, in connection to Jesus peace be upon him. There have been some justification for that, but within reasonable limits, Jesus Himself, for example, refer to the Old Testament in support of his mission. He was quoted, for example, in that respect in the Gospel, according to Luke chapter 40, especially verses 13 to 21.

He refers also to the prophecy of Isaiah,

that his people will listen but not understand and so on, and that hurts their hearts are closed. That was, for example, quoted in Matthew 13, verses 14 and 15.

But the problem again, is that some writers seem to have been too obsessed with this coin question of

prophecy. Matthew, for example, repeated almost 10 times 10 times in his gospel, the statement such as, and this took place to fulfill what the Lord has spoken by the prophets. You find that, for example, in chapter one, verse 22, and his gospel, he repeats that too much, and whether justifiably or not, however, we find that some biblical scholars like john Central, I mentioned his name before, they indicate that it has become known recently, after so much research, that many of the songs

were not actually written by David, but were written in much latest time.

And this many of these were the ones actually the word used to refer to Jesus, and his coming and his crucifixion. And there was nothing much later. So it's not all original writings of David. And even in some cases, when the prophecies can be traced to old times,

thinking and others say that the way the some of the writers of the New Testament interpreted, those prophecies are quite different from the original meaning or what was intended.

And how about giving us some examples of that, by that I mean, prophecies that have been applied by mistake to Jesus. Okay, outside of the the Psalms again, yes. All right. Let's take, for example, the coming back of Jesus from Egypt, after the death of Herod, they say, you know, he went there when Herod was killing the main children and so on, of the skylights. And then he came back from Egypt afterwards. We find that Matthew, for example, trying to connect that with the Old Testament prophecies,

for example, he refer he says that Jesus came from Egypt, because that's fulfillment of the prophecy that again, quote, out of Egypt, have I called my son out of Egypt have I called my son?

Now, this is totally out of context. Why?

The reference to that particular prophecy is in the book of Hosea,

Chapter 11, verse one,

and if you read the book of Hosea, it will become very obvious that the sun that God speaks about being brought from Egypt is actually Israel.

And the, the condition in Hosea says, When Israel was a child that says, I loved him, and out of Egypt, I've called my son.

So it was inside was called Son of God, and the prophecy has nothing to do with the question of the coming of Jesus.

And this, by the way, is not the first time that a human being was called Son of God, as we have indicated in numerous progress. Israel was called Son of God in some other places like in Exodus chapter four, verse 22. So the connection here is totally relevant. Secondly,

Some biblical scholar like fintan, again, indicate that Matthew

has already produced a great deal of puzzling statements. When in his gospel in chapter two, verse 23.

He says that Jesus was called nazarenes, and that this is fulfillment of the prophecies of the Prophet of the previous prophets. That's the Old Testament, and fincen comments, and he says that the notion of someone who will be called mahzarin, by wave prophecy, has absolutely no origin in the office, there is nowhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament and his statement to that effect. And he said, many biblical scholars are puzzled about what is the source they don't know where Matthew got this from, it has nothing to do with promises. Okay? Take finally, for example, the birth of Jesus, peace be upon him. Again, Matthew, in chapter two, verse six, connect the birth of

Jesus in Bethlehem, with the prophecy that was made in Micah.

Okay.

In chapter five, verse two, and he quotes, if you go back again to the, the the text,

quote from you, that's from Bethlehem,

shall come forth for me, one who is to be ruler of Israel,

the ruler, that's what Mancha says about this ruler, obviously, Johnson, in his book, sent Mark comments on that. And he says, He says, first of all, this prophecy of Micah, chapter five, verse two,

does not exist in the Greek or Septuagint, version of the Bible.

And even though this quotation has come from the Hebrew version, the translation even was not very accurate. In other words, you can look at this statement and compare it with what Matthew says in chapter two, verse six, even if it comes from the Hebrew, it's not very accurate in translation. And he says that it appears that what Matthew mentioned in chapter two, verse six, is actually mixing between two prophecies in the Old Testament, one in Micah, and the second one in the Second Samuel, chapter five, verse two.

And whether

Matthew based the his statements on Samuel or Micah, none of which applies to Jesus, and it is totally out of context of like Jesus, how. Take the one in Micah chapter five, verse two, it speaks about a someone who is going to be a ruler of Israel, ruler of Israel. We all know that Jesus never ruled over Israel. In fact, in the Gospel, according to john in chapter six, verse 15, it says, that's when some people would wanted to make him a cane, he escaped from them. He never really wanted to be a king, nor was he actually a ruler of Israel. If he based this on the other quotation in Second Samuel, chapter five, verse two also,

we find that it speaks about a totally different incident. It speaks about how David, Prophet David was chosen King, by the masses, and it describes something that has already happened in the past, not the prophecy of the future. So whether it is the return of Jesus from Egypt, calling him nazzer him or his birth, and Bethlehem, they're all out of context they had none of which really they relate to Jesus.

One common argument is that the Old Testament prophesized

the virgin birth of Jesus. Now, what's the basis of their prophecy? And what's the basis of their claim?

What many of the evangelists presents as a conclusive evidence about the coming of Jesus and His divinity?

The section from the book of Isaiah, chapter seven, verse 14, in particular,

but before I refer to that, I'd like to

humbly suggest that there have been a major change between the King James wording and the Revised Standard Version wording in one key word in the King James Version. That's Isaiah 714. It reads, therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin,

a virgin child, where the child and child call his name, Emmanuel.

Okay.

The Revised Standard Version However,

there is a major difference that the term version is replaced with a young woman

or a meet a young woman. The change? Well, it's a big change and it has a good reason. Some biblical scholars themselves have indicated that there are two words in Hebrew to speak about young girls.

There is the term bachelor. And I hope those who know Hebrew would excuse mine and Association. But ruler actually means version.

But there is another word Allah, which means someone in marriageable age, a young woman and marriageable age which need not necessarily be a virgin

marriageable age.

Now, the original Hebrew term actually was not bachelor, which means virgins, but Anima, which could mean actually a young woman, or a male.

Okay. However, in the translation from the Hebrew, to the Greek manuscripts, that's the Septuagint.

They use the Greek term personas, or personas.

And paxinos in Greek means either version, someone in the age of marriage, or someone who's fused.

Now, of course, this is a problem of translation. If you go back to the Hebrew, you say, why was that term used rather than back to left, which definitely means version. So this is the first difficulty,

number to suppose even, for the sake of discussion, that you take the term actually to me, Virgin young woman who was a virgin.

Again, it does not necessarily mean that it speaks about virgin birth of Jesus. Why? Because it's a prophecy about something that will happen within a given framework. So maybe at the time that prophecy was made, there was a virgin girl standing there, or was there that this girl would get married, and give birth to a child. So when you say, a virgin we give birth, or I mean, it will give birth doesn't mean without marriage doesn't specify that, all right. Now,

the other aspect also is that even if we take, even for the sake of argument, if we take that to mean married, and the birth of Jesus, it does not mean again, that that child was born, is divine, for his God. And to use the term Emanuel, which means actually, God with us, does not necessarily mean that that child is God himself. Okay. But it means that God's presence, through his mission through sending that prophet or messenger will be with us, and a critical expression that is quite quite common. But more importantly is that if you stick to the wording of Isaiah 714, it says that this maid

shall call his name, Emmanuel, shall call his name, Emmanuel. In other words, his name actually be Emmanuel, we all know that nobody ever called Jesus by the name of Emanuel. Certainly his mother never called him Emanuel. Let me explain that to you. Suppose I tell you that I prophesied. Suppose I act as a publisher, I prophesied that you will get married.

And that your child, your your wife, will give a child birth to a child, whose mean shall be called sweets, whose names have been called Sweet.

Then after one year, let's say your wife gives birth to a child. But you both called him, Richard, instead of sweet, I can't come back and say my prophecy is correct, because the your child is cute and sweet. I see. Because sweet here is a description, not a name,

you see, but when I say his name shall be this that means his name literally actually has to be sweet. So in the context of the Bible, we find that this is not the only incident. Let me give you an example from the author's.

We are all familiar with the Prophet Ishmael, from his mother, Hagar. According to the book of Genesis, chapter 16, verse 11. It says that the angels told Hagar, that the child should give birth to quotes you shall call his name, Ishmael.

He shall call his name Ishmael. Now in Hebrew, is nine, or Ishmael means God hears it has a meaning. But if Hagar gave birth to him,

And call to him, Richard, john or Jesus, the prophecy would have not been correct, because we all know that literally, his name actually was Ishmael, even though it has a particular meaning. So in other words, what you're seeing here, basically the context, the word thing, first of all,

the wording of Isaiah 714, doesn't, does not seem to lend itself to what has been made out of it. And if you even examine the context in which that verse appears in the totality of the chapter of Isaiah, you'll find again, that doesn't really have anything to do with the verse of Jesus.

Well, what exactly is the context on that prophecy? Well, the best way, I would suggest, to save time for our viewers to go back to the Bible, often chapter seven, and the book of Isaiah, but let me just give a quick summary that might help in that research. First of all,

the summary of the story is that it relates actually to a has a H, Eg who was a king of Judah.

And the summary of the story, based on the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, it says that at the time, or the days of he has the things of Syria, and Israel came and try to conquer them, but they failed.

And then it's continuous that God or the prophet Isaiah, to go through a has and to tell him not to fear and that the kind of fear that he has, or the conquest by these enemies will not come to pass.

God also instructed, or it says that God spoke also with Ahab's.

And ask it it has, if you want it aside from the Lord says, asked for a sign, that is a sign for your victory.

Then it has a think it has responded that I will not put the Lord to test he refused. And then comes verse 14, it says, Therefore, the Lord himself will give you that this will give you all a house will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shed call his name, Emmanuel.

That's the verses before this one. And then if you continue also to make sure that you're not out of context. If you continue after verse 14, we find that the verse indicate that that child when he grows,

and when he's able to eat honey, and curds, or he should eat honey and curds, that's cheese.

And when he will have the faculty of choice, quote, it says before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. In other words, before that child grows up, these enemies of yours will, you know, disintegrate and that appears in verses 15 through 17. And then finally, comes the promise of prosperity to a has and his people and what will happen later on after that, from that it would become quite clear, in my humble understanding, the prophecy really was not on 1000s of years later. It was a prophecy in the lifetime of he has and his people just the first generation or in his own lifetime, something that would have taken place within a few years. If you take it then in that

context. It really describes something that has already happened. Not the virgin birth as some as conservative doesn't seem to be related at all. I would suggest that anyone who is invalid. Let's go back and read the entirety of chapter seven and the book of Isaiah. It's certainly a gentleman to the virgin birth. Well, thanks very much to affability who seems to have time it's a fascinating topic, which, which we should be continuing, but we can't so inshallah

we'll resume with with crucifixion. As always any questions that you may have?

You most appreciated our phone number and our address will be appearing on your screen.