Crucifixion and Atonement - I Don't Understand

[nazz]

Which means you didn't view the evidence to decide for yourself?

I mean, isn't that like dismissing anything you say because "You're a Christian so of course you'll support the Christian view?" Why even have a discussion then if evidence is going to be ignored.

My guess is that you could find secular scholars who disagree with you, because they don't only use Scripture as evidence.

I'm not actually taking sides here so much as making the point that a discussion is impossible if all you're going to do is dismiss any disagreeing view as incorrect.

Let's say that the NT is 100% in support of your view, and it may be, that doesn't mean it's the only source of evidence or inherently accurate. By faith it is accurate, by historical research it is not.

If you didn't see my other reply I think you should read it. This is not about faith or whether a person named Jesus even existed and/or was crucified. It is about what the New Testament claims happened. As I said before there is not even a hint of that Scripture claiming that someone other than Jesus was crucified.

 

[nazz]

Trust me when I say I didn't make these things up.

I do and never thought you were making anything up. But if I started arguing the Muhammad mentioned in the Qur'an is not the Prophet I am sure you would also find that idea completely laughable and not worthy of any serious attention.

Please read the Apocalypse of Peter which was directly written and spoken by Peter himself :
"For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will be put to shame. But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst."
...
And I said "What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

I have no idea why you would use this verse to support your case since it clearly says the person who is being crucified is the living Jesus, meaning the spiritual aspect. I am a Gnostic and this is Gnostic mysticism of the Docetist variety. It does not mean what you think it means nor does it support your point at all. It is not a different person on the cross made to look like Jesus; it is his phantom physical body he projected.

BTW, this late Gnostic text is most certainly not authored by the Apostle Peter.

Now even in NT there are contradictions as to how He was Crucified - so how can you be sure that He was really crucified ? For example ...

Peter's account: Jesus was crucified on a tree according to the books of "Acts".
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Others' accounts: Jesus was crucified on the cross.
Mark 15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

So which one is it ?

Tree is simply another term for cross. Crosses were made from trees.

It is easy to brush away someone as ex-Christian convert but the Truth is He used to be a Christian Pastor and went to Harvard Divinity school while a Christian. Then as the real knowledge of manuscripts was exposed to him and the discrepancies there in, he realized the Truth and then later through his search for Truth accepted Islam. So just because he is a Muslim now, does not take away the fact that he learned more about the scripture which led him to leave Christianity. Plus, no one who truly sees what went on with the Crucifixion will remain Christian thereafter because Christianity depends on this - so no, you will not find Christians questioning Crucifixion.

I'm not brushing it aside simply because he is a Muslim. I am brushing it aside because it is a ridiculous argument. Sorry to use such strong terms, and no insult meant toward you, but there is simply no other way to put it.

To sum up the New Testament teaches in totally clear and unambiguous terms that Jesus of Nazareth, Isa the son of Mary, was crucified. However the Qur'an is NOT so clear but open to interpretation and I would suggest you look at my new thread about that in the Qur'anic Debate section.

 

[loverOfTruth]

I do and never thought you were making anything up. But if I started arguing the Muhammad mentioned in the Qur'an is not the Prophet I am sure you would also find that idea completely laughable and not worthy of any serious attention.

I understand. I think the confusion is due to me not making my intent, for mentioning what I quoted, clear. I apologize for that. My intent was not at all to demonstrate or claim that 'the Bible does not say Jesus was crucified or that Bible says someone else was crucified in his place'. Rather, my intent was to bring up the variety of accounts/contradictions that exist within the Bible as well as among Christian sources regarding 'crucifixion related events' ranging from when exactly Jesus was crucified, to how he was crucified, and even what transpired after crucifixion. So my point is if there can be so much divergent opinions on those issues among Christians and more so among early Christians as shown in that video, how can you be really sure that the story of Crucifixion as stated in the Bible is really what it says it is.

Think about, for example, the scenario in Matthew 27 that occurs before the crucifixion that I brought up from that video. I wasn't really quote mining or misrepresenting anything at all. All I meant is that at least one translation of the Bible(NIV, which goes to the earliest manuscripts) all of a sudden shows that there were actually two people named Jesus at the court of Pilate (disregard which is which, for a second). That alone should be enough to raise eyebrows. I don't think most Christians ever knew that - because everywhere else it states Jesus vs. Barabbas. Now if you add that up with other divergent versions of events related to Crucifixion - it is not too far fetched to question whether Jesus the Christ was ever Crucified or the story got mixed up in the midst of confusions and manuscript errors. Furthermore, when you look into more detail, as I trust the guy talking in the video who is of course more knowledgeable than me in Hebrew, he shows how they released Jesus the Son of the Father instead of Jesus the anointed one even if the same Bible later goes on to say that Jesus was crucified. So who is to say that there won't be more revelations in the future as per earlier manuscripts which will show that Jesus Christ was not crucified but it was the other Jesus ? At the very least, as it stands now, it justifies questioning this event and justifies doubting as to whether it really happened.

I have no idea why you would use this verse to support your case since it clearly says the person who is being crucified is the living Jesus, meaning the spiritual aspect. I am a Gnostic and this is Gnostic mysticism of the Docetist variety. It does not mean what you think it means nor does it support your point at all. It is not a different person on the cross made to look like Jesus; it is his phantom physical body he projected.

You would have known if you really read it carefully. Ok, let me quote that again :
And I said "What do I see, O Lord, that it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

The Wesley Center Online: The Apocalypse Of Peter

Now let me rephrase that for you. Peter being confused asked Jesus - are they taking you(Jesus) while you are with me(Peter)? Obviously, the one being taken away looked like Jesus - otherwise, Peter wouldn't ask this. Then Peter clearly asks Jesus as to which one is which - 'who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree' and 'is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking' ?

Jesus responds saying the one 'on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus' - so the living Jesus was not being Crucified. Then Jesus further states that the other one who is being Crucified is a Substitute who came into being in His(Jesus's) look alike : 'But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness.'

Now read again what the Qur'an says about that : "...but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man" (Al Quran 4:157). How amazing !!!

BTW, this late Gnostic text is most certainly not authored by the Apostle Peter.

"In this respect it deserves attention that Clement of Alexandria regards the Apocalypse of Peter as Holy Scriptures (cf. Euseb. HE VI 14.1), which is proof of an origin at least in the first half of the 2nd century. The terminus a quo can be more precisely determined through the time of origin of 4 Est. (about 100 A.D.), which was probably used in the Apocalypse of Peter (cf. 4 Est. with c. 3), and 2 Peter, the priority of which was demonstrated by F. Spitta. We thus come, with H. Weinel, to approximately the year 135 as the probable time of origin.
...
Müller writes (New Testament Apocrphya, vol. 2, p. 625): "The significance of the Apocalypse of Peter as an important witness of the Petrine literature is not to be underestimated. Peter is the decisive witness of the resurrection event."

From : Apocalypse of Peter (Akhmim)

So even if it is not authored by Peter this certainly is one of the earliest Christian scripture authored as it is referenced by Clement of Alexandria. And by the way, the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are mostly by unknown authors and that even from a later period. So I don't think it would make much of a difference in that sense. But what it shows is that at least some early christian writings exist that agrees with the Qur'an.

Tree is simply another term for cross. Crosses were made from trees.

So are patio, table, chair, paper and what not. But do we interchangeably use Tree for Patio ? Nobody does. Moreover, Acts 5:30 uses "hanged on a tree". I don't think anyone equates 'hanging on a tree' to 'crucifying on a cross'. They are different method of death and I think it is less than sincere to interpret it that way just to cover up a contradiction.

I'm not brushing it aside simply because he is a Muslim. I am brushing it aside because it is a ridiculous argument. Sorry to use such strong terms, and no insult meant toward you, but there is simply no other way to put it.

But you didn't even listen to his arguments - how would you even know ?

To sum up the New Testament teaches in totally clear and unambiguous terms that Jesus of Nazareth, Isa the son of Mary, was crucified. However the Qur'an is NOT so clear but open to interpretation and I would suggest you look at my new thread about that in the Qur'anic Debate section.

Actually, you are quite wrong on the Qur'anic version as to 'what happened'. I can agree with your view on 'how it happened' ?
"And because of their saying, `We killed Messiah Jesus, son of Mary,
the Messenger of God'- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely they killed him not (Jesus, son of Mary). But God raised him (Jesus) up unto Himself. And God is ever All-Powerful, All-Wise"
(Al Quran 4:157-158).

So it absolutely clearly states that Jesus was neither killed not crucified but raised to God. As far as how that was achieved by putting a substitute, you can interpret it anyway you want. Whereas, on the other hand, while the Bible states that Jesus was crucified, it leaves enough divergent versions of the events to question the validity of it all.

Peace.

 

[nazz]

I understand. I think the confusion is due to me not making my intent, for mentioning what I quoted, clear. I apologize for that. My intent was not at all to demonstrate or claim that 'the Bible does not say Jesus was crucified or that Bible says someone else was crucified in his place'.

OK, now we are getting somewhere because that is what I was strongly objecting to.

Rather, my intent was to bring up the variety of accounts/contradictions that exist within the Bible as well as among Christian sources regarding 'crucifixion related events' ranging from when exactly Jesus was crucified, to how he was crucified, and even what transpired after crucifixion. So my point is if there can be so much divergent opinions on those issues among Christians and more so among early Christians as shown in that video, how can you be really sure that the story of Crucifixion as stated in the Bible is really what it says it is.

Because I don't see any contradictions. And believe me, I am one who thinks there are MANY contradictions in the bible. But this is just not one of them.

Think about, for example, the scenario in Matthew 27 that occurs before the crucifixion that I brought up from that video. I wasn't really quote mining or misrepresenting anything at all. All I meant is that at least one translation of the Bible(NIV, which goes to the earliest manuscripts) all of a sudden shows that there were actually two people named Jesus at the court of Pilate (disregard which is which, for a second). That alone should be enough to raise eyebrows.

Not at all. Yeshua (Jesus) was a common name for that time.

I don't think most Christians ever knew that - because everywhere else it states Jesus vs. Barabbas. Now if you add that up with other divergent versions of events related to Crucifixion - it is not too far fetched to question whether Jesus the Christ was ever Crucified or the story got mixed up in the midst of confusions and manuscript errors.

But the case falls apart when taken in the context of the rest of Christian Scripture which totally affirms that Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah was the one who was crucified. That has been my main point all along. Plus you are discounting something extremely important. The disciples belief in the RESURRECTION. That is what convinced them to keep following Jesus. And you can't have a resurrection without a death preceding it.
​

Furthermore, when you look into more detail, as I trust the guy talking in the video who is of course more knowledgeable than me in Hebrew, he shows how they released Jesus the Son of the Father instead of Jesus the anointed one even if the same Bible later goes on to say that Jesus was crucified. So who is to say that there won't be more revelations in the future as per earlier manuscripts which will show that Jesus Christ was not crucified but it was the other Jesus ? At the very least, as it stands now, it justifies questioning this event and justifies doubting as to whether it really happened.

Well so far we don't know any such manuscripts exist. But even if they did they would have to be properly vetted by scholars and compared with the mountain of manuscripts which clearly claim Jesus the Messiah was crucified.

You would have known if you really read it carefully.

I read it right the first time. It is you who is not reading it right or understanding what it is really saying. You need to acquaint yourself with the Docetist doctrine:

Docetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In this respect it deserves attention that Clement of Alexandria regards the Apocalypse of Peter as Holy Scriptures (cf. Euseb. HE VI 14.1), which is proof of an origin at least in the first half of the 2nd century.

I think there is some confusion here. There are TWO works entitled "The Apocalypse of Peter". One is Gnostic the other not. Clement no doubt is endorsing the non-Gnostic one which you can view here:

Apocalypse of Peter (Akhmim)

So are patio, table, chair, paper and what not. But do we interchangeably use Tree for Patio ? Nobody does. Moreover, Acts 5:30 uses "hanged on a tree". I don't think anyone equates 'hanging on a tree' to 'crucifying on a cross'. They are different method of death and I think it is less than sincere to interpret it that way just to cover up a contradiction.

The use of the word "tree" rather than "cross" has to do with the OT statement "cursed is anyone hung on a tree". Part of NY theology is that Jesus became accursed for our sake. Even if Jesus were nailed to a literal tree it would still be a CRUCIFIXION.

But you didn't even listen to his arguments - how would you even know ?

I saw what you quoted and that was enough to convince me I did not need to watch an hour long presentation.

Actually, you are quite wrong on the Qur'anic version as to 'what happened'.

Let's discuss that in the other thread.

 

[sojourner]

All of Islam believes differently (AFAIK) that's a large population who believe the new testament is corrupted.

The fallacy here is that the largest group must be right. Since it's not their text, and not their religion, I don't see how they can be not only any more trustworthy in their take, but even as trustworthy.

What about omitted gospels, do they tell a different tale?

Most of the "omitted" texts were omitted because their authenticity was seriously in dispute. I'm not aware of any of them that seriously challenge that Jesus was, in fact, crucified.

Secular scholars doubt quite a few things - Jesus' death is absolutely one of them - but you're not likely to find evidence in a standard English bible anyway.

Most reputable scholars agree that a man named Jesus was crucified.

 

[sojourner]

So which one is it ?

Picayune analysis of detail in texts that were oral in origin is not cogent to the validity of such texts.

It is easy to brush away someone as ex-Christian convert but the Truth is He used to be a Christian Pastor and went to Harvard Divinity school while a Christian. Then as the real knowledge of manuscripts was exposed to him and the discrepancies there in, he realized the Truth and then later through his search for Truth accepted Islam. So just because he is a Muslim now, does not take away the fact that he learned more about the scripture which led him to leave Christianity.

So what? The man has, with an MDiv. has no further formal bible training than either Angellous or myself, who have both gone through MDiv. programs. and neither of us have significant doubt that the gospel texts are so corrupt as to make Jesus' crucifixion an impossibility.
The man in the video is no more credible or knowledgeable than I.

no one who truly sees what went on with the Crucifixion will remain Christian thereafter because Christianity depends on this

A bold statement, considering that many believed after having witnessed the crucifixion.

 

[sojourner]

Why even have a discussion then if evidence is going to be ignored.

The "evidence" is eisegetical in nature and, therefore, not admissible as evidence.

 

[sojourner]

I understand. I think the confusion is due to me not making my intent, for mentioning what I quoted, clear. I apologize for that. My intent was not at all to demonstrate or claim that 'the Bible does not say Jesus was crucified or that Bible says someone else was crucified in his place'. Rather, my intent was to bring up the variety of accounts/contradictions that exist within the Bible as well as among Christian sources regarding 'crucifixion related events' ranging from when exactly Jesus was crucified, to how he was crucified, and even what transpired after crucifixion. So my point is if there can be so much divergent opinions on those issues among Christians and more so among early Christians as shown in that video, how can you be really sure that the story of Crucifixion as stated in the Bible is really what it says it is.

I'm guessing from what I encounter in this forum, that Muslims' faith depends upon the Koran being "correct" and "irrefutable." A Christian's faith depends upon neither, for our faith is not founded in the texts, but upon the testimony of the ekklesia. Our faith does not depend upon "correct historical reporting," but upon the gospel as manifest in the relationships built between people.

 

[sojourner]

By faith it is accurate, by historical research it is not.

What "historical research" would that be? What is meant by "accurate?"

 

[sojourner]

Now read again what the Qur'an says about that : "...but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man" (Al Quran 4:157). How amazing !!!

Not so amazing that a text from a rival religion, founded hundreds of years after the fact, would accuse the central event in Xy of never happening.

I fail to see how the Koran trumps the biblical record in this regard.

 

[nazz]

Not so amazing that a text from a rival religion, founded hundreds of years after the fact, would accuse the central event in Xy of never happening.

I fail to see how the Koran trumps the biblical record in this regard.

I don't think that passage is a refutation of the crucifixion of Jesus (see my other thread on this in the Qur'anic Debate section). It seems to only be a refutation of Jews claiming to have crucified and killed Christ. That is odd in itself as I have never heard any Jews make that claim. That has historically been more a Christian slander against Jews.

The Qur'an never even addresses the Christian doctrine of vicarious atonement.

 

[Darkness]

I am just going to paste what I wrote in another thread:

Christus Victor/Ransom Theory was the primarily soteriology of the Early Christian Church. It was only after the Latin Doctrine of Penance was adopted that a substitutionary atonement was introduced into the fail to any reasonable measure, and Satisfaction Theory developed, and afterwards, Penal Substitution. Jesus' death and atonement was not conceived in terms of a satisfaction of God's righteous judgment of humankind. Jesus' death was never about protecting us from God. It was about liberating humankind from the powers of darkness; in a dualistic view of the world, whereby Jesus' death represented a cosmic victory against injustice and evil. Anybody who tells you otherwise is probably letting presentism affect their judgment.

 

[nazz]

I am just going to paste what I wrote in another thread:

Christus Victor/Ransom Theory was the primarily soteriology of the Early Christian Church. It was only after the Latin Doctrine of Penance was adopted that a substitutionary atonement was introduced into the fail to any reasonable measure, and Satisfaction Theory developed, and afterwards, Penal Substitution. Jesus' death and atonement was not conceived in terms of a satisfaction of God's righteous judgment of humankind. Jesus' death was never about protecting us from God. It was about liberating humankind from the powers of darkness; in a dualistic view of the world, whereby Jesus' death represented a cosmic victory against injustice and evil. Anybody who tells you otherwise is probably letting presentism affect their judgment.

:yes:

It's Christus Victor all the way for me!

 

[sojourner]

I am just going to paste what I wrote in another thread:

Christus Victor/Ransom Theory was the primarily soteriology of the Early Christian Church. It was only after the Latin Doctrine of Penance was adopted that a substitutionary atonement was introduced into the fail to any reasonable measure, and Satisfaction Theory developed, and afterwards, Penal Substitution. Jesus' death and atonement was not conceived in terms of a satisfaction of God's righteous judgment of humankind. Jesus' death was never about protecting us from God. It was about liberating humankind from the powers of darkness; in a dualistic view of the world, whereby Jesus' death represented a cosmic victory against injustice and evil. Anybody who tells you otherwise is probably letting presentism affect their judgment.

spot on!

 

[nazz]

spot on!

It's interesting how the Ransom Theory has even gained ground among Evangelicals in America.

Most Christians have no clue regarding the many theories and their development. They assume Penal Substitution is the ONLY and correct theory.

 

[JustWondering]

I remember when I was in Catholic grade school and I was taught that Jesus died so our sins may be forgiven. It didn't make sense then and it still doesn't make sense now.

I understand why the Ancients would perform sacrifices but what was God's thought process?

God: "Man has sinned and I cannot and will not forgive them."

Thousands of years go by.

God: "Someone has to pay for the sins of man. I will send my Son in human form and have Him be Crucified. Then, I will forgive mankind's sins."

OK, God would have thought something more elaborate and smarter than that but I just wanted to convey my perplexed state of mind. Couldn't the Crucifixion have a different meaning/purpose?

I wouldn't worry about it. IMO its all made up. If there is a god then it created us the way it wanted us to be. Why would a creator pass judgement on creatures for acting the way it created them to act in the first place?

Honestly, the idea of god sitting up in the heavens obssesing over my ever thought and action is kinda creepy. Secondly, why is god obsessed with blood being spilt for him? The "do as I say or I'll hurt you" relationship between god and humanity thats described in detail in the bible also puts me off. I can't see how any rational human being can read the bible and WANT that god to actually exist. None of it makes any sense to me.

 

[Drolefille]

What "historical research" would that be? What is meant by "accurate?"

I'm comfortable stating that the New Testament isn't historically accurate if only for the inaccuracy in dating Jesus's birth between the existing four gospels. Those who believe in it consider it "accurate" or literally accurate or put lot of scare quotes around words that don't need them.

As for the rest of your posts in response to mine, you missed that I was only really responding to the dismissiveness of a post, not the argument itself. Also, don't feel like responding to three different posts.

 

[F0uad]

For god so loves the criminals that he ....

I have a question regarding the subject to whom was the Ransom paid?

To God or the devil?

 

[F0uad]

The Qur'an never even addresses the Christian doctrine of vicarious atonement.

Well the Quran is not to be considered a refutation of the Bible or Christian teaching but a improvement. The Quran does say this about blood-sacrifices:

22:37 "It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His Guidance to you and proclaim the good news to all who do right.

The Islamic idea of human sacrifices are forbidden such as in the bible repeated over and over, also self extermination is forbidden. The Sacrifice itself is a sin so the conclusion i get here is that Jesus(pbuh) sinned to take away our sins.. it gets more ridiculous by the minute.

 

[nazz]

For god so loves the criminals that he ....

Well sinners anyway

I have a question regarding the subject to whom was the Ransom paid?

To God or the devil?

That's an interesting question that early Christians struggled with. Gustav Aulen who pioneered the Christus Victor view (a revamping of the Ransom Theory) said it should not be taken so literally. Personally speaking, the way I see it was that Jesus was sent on a suicide mission behind enemy lines. His death was an inevitable consequence of his mission and not the goal of it. But he gave his life to save ours.

As a Gnostic I would say if any ransom was paid it was paid to the Demiurge.