Research on the abrogating and abrogated and in the Holy Bible
Statement of the occurrence of abrogation in the Bible between the Old and New Testaments or in the same Testament or book
One of the things that Christians hold against the Qur’an is the issue of abrogation and abrogated in the Holy Qur’an, and they try in various ways to attack the Holy Qur’an through it, ignorant that abrogation occurred in their book more than it occurred in the Holy Qur’an, or do they not understand the meaning of abrogation and abrogated??? Hundreds of rulings mentioned in the Holy Book such as the prohibition of pigs and music, stoning adulteresses, killing apostates, cutting off the hand of thieves, the ruling on the Sabbath, circumcision, swearing, divorce, and other abrogated rulings in the New Testament are not looked at by Christians, but they look at the abrogating and abrogated in the Holy Qur’an!!! Rather, the great scandal is that their point of objection regarding the abrogating and abrogated is their saying that when the Lord abrogates a ruling, this is evidence that He discovered His error in the previous ruling, and of course they have no evidence for that... The great scandal is that their books state the Lord’s remorse after discovering His errors in countless texts in the Holy Qur’an.. Are they not ashamed?? Will they not be ashamed after that?? ...
The abrogating and abrogated have principles, rules, and foundations that we do not find the Holy Book adhering to. We have only mentioned this topic because Christians always sing and resound about the story of the abrogating and abrogated in the Holy Qur’an. Abrogation, for us, does not occur in news, such as stories of the prophets, for example, or events, nor in beliefs, such as the obligation to believe in God, the messengers, the angels, or the books, or the disbelief of those who associate partners with God, or in the attributes of God, or in eternal rulings, such as His, the Most High, saying: {And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses - flog them with eighty lashes and do not accept their testimony ever after. And those are the wicked.} [An-Nur: 4], while abrogation, for us, occurs in the legal rulings that require the education of the souls of the nation, so a ruling comes to the nation for a specific time and for a specific reason in a specific situation, so that when this time ends, God sends down another ruling that suits the state of the nation, so it is Glory be to Him, He knows best what is best for people, and He knows best the souls of His servants.
We say that it is an education for the souls of the nation and its taking them from one stage to another and from one phase to another, while educating these souls during their journey from the darkness of polytheism and disbelief to the light of Islam and faith. Thus, He breaks customs and traditions that have become entrenched in souls and that those souls have been raised upon, until when they stand in line behind the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, he says, “Today I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have approved for you Islam as religion.”
So the abrogating and abrogated is the replacement of a legal ruling with another legal ruling, thus cancelling the implementation of the previous one by the command of Allah I, and Allah knows in advance that this ruling is for a temporary period and will be implemented for a specific time and in a specific circumstance until Allah replaces it with a permanent ruling that cannot be replaced or changed. We do not say about Allah, the Most High, as the Jews and Christians say, that He changed His mind (i.e. that something He did not know changed His mind, so He knew it, God forbid, or that Allah changes His mind for a matter that changed His mind that was not previously known to Him). Whoever says this among us has left the religion of Islam, as the Muslims do not say this as the Christians and Jews say in their books, and we have proven this in the chapter on the attributes of the Lord, so there is no need to repeat it here.
And the abrogating and the abrogated, according to us, as we said, we do not say that it arose from a deficiency in the knowledge of the Lord, glory be to Him, the Most High. No, this is blasphemy. Rather, we say that with His prior knowledge, He has rulings for every time that will improve the condition of the nation. However, He, glory be to Him, knew that this ruling is for a specific period and a specific circumstance after which the implementation of this ruling will end. It is not obligatory for God I to inform people that this ruling is limited to a specific period or that the implementation of it will end after a specific time or circumstance. God I acts with His wisdom in His creation and none of His servants are obligated to do so. However, the Christians in their books describe the abrogated rulings and commands as being incapable and deficient and that they are satanic commands and that they are miraculous, impure, fleeting, and unfit matters, and that whoever follows these rulings is an apostate from the faith, as Paul, their leader, who taught them in his first letter to the Timothyites, says. Read what he says in chapter 4, verses 1-7:
1 Timothy 4, verse 1: But the Spirit says explicitly that in the latter times some will be apostatized. Some depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, (2) with hypocrisy, lying utterances, having their conscience seared, (3) forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. (4) For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, (5) for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (6) If you bring these things to the brethren's mind, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and good doctrine which you have followed. (7) But reject filthy, old-fashioned fables, and exercise yourself to godliness. (SVD)
They did not limit themselves to the abrogating and the abrogated only, but Paul himself abrogated the entire Law of Moses and cancelled it and urged people to abandon the Law of Moses and circumcision, which is an eternal covenant, and the Sabbath, which is also an eternal covenant. The Law, gentlemen, is what Christ said, “I did not come to abolish it, but to fulfil it.” See what Paul said in Galatians and many other sayings in which he urges people to abandon the Law and rebel against it. Christ says, “I did not come to abolish it, but to fulfil it.” And Paul rejects the entire Law and abrogates all its provisions. See what he says in Galatians 5:4:
Galatians 5:4: You have become void from Christ, you who are justified by the law. You have fallen from grace. (SVD)
Their book also contains what permits abrogation and confirms it by saying in Hebrews 7:18-19 as follows:
Hebrews 7:18: For the former commandment becomes void because of its weakness and unprofitability. (19) For the law made nothing perfect, but a better hope was brought in, by which we draw near to God. (SVD)
None of the Christians paid attention to this text in Proverbs 28:4???
Proverbs 28:4: Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, and those who keep the law contend with them. (SVD)
Here are some, and I say some, but not all, of the texts and rulings that were abrogated in the New Testament. Judge for yourselves on this and see whether Christ actually came to abolish or to fulfill??
Abrogation is of two types: one that occurs in the law of a later prophet for a ruling that was in the law of a previous prophet , and one that occurs in the law of the prophet himself.
These are examples of abrogation that occurs in the law of a later prophet for a ruling that was in the law of a previous prophet: - 1- Marriage of brothers to sisters in the time of Adam, peace be upon him: -
Abraham, peace be upon him, married his sister Sarah, as stated in Genesis 20:12: “And indeed she is my sister, the daughter of my father. However, she is not the daughter of my mother. So she became my wife.
” Marrying a sister is forbidden in the Mosaic Law and is equivalent to adultery. The one who marries is cursed, and killing both spouses is obligatory, as stated in Leviticus 18:9: “You shall not marry your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether she was born at home or far from home. You shall not uncover her nakedness.”
In Leviticus 20:17 and in Deuteronomy 27:22:
If this marriage was not permissible in the law of Adam and Abraham, peace be upon them, then all people would be illegitimate children, and those who marry would be adulterers and must be killed and cursed. So how can this be assumed about the prophets, peace be upon them? It must be acknowledged that it was permissible in their law and then it was abrogated.
” Marrying a sister is forbidden in the Mosaic Law and is equivalent to adultery. The one who marries is cursed, and killing both spouses is obligatory, as stated in Leviticus 18:9: “You shall not marry your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether she was born at home or far from home. You shall not uncover her nakedness.”
In Leviticus 20:17 and in Deuteronomy 27:22:
If this marriage was not permissible in the law of Adam and Abraham, peace be upon them, then all people would be illegitimate children, and those who marry would be adulterers and must be killed and cursed. So how can this be assumed about the prophets, peace be upon them? It must be acknowledged that it was permissible in their law and then it was abrogated.
2- Prohibition of some animals between the Law of Noah and the Law of Moses, peace be upon them
God said in his speech to Noah and his sons in Genesis 9:3: “And let every living thing that moves shall be food for you, and you shall eat all of them, just as you eat the green herbs which I have given you.” So
all animals were permissible in the Law of Noah, such as the green herbs, and many animals were forbidden in the Mosaic Law, including the pig, as in Leviticus 11:4-8:
The abrogation in these rulings is clear... Add to that the grave scientific error in what the writer said here, which is that the rabbit is a ruminant animal!!!!
all animals were permissible in the Law of Noah, such as the green herbs, and many animals were forbidden in the Mosaic Law, including the pig, as in Leviticus 11:4-8:
The abrogation in these rulings is clear... Add to that the grave scientific error in what the writer said here, which is that the rabbit is a ruminant animal!!!!
3- Between the law of Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them
Many animals were forbidden in the Law of Moses, and their prohibition was abrogated in the Law of Jesus. The general permissibility was confirmed by Paul’s fatwa, as he stated in his letter to the Romans 14:14: “For I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone considers anything unclean, it is unclean in his own eyes.”
And in his letter to Titus 1:15: “To the pure, all things are clean. But to the unclean and unbelieving, nothing is pure; even their minds and consciences have become unclean. "
It seems that Paul was smart and wise, as he knew that the Jews were unclean and did not obtain this general permission, unlike his opinion of the Christians!!!! He emphasized this in his first letter to Timothy 4:4-6 "For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if a person receives it with thanksgiving; 5because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 6If you explain these things to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished by the words of faith and good doctrine, which you have followed thoroughly.
And in his letter to Titus 1:15: “To the pure, all things are clean. But to the unclean and unbelieving, nothing is pure; even their minds and consciences have become unclean. "
It seems that Paul was smart and wise, as he knew that the Jews were unclean and did not obtain this general permission, unlike his opinion of the Christians!!!! He emphasized this in his first letter to Timothy 4:4-6 "For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if a person receives it with thanksgiving; 5because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 6If you explain these things to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished by the words of faith and good doctrine, which you have followed thoroughly.
4- Holidays provisions
The rules of the feasts are detailed in Leviticus 23:14: “You shall not eat of the new produce, neither baked flour, nor parched corn, nor fresh grain, until the day on which you bring the offering of your God.
This shall be a statute upon you continually from generation to generation.” And in Leviticus 23:21: “And you shall set apart that same day to be a holy convocation for you, on which you shall have no rest. ” All the works, it shall
be a statute upon you continually, wherever you live, from generation to generation. And in Leviticus 23:31-32: Do not do any work; it shall be a statute upon you continually, from generation to generation, wherever you live. 32It is a Sabbath of rest for you, in which you shall be afflicted, .....
And in Leviticus 23:41: Four days in the year in the seventh month you shall celebrate it as a festival. To the Lord. And this shall be a perpetual statute upon you from generation to generation.” This
indicates that they are eternal rulings.
This shall be a statute upon you continually from generation to generation.” And in Leviticus 23:21: “And you shall set apart that same day to be a holy convocation for you, on which you shall have no rest. ” All the works, it shall
be a statute upon you continually, wherever you live, from generation to generation. And in Leviticus 23:31-32: Do not do any work; it shall be a statute upon you continually, from generation to generation, wherever you live. 32It is a Sabbath of rest for you, in which you shall be afflicted, .....
And in Leviticus 23:41: Four days in the year in the seventh month you shall celebrate it as a festival. To the Lord. And this shall be a perpetual statute upon you from generation to generation.” This
indicates that they are eternal rulings.
5- The rules of eternal divination
The many rulings pertaining to the family of Aaron, such as priesthood, dress, time of attendance for service, and others, were eternal, and they were all abrogated in the Law of Jesus at the hands of Paul, who nullified all the rulings of the Torah, even though Christ, peace be upon him, said in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 5, Verse 17: “I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”
6 - The ruling on swearing and taking an oath
The rule of swearing and taking oaths was permitted in the Law of Moses until it was completely abrogated by Christ, peace be upon him, and replaced by not taking oaths and taking oaths at all. Matthew 5:33: Again, you have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.” 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all... 37 but let your speech be “Yes, yes” and “No, no.” And whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
7- Combining two sisters
The prophet of God Jacob brought together the two sisters, Leah and Rachel, the daughters of his uncle Laban, as stated in the Book of Genesis 29:15-35: 15 Then Laban said to Jacob, “Since you are my brother, do you serve me for nothing? Tell me, what is your wages?”
16 Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 17 And… 18 And Jacob loved Rachel, and said, “I will serve you seven years for Rachel, your younger daughter.” 19 Then Laban said, “It is better for me to give her to you than to give her to another man. Stay with me. 20 … It is finished, so go in to her.” 22 … 23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter and brought her to him, and he went in to her. 24 And Laban gave Zilpah his maid to Leah his daughter as a maid. 25 And in the morning, behold, it was Leah… 27 Complete this week, and we will give you the other also for the service that you shall serve me another seven years. 28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled this week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife. 29 And Laban gave Rachel his daughter to be her maid, Bilhah. 30 And he went in to Rachel also, and loved Rachel more than Leah, and served him again seven more years. 31 And she conceived again, and bore a son, and said, This time I will praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah. And she ceased to bear.
16 Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 17 And… 18 And Jacob loved Rachel, and said, “I will serve you seven years for Rachel, your younger daughter.” 19 Then Laban said, “It is better for me to give her to you than to give her to another man. Stay with me. 20 … It is finished, so go in to her.” 22 … 23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter and brought her to him, and he went in to her. 24 And Laban gave Zilpah his maid to Leah his daughter as a maid. 25 And in the morning, behold, it was Leah… 27 Complete this week, and we will give you the other also for the service that you shall serve me another seven years. 28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled this week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife. 29 And Laban gave Rachel his daughter to be her maid, Bilhah. 30 And he went in to Rachel also, and loved Rachel more than Leah, and served him again seven more years. 31 And she conceived again, and bore a son, and said, This time I will praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah. And she ceased to bear.
This combination is forbidden in the Mosaic Law as stated in Leviticus 18:18: You shall not take a wife in addition to her sister, to be a co-wife with her while your wife lives.
8- Marrying an aunt
Amram married his aunt, as stated in Exodus 6:20: “Amram married his aunt Jochebed, and she bore him Aaron and Moses.”
As evidence that Imran was the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, was the sister of Kohath and the aunt of Imran, as mentioned in Numbers 26:59: “The name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born in Egypt, and bore to Amram Aaron and Moses, and their sister Miriam.”
This marriage is forbidden in the Mosaic Law, as mentioned in Leviticus 18:12: You shall not marry your father’s sister. She is your aunt.
And in Leviticus 20:19:
If this marriage was not permissible before the Law of Moses, then Moses, Aaron, and their sister Miriam must have been children of fornication, God forbid!
And they must not have entered the congregation of the Lord for ten generations, as stated in Deuteronomy 23:2: “A bastard shall not enter the congregation of the Lord, nor any of his descendants to the tenth generation.”
As evidence that Imran was the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, was the sister of Kohath and the aunt of Imran, as mentioned in Numbers 26:59: “The name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born in Egypt, and bore to Amram Aaron and Moses, and their sister Miriam.”
This marriage is forbidden in the Mosaic Law, as mentioned in Leviticus 18:12: You shall not marry your father’s sister. She is your aunt.
And in Leviticus 20:19:
If this marriage was not permissible before the Law of Moses, then Moses, Aaron, and their sister Miriam must have been children of fornication, God forbid!
And they must not have entered the congregation of the Lord for ten generations, as stated in Deuteronomy 23:2: “A bastard shall not enter the congregation of the Lord, nor any of his descendants to the tenth generation.”
10- An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
K - An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is a legitimate rule in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 19:21: Your eye shall not spare, life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Until Christ came, peace be upon him, and abrogated it in the New Testament, Matthew 5:38: You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I say to you, that you do not resist evil. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And whoever wants to sue you and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever forces you to go a mile, go with him two. 42 .....
That is, this law was dissolved by the Lord in the Old Testament until Christ came and abrogated it with the law of turning the other cheek if someone slaps the right cheek and not resisting evil.
Until Christ came, peace be upon him, and abrogated it in the New Testament, Matthew 5:38: You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I say to you, that you do not resist evil. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And whoever wants to sue you and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever forces you to go a mile, go with him two. 42 .....
That is, this law was dissolved by the Lord in the Old Testament until Christ came and abrogated it with the law of turning the other cheek if someone slaps the right cheek and not resisting evil.
11 - The Law of Moses was abrogated by the Law of Jesus, peace be upon them.
Jeremiah 31:31-32 says: “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord, “in which I will make a new covenant with the descendants of Israel and Judah, 32not like the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. But they broke my covenant, so I forsook them.” "
What is meant by the New Testament is the New Law, and it is understood that this new law is a repeal of the Mosaic Law.
Paul (or one of the Hebrew writers) claimed that this law is the law of Jesus in his letter to the Hebrews 8:7-13. If the previous covenant had been without fault, there would have been no need for another covenant to replace it.
In fact, God Himself expresses the inability of the previous covenant. This is clear in the words of one of the prophets of old:
“The days must come, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. 9This new covenant is not like the covenant I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt. Because they have broken that covenant, says the Lord, I have the right to annul it. 10This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after In those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws in their conscience and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11Afterward, . . . . . ” 13Thus, we see that God, by speaking of a new covenant, made the old covenant obsolete. 7 For if that first
covenant had been without fault , no place would have been sought for a second. ... and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant, and I neglected them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel... their sins and their transgressions hereafter. 13 Therefore, when he said, ‘New,’ he made the first old; but what was old and old is ready to vanish.
What is meant by the New Testament is the New Law, and it is understood that this new law is a repeal of the Mosaic Law.
Paul (or one of the Hebrew writers) claimed that this law is the law of Jesus in his letter to the Hebrews 8:7-13. If the previous covenant had been without fault, there would have been no need for another covenant to replace it.
In fact, God Himself expresses the inability of the previous covenant. This is clear in the words of one of the prophets of old:
“The days must come, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. 9This new covenant is not like the covenant I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt. Because they have broken that covenant, says the Lord, I have the right to annul it. 10This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after In those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws in their conscience and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11Afterward, . . . . . ” 13Thus, we see that God, by speaking of a new covenant, made the old covenant obsolete. 7 For if that first
covenant had been without fault , no place would have been sought for a second. ... and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant, and I neglected them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel... their sins and their transgressions hereafter. 13 Therefore, when he said, ‘New,’ he made the first old; but what was old and old is ready to vanish.
12- Paul and his followers abrogated all the practical rulings of the Torah except four: the sacrifice to an idol, blood, the strangled animal, and adultery.
Paul and his followers abrogated all the practical provisions of the Torah except four: the sacrifice of idols, blood, the strangled, and adultery, and they kept them sacred as in Acts 15:24-29: We know that some persons went from us to you without our authority, and by their words they stirred up turmoil among you and disturbed your thoughts. 25,26 So we agreed with one mind to choose men whom we would send to you with our beloved brothers Barnabas and Paul. 27 So we sent Judas and Silas to deliver the same message to you by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you beyond what was due to you. 29You are only to abstain from eating meat offered to idols, from eating blood, from eating the flesh of animals that have been strangled, and from committing sexual immorality. You will do well to keep yourselves from these things. May God keep you safe.”
They kept these four things sacred so as not to alienate the Jews who had recently converted to Christianity and who loved the provisions of the Torah. Then, when Paul saw that this care was no longer necessary, he abrogated it except for the prohibition of adultery, as Paul said in Romans 14:14: For I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone considers anything unclean, it is unclean in his own eyes.”
Since there is no punishment in the Christian law, adultery is also abrogated, as we will explain later.
Paul’s letter to the Galatians 2:20-21: “I have been crucified with Christ, and from now on I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not nullify The efficacy of the grace of God, for if righteousness were by the law, then the death of Christ would be a useless work.”
That is, the laws of Moses are unnecessary because they make the gospel of Christ useless.
And Paul’s letter to the Galatians 3:10-13 “But all who follow the principles of the works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in doing everything written in the book of the law.’” 11But that no one is justified in the sight of God by the law is evident, for “whoever is justified by faith will live by faith.” 12But the law does not take into account faith, but “whoever keeps these commandments will live by them.” 13For Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged by the law .” On a cross”
meaning that the Law of Moses became useless with the crucifixion of Christ, peace be upon him.
Galatians 3:23-25 “Before faith came, we were under the law’s protection, held in custody until the faith that was expected should be revealed. 24So the law was our tutor until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25But after faith came, we were released from the tutor’s power.”
That is, the law was abrogated by the death of Jesus and the spread of his Gospel. So where is his Gospel?
And the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians 2:15: That is, the hostility: Having abolished in his flesh the law of commandments with its requirements, that he might form out of the two parties one new man, having made peace between them.
Hebrews 7:12: And when there is any change in the priesthood, it is necessary that there be a corresponding change in the law of the priesthood.
That is, proving the connection between the change of the Imamate and the change of the law. If the Muslims also say, in view of this connection, that the law of Jesus was abrogated, then they They are right in saying, not wrong.
Hebrews 8:7-13: For if the former covenant had been faultless, there would not have been any need for another covenant to take its place. 8For God himself expresses the inability of the former covenant. This is evident in the words of one of the prophets of old:
and thus it appears from their writings that God abrogates the old with the new.
Hebrews 10:9-10: He added, “Behold, I come to do your will.” So, he abolishes the previous system, to put in its place a new system that is in harmony with the will of God. 10By this divine will we have become holy, since Jesus Christ offered his body for us once for all!" That is,
the sacrifices of the Jews were not sufficient, and therefore Christ took upon himself death to make up for their deficiency, and by the action of one of them he abrogated the use of the other!!!!!
The question here is.. Can it not be made up for with more sacrifices? Does this mean that Christ, peace be upon him, saved the lives of animals and redeemed them himself?
They kept these four things sacred so as not to alienate the Jews who had recently converted to Christianity and who loved the provisions of the Torah. Then, when Paul saw that this care was no longer necessary, he abrogated it except for the prohibition of adultery, as Paul said in Romans 14:14: For I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone considers anything unclean, it is unclean in his own eyes.”
Since there is no punishment in the Christian law, adultery is also abrogated, as we will explain later.
Paul’s letter to the Galatians 2:20-21: “I have been crucified with Christ, and from now on I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not nullify The efficacy of the grace of God, for if righteousness were by the law, then the death of Christ would be a useless work.”
That is, the laws of Moses are unnecessary because they make the gospel of Christ useless.
And Paul’s letter to the Galatians 3:10-13 “But all who follow the principles of the works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in doing everything written in the book of the law.’” 11But that no one is justified in the sight of God by the law is evident, for “whoever is justified by faith will live by faith.” 12But the law does not take into account faith, but “whoever keeps these commandments will live by them.” 13For Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged by the law .” On a cross”
meaning that the Law of Moses became useless with the crucifixion of Christ, peace be upon him.
Galatians 3:23-25 “Before faith came, we were under the law’s protection, held in custody until the faith that was expected should be revealed. 24So the law was our tutor until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25But after faith came, we were released from the tutor’s power.”
That is, the law was abrogated by the death of Jesus and the spread of his Gospel. So where is his Gospel?
And the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians 2:15: That is, the hostility: Having abolished in his flesh the law of commandments with its requirements, that he might form out of the two parties one new man, having made peace between them.
Hebrews 7:12: And when there is any change in the priesthood, it is necessary that there be a corresponding change in the law of the priesthood.
That is, proving the connection between the change of the Imamate and the change of the law. If the Muslims also say, in view of this connection, that the law of Jesus was abrogated, then they They are right in saying, not wrong.
Hebrews 8:7-13: For if the former covenant had been faultless, there would not have been any need for another covenant to take its place. 8For God himself expresses the inability of the former covenant. This is evident in the words of one of the prophets of old:
and thus it appears from their writings that God abrogates the old with the new.
Hebrews 10:9-10: He added, “Behold, I come to do your will.” So, he abolishes the previous system, to put in its place a new system that is in harmony with the will of God. 10By this divine will we have become holy, since Jesus Christ offered his body for us once for all!" That is,
the sacrifices of the Jews were not sufficient, and therefore Christ took upon himself death to make up for their deficiency, and by the action of one of them he abrogated the use of the other!!!!!
The question here is.. Can it not be made up for with more sacrifices? Does this mean that Christ, peace be upon him, saved the lives of animals and redeemed them himself?
13- The punishment for adultery has been abrogated.
Deuteronomy 22:22: If a man is found lying with a woman who is the wife of a husband, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall put away evil from Israel. (23) If a young virgin be betrothed to an husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, (24) then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and stone them with stones that they die; the young woman, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he humbled his neighbor's wife. So you shall put away evil from among you. (25) But if he lies with her, only the man who lay with her shall die. (SVD)
In Genesis it is confirmed that when Judah, Jesus' grandfather, committed adultery with Tamar, Jesus' grandmother, and he did not know that she was the same woman with whom he committed adultery, he ordered her to be brought out to be burned, as in Genesis 38:24: And about three months later it was told Judah, saying, Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by fornication. And Judah said, Bring her out, and let her be burned. (SVD)
In Leviticus, it was ordered to kill the adulteress and the adulteress, which are divine commands as you see in Leviticus 20:10-21
Leviticus 20:13: And if a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (14) ..... They shall burn him and them with fire, that there be no wickedness among you. (SVD)
Leviticus 20:16: If a woman approaches any beast to lie with it, then the woman and the beast shall be put to death; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
And in many other places in the Old Testament they ordered to stone the adulteress and the adulterer or to kill them or burn them, as you have read, but Jesus came and dropped that punishment and copied it, and the Christians to this day do not implement any punishment, and Jesus said about the adulteress, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her,” as in John 8:4-7: They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery, in the very act.” (5) And Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned. What sayest thou? (6) ..... (7) And when they continued to ask him, he straightened up and said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. (SVD)
And on this basis the punishment for adultery was abrogated to this day in the law of the Christians, and no Christian objected to that, and no priest saw in that matter the corruption of the individual and society by giving free rein to prostitutes, adulteresses, and adulteresses without establishing a punishment that would deter them and their likes ..... And not only that .. but there is also those who are abandoned and those who are abandoned, I mean that some rulings have been abrogated, but there are rulings that have not been abrogated, and yet the Christians abandon them and do not act upon them. Are these rulings called those who are abandoned and those who are abandoned?
I remind you that Christ said, I did not come to abolish but to fulfill
Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. (18)
According to the previous texts, Jesus came to complete the Law of Moses, not to abolish any of its limits or suspend it so that it would not be implemented.
In Genesis it is confirmed that when Judah, Jesus' grandfather, committed adultery with Tamar, Jesus' grandmother, and he did not know that she was the same woman with whom he committed adultery, he ordered her to be brought out to be burned, as in Genesis 38:24: And about three months later it was told Judah, saying, Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by fornication. And Judah said, Bring her out, and let her be burned. (SVD)
In Leviticus, it was ordered to kill the adulteress and the adulteress, which are divine commands as you see in Leviticus 20:10-21
Leviticus 20:13: And if a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (14) ..... They shall burn him and them with fire, that there be no wickedness among you. (SVD)
Leviticus 20:16: If a woman approaches any beast to lie with it, then the woman and the beast shall be put to death; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
And in many other places in the Old Testament they ordered to stone the adulteress and the adulterer or to kill them or burn them, as you have read, but Jesus came and dropped that punishment and copied it, and the Christians to this day do not implement any punishment, and Jesus said about the adulteress, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her,” as in John 8:4-7: They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery, in the very act.” (5) And Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned. What sayest thou? (6) ..... (7) And when they continued to ask him, he straightened up and said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. (SVD)
And on this basis the punishment for adultery was abrogated to this day in the law of the Christians, and no Christian objected to that, and no priest saw in that matter the corruption of the individual and society by giving free rein to prostitutes, adulteresses, and adulteresses without establishing a punishment that would deter them and their likes ..... And not only that .. but there is also those who are abandoned and those who are abandoned, I mean that some rulings have been abrogated, but there are rulings that have not been abrogated, and yet the Christians abandon them and do not act upon them. Are these rulings called those who are abandoned and those who are abandoned?
I remind you that Christ said, I did not come to abolish but to fulfill
Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. (18)
According to the previous texts, Jesus came to complete the Law of Moses, not to abolish any of its limits or suspend it so that it would not be implemented.
14- Divorce
In the Mosaic Law, it is permissible for a husband to divorce his wife for any reason, and for another man to marry that divorced woman, as in Deuteronomy 24:1-3: “If a man marries a young woman, and she does not please him afterward, because he has discovered some defect in her, and he gives her a certificate of divorce and sends her out of his house, 2and she marries another man after she has been released, 3and the second husband hates her and gives her a certificate of divorce and sends her out of his house, or if this husband dies.”
Divorce is not permissible in the law of Jesus except for the reason of adultery.
Likewise, it is not permissible for another man to marry a divorced woman, but it is like adultery as in Matthew 5:31: And it was said again, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. 32But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for the reason of adultery, causes her to commit adultery.” And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Thus, abrogation is proven twice, once in the Mosaic law and once in his law. This is understood from his saying, “Moses did not permit you to divorce your wives except because of the hardness of your hearts. But before, it was not like that.”
So it is as if divorce was forbidden, then the law of Moses abrogated its prohibition, and it became permissible, then the law of Jesus abrogated the permissibility once again, and the ruling on divorce returned to being forbidden.
Divorce is not permissible in the law of Jesus except for the reason of adultery.
Likewise, it is not permissible for another man to marry a divorced woman, but it is like adultery as in Matthew 5:31: And it was said again, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. 32But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for the reason of adultery, causes her to commit adultery.” And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Thus, abrogation is proven twice, once in the Mosaic law and once in his law. This is understood from his saying, “Moses did not permit you to divorce your wives except because of the hardness of your hearts. But before, it was not like that.”
So it is as if divorce was forbidden, then the law of Moses abrogated its prohibition, and it became permissible, then the law of Jesus abrogated the permissibility once again, and the ruling on divorce returned to being forbidden.
15- Circumcision is an eternal covenant, yet Paul abrogated it in his law:
Genesis 17:9-13
: And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. (10) This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. (11) You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you. (12) Every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations.... (13) He who is born in your house, or he who is bought with your money, shall be circumcised with complete circumcision. And my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” (SVD)
And Jesus, peace be upon him, was also circumcised, as in Luke 2:21: “And when eight days were completed for the child to be circumcised, his name was called Jesus, just as he had been named by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.”
As for Paul, he copied the circumcision
in Paul’s letter to the Galatians 5:2 as follows:
As in Galatians 5:2-6: “Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. ..... 4For you who seek to be justified by The law, you have been excluded from Christ and have fallen from grace! For we, by the Spirit and on the basis of faith, .... 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any benefit, but faith working through love."
And in the same letter to the Galatians 6:13 as follows: For those who are circumcised do not keep the law, but want you to be circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh. (SVD)
And in Acts 21:21 as follows: And they have reported about you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they should not circumcise their children nor walk according to the customs. (SVD)
Although all the prophets from the time of Abraham, peace be upon him, and his sons, and between our master Abraham and the time of our master Moses, then Christ, peace be upon him, himself was circumcised, and Paul himself was circumcised, and all the disciples were circumcised, Paul refused that and refused to have people circumcised, and he abrogated the law of circumcision and forbade circumcision to people so that the Jewish race would remain pure, as Paul wished, but what is more astonishing and bitter than that matter is that Jesus himself was circumcised and circumcision was not forbidden in his time as Paul did, and the question here is, was the eternal covenant, which is circumcision, abrogated, or is it still in effect and being carried out as God, I, our master Abraham, u, commanded?
: And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. (10) This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. (11) You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you. (12) Every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations.... (13) He who is born in your house, or he who is bought with your money, shall be circumcised with complete circumcision. And my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” (SVD)
And Jesus, peace be upon him, was also circumcised, as in Luke 2:21: “And when eight days were completed for the child to be circumcised, his name was called Jesus, just as he had been named by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.”
As for Paul, he copied the circumcision
in Paul’s letter to the Galatians 5:2 as follows:
As in Galatians 5:2-6: “Behold, I, Paul, say to you, that if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. ..... 4For you who seek to be justified by The law, you have been excluded from Christ and have fallen from grace! For we, by the Spirit and on the basis of faith, .... 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any benefit, but faith working through love."
And in the same letter to the Galatians 6:13 as follows: For those who are circumcised do not keep the law, but want you to be circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh. (SVD)
And in Acts 21:21 as follows: And they have reported about you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they should not circumcise their children nor walk according to the customs. (SVD)
Although all the prophets from the time of Abraham, peace be upon him, and his sons, and between our master Abraham and the time of our master Moses, then Christ, peace be upon him, himself was circumcised, and Paul himself was circumcised, and all the disciples were circumcised, Paul refused that and refused to have people circumcised, and he abrogated the law of circumcision and forbade circumcision to people so that the Jewish race would remain pure, as Paul wished, but what is more astonishing and bitter than that matter is that Jesus himself was circumcised and circumcision was not forbidden in his time as Paul did, and the question here is, was the eternal covenant, which is circumcision, abrogated, or is it still in effect and being carried out as God, I, our master Abraham, u, commanded?
16- What did Paul do on Saturday? And why?
According to the law and provisions of the Old and New Testaments, all priests deserve to be killed because they do not honor the Sabbath and their honoring of it contradicts the ruling of the Torah. Why is it obligatory to kill?
Because the honoring of the Sabbath was an eternal rule in the Mosaic Law, and no one was to do the slightest work on it, and whoever did work on it and whoever did not keep it was obligatory to kill, and this rule was repeatedly stated and emphasized in Genesis 2:3 “And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it he rested from all the work of creation”
and in Exodus 20:8-11 “and in Exodus 23:12 and in Exodus 34:21: and in Leviticus 23:3: and in Leviticus 19:3 and in Deuteronomy 5:12-15: and in Jeremiah 17:22-27:27But if you will not listen to me to sanctify the Sabbath day, And you persist in carrying burdens therein to bring them in through the gates of Jerusalem, and I will set fire to its gates, and it will devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it will not be quenched.
Exodus 31:13-17: Say to the children of Israel, ‘Observe my Sabbaths, for they are a sign of the covenant between me and you . Observe the Sabbath day, for it is holy to you. Whoever profanes it will surely be punished. 15You shall work six days, but the Sabbath is a day of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath shall surely be put to death . 16So that the children of Israel may keep the Sabbath and celebrate it throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant. 17It is a sign of a covenant between me and the children of Israel forever, for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he finished his work and rested.
And dozens of other texts, so I do not want to prolong it, and what I have mentioned is sufficient .
So what is the ruling on someone who breaks the Sabbath???? Let us look at what is stated in the Book of Numbers 15, verses 32-36,
verses 15, verses 32-36: (32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole congregation. 34And they put him in custody, because it had not been announced what should be done to him. 35And the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death; he shall stone him 36So the whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.)
The Jews who were contemporary with Christ, peace be upon him, were harming him and wanted to kill him because he did not honor the Sabbath, and this was also evidence of their denial of his prophecy.
It is stated in John 5:16: Then the Jews began to persecute Jesus because he was doing these works on the Sabbath day.
And in John 9, verse 16: Then some of the Pharisees said, “This man cannot be from God, because he is breaking the Sabbath law.”
But Paul, out of personal motive, abolished the Sabbath completely, abolished the word of the Lord that remains forever: so he and those who followed him deserved to be stoned.
Look at what he said in his letter to the Colossians 2:16-17: 16. Therefore let no one judge you in the matter of...months and Sabbaths; 17 These were shadows of what was to come, that is, of the reality, which is Christ.”
Hebrews 7:18-19: (18 For the former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect, but a better hope is brought in, by which we draw near to God.)
Hebrews 8:7-13: (7 For if this were the case , The first was without blemish, when a place was sought for a second. 8For he says to them, blaming them, “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9not like the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand…” 13So when he says, “new,” he makes the first old; but what is old and outdated is near.
(Then he said, “Behold, I come to do your will, O God.” He takes away the first to establish the second.) Is
the will of God mentioned in the Old Testament or the one mentioned in Paul’s imagination and not contained in any of the previous books? Even the words of Jesus, peace be upon him, were changed, and it is truly amazing that someone would make excuses, arrogantly attacking God Almighty, claiming that He had sent down invalid ordinances and had to change them with valid ones! Claiming that this is a case of abrogation, and it is also found in the Qur’an. Like this!
(25And I also gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances by which they could not live.) Ezekiel 20:25
This means that abrogation, according to them, is a change in the divine will after it became clear to God that what was right was contrary to what He wanted and decreed. This is what they call (al-Bada’). This is not permissible according to the Muslim belief, because it is a deficiency in knowledge, and abrogation is not a type of al-Bada’, but rather it means lifting the legal ruling with a later legal proof that shows the period of time for the end of the implementation of the first ruling according to what is in God’s knowledge.
Because the honoring of the Sabbath was an eternal rule in the Mosaic Law, and no one was to do the slightest work on it, and whoever did work on it and whoever did not keep it was obligatory to kill, and this rule was repeatedly stated and emphasized in Genesis 2:3 “And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it he rested from all the work of creation”
and in Exodus 20:8-11 “and in Exodus 23:12 and in Exodus 34:21: and in Leviticus 23:3: and in Leviticus 19:3 and in Deuteronomy 5:12-15: and in Jeremiah 17:22-27:27But if you will not listen to me to sanctify the Sabbath day, And you persist in carrying burdens therein to bring them in through the gates of Jerusalem, and I will set fire to its gates, and it will devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it will not be quenched.
Exodus 31:13-17: Say to the children of Israel, ‘Observe my Sabbaths, for they are a sign of the covenant between me and you . Observe the Sabbath day, for it is holy to you. Whoever profanes it will surely be punished. 15You shall work six days, but the Sabbath is a day of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath shall surely be put to death . 16So that the children of Israel may keep the Sabbath and celebrate it throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant. 17It is a sign of a covenant between me and the children of Israel forever, for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he finished his work and rested.
And dozens of other texts, so I do not want to prolong it, and what I have mentioned is sufficient .
So what is the ruling on someone who breaks the Sabbath???? Let us look at what is stated in the Book of Numbers 15, verses 32-36,
verses 15, verses 32-36: (32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole congregation. 34And they put him in custody, because it had not been announced what should be done to him. 35And the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death; he shall stone him 36So the whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.)
The Jews who were contemporary with Christ, peace be upon him, were harming him and wanted to kill him because he did not honor the Sabbath, and this was also evidence of their denial of his prophecy.
It is stated in John 5:16: Then the Jews began to persecute Jesus because he was doing these works on the Sabbath day.
And in John 9, verse 16: Then some of the Pharisees said, “This man cannot be from God, because he is breaking the Sabbath law.”
But Paul, out of personal motive, abolished the Sabbath completely, abolished the word of the Lord that remains forever: so he and those who followed him deserved to be stoned.
Look at what he said in his letter to the Colossians 2:16-17: 16. Therefore let no one judge you in the matter of...months and Sabbaths; 17 These were shadows of what was to come, that is, of the reality, which is Christ.”
Hebrews 7:18-19: (18 For the former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect, but a better hope is brought in, by which we draw near to God.)
Hebrews 8:7-13: (7 For if this were the case , The first was without blemish, when a place was sought for a second. 8For he says to them, blaming them, “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9not like the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand…” 13So when he says, “new,” he makes the first old; but what is old and outdated is near.
(Then he said, “Behold, I come to do your will, O God.” He takes away the first to establish the second.) Is
the will of God mentioned in the Old Testament or the one mentioned in Paul’s imagination and not contained in any of the previous books? Even the words of Jesus, peace be upon him, were changed, and it is truly amazing that someone would make excuses, arrogantly attacking God Almighty, claiming that He had sent down invalid ordinances and had to change them with valid ones! Claiming that this is a case of abrogation, and it is also found in the Qur’an. Like this!
(25And I also gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances by which they could not live.) Ezekiel 20:25
This means that abrogation, according to them, is a change in the divine will after it became clear to God that what was right was contrary to what He wanted and decreed. This is what they call (al-Bada’). This is not permissible according to the Muslim belief, because it is a deficiency in knowledge, and abrogation is not a type of al-Bada’, but rather it means lifting the legal ruling with a later legal proof that shows the period of time for the end of the implementation of the first ruling according to what is in God’s knowledge.
17- Repeal the order to slaughter?
In Genesis 22, verses 1-14, it is mentioned that God Almighty commanded Abraham, peace be upon him, to slaughter his son Isaac, peace be upon him (and the correct and established fact is that he was Ishmael, peace be upon him). When Abraham and his son responded to the Lord’s command, God Almighty abrogated the abrogation of the ruling before it was implemented, and ransomed the sacrifice with a great ram. I will suffice with quoting some of its paragraphs as follows:
Genesis 22, verse 2: And he said, Take your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you (SVD).
This is the previous ruling, then it was abrogated by the following ruling in paragraph 13 of the same book: 22, verse 13: And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns. So Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up as a burnt offering instead of his son. (SVD)
Genesis 22, verse 2: And he said, Take your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you (SVD).
This is the previous ruling, then it was abrogated by the following ruling in paragraph 13 of the same book: 22, verse 13: And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns. So Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up as a burnt offering instead of his son. (SVD)
18- Every firstborn who opens the womb is the Lord’s... then it was abrogated and no longer belongs to the Lord?
Exodus 13:2, 12, Exodus 34:19 respectively:
Exodus 13:2: Sanctify unto me every firstborn of every one that opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine. (SVD)
Exodus 13:12: You shall present to the Lord every one that opens the womb, and every firstborn of the livestock that is yours: the males are for the Lord. (SVD) Exodus 34:19
:
Then it was abrogated in Numbers 3:12, 8:16, and the Lord retracted the previous command as follows:
Numbers 3:12: And behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel in place of every firstborn that opens the womb among the children of Israel; and the Levites shall be mine. (SVD)
Numbers 8:16: .....In place of every firstborn that opens the womb, the firstborn of all the children of Israel, I have taken them for myself. (SVD)
Exodus 13:2: Sanctify unto me every firstborn of every one that opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine. (SVD)
Exodus 13:12: You shall present to the Lord every one that opens the womb, and every firstborn of the livestock that is yours: the males are for the Lord. (SVD) Exodus 34:19
:
Then it was abrogated in Numbers 3:12, 8:16, and the Lord retracted the previous command as follows:
Numbers 3:12: And behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel in place of every firstborn that opens the womb among the children of Israel; and the Levites shall be mine. (SVD)
Numbers 8:16: .....In place of every firstborn that opens the womb, the firstborn of all the children of Israel, I have taken them for myself. (SVD)
19- Cow dung instead of human excrement?
Ezekiel 4:15: And he said to me, “See, I have given you cow’s dung instead of human dung, so that you may make your bread on it.” (ESV)
In Ezekiel 4:15, why did God abrogate the command here and make Ezekiel eat his food on cow’s dung instead of human dung?? And this story alone that happened to Ezekiel, as the writers of the book claim, is amazing and has made the followers of this book a laughingstock to the people, as they taunt them, saying, “How can your Lord command one of His prophets to eat unleavened bread smeared with human dung, then have mercy on him and make him smear it with cow’s dung instead of human dung?” Why would your Lord do this to His prophets? But what we want here is that the Lord abrogates the command to make Ezekiel eat cow’s dung instead of human dung, so prove this.
In Ezekiel 4:15, why did God abrogate the command here and make Ezekiel eat his food on cow’s dung instead of human dung?? And this story alone that happened to Ezekiel, as the writers of the book claim, is amazing and has made the followers of this book a laughingstock to the people, as they taunt them, saying, “How can your Lord command one of His prophets to eat unleavened bread smeared with human dung, then have mercy on him and make him smear it with cow’s dung instead of human dung?” Why would your Lord do this to His prophets? But what we want here is that the Lord abrogates the command to make Ezekiel eat cow’s dung instead of human dung, so prove this.
[SIZE=7]20- Repeal the order to slaughter in the designated slaughterhouse?[/SIZE ]
It is mentioned in the Book of Leviticus, Chapter 17, Verses 1-6, that God Almighty commanded Moses and the children of Israel to slaughter the sacrifices of cattle, sheep, or goats in the designated slaughtering place near the Tent of Meeting (called the Tabernacle of the Covenant or the Tabernacle of the Testimony), so that the sacrifices would be an offering to the Lord, and the person who slaughters outside the designated altar would be destroyed from his people, that is, killed.
Then this ruling was abrogated in Deuteronomy, chapter 12, verses 15-22, and it became permissible for them to slaughter in any place and not to be limited to the designated altar. Horn said in his interpretation after he quoted the aforementioned paragraphs from Leviticus and Deuteronomy as follows (In these two places there is an apparent contradiction, but if it is noted that the Mosaic law was increased and decreased according to the condition of the children of Israel, and was subject to change, then the explanation is very easy. Moses abrogated in the fortieth year of the Exile before they entered Palestine the ruling of the book of Leviticus with the ruling of the book of Deuteronomy explicitly, so it is permissible for them after entering Palestine to slaughter cows, sheep and goats in any place they wished and eat. So
the interpreter Horn acknowledged in his interpretation that explicit abrogation occurred in the law of Moses, and that it was increased and decreased according to the condition of the children of Israel. It is very strange that Christians object to the occurrence of the abrogating and the abrogated and the increase and decrease in another law and they say: Abrogation requires For the ignorance of God, but this objection does not necessitate the abrogation that we Muslims say, which is the right of God alone as we explained before, but rather it necessitates the doctrine of the beginning that they state in their books about God Almighty and Paul stated in his letters.
Then this ruling was abrogated in Deuteronomy, chapter 12, verses 15-22, and it became permissible for them to slaughter in any place and not to be limited to the designated altar. Horn said in his interpretation after he quoted the aforementioned paragraphs from Leviticus and Deuteronomy as follows (In these two places there is an apparent contradiction, but if it is noted that the Mosaic law was increased and decreased according to the condition of the children of Israel, and was subject to change, then the explanation is very easy. Moses abrogated in the fortieth year of the Exile before they entered Palestine the ruling of the book of Leviticus with the ruling of the book of Deuteronomy explicitly, so it is permissible for them after entering Palestine to slaughter cows, sheep and goats in any place they wished and eat. So
the interpreter Horn acknowledged in his interpretation that explicit abrogation occurred in the law of Moses, and that it was increased and decreased according to the condition of the children of Israel. It is very strange that Christians object to the occurrence of the abrogating and the abrogated and the increase and decrease in another law and they say: Abrogation requires For the ignorance of God, but this objection does not necessitate the abrogation that we Muslims say, which is the right of God alone as we explained before, but rather it necessitates the doctrine of the beginning that they state in their books about God Almighty and Paul stated in his letters.
21- The ruling on the age of the Levite or the priest designated for service?
In the Book of Numbers, Chapter 4, paragraphs 3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 43, and 46, it is stated that the age of the Levite priest assigned to serve in the tent of meeting shall not be less than thirty years nor more than fifty years. I quote one of these paragraphs as follows:
(Numbers 4, verse 30: From thirty years old and upward even to fifty years old you shall number all who enter the service to do the service of the tent of meeting. (SVD)
The rest of the paragraphs convey the same meaning, while it is stated in the Book of Numbers, Chapter 8, verse 24-25, that the age of the Levite priest assigned to serve shall not be less than twenty-five years nor more than fifty years. I quote the following paragraph as follows:
Numbers 8, verse 24: This is the Levite: From twenty-five years old and upward they shall come to serve as soldiers in the service of the tent of meeting. (25) And from fifty years old they shall return from the service of the service and shall not serve anymore. (SVD)
(Numbers 4, verse 30: From thirty years old and upward even to fifty years old you shall number all who enter the service to do the service of the tent of meeting. (SVD)
The rest of the paragraphs convey the same meaning, while it is stated in the Book of Numbers, Chapter 8, verse 24-25, that the age of the Levite priest assigned to serve shall not be less than twenty-five years nor more than fifty years. I quote the following paragraph as follows:
Numbers 8, verse 24: This is the Levite: From twenty-five years old and upward they shall come to serve as soldiers in the service of the tent of meeting. (25) And from fifty years old they shall return from the service of the service and shall not serve anymore. (SVD)
22- Instead of saying to them, “You are not my people,” they are said to them, “The children of the living God.” So the attribute or name was abrogated?
In the Book of Hosea 1:8-10, the Lord decided to change the name of the people of Israel and instead of saying to them, “You are not my people,” they will be called “sons of the living God.” This is a clear copying of the name or description given to the people of Israel and in the same book, and even in the same paragraph. So what do Christians object to!!!
Hosea 1:8: Then Lo-ruhamah was weaned, and she conceived and bore a son. (9) And he said, “Call his name Lo-ammi, for you are not my people, and I will not be yours.” (10) Nevertheless the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass, that instead of it being said to them, “You are not my people,” they shall be called, “Sons of the living God.” (SVD)
Hosea 1:8: Then Lo-ruhamah was weaned, and she conceived and bore a son. (9) And he said, “Call his name Lo-ammi, for you are not my people, and I will not be yours.” (10) Nevertheless the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass, that instead of it being said to them, “You are not my people,” they shall be called, “Sons of the living God.” (SVD)
It ends here in summary, because the stingy supervisor in this forum does not give me more than four thousand characters, as if he is afraid that the characters will run out. Therefore, this is the first part of the research, which I hope has not exceeded the specified space, otherwise I will shorten it
. There are some limits in the Sharia that no longer have any effect... Have these limits been abrogated? Or should we call them abandoned limits?! *
1- What happens to a woman who grabs the penis of a foreign man during a fight with her husband:
As is coming, the hand of a woman who grabs the private parts of her husband’s rival is to be cut off. This is left out of what was left out and was abrogated by a general statement, so these rulings came as in Deuteronomy 25:11 thus:
Deuteronomy 25:11: If two men are fighting with each other, a man and his brother, and the wife of one of them comes forward to rescue her husband from the hand of the one striking him, and she reaches out her hand and grabs his private parts (12), then you shall cut off her hand, and your eye shall not pity.
2- Cutting off the hand of a thief is an abrogated punishment, but there is no abrogator for it, so we can say that it is an abandoned punishment: “
And as for the male thief, male thief, cut off their hands. It is the recompense for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (38) But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, then indeed, Allah will turn to him in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (39) Do you not know that to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth? He punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills. And Allah is over all things competent? All things are powerful (40) Al-Ma'idah
Exodus 22:2: If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there is no blood money for him. (SVD)
Deuteronomy 24:7: If a man is found stealing any of his brethren, the children of Israel, and enslaves him or sells him, that thief shall die; and you shall put away evil from among you. (SVD)
Zechariah 5:5: Then he said to me, “This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole earth: for every thief shall be destroyed from this place according to his own fate, and every one who swears shall be destroyed from that place according to his own fate.” (SVD)
Zechariah 5:3: “I will bring it out, declares the LORD of hosts, and it shall enter the house of the thief and the house of him who swears falsely by My name. It shall remain in the midst of his house and destroy it with its timber and its stones.”
This is the command of God to Moses and other prophets, so why do Christians not apply it? Where is the text that prevented Christians from applying this punishment? This is the punishment that God commanded Moses in the book, but this does not happen in Christianity. Is this abrogation??
3- He who disobeys his parents shall be stoned, but the Christians abrogated this punishment or left it
. Deuteronomy 21:18: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and they discipline him but he will not listen to them, (19) then his father and mother shall seize him and bring him to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place. (20) And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not listen to our voice, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ (21) And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones so that he dies. So you will put away the evil from among you, and all Israel will hear and fear.
Is this punishment being applied now???
4- Burning and the judgment of spirits
Leviticus 21:9: And if a priest's daughter defiles herself by committing adultery, she defiles her father; she shall
be burned with fire. (SVD) Genesis 38:24 And about three months later it was told Judah, saying, Tamar your daughter-in-law has
played the harlot, and, behold, she also is with child by adultery. And Judah said, Bring her out, and let her be burned. Leviticus 20:27: And if a man or a woman have a medium or a wizard, they shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them. (SVD)
5- The law of jealousy
And this law of jealousy in the Book of Moses, how and why was it abrogated or left without introduction? I will suffice to quote from it these verses from the Book of Numbers, Chapter 5, paragraphs 11-29, as follows:
Number 5 11. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: (12) Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, “If a man’s wife goes astray and commits treason against him, (13) and a man lies with her in a sodomy, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is hidden, and she is unclean, and there is no witness against her, and she has not been taken, (14) And the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he is jealous for his wife, and she is unclean, or the spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he is jealous for his wife, and she is not unclean. (15) Then the man shall bring his wife to the priest, and bring her offering with her, a tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall not pour oil on it, nor put frankincense on it, for it is a jealousy offering, an offering of remembrance, a memorial offering of sin. (16) And the priest shall bring her, and set her before the LORD. (17) And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and the priest shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle, and put it in the water. (18) And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put in her hands the offering of remembrance, which is the jealousy offering; and in the priest's hand shall be the bitter water of the curse. (19) And the priest shall make the woman swear, and say to her, “If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness from under your husband, then be free from this bitter water that causes the curse.” (20) But if you have turned aside from under your husband, and have become unclean, and have lain with you a man other than your husband, (21) then the priest shall make the woman swear by an oath that causes the curse. And the priest shall say to the woman, “The Lord makes you a curse and an oath among your people, that the Lord makes your thigh fall off, and your belly swell, (22) and that this water that causes the curse enters your bowels, to cause the belly to swell, and to cause the thigh to fall off.” And the woman shall say, “Amen, Amen.” (23) And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and blot them out with the bitter water. (24) And he shall make the woman drink the bitter water that causes the curse, and the water that causes the curse enters into her for bitterness. (25) And the priest shall take from the woman’s hand the offering of jealousy, and wave the offering before the Lord, and bring it to the altar. (26) And the priest shall take from the offering, her memorial, and burn it on the altar; and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water. (27) And when he gives her water to drink, if she has been defiled and has been unfaithful to her husband, then the water that causes the curse shall enter into her to make her bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall fall off, and the woman shall become a curse among her people. (28) But if the woman has not been defiled, but is clean, she shall be clean and shall conceive seed. (29) This is the law of jealousy. If a woman has gone astray from under her husband and has become defiled.
These are the rulings and laws of what is called jealousy, and they are by the command of the Lord to Moses, as you read in the first paragraphs of the codified text. They are a divine law and not deceiving spirits and satanic teachings, as Paul describes them. If this is not what the New Testament abrogated, then what do we call it?
6- The murderer shall be put to death?
Numbers 35 Number 16: If he strikes him with an iron instrument, so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. (17) And if he strikes him with a hand stone, with which one kills, so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. (18) Or if he strikes him with a wooden hand instrument, with which one kills, so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. (19) The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall kill him. (20) And if he pushes him in hatred, or throws something at him deliberately, so that he dies, (21) or strikes him with his hand in enmity, so that he dies, the striker shall be put to death; for he is a murderer; the avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him. (SVD)
Numbers 35 Number 29: This shall be a statute for you as a judgment throughout your generations throughout all your dwellings. (30) Whosoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against a person to cause death. (SVD)
Verse 35 Verse 33: Do not defile the land where you are, for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it except by the blood of him who shed it. (SVD)
7- Bald people and the law of leprosy?
Another matter that the Christians left without any introduction except under the previous claims that the teachings of Moses are Satanic, old-fashioned, misleading teachings, and they are the law of baldness and leprosy that breaks out in the head. I wonder what the reason for leaving it is other than this, and in fact it is a long text mentioned in Leviticus, so I will suffice from it by quoting these paragraphs from the Book of Leviticus, Chapter Thirteen, paragraphs 40-46, as follows:
Leviticus 13:40: And if a man has lost the hair of his head, he is bald; he is clean. (41) And if the hair of his head is lost on the front side, he is bald; he is clean. (42) But if there is a reddish white sore in the bald spot or in the bald spot, it is a leprosy breaking out in his bald spot or in his bald spot. (43) And the priest shall look upon him, and, behold, the rising of the sore is reddish white in his bald spot or in his bald spot, as leprosy appears in the skin of the flesh, (44) he is a leprous man; he is unclean: and the priest shall pronounce him unclean, if the sore is in his head. (45) And the leper in whom the sore is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head shall be uncovered, and he shall cover his mustache, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean. (46) All the days that the sore is in him he shall be unclean; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp.
This previous text, as I read, is the law of leprosy and baldness, and it was abrogated by later Christians, as I learned from the sayings of Paul and others. And Christ himself in his time did not abolish those customs according to the book of the Christians. For Christ did not abolish them or prevent people from them, as is clear in the book. Rather, those who came after him by years abrogated or abolished them. How is this conceivable? And immediately after it comes the law of leprosy in clothing and wool, and I will suffice with quoting this paragraph from it as follows:
Leviticus 13:59 This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of wool or linen, in the warp or the woof, or in any article of skin, to pronounce it clean or unclean
. You lepers, flee before they expose you… And you men of understanding, help us, may God help you. I
8- The goring bull?
As for the law of the bull-goering, this is one of the punishments that Paul or anyone else should not have abolished or left without a reason or cause. It is the punishment for killing and taking a life by means of a bull-goering that was previously witnessed to have gored or had no prior record, as you will read. But here I also ask why this punishment was abrogated from the law, knowing that it is a punishment for retaliation, as we have learned?? The matter is mentioned in the Book of Exodus, Chapter Twenty-One, Paragraphs 18-19. I will quote it as follows:
Exodus 21:28: “If an ox gores a man or a woman so that he dies, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be blameless. (29) But if the ox has been a goring ox before, and its owner has been testified against, and he has not restrained it, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. ”
The bull is stoned but not slaughtered. This is none of your concern, but is this punishment applied now? No problem, but congratulations to the Christians that they fled from the goring of bulls and remained under the goring of lambs, as John told us in the Book of Revelation, chapter seventeen, paragraph 14, saying: 14. These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called, chosen, and faithful. (SVD)
There are many examples of this, such as the slave law in Exodus, chapter 21, verses 2-24, and many others. It is enough for anyone who reviews the Bible to see examples of all these laws that Paul abrogated with his hateful words or others who changed the books, or that they were truly abrogated and there is no problem with their abrogation. So why do Christians argue with the abrogating and abrogated in Islam, and it has been proven to you that abrogation occurred between one law and another, and in the following pages, it has been proven, God willing, that abrogation occurred in the same law and in the same era of the prophets. So what prevents the Islamic law from abrogating what came before it, and what prevents the Islamic law from having abrogating and abrogated, and why do these people cry out without reviewing their books and knowing what is in them, and they followed Paul and his words that threw them into the height of disbelief, including describing the teachings of God as obsolete, satanic teachings??
Here I want to mention that the law is eternal rulings that contain piety and righteousness as the writers of the Old Testament conveyed to us. So how could they suddenly become misleading, old, unclean demonic spirits?? Read what he says about the eternity of the law and not for a specific time. The writer of Deuteronomy, chapter 29, paragraph 29, says, and I quote it as follows :
Deuteronomy 29:29: The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law (SVD).
This is also confirmed in the same book, chapter 17, paragraph 19,
Deuteronomy 17:19: And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and to observe all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them (SVD).
In the second book of Kings, he confirms the same thing, that the law should be carried out all the days, thus the Lord commands them. He did not say until a certain time, a certain place, or a certain people. So look at what the second book of Kings, chapter 17, paragraph 37, says as follows:
2 Kings 17:37: Keep the statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandments which he wrote for you, to do them always, and do not fear other gods. (SVD)
Here is what is called the eye of contradiction, but rather what Paul transmitted is clear blasphemy in what he described as the law of Moses and the teachings of the previous prophets, as we transmitted before at the beginning of this chapter, that the teachings of Moses are satanic teachings and deceiving spirits and unclean old men that do not benefit but rather harm. What I only want is for you to read the text contained in the Old Testament before Paul or his likes were born, and this text was confirmed by the prophets of the children of Israel. Rather, it is proven rationally that the teachings that God revealed to Moses are divine teachings in which when they were revealed they were beneficial to mankind. I do not want to prolong it as much as I want the reader to read this text in Proverbs, Chapter 6, Paragraph 23, as follows:
Proverbs 6:23: For the commandment is a lamp, and the law is light, and reproofs of instruction are the way of life. (SVD)
Should we believe what Paul said about the teachings of Moses and the previous prophets and what was incorrectly attributed to Christ describing all the prophets as thieves, or should we believe what is stated in the Old Testament and what is supported by the Holy Quran??
The matter is not limited to this, as there are dozens of texts praising the law and clarifying the virtues of those who follow the law. We do not want to forget that the law was revealed by the Lord and no one else. In the Christian religion, the Lord is Jesus (peace be upon him), or Jesus as they call him. Is it reasonable that the Lord would reveal a law and then return and curse it and describe it with those ugly descriptions on the tongue of Paul and others, as we have previously mentioned? Whose Lord is this?? The Lord of the one who has no Lord?? I will quote to you a few texts praising the law and its followers and denouncing those who abandon the law without any comment from me, as they are clearer than anyone can comment on them as follows: First: The Book of Proverbs, Chapter 28, Verse 4
The matter is not limited to this, as there are dozens of texts praising the law and clarifying the virtues of those who follow the law. We do not want to forget that the law was revealed by the Lord and no one else. In the Christian religion, the Lord is Jesus (peace be upon him), or Jesus as they call him. Is it reasonable that the Lord would reveal a law and then return and curse it and describe it with those ugly descriptions on the tongue of Paul and others, as we have previously mentioned? Whose Lord is this?? The Lord of the one who has no Lord?? I will quote to you a few texts praising the law and its followers and denouncing those who abandon the law without any comment from me, as they are clearer than anyone can comment on them as follows: First: The Book of Proverbs, Chapter 28, Verse 4
Proverbs 28:4: Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, and those who keep the law contend with them. (SVD)
2: Proverbs 28:7: He who keeps the law is a discerning son, but a companion of gluttons shames his father. (SVD)
3: Proverbs 28:9: He who turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination. (SVD)
4: Proverbs 29:18: Without vision the people fret, but happy is he who keeps the law. (SVD)
5: Isaiah 8:20: To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them. (SVD)
6: Isaiah 22:41: The LORD delights in his righteousness; he magnifies the law and honors it. (SVD)
7: Zephaniah 3:4: Her prophets are boasters, treacherous men; her priests have defiled the sanctuary, they have transgressed the law. (SVD)
Eighth: Malachi 2:9: Therefore I have made you despised and vile before all the people, just as you have not kept my ways, but have shown partiality in the law. (SVD)
Ninth: Isaiah 24:5: And the land is defiled under its inhabitants, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the statute, and broken the everlasting covenant. (SVD)
Tenth: And I will conclude it with this text so that I will not be long-winded, and it shows the state of those who have forsaken the law of the Lord, as in Zechariah 7:12
: But they have made their heart a diamond, that they should not hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by his spirit through the former prophets. So great wrath came from the Lord of hosts. (SVD)
As you have seen, whoever abandons the law and does not apply it, or even neglects it, is cursed, and the Lord is angry with him. He is unclean and cast into the abyss, and the wrath of God, the angels, and all people is upon him. These previous limits are limits mentioned in the Old Testament, and the words of the New Testament abrogated them, so they became abandoned. Whoever applies them is unclean and hateful, following misleading spirits and the teachings of demons. But if our friends object to the occurrence of abrogation between the Old Testament and the New Testament, because there are hundreds of years between them, and peoples and nations have differed and conditions have changed, then what do they say about the abrogating and abrogated in the Old Testament itself, but not the New Testament? I mean, there is abrogating and abrogated among the books of the Old Testament, and even in the same book there is abrogating and abrogated.
Then if the Christian acknowledges that his Lord regrets as mentioned in His book and is sorry and regrets in his heart, then there is no argument after that because the matter is over. His Lord then decides, then it appears to him that what he decided is wrong, so he regrets and is sorry, God forbid, then he returns and changes it or alters it or abrogates it as it is found in the book of the Christians. Then there is no argument for the Christian in any level of the levels of abrogation or otherwise. Rather, the first thing he must do is review the matters of his Lord who regrets and forgets as mentioned in Exodus 32:14, and in the Book of 2 Samuel 24:16, and in Jeremiah 26:13, and in Jeremiah 26:19, and in Amos 7:6, and in Jeremiah 26:13, and in Jeremiah 26:3, and in 1 Samuel 15:10-11, 15:35, and in Jeremiah 18:7-10. I will suffice with quoting the paragraphs of Jeremiah, chapter 18, the paragraphs 7-10 As follows:
Jeremiah 18:17: Sometimes I speak concerning a nation and a kingdom, to pluck up and to tear down and to destroy (8) and that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, and I will repent of the evil that I thought to do to it. (9) And sometimes I speak concerning a nation and a kingdom, to build and to plant, (10) and it does evil in My sight and does not obey My voice, and I will repent of the good with which I said I would do it good. (SVD)
And in Judges as follows:
Judges 2:18: And when the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge, and saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. For the LORD repented because of their groaning because of those who oppressed them and who thronged them. (SVD)
And in the Psalms as follows:
Psalm 106:45: And He remembered His covenant with them, and repented according to the multitude of His mercy. (SVD)
We have mentioned them in detail in the chapter on the attributes of the Lord for whoever wants to review it if he wishes, which makes it unnecessary to repeat them here, but I mentioned some of them as a reminder and so that whoever did not read the attributes of the regret of the Lord of the Christians does not regret it.
The Christians have no excuse after that that their Lord regrets and there is no problem with him issuing a ruling or changing it and regretting it and then returning and changing it again. In general, I am mentioning here some of the rulings and matters that were abrogated in the Old Testament itself or in the New Testament itself or even in the same book itself and at the same time, so look at what I write as follows, for it is of great benefit to everyone who tries to refute the matter of abrogation and abrogated.
The Christians have no excuse after that that their Lord regrets and there is no problem with him issuing a ruling or changing it and regretting it and then returning and changing it again. In general, I am mentioning here some of the rulings and matters that were abrogated in the Old Testament itself or in the New Testament itself or even in the same book itself and at the same time, so look at what I write as follows, for it is of great benefit to everyone who tries to refute the matter of abrogation and abrogated.
This is a gift to my beloved ones in God. Some of the limits were abrogated at the same time and in the same era of the Prophet himself, because they argue that the abrogating and abrogated occurred after one thousand five hundred years, while in Islam it occurred in twenty-three years. So look and contemplate what Job says:
9- Will he marry the daughters of Zelophehad and lose their inheritance???
The Lord changes his mind after he ordered that Zelophehad’s share be given to his daughters and allowed Zelophehad’s daughters to marry from any tribe of Israel. The sons of Gilead, son of Machir, son of Manasseh, objected, since Zelophehad was one of them, and they explained to the Lord and to Moses that this was unjust and that by doing so the daughters of Zelophehad’s share of the land would be transferred after they married their husbands from other tribes, and this was unjust in their view… The Lord remembered this matter and the poor Lord was forced to change the subject so that their marriage would be within their father’s clan only and not outside it, so that their share of the land would not be transferred to any other tribe. And… What a God to be worshipped… It is stated in Numbers 36, verses 2-4 as follows:
Numbers 36:2 And they said, The LORD has commanded my lord to give the land by division by lot to the children of Israel; and my lord has commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother to his daughters. (3) And if they become wives to any of the children of the tribes of the children of Israel, then their inheritance shall be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they have been given; and out of the lot of our inheritance shall it be taken. (4) And when the jubilee of the children of Israel is come, their inheritance shall be added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they have been given; and out of the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers shall their inheritance be taken. (SVD)
They drew the attention of their LORD to something to which he had not paid attention, so the LORD paid attention to what the people were saying, and changed his mind and changed it, as you will read in Numbers 36:5-10. I will quote some passages like this:
Numbers 36:5 And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying, The tribe of the children of Joseph has spoken truth. (6) This is what the LORD has commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, “To whomever seems good to them they shall be wives; but to the family of the tribe of their fathers they shall be wives.” (SVD)
Numbers 36 Numbers 10: As the LORD commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad. (SVD)
10- The decree to put King Hezekiah to death in the time of the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz was also abrogated. Both the abrogating decree and the abrogated decree were communicated by Isaiah.
2 Kings 20
Numbers 1: In those days Hezekiah fell sick to death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Set your house in order, for you will die and not live.’” (SVD)
Then the Lord revoked the judgment because Hezekiah did not want to die, so He said to him through Isaiah son of Amoz in 2 Kings 20:5-6 as follows:
2 Kings 20:5: Return and say to Hezekiah the leader of my people, Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will heal you; on the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. (6) And I will add fifteen years to your days, and I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria, and I will defend this city for My own sake and for My servant David’s sake. (SVD)
11- God was angry with the people of Israel and wanted to destroy them, then He revoked His judgment or retracted it because of Moses and Aaron (Aaron the maker of the calf)?
It is stated in Psalm 106:23 as follows:
Psalm 106:23: So he said to destroy them, Had not Moses his chosen one stood in the breach before them, To turn away his anger from destroying them. (SVD)
12- The Lord decided to destroy the people of Israel, but He canceled the decree, or rather, He retracted it, as you will see?
Ezekiel 20:13: And the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness. They did not walk in my statutes, and they rejected my judgments, which if a man does, he shall live in them, and they greatly profaned my sabbaths. Then I said, I will pour out my wrath upon them in the wilderness, to destroy them. (SVD)
And you will see here that he retracted the previous decree and revoked it in Ezekiel 20:14-17
Ezekiel 20:14: But I have done for my name's sake, that it should not be defiled in the eyes of the nations, in whose eyes I brought them out. (15) And I also lifted up my hand to them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land that I had given them, which flows with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands. (
Ezekiel 20:17: But my eye spared them, lest I should destroy them, and I did not consume them in the wilderness. (SVD)
13- A perpetual statute... Will the Lord go back on what he said and cancel it?
It is stated in Ezekiel 46:13-14 thus: Ezekiel 46:13: And you shall prepare a burnt offering every day to the Lord, a lamb a year old
without blemish; morning by morning you shall offer it. (14) And you shall prepare a grain offering on it morning by morning, a sixth of an ephah, and oil, a third of a hin, for sprinkling fine flour; you shall offer it to the Lord, an perpetual statute, perpetual. (SVD) 14- The Lord decided to do evil and did not repent, then he changed his mind after long thought to calculate it again and did not do evil in Zechariah 8:14-15?
Zechariah 8:14: For thus says the Lord of hosts: As I thought to do you evil when your fathers provoked me to anger, says the Lord of hosts, and I did not repent (15) so I have again thought in these days to do good to Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Do not be afraid. (SVD)
15- The word of the Lord to our master Abraham about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?
In the Book of Genesis, God’s words to our master Abraham were mentioned regarding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, then the number that God would specify of the righteous was abrogated if our master Abraham found them in this city so that God would not destroy it. So the number was abrogated from fifty righteous, then gradually decreased to forty-five, then forty, then thirty, and so on. This is an abrogation of the number. Is there anyone who says that there is no abrogator and abrogated at the same time, in the same matter, and in the same place??
Read what came in Genesis chapter eighteen paragraphs 20-33Genesis 18 verse 20 And the Lord said, Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and their sin is very grievous, 21 I will go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to me; and if not, then I will know. 22 And the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord. 23 And Abraham drew near and said, Wilt thou then destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you then destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked? Far be it from you! The Judge of all the earth will not do right. 26 Then the LORD said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole place for their sakes.” 27 Then Abraham answered and said, “Behold, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord, who am but dust and ashes. 28 Peradventure five will be lacking among the fifty righteous: will you destroy the whole city for the five?” And he said, “I will not destroy it, if I find forty-five there.” 29 Then he spoke to him again and said, “Suppose forty are found there.” And he said, “I will not do it, for the sake of the forty.” 30 And he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak. Suppose thirty are found there.” And he said, “I will not do it, if I find thirty there.” 31 Then he said, “Behold, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.” And he said, “I will not destroy it, for the sake of the twenty.” 32 He said, Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak only this once: Suppose ten are found there.
And he said, I will not destroy them for the sake of ten. 33 And the Lord departed, when He had made an end of speaking with Abraham, and Abraham had returned to his place. (SVD) And lest anyone who reads this book say that I am stingy and have only put forth twelve instances in which there is abrogation and abrogated, I will add another instance, for by God I have hundreds. But I said that as we are accustomed to in that book, it only mentions examples and we are not required to list everything we are talking about. It is sufficient to clarify the point of view. Here is another instance in which there is abrogation and abrogation, but rather a covenant was broken, and there was a retreat and remorse. So look at what the writer of the aforementioned book says
: 16- Will David have a son on the throne of the king, or will there not be?
Jeremiah 33:17 For thus says the Lord: David shall never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel. (SVD)
What we understand from the previous text in Jeremiah 33:17 is according to the words of the prophet Jeremiah that the lineage of David will not be cut off from the kings sitting on the throne of Israel, but let us review the book of Jeremiah, chapter 33, verse 21, as follows:
Jeremiah 33:21: For my covenant also with David my servant shall be broken, and he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites the priests my ministers. (SVD)
So we find that the Lord breaks his covenant with David, and David shall not have a son to rule over the people of Israel, as he said before, and in this way their Lord annuls the covenant, if we may speak with the same wording of the book that he broke the covenant, their Lord in their view can break his covenant.
Do you see any of these rulings and limits being applied now? Do you see the implementation of the punishment for adultery or the punishment for theft or the punishment for the apostate or what is called the law of leprosy? Are the laws of the goring bull applied? Are the law of jealousy applied? Are hundreds of other rulings applied in the Old Testament and the New Testament itself? Or is there really an abrogator and an abrogated?? Have you defiled the land?? This is what your book says as in Isaiah chapter 24 verse 5....
Isaiah 24 verse 5: And the land is defiled under its inhabitants, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the statute, and broken the everlasting covenant. (SVD)
I have mentioned to you a few of these rulings, laws and statutes that were mentioned in your book and we do not find them applied and we do not find any mention of them.. Have people forgotten them or were they abrogated or did your priests advise you to leave them because they are not valid and their validity period has expired?? The problem is that there are some limits and what abrogates them was mentioned in the New Testament in fact and there is no problem with that (in terms of abrogating and abrogated, of course) but the problem is that there are hundreds of limits, commandments and statutes that were not mentioned to abrogate them in the first place and there is not a single text that invalidates them and yet your law does not recognize them or apply them!!!!
We said that the abrogating and abrogated verses have certain conditions and rulings.. We measure by them and take rulings from them. The abrogating and abrogated verses in the Quran are an education and refinement of the souls of the nation and a gradual progression from darkness to light and from falsehood to truth in a way that does not make the souls turn away and bear what they cannot bear and flee from religion or make the souls adopt rulings that they may be unable to implement. And Allah knows best the souls of His servants, for He is their Creator and knows what is good for them. If we suppose that a person lives in darkness for ten years, for example, then we bring him out of the darkness into the light all at once, what will happen to him?? He will certainly go blind and lose his sight!! Therefore, the abrogating and abrogated is merely a gradual progression of rulings to bring people out of the darkness of polytheism and ignorance into the light of Islam. It is a specific legal ruling for a specific time and in a specific circumstance until another ruling is revealed that abrogates the previous ruling. It is in Allah’s foreknowledge that this ruling is for a specific time and circumstance and for a specific wisdom that He, the Most High, knows with His foreknowledge until the religion is completed. Allah, the Most High, said in His Noble Book: “This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (3) Al-Ma’idah. Accordingly, the abrogating and abrogated, as we have explained, is from the perfection of the religion and in Islam. Abrogating and abrogated are only in rulings and not in doctrine, but in your book there is what cannot be called abrogating and abrogated, but rather we can say abandoned and forsaken, or rulings ignored without reason or excuse... or rulings that people have abandoned in the book of their Lord due to their lack of manners or lack of feeling or... their claim of not seeing and understanding.... The real disaster is that you talk about abrogating and abrogated in the Quran as if it is a distortion and as if it is something defective or invalid or impermissible.... The real disaster is that you sing about this matter as if you have seized the argument against the Muslims.
But the funny thing is that most of those I have seen talking about this matter are basically those who do not understand the meaning of abrogating and abrogated, and the evidence for that is that if he understood the meaning of abrogating and abrogated and that he does not just repeat what he hears like a dumb parrot, he would have taken the trouble to look at his book even a simple glance before he comes out to us and squawks and screams and blabbers about what he does not know.... I seek refuge in Allah from this ignorance... and we ask Allah for safety in mind and religion ,,
Whoever philosophizes and says yes there is abrogation and abrogated in the book, but between the New Testament and the Old Testament and that there are hundreds of years between them, and abrogation here is acceptable, but in Islam abrogation occurred in only a few years, so why abrogation???
I say to him, my dear, first of all, you admitted the existence of abrogating and abrogated, but the time period does not change anything, even if there is abrogating and abrogated in the New Testament itself and in the Old Testament as well, as I mentioned to you the texts before. But even if we accept that matter to you, the idea of abrogating and abrogated does not require time to be applied. For example, when you dropped the punishment for adultery from the adulteress and did not apply it again as Moses commanded in his law, did the time factor represent any value??? Did the adulteress’s condition change so that she began to commit adultery in a way that was different from the adultery of the old adulteress? For example, did she begin to commit adultery from the left to the right or vice versa?
Cutting off the thief’s hand, for example, or killing him, as your book says... Was the thief in the past different from the thief now? Isn’t it the same theft and the same sin? Why don’t we apply the punishment to him as it was applied in the past? You say that time and nations differ. There are things that time and eras do not change. Adultery is the same adultery, theft is the same theft, and the limit of apostasy is the same apostate and the same harm that befalls the religion and people from the apostate is the same and has not changed. There is no difference here in the issue of time or place or the difference between people, as well as the prohibition of pork and drinking alcohol and many others... But it is abrogation as I told you. But when is your statement correct?? Your statement is correct, for example, in zakat or the method of prayer or financial transactions between people. Here, the factor of time and place and the difference between nations can represent a difference in it, but in the limits there is no difference between time and place and the difference between people... I sincerely ask you not to forget the saying of Jesus in Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (SVD)
Do you not see that you are deceiving yourselves and trying to deceive people and you are the first to be deceived??
Compare what came before with what you find now in your belief,,, I just invite you to read your book,,, I just invite you to look and look and not follow the whims of the unjust people, look at what you have and do not argue with people with what is more severe and harsher than what you have and is present in the heart of your book.. The Muslims are truly amazed at you how you talk about the abrogating and abrogated that it is a distortion and you do not look at what is in your book???
We said that the abrogating and abrogated verses have certain conditions and rulings.. We measure by them and take rulings from them. The abrogating and abrogated verses in the Quran are an education and refinement of the souls of the nation and a gradual progression from darkness to light and from falsehood to truth in a way that does not make the souls turn away and bear what they cannot bear and flee from religion or make the souls adopt rulings that they may be unable to implement. And Allah knows best the souls of His servants, for He is their Creator and knows what is good for them. If we suppose that a person lives in darkness for ten years, for example, then we bring him out of the darkness into the light all at once, what will happen to him?? He will certainly go blind and lose his sight!! Therefore, the abrogating and abrogated is merely a gradual progression of rulings to bring people out of the darkness of polytheism and ignorance into the light of Islam. It is a specific legal ruling for a specific time and in a specific circumstance until another ruling is revealed that abrogates the previous ruling. It is in Allah’s foreknowledge that this ruling is for a specific time and circumstance and for a specific wisdom that He, the Most High, knows with His foreknowledge until the religion is completed. Allah, the Most High, said in His Noble Book: “This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (3) Al-Ma’idah. Accordingly, the abrogating and abrogated, as we have explained, is from the perfection of the religion and in Islam. Abrogating and abrogated are only in rulings and not in doctrine, but in your book there is what cannot be called abrogating and abrogated, but rather we can say abandoned and forsaken, or rulings ignored without reason or excuse... or rulings that people have abandoned in the book of their Lord due to their lack of manners or lack of feeling or... their claim of not seeing and understanding.... The real disaster is that you talk about abrogating and abrogated in the Quran as if it is a distortion and as if it is something defective or invalid or impermissible.... The real disaster is that you sing about this matter as if you have seized the argument against the Muslims.
But the funny thing is that most of those I have seen talking about this matter are basically those who do not understand the meaning of abrogating and abrogated, and the evidence for that is that if he understood the meaning of abrogating and abrogated and that he does not just repeat what he hears like a dumb parrot, he would have taken the trouble to look at his book even a simple glance before he comes out to us and squawks and screams and blabbers about what he does not know.... I seek refuge in Allah from this ignorance... and we ask Allah for safety in mind and religion ,,
Whoever philosophizes and says yes there is abrogation and abrogated in the book, but between the New Testament and the Old Testament and that there are hundreds of years between them, and abrogation here is acceptable, but in Islam abrogation occurred in only a few years, so why abrogation???
I say to him, my dear, first of all, you admitted the existence of abrogating and abrogated, but the time period does not change anything, even if there is abrogating and abrogated in the New Testament itself and in the Old Testament as well, as I mentioned to you the texts before. But even if we accept that matter to you, the idea of abrogating and abrogated does not require time to be applied. For example, when you dropped the punishment for adultery from the adulteress and did not apply it again as Moses commanded in his law, did the time factor represent any value??? Did the adulteress’s condition change so that she began to commit adultery in a way that was different from the adultery of the old adulteress? For example, did she begin to commit adultery from the left to the right or vice versa?
Cutting off the thief’s hand, for example, or killing him, as your book says... Was the thief in the past different from the thief now? Isn’t it the same theft and the same sin? Why don’t we apply the punishment to him as it was applied in the past? You say that time and nations differ. There are things that time and eras do not change. Adultery is the same adultery, theft is the same theft, and the limit of apostasy is the same apostate and the same harm that befalls the religion and people from the apostate is the same and has not changed. There is no difference here in the issue of time or place or the difference between people, as well as the prohibition of pork and drinking alcohol and many others... But it is abrogation as I told you. But when is your statement correct?? Your statement is correct, for example, in zakat or the method of prayer or financial transactions between people. Here, the factor of time and place and the difference between nations can represent a difference in it, but in the limits there is no difference between time and place and the difference between people... I sincerely ask you not to forget the saying of Jesus in Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (SVD)
Do you not see that you are deceiving yourselves and trying to deceive people and you are the first to be deceived??
Compare what came before with what you find now in your belief,,, I just invite you to read your book,,, I just invite you to look and look and not follow the whims of the unjust people, look at what you have and do not argue with people with what is more severe and harsher than what you have and is present in the heart of your book.. The Muslims are truly amazed at you how you talk about the abrogating and abrogated that it is a distortion and you do not look at what is in your book???
Please don't forget
Isaiah 24:5: And the land is defiled under its inhabitants, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the statutes, and broken the everlasting covenant.
Are you one of these people??
And among the people are those who say, “We believe in God and the Last Day,” but they are not believers. (8) They seek to deceive God and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive [it] not. (9) In their hearts is disease, so God has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie. (10) And when it is said to them, “Do not cause corruption on the earth,” they say, “We are only reformers.” (11) Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not. (12) And when it is said to them, “Believe as the people have believed,” they say, “Should we believe as the fools have believed?” Unquestionably, it is they who are the fools, but they do not know. (13) And when they meet those who believe, they say, “We believe,” but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, “Indeed, we are with you; we were only mocking.” (14) It is God who mocks. With them and He prolongs them in their transgression while they wander blindly. (15) Those are the ones who have purchased error at the price of guidance, so their transaction has brought them no profit, nor were they guided. (16) Al-Baqarah
So from the above, it is confirmed to us that abrogating and abrogated occurred in the books that preceded the Qur’an, such as the Old Testament and the New Testament, and that the New Testament abrogated the Old Testament, and that some books of the Old Testament abrogated others, and that abrogation occurred in the same book and in the same era of the Prophet and at the same time. There is no objection to abrogating and abrogated occurring in the Qur’an, but this is not the important point for me, as this is established and known to rational people. As for what Christians use as evidence in this paragraph, in the words of John 1:17: For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (SVD) So I think that no rational person would accept that this is a response to the cancellation of the Law of Moses and its law if you compare it to Jesus’ own saying, “I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” Even if we assume this, where in this phrase is what tells you to abandon the Law of Moses? Even if this phrase suggests to you to abandon the Law of Moses, what is required to be proven is that there is abrogating and abrogated, and this phrase, according to what you say, abrogated the entire Law of Moses. Accordingly, Christians now live by grace and not by law, as the Law of Moses was abrogated by this paragraph in John! This is if I agree with you that based on this phrase we must abandon the Law of Moses and live in grace. I do not know what grace you are talking about, but for the sake of argument, if I agree with you on this, then you are proving the abrogating and abrogated in your doctrine and not in your law. For you, the doctrine was abrogated, and this is the most severe form of blasphemy, because abrogating the doctrine means God has changed, and God does not change or alter. We all know that this paragraph was written in John, and no one knows who wrote the Gospel of John to this day.
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment