Prophet Ishmael (pbuh)

a reply to: paraphi

I have not challenged a thing except lies about Ishmael.

Successfully.

Other than that the Torah is clear and my point made by it.

I am not making any claims beyond the Torah itself, I did cite some Rabbinical literature but I don't need to. Feel free to ignore the Rabbis.

But the Torah is different and says what I said it says and quoted it saying.

I'm not claiming anything that the Torah doesn't say.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
I should have done this already.

Genesis 16:10 The angel of the Lord appeared to her and said to her, "I will greatly multiply your offspring that they can not be counted.

That was Hagar receiving a message from an angel about what God will do for her child. God obviously cares about Ishmael and Hagar.

16:3 Abrams wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave girl, andgave her to her husband AS A WIFE.

Last I checked a wife, slave or not, was a wife and a son BY a wife is LEGITIMATE.

Making a spectactle of Hagar's being a slave is an immoral argument as a biological son is a son BUT they WERE MARRIED.

All you Anti-Ishmaelites with fetishes for trying to discredit your own scriptures in order to slander...Islam because it's connected to Ishmael, are finding out how little you know. Now.

Genesis 15, God makes Covenant with Abraham.

17 The Sign of the Covenant (chapter title)

18. "Oh that Ishmael may live in your sight!"

Says Abraham, who is told to establish an everlasting covenant for his offspring (Isaac), established with Isaac, we all know.

20. As for Ishmael, I have HEARD YOU; I WILL BLESS HIM AND MAKE HIM FRUITFUL AND EXCEEDINGLY NUMEROUS, THE FATHER OF TWELVE GREAT PRINCES.

Certainly the Covenant is "established" through Isaac, but Ishmael pbuh is still a MEMBER of said Covenant.

17:23 Then Abraham took Ishmael and all the slaves in his house or bought with his money, EVERY MALE among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, AS GOD HAD SAID TO HIM....

26. That same day Abraham AND HIS SON ISHMAEL WERE CIRCUMCISED.

So Ishmael was a member of Isaac's Covenant, inherited from Abraham by rite of circumcision, so who cares if it was established through Isaac, it doesn't void Ishmaels initiation, so to speak, as ordered by God in the first place, it just makes Isaacs special.

I will settle for God's blessing and being just a member of a Covenant, I don't need it to be through Jacob, as the Bible makes clear the line of Ishmael was a part of a Covenant that was performed with Abraham on the same day as Abraham and it is through circumcision.

It's as irrevocable as Isaac's special Covenant and so is God's blessings.

And the curse of Canaan, who because of Judah's 3 Canaanite wives, who knows maybe Judah's children who also married Canaanites, inherited it!

Point is if you need to insult Islam, through denigrating Ishmael and Hagar (and denying it most likely with some garbage "logic" as you contradict the Torah) or any religion period, you violate the second greatest commandment (and likely deny it too) to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and in the world of religion Abrahamic religions are neighbors and brothers of One God and many Prophets, even if we have slight differences the similarities are greater to the point it isn't an issue in the absence of religous bigotry.

Not my thing guys so I am not going to join in your little hate-speech, as I am comfortable enough with my Faith I don't need to attack others.

I don't need to be the "my religion is better than your religion" guy or make fallacious arguments because I actually know this stuff and I don't mind the little differences between our religions as some do.

I just quoted enough of the Bible to prove my point beyond dispute.

Without pretending to know a story I don't, because I know it well. Didn't think it was necessary to quote but if people who don't understand the Bible want to denigrate Ishmael and Mohammed (pbut)...

Well I just have let God tell you in your own scripture so I don't need to do anything ever again regarding justifying the legitimacy of Ishmael.

It's funny in my second message I stated I partially make this to show people just like that who say just these things to render Islam (in their half baked minds) illegitimate.

Even if it means misrepresenting the Torah.

Have fun revoking God's blessings!!

Seems futile, but I won't tell you how to waste your time. It's your wasted time.

Because if Ishmaels circumcision didn't count then neither did Abrahams but the chapter in which they get circumcised is titles in my Bible as "The Sign of the Covenant."

You people don't know your scriptures.

I should not have to explain Torah to you.

But I enjoy doing it because I know it well.

But I was once a "Christian" I thought.

Then I really read the whole Bible and realized that Paul is still the enemy of Jesus pbuh the "Wolf of Benjamin and leaven of the Pharisees.'' He hates James and "...men of James sent to spy on our freedom in Christ."

"Circumcision faction" is what he also calls them even with the Jerusalem Council declaration of it not being necessary to burden the Greeks/goyim with it.

Violates his agreement to abide by the prohibition (of the Holy Spirit as was the general decree of said council) against idol meat, which Paul rebukes as for "weak brothers."

Calls the Torah a curse, Abraham "an allegory" says that the Law was "Ordained by angels."

I know God isn't an angel and personally ordains the Law. Angels don't have anything to do with creating Law, or anything, God does everything Himself, despite how Genesis apparently reads, it's common in the Qur'an for God to refer to Himself as "We", constant actually, so I read it differently and so do Jews who refuse to believe angels participate in Creation as they don't exist until the "Luminaries" which means "Heavenly Hosts(bodies) and refers to the angels in the Tanakh constantly. (2/3 of the stars swept out of the shy means angels, for instance, Rev.).

And Jesus pbuh never knew Paul as he condemns his little idol meat teaching in Revelation as the teaching of Balaam...a stumbling block for Israel, he obviously wasn't revealing secrets to him or anything at all.

And he self appointed himself as an "apostle" while none of the 12 EVER refer to him as such and 12 is the maximum according to Rev., again that books is revealing as the 7 Churches of Asia are "All those who are in Asia have turned from me" and only hints at Paul as one who says he is an apostle and is not, is a liar, discovered, rejected and Jesus(pbuh) praises them.

Only one person in the Bible fits the description, and the rest supports it, they support each other, it is Paul.

"I think I am not the least inferior to these super-apostles."

They thought so.

He lies to James in Jerusalem regarding his anti-Mosaic teachings, denies he advocates abandoning the Law he calls "a curse."

So I converted to Islam because Jesus pbuh denies any equality with God and never asks to be worshipped or called "God." Not even in Christian books.

And Paul infiltrated and corrupted Nazarene Judaism into a dying god cult.

Worth repeating.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
It occurred to me that I had said that Ishmael had mocked Isaac earlier.

I had been reading about Rabbinical literature that attempted to explain why Sarah (pbuh) wanted Ishmael gone.

It says that Ishmael was boasting about his circumcision as an adult in a conversation with Isaac (pbut) who says he was willing to be sacrificed and that was far more important.

This fails to take into account that Isaac was an infant at the time Sarah (pbuh) cast out Hagar and that infants don't talk.

Genesis 21:8 (Birth of Isaac begins at 21, Ishmael was circumcised already in 17 before Isaac was born as I stated earlier. To be honest I don't see why "established through" Isaac makes Abraham and Ishmael's Covenant any less significant but whatever, it is their scripture)

21:8 The child grew to be weaned; and Abraham made a great feast on the day Isaac was weaned [stopped breastfeeding].9 But Sarah saw the son of Hagar playing with her son Isaac. 10. So she said to Abraham, "Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not inherit with my son Isaac."

It's interesting because she says "with" showing uncharacteristic greed and jealousy which the Zohar (Mystical commentary on the Torah and some Prophets, Writings) explains as a case of the "evil eye" meaning she was under the influence of the evil inclination (Sitra Ahra, the Other Side, Samael, Lilith, Naamah).

Which is interesting because the corrupted 1000AD Masoretic version, the Hebrew Tanakh, even goes against all older versions like the Septuagint (which usually agree with the DSS more than the Masoretic) and Vulgate REMOVES "with her son Isaac" as if they didn't want Ishmael to have been playing with Isaac.

And I use the NRSV which uses Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, DSS, whenever possible in addition to the Septuagint and Vulgate, and always renders the Masoretic alterations to footnotes.

Long story short, Ishmael, (pbuh) COULDN'T have and didn't do anything wrong to Isaac like mock him in discussion because Isaac could not talk yet when Hagar was made to flee.(pbut)

Had to correct my mistake.

Worth repeating.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

TextSo Ishmael was a member of Isaac's Covenant, inherited from Abraham by rite of circumcision, so who cares if it was established through Isaac, it doesn't void Ishmaels initiation, so to speak, as ordered by God in the first place, it just makes Isaacs special.

No No. Ishmael was a member of Abraham's covenant. You are confused in that respect. There are two covenants involved in this episode. The first and foremost is that of Abram which was the covenant of his entire house of both family and servants. This was sealed by circumcision of all males of Abrams house.

The covenant (Brit Bein Habetarim) with Abraham was in 2016 AA [1743 bce]. Yishmeel was born in 2034 AA [1727 bce]. Then Abraham circumcised both Yishmeel and himself in 2048 AA [1713 bce]. This means that there were 32 years between the covenant and the sealing of the covenant. Yishmael was but 14 years old at this time. Then that same year of 2048 AA [1713 bce] Yitzchak [Isaac] was born and was circumcised eight days later as was instructed to Abraham by God. Abraham died in 2123 AA [1638 bce] as Yitzchak was 75 years old and Yishmeel was 89 years old.

Now it may interest some who are reading this to learn that the Sunday School tales are not always correct. Yitzchak [Isaac] was taken by Abraham to be sacrificed in 2084 AA [1677 bce] and that means that he was not a young lad as many are taught but was a man of 36 years old while his older brother Yishmeel was 50 years old.

So in reading scripture entails some study and not all assumptions. Getting back to Isaac, as you can see the sealing of the covenant between God and Yitzchak [Isaac] was 75 years after the circumcision of Abraham's house.

Gen 25:11 And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac; and Isaac dwelt by the well Lahairoi.

Ishmael was never under the covenant of his brother Isaac.

Gen 25:5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
As is the custom of passing the blessing of authority from father to son.

a reply to: Seede


Yeah, all due respect, read my comments, I am not confused about anything and even said Ishmael was a member of the Covenant with Abraham and was circumcised on the same day as him(pbut).

And before Isaac(pbuh) was born.

And I provided all relevant scripture, so I pretty much have concluded my presentation of the evidence you just didn't read everything and aren't up to date.

Or confused.

Either way I am not.

Ishmael is a part of a Covenant with God, the same one as Abraham. I already said this.

He was blessed by God to be a father of 12 Princes too.

So what are you confused about that makes you think I am confused?

a reply to: Seede


One comment before you I posted everything that the Bible says about the issue.

We don't need you to explain it for us as it is not confusing if you read it like my comments which you obviously didn't.

I am guessing you saw a thread about Ishmael (pbuh) ASSUMED, without really reading or quoting anything I said, I was wrong about something and proceed to offer some rather sloppy and unnecessary explanation in YOUR WORDS of what Torah says.

No quotes. Because if you used quotes it would be impossible to dispute me, because the Bible verifies everything I have said. Not including some Rabbinical literature which I did give links to or about.

You should read them and learn something that is actually in a book and not your uncouthe biased opinion and assumptions.

I just used the Torah, so I think I appreciate it but don't need your explanation, I am doing the explaining and have not faltered yet.

Because I used the Torah.

Prove me wrong, or try, but you will regret it I promise you.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Disturbinatti

TextSo Ishmael was a member of Isaac's Covenant, inherited from Abraham by rite of circumcision, so who cares if it was established through Isaac, it doesn't void Ishmaels initiation, so to speak, as ordered by God in the first place, it just makes Isaacs special.END QUOTE.

No No. Ishmael was a member of Abraham's covenant. You are confused in that respect.

I am not confused, the Covenant was with God and it doesn't really matter if it is said it will be "established through (as yet unborn)" Isaac, they both had A Covenant with God and there is no difference.

One for the Ishmaelites and one for Isaac's son Jacob, so it's actually Jacob's THROUGH Isaac, and you are confused.

Jacob is the father of 12 Princes like Ishmael and it is God's Covenant that is established through Isaac but WITH Israel.

(Eretz Isaac? Not a country. Jews are "IsraElites" and Muslims "IshmaElites" and at this point race is no longer a factor as certainly the world gene pool is mixed so much it really doesn't matter, in other words I can call myself an Ishmaelite like an Ashkenazi can say they are Israelite, though they are descended from Ashkenaz, Gomer and Japheth and not Shem.)

And WITH Ishmael from God with Abraham. The first members named.

So Isaac and Ishmael were of the same Covenant and you are confused because you don't realize "Through Isaac" means through and not "With", as was done with Ishmael and Abraham (pbut all) on the same day.

And "With" Israel.

I love to debate a know-it-all Christian, it's so easy.

Heh.

There are two covenants involved in this episode. The first and foremost is that of Abram which was the covenant of his entire house of both family and servants. This was sealed by circumcision of all males of Abrams house.

The covenant (Brit Bein Habetarim) with Abraham was in 2016 AA [1743 bce]. Yishmeel was born in 2034 AA [1727 bce]. Then Abraham circumcised both Yishmeel and himself in 2048 AA [1713 bce]. This means that there were 32 years between the covenant and the sealing of the covenant. Yishmael was but 14 years old at this time. Then that same year of 2048 AA [1713 bce] Yitzchak [Isaac] was born and was circumcised eight days later as was instructed to Abraham by God. Abraham died in 2123 AA [1638 bce] as Yitzchak was 75 years old and Yishmeel was 89 years old.

Now it may interest some who are reading this to learn that the Sunday School tales are not always correct. Yitzchak [Isaac] was taken by Abraham to be sacrificed in 2084 AA [1677 bce] and that means that he was not a young lad as many are taught but was a man of 36 years old while his older brother Yishmeel was 50 years old.

So in reading scripture entails some study and not all assumptions. Getting back to Isaac, as you can see the sealing of the covenant between God and Yitzchak [Isaac] was 75 years after the circumcision of Abraham's house.

Gen 25:11 And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac; and Isaac dwelt by the well Lahairoi.

Ishmael was never under the covenant of his brother Isaac.

Gen 25:5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
As is the custom of passing the blessing of authority from father to son.

Try quoting relevant scripture instead of ranting about what some Rabbi probably told you. Are you a Messianic Jew? You quoted irrelevant sentences, I used relevant paragraphs.

It was not an issue of legality, it was because Sarah didn't want Ishmael to have any inheritance with Isaac.

I quoted that twice, maybe three times, the verse that says why Sarah MADE Abraham cast out Hagar and why reluctant Abraham did it.

I am sorry your quotes are irrelevant to the topic and make no point whatsoever other than you can't follow the topic.

I don't really know what you are trying to say but I can tell you are confused and just want to tell someone they are wrong because...it is Ishmael, otherwise I don't see why you commented, it makes no difference.

I already proved everything I wanted and you are late to the game.

a reply to: Seede


I don't know why you think there is something to be debated, I mean I literally quoted every relevant verse to Ishmael, but let me sum it up and you can read above, I quoted my two most important comments above yours, and they entail everything the Torah has to say about Ishmael pbuh that is important, almost every mention of Ishmael.

You quoted the verse saying that Abraham gave all he had to Issac, stating "as was custom."

But if it was custom why would Sarah say in 21:10 "Cast ou this slave women with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not inherit ALONG WITH my son Isaac."

Obviously sharing inheritance was customary, Sarah would have known that.

Sarah(pbuh) was jealous because she had given Hagar as a wife to Abraham, as I have quoted exactly and you can see above or read in 16:3 "gave her to her husband Abraham as a wife." NRSV

Which if not for Abraham would have committed adultery by going in to her.

And if it WAS "the custom" it would have gone to Ishmael.

And Sarah would have not said "share along with."

There is a difference between inheritance customs and what is called a birthright, which is constantly and typologically violated in Tanakh giving it to the second son.

It's reminiscent of the pagan theme of the younger god overthrowing the high God, like Baal Elyon of Ugarit and El or even Yam, more likely as El was Father of all gods.

I bet your "Rabbis" won't tell you that. Or this:

El is the Semitic God, Elah (used 70 times in the Hebrew), (al-)Ilah/Allah of Arabia and Illu of Ugarit/ Canaan, I just use El because it's more familiar as a word meaning God, El Elyon, God Most High to the Hebrews.

It's common in pagan mythology and Hebrew scripture brings it into the human drama.

It's a literary device and nothing more and has nothing to do with custom, don't know why you would bring up that verse, Isaac had been caste away and blessed already and was to be a King of 12 Princes so he made out just fine without inheritance money, God hears Ishmael.

Regarding his Covenant it was equal to Abrahams and Isaacs and the only one who had the Covenant that gives the designation chosen/my people is to Jacob/Israel who wrestled with God and recieved a blessing, something Isaac can't claim and no one else for that matter.

Isaac was no more special than Ishmael and their Covenants the same, if anything Ishmael's greater and more like Jacob's being the father of twelve sons. And being before Isaac was born and with Abraham.

It follows logic if Ishmael's son's were Princes because of God's blessing that Ishmael was a King, as Kings only have Princes as sons.

I would say Jacob was also a King, but that Ishmael did not wrestle with God, that is what makes Jacob special.

Ishmael is the first born son of Abraham, caste away by a jealous wife in a polygamous marriage.

Over money, inheritance. The Zohar calls it a case of the "Evil eye."

I bet your Rabbis won't tell you that it is believed and stated in "Chayei Sarah" that Keturah is a "Repentant" Hagar.

Pbut all.

Salaam, Allahu Akbar/God is Greatest

a reply to: Disturbinatti

I don't really know what you are trying to say but I can tell you are confused and just want to tell someone they are wrong because...it is Ishmael, otherwise I don't see why you commented, it makes no difference.

The reason I commented was that this is a public forum which should be open to all who wish to discuss a religious topic. I had no intent to discredit you but only to show that I think you are mistaken. Your religion is not my concern nor do I truly care to understand your religion. The topic matter is the Hebrew literature called Torah and that is what I opined.

If you will, let me review my opinion.

Genesis 17:7 -12
(7) And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
(8) And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
(9) And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
(10) This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
(11) And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
(12) And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

It seems that we agree up to this point. On this very same day that Abraham’s people were all circumcised Isaac was born. So both Isaac and Ishmael were under this covenant.

Then God also declared that He would make a different covenant with Isaac and his seed which would be forever.

Genesis 17:19
And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

Then God also blessed Ishmael but made no covenant with Ishmael.
Genesis 17: 20
And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

Genesis 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

I believe that is clear. You see that Isaac and Ishmael were both under the covenant of Abraham but that is the first covenant. Then after Abraham died, God made His covenant with Isaac. Both Isaac and Ishmael were old men at this time and had gone their separate ways in life. You should understand that Ishmael and Isaac were always under the covenant of Abraham till the day they died but that the covenant of Isaac was another and separate covenant. It had nothing to do with Ishmael.

Now that does not take anything away from Islamic faith. All that means is that Judaic faith came through the seeds of the covenant of Isaac and that both Isaac and Ishmael were half brothers. Islamic faith came through a man named Muhammad which was the seed of Abraham and Ishmael. Why is that so difficult to see?

I do not understand why you seem to be so defensive and rude. If you think I am wrong then post the scriptures and show your evidence instead of ranting beyond comprehension.
God Bless

a reply to: Seede

Well I am sorry but I had to correct your errors, have a great day.

I wasn't suggesting you can't comment or shouldn't.

Just that there is nothing to debate it has all been discussed and it needs no more discussion.

I never erred in any statement I made about the Torah and Ishmael so I am obviously going to wonder why you are debating not me but the Torah, which it is clear you have yet to grasp from a scholarly perspective versus a religous one, which is common.

Most Christians only care about their free ticket to heaven at the expense of the death of the Messiah and declaring themselves God's new Chosen One's, that the Jews killed Jesus.

But actually it was the Roman pen that killed Jesus (pbuh) as a dead Messiah is a defeated one, ressurected or not, his stated goals never happened and haven't yet, in Christianity since Paul showed up and rewrote it into a dying god cult.

Is it hard to believe that God could make it seem like they killed him, so he could escape and Ascend to Heaven alive until the next Messenger (pbuh) came and finished the job as "the sword" Jesus pbuh came to bring?

Or is it easier to just believe a death of a divine Messenger is salvation, which makes God look creepy?

Why would God need to kill the Messiah pbuh to forgive the sins Baptism is designed to forgive in the Gospels, according to John and Jesus pbuh?

It's clear that whole Roman generation rejected Jesus pbuh message for Paul's, and that it needed correction.

So in a way, if they hadn't called him God against his wishes to be considered equal with God, you would have Nazarene Judaism and no Catholicism/Christianity.

But Allah/God/Hashem knows best.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

It's clear that whole Roman generation rejected Jesus pbuh message for Paul's, and that it needed correction. So in a way, if they hadn't called him God against his wishes to be considered equal with God, you would have Nazarene Judaism and no Catholicism/Christianity.

I believe you are mistaken once again. The entire Roman generation did not reject Jesus as you have so stated. In fact it was only the Roman prefect named Pilate that was the authority in Jerusalem who sentenced Jesus to death. Saul/Paul had nothing to do with the entire episode and neither did the Roman Senate. Pilate was later removed from his command in being an unjust representative of Rome and was put in exile.

The accusation from the Jews against Jesus was that He called Himself the Son of God and was not the son of God. The accusation against Jesus was not that He claimed to be The Most High EL. Jesus stood trial with the accusation that He was not the son of God and was acquitted from that charge. The Jewish Sanhedrin agreed that He was the son of God.

You simply do not know what you are talking about. You need some serious education in biblical understanding.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
His WIFE, Hagar, you mean?
Ishmael was legitimate.

Only if you think Abraham treated her as a wife. He never referred to her as his wife, and eventually threw her out. Hagar was the servant of Abraham's actual wife. She was his bit on the side, and her child Israel was illegitimate. A bastard. At least that's the contrary opinion to those asserted.

The legitimacy of Ishmael will be argued over until the end of time. There is no evidence either way, only belief. Same as there is no evidence that Muhammad has any links back to Abraham, only tradition passed down, retranslated and distorted.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
which it is clear you have yet to grasp from a scholarly perspective versus a religous one, which is common.

Can you give a difference between scholarly and religious. Is it scholarly balances fact, or plausibility, whereas the religious angle is based on belief and irrationality? Pray tell.

Jews and Christians sideline Ishmael because they cannot fathom the idea of God raising prophets from Ishmaels progeny.

I had a dream about Ishmael pbuh last night.

According to the Talmud it means that I am blessed.

Thanks Rabbinical literature!!!

a reply to: firefromabove

Ah wisdom in this thread.

I thought I was alone.

Apparently "God" can make himself human and not Himself, die, ressurect and be proclaimed 3 and 1 at the same time by "mono"theists...

But raising a Prophet from Abrahams first born son (pbut)?

Impossible.

It is why Christianity is the enemy of reason.

I actually know from YouTube and Rabbinical literature it applies more to today's and European Christians of the past, not all, as the Syrians, Copts, and Jews of Babylon and Syria ALL supported Islam against their Byzantine Empire and helped overthrow it in Egypt and in Syria supported it.

And the Rabbis don't all feel that way just the fanatics.

a reply to: firefromabove

I actually knew it would happen so decided it'd be a good idea to not quote scripture and let everyone lodge their uneducated complaints, a virtual certainty, and then smack em with their own words by using the actual Torah.

Been quiet since I did that. One guy tried but I made a fool of him for it. Because he was not paying attention he made himself look foolish actually.

Doubt he feels it, they have no ability to feel the fool when wrong about the Bible it seems and will make terrible excuses that contradict the Torah just to avoid admitting it.

They also hate when other people, not Christians, know the Bible better than they, another virtual certainty from a religion that relies on creed for salvation and only cares ABOUT salvation but doesn't notice that is not what Jesus taught (pbuh) AT ALL.

So it behooves them not to read it, and they study it out of context on purpose.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Ishmael apparently used to be a Jewish name.

There was a first century Rabbi called Ishmael.
Its strange how his parents named him Ishmael, after Hagar's son and not Esau the brother of Jacob!

The Jews knew Ishmael was no Esau.

God blessed Ishmael and they know it.

a reply to: Seede

believe that is clear. You see that Isaac and Ishmael were both under the covenant of Abraham but that is the first covenant. Then after Abraham died, God made His covenant with Isaac.

Christians seem to think there was some rivalry between Isaac and Ishmael

That's not so

Muslims revere both Isaac and Ishmael as prophets. They were both Muslims.

a reply to: firefromabove


Absolutely.

So I posted every relevant mention of Ishmael pbuh, and now they know it.

Which is why they have stopped commenting.

Nothing left for them to insult. They were playing when Isaac was a baby and Sarah had Abraham get rid of him over inheritance issues, jealousy as is obvious from reading the story.

They didn't meet again until Abraham's funeral (pbuh) and there was nothing but love even in Midrash writings I've read. Rabbinical literature.

a reply to: firefromabove


Yes I have the first Merkaba literature, 3 Enoch, it's a Kabbalistic book attributed to Rabbi Ishmael in the first century or second, I forget.

But it is a Jewish name, from their literature too with EL at the end "God hears" is what it means.

Not so popular today though.

Like a Muslim named Israel it would be cruel.