CHRISTIANS - Answer this Question

The reason Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala subsituted another man in place of Jesus (pbuh) has nothing to do with sacrifices.

Ezekiel 18 confirms the Holy Qur'an where it says that each soul is responsible for it's own transgressions.

Well, since as Islam agrees, that Jesus was sinless, so this means that Jesus, who was supposed to die a criminal death while innocent, was substituted by a man who was dying for someone who did no wrong.  That's even worse than having someone die for someone who did wrong, according to Islamic logic.  Also, I agree with Ezekiel 18.  However, Ezekiel 18 is also about the responsibility to repent as well as having responsbility for one's actions.  Furthermore, repentance is clearly taught in the Torah (see the Book of Leviticus) that repentance and blood atonement for sin go together in securing God's forgiveness.  Ezekiel was not only an prophet, but a priest of God who before being exiled by Babylon was offering such sacrifices in the Temple.  See Ezekiel 40-48 and there you will notice that blood atonement is clearly taught by him. 

I want to ask you an honest question.  According to Islamic teaching, iof you are to be consistent, saying that Allah put someone else on the Cross, I still maintain that this violates the principle Islam lays down against someone dying in another person's place, and also it means that everyone for 600 years was fooled into thinking Jesus died then rose again.  As a result a false religion was formed.  One, why would Allah take an action which would be the basis of a false religion?  (You and I both know Allah would never do such a thing.)  Two, why did Allah wait a full 600 years to correct this error?  Isn't it more likely Jesus really died on the Cross and that this was God the Father's plan for our atonement if we repented?

With so many copies floating around it would be ver difficult to know which is real and which has been added/deleted. Produce the original and we can talk.

Abu, pay closer attention to my careful discussion of the textual history of Luke 22:20.  There are 5700 ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.  We can therefore fully track every reading, and work out through the genaological method wich variant reading coems from the other.  As Hort said in the 19th century, less than one thousandth of the New Testament is interfered with by the variants and indeed, not a single doctrine is affected.  We know what the original said because of this process of textual criticism and the tenacity of the readings.  The originals were written on papyrus.  Except for the dry environments of southern Egypt and the Dead Sea area, they don't survive.  However, we know from the disciples of the Apostles who were with them when they wrote the New Testament, that we can trust the text.  Besides, you don't have an original Qur'an.  You do not have Zaid's manuscript compiled for Caliph Uthman, the likes of the Topkapi manuscript are a century too late, but this is not evidence for the Qur'an being false any more than a lack of an 'original' Bible manuscript 'disproves' the Bible. 

Let's put it this way.  The Qur'an teaches that Jesus confirmed the Torah.  The Bible agrees.  But Jesus had no access to the original Torah either.  Why did Jesus fully expect the Pharisees to know their Scriptures?  Because, quite simply, Jesus, the Pharisees, and your own Qur'an, and indeed the Bible itself, regards the Bible as being fully preserved in the 1st century.  Without needing an autograph manuscript!  You haven't been trained in textual criticism.  Use your logic here.  If the two extremes of the textual spectrum, the Textus Receptus for the AKJV New Testament and the 27th Edition of the Nestle-Aland combined with the 4th Edition of the UBS agree on all doctrine, and you can read out John 1 and know it teaches the same thing, then it is obvious to anyone that John 1 is an original chapter.  And another thing.  I scratch my head in amazement when Muslims use John 14-16 to prove that Jesus prophesied Muhammad, and yet still think it is a forgery! 

This is rich coming from people who claim that the Law has been done away with.

The Law hasn't been done away with.  It has been fulfilled and superceded and absorbed within the New Covenant.  The Ten Commandments are as much part of the New Covenant as in the Old.  The sacrificial rituals are abolished, yes, but only because Jesus' sacrifice was the final one, which is eternal and so in fact, the Old Covenant and sacrifices have a permanent effect whereas the previous sacrifices were temporary and had to be repeated over and over again.  This is not the same as abrogation.  Also, the Torah's curse is abolished for those who are saved.  Alas, for those who are not saved and have not repented, the curse of the Torah is still in effect.  Also, the word Torah doesn't just mean Law.  It also means Teaching and Instruction.  And that aspect of it still co-exists along with the New Covenant side by side and explains the New.  That's why a Christian minister called John Newton once wrote, "Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear, and Grace my fears relieved."  The Torah teaches us to fear God.  The Injeel relieves that fear as we repent having been exposed as sinners by the Torah's curse.  The Torah is stillour teacher and disciplinarian.  Also, bear in mind that in the light of the Holy Spirit's decree through Jesus' own brother James, in Acts 15, that the Gentiles are NOT to be included in the Old Covenant but only in the New, as the Old Covenant was for the Jews.  Paul was one of the men appointed by James as the enforcer of this decree, and that is why I quote to you that Paul taught that Jews remain circumcised and Gentiles remain uncircumcised.  Circumcision is not a sign of the New Covenant. Also, the Abrahamic Covenant still stands, as does the Davidic Covenant.  But they too are fulfilled and absorbed into the New Covenant, but not abolished. 

Jesus (pbuh) did not come to start a new religion nor to abolish anything. So starting a new church in Corinth has no bearing except that they started a new religion

Neither Jesus nor Paul started a new religion.  The new church in Corinth was not separate from the rest of the Christian Church.  My point was, that this church which Paul had founded, had follow-up work done in support of Paul by Peter, Barnabas and Apollos.  You need to get FF Bruce's Greek commentary on Acts, and you will see that Paul's speech to the Governor Felix in Acts 24:10-21 that Paul says he is a follower of the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect (the Greek is airesis, from where we get the word heresy, referring to the Roman term superstitio, an illegal sect which was an innovation rather than a legal proper ancient religio licitas like Judaism)- Paul's point is that Christianity IS Judaism proper, and mainstream Judaism, not a different religion.  The term The Way refers to the Hebrew terms Ha Derekh and Halakhah which are to do with true religion and Jewish teachings on the Torah.  Paul points out he believes in the Resurrection of the Dead.  As he said in Romans 3:31: "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith?  Not at all!  Rather, we uphold the law."  What Paul explains is that the Torah is abolished as a legal code condemning us, and becomes a spiritual code written in our hearts upon repentance and conversion. 

This doesn't make sense as Christians DO believe Jesus (pbuh) to be the son of god or god incarnate;

Let's try again.  I'm giving you an example here of how even if Jesus is not God, He still has the right to broker on behalf of God the Father (who is the Patron) a New Covenant.  After all, Moses was only a man, just a prophet, and he was given the authority by God to broker the Sinai Covenant with YHWH as patron.  But since we believe Jesus is indeed both the Son of God (as in God the Father) and God incarnate (coming from God's inner self), He can even more so be a broker on behalf of the Father as His Hypostatic representative on Earth.  

No he did not decide it was scripture. If you read the example you have given carefully, all it says is that people distort his message LIKE THE OTHER SCRIPTURES.

Your quote and emphasis of the phraise 'like the other Scriptures' defeats your point.  Peter is STILL declaring Paul's words to be Scripture.  Peter is warning people against distorting Paul's words.  He is attacking those who think Paul attacks the Law or twisted Jesus' words.  Compare 1 Peter with Romans.  Peter and Paul are in agreement.

How did you come to the conclusion that Mark and Peter are the same person? Scholars are not even sure who Mark really was.

I just have to gasp at you saying this.  You are in confusion because I said that Mark's Gospel is really Peter's Gospel.  

I never said Mark and Peter are the same person.   I said that Mark's Gospel is really Peter's Gospel.  We know exactly who Mark was.  I could put out a long post entirely on who Mark was, but I'll give you a preliminary explanation.  John Mark was the son of Mary the owner of the Upper Room where the first Jewish Christians met.  His cousin was Barnabas.  He accompanied Barnabas and Paul on Paul's first missionary journey, but left them and went home, causing Paul to doubt his maturity, leading to a disagreement with Barnabas, who took Mark on a separate journey when Paul went out again.  When Paul founded the Corinthian Church, Barnabas then went there to follow up his work.  Later, Mark teamed up with Peter who took him to Rome.  Here, he also partnered Paul in his ministry again.  While there, Peter and the Church in Rome came to Mark and commissioned him to convert Peter's stories about Jesus while preaching and quizzing new converts in what we call a catechism, and turned Peter's teaching into a biography of Jesus.  Mark was Peter's interpreter.  This is the testimony of the Church Fathers, the earliest of whom knew Peter and Mark personally.  Mark was also an eyewitness to the arrest of Jesus.  

With regard to your comment about the 'other gospels' what I meant to convey was that the early church fathers who were really preaching the Trinity decided what to include and which gospels to exclude. The Trinitarians somehow became the majority and pushed all the others aside. Hence modern Christianity was born.

Arius, who opposed the Trinitarians at Nicaea, used exactly the same Bible.  Arius rejected the other gospels as much as the Trinitarians did, and besides, the other gospels are Gnostic and deny Jesus was even a real human being, since matter is evil and all of us are gods.  Why would Muslims want to defend esoteric junk that denies Jesus' humanity?  Hint: the Trinitarians camed first.  The first Unitarians came in the late 2nd century when Judaism and Christianity split after the Second Jewish-Roman War of AD 132-135- the Ebionites tried a compromise approach and failed.  Arius doesn't count as a Unitarian.  Arianism believes in two gods, a big God, the Father, and the created little god, Jesus, who before becoming human created the Universe on God the Father's orders, in a twisting of Proverbs 8.  Arius actually accused the Trinitarians of being Unitarians.  Arius was a Henotheist, not a Monotheist.  Henotheism being a type of polytheism.  Arius understood full well what Trinitarianism really is.  Far better than any Muslim.

"As I've stated earlier, all of the Prophets of God were given a covenent, so Jesus' covenent did not mean that it was a new covenent which will abrogate all the other covenents."

Incorrect.  Only Abraham received the Abrahamic Covenant, Moses received the Sinatic Covenant, Nathan proclaimed to his fellow prophet, King David, the Davidic Covenant, and Jesus received from the Father and gave to Israel the New Covenant.  The other Hebrew prophets from Joshua right through to John the Baptist preached the Old Covenant, John preparing the way for the New Covenant.  Jeremiah preached the Old Mosaic Covenant, but prophesied the New Covenant.  Jesus' Covenant fulfils and absorbs the other covenants, but does not abrogate them.  Through Abraham the nations are being blessed.  David was promised an eternal dynasty, Jesus as Al Masih, the King of Israel, is the current and final upholder of that Covenant, as the final sacrifice, He upholds the Sinai Covenant, and through doing this He fulfils the New Covenant which He brokered through the Cross.  This Jesus taught Himself.  Besides, in arguing these points, you are actually as a Muslim unwittingly denying that the Qur'an abrogates these older covenants, which is a key Islamic teaching- namely that the Qur'an abrogates the older covenants, as surely Islam is a covenant Allah made with the Muslim Arabs brokered by Muhammad. 

If I'm not mistaken the Jews rejected Jesus (pbuh) as the Messiah. So you are saying that Jesus (pbuh) made the New Covenent with the Christians? Abolishing the Law of Moses (pbuh) in the process?

Not all Jews rejected Jesus.  His followers fulfilled their obligations under the New Covenant.  Jesus in making the New Covenant, made His Jewish followers and those Gentiles who came later and joined with them, Christians.  The term Christian means someone who follows Al-Masih, the Jewish King Messiah, Melek Moschiach.  And Jesus fulfilled, not abolished the Torah.  Jesus is the culmination of the Torah's purpose and mission. 

I've told you before that we should not take Paul seriously. He was a man with a guilty conscience who after slaughtering thouands of Christians had a nervous breakdown and thought he had a vision of the risen Christ. His letters are just that, letters. Oh yeah btw he conveniently connects the Old Testament scripture with the alleged sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh) on the cross, which never happened.

Paul had no guilty conscience and was about to arrest Christians in Damascus when he was confronted by Jesus so unexpectedly.  He suffered no nervous breakdown.  The amazing literary quality and inspiration of his letters are not the work of someone who lost his mind.  It's funny how Jesus' original followers endorsed him.  Not least Peter. 

You would do well to look at Isaiah 53: "For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."  

There is a clear prophecy by the Prophet Isaiah of the one who would die for the sins of many.  This is not an invention of Paul.  Isaiah was preaching this in the Jewish Temple in 700 BC.  We have manuscripts of Isaiah from 150 BC saying the same thing.  The prophecies of the death of YHWH's righteous servant well predates Jesus, Paul and even the Babylonian Exile. 

You seem to be a very confused person who thinks that the Old Testament is all about the Holy Trinity. In that if Trinitarians like you had the chance you would invent a new Bible called The New Revised Edited and Added Version (NREAV). That Bible would begin thus...

"In the beginning God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit made the heavens and the earth.......".

Interesting, for there is a threefold aspect to God's nature right from the start.  God is creating, the Spirit is working, the Word of God is spoken, and the Word creates light to begin with. 

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.  And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."  (Genesis 1:1-3)  Even the Hebrew word for this singular God is... plural.  El is singular.  Elohim is plural.  El means High or Exalted One. 

Just a question that arises out of curiosity.

Why would God Almighty need to have 3 distinct personalities? Is He an incapable God?

Rather the opposite.  God's Wisdom is so powerful that it is literally personified.  God is singular and infinite at the same time.  So God's Wisdom can actually speak and think and be an eternal second point of consciousness within this single, solitary and infinite God.  God's Wisdom is infinite, but also, since God is everywhere, this means that God has the power to stay on the throne of Heaven and at the same time be near us.  He can fully concentrate on both.  This means He really can project Himself infinitely.  So the sheer intensity of God's Wisdom and Power and Authority is such that He can interact and relate within Himself and communicate within Himself.  He can call Himself We and Us but still be one God.  (And use the singular verb to describe what 'We' will do in creating man in 'our' image.)  So the sheer power of this single God throughout eternity non-stop to personify His attributes and project Himself makes Him eternally Father (God's Nerve Centre), Son (a metaphor for His loving Word/Hypostatic Wisdom), and Holy Spirit (Living Principle of Power and Authority).  It's got to do with God being single yet infinite, able to personify and project non-stop forever, that makes Him what is called a Hypostatic Entity.  (Hypostasis is to do with personality and consciousness.)  It's not a mystery at all, except in the sense that we finite creatures are dealing with the infinite.  But it makes sense to me.  Remember, although the Qur'an teaches God as a Monad, it still teaches that God is on the throne of Heaven yet is closer than a jugular vein.  Yet such an ability, to be single and infinite and everywhere requires the power of Hypostasis.  That's why the question of who was running the Universe while Jesus was suffering on the Cross is so unnecessary.  The FATHER was running the Universe.  ;o)