Crucifixion and Atonement - I Don't Understand

[nazz]

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.

I don't think you would find many Christians or Jews who would disagree with that.

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.

Wrong. Jesus died as a martyr fighting in the way of God. Jihad in its purest form.

 

[F0uad]

Well sinners anyway



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.

Are we now talking about the so called evil god? Well i have to agree that its straight injustice being done towards Jesus(pbuh) if he indeed was crucified. But i prefer waiting for a answer from the mainstream Christians.

 

[nazz]

are we now talking about the so called evil god? Well i have to agree that its straight injustice being done towards jesus(pbuh) if he indeed was crucified. But i prefer waiting for a answer from the mainstream christians.

ok

 

[F0uad]

Wrong. Jesus died as a martyr fighting in the way of God. Jihad in its purest form.

What is wrong? Human sacrifices and self exterminations are forbidden in the Bible and Quran...

Jesus(pbuh) sacrifice had nothing to do with fighting for hes beliefs but for taking away our sins remember? You can't compare the two, one is about salvation the other one is about what one beliefs.

 

[loverOfTruth]

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.

I'll just give one example related to Crucifixion for now - and a major one. Following the thread below should clearly demonstrate the divergent opinions as to when was Jesus Crucified : http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/138172-3-days-3-nights-did-jesus.html

Now, you can also see the comparison chart showing all the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in different Gospels :
Comparison of Gospel Accounts of the Resurrection of Christ - ReligionFacts

So your claim regarding 'no contradiction' does not hold at all.

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

I mean two Jesus at the court of Pilate - that is not a common knowledge - so common people are surprised to hear that. Now the fact that Yeshua got changed to Jesus by the time of NT is another reason why we start questioning what else changed ? See how the name got changed here : Was Jesus a common name back when he was alive? - Slate Magazine

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.
​

Well, as I have clearly stated, I am not trying to prove from the Bible that Crucifixion didn't happen for sure - but rather that there's enough issues and divergent opinions as to raise significant doubt of the validity of the entire story. See the link I gave above regarding different versions of the story regarding Resurrection. So my point remains valid. Plus, I have provided at least one reference from early Christian writings stating He was not crucified.

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.

Yes, it is getting there

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

I do not agree. It is clearly talking about 2 different PERSONS - one being crucified and one not - regardless of how the 2nd person is a Jesus look alike and the case of the substitution. So you can call it 'Docetism' or whatever you like - but that doesn't change the fact that it talks about 2 different person and the debatable part is only how the substitution was put in place of Jesus.

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)

That may be the case but my point is I have provided at least one reference from early Christian writings contradicting Jesus's crucifixion as shown above. And wikipedia states that even the Gnostic one 'It was probably written around 100-200 AD' and that ' The text takes gnostic interpretations of the crucifixion to the extreme, picturing Jesus as laughing and warning against people who cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking they shall become pure.' - clearly agreeing to what I stated.
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 I thought you said in another place(see below) in this thread that Jesus died a martyr. So how can he be a 'martyr' and 'accursed ' at the same time. Please make up your mind.

...Jesus died as a martyr fighting in the way of God. Jihad in its purest form.

Peace.

 

[loverOfTruth]

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

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.

And that's not a bold and arrogant statement ? Even if you have a Masters in Divinity degree from Harvard - but do you ?

Dr. Jerald F. Dirks received his Bachelor of Arts (philosophy) from Harvard College in 1971, his Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School in 1974, his Master of Arts (clinical child psychology) from the University of Denver in 1976, his Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.) degree in clinical psychology from the University of Denver in 1978

In 1969, he obtained his License to Preach from the United Methodist Church, and he was ordained into the Christian ministry (deaconate) by the United Methodist Church in 1972.

No more formal training than you ? Really ?

Jerald (Jerry) Dirks, Debra Dirks--Comparative religions, American Muslim

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

Or so they tell you ... Most of the NT authors are unknown - I wouldn't exactly call that 'eye witness account'.

 

[loverOfTruth]

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.

That's right - Islam doesn't require 'Blind Faith' unlike some OTHER religions. We believe in Faith with Evidence.

Peace.

 

[loverOfTruth]

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.

So may be you also fail to see how the story of Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses etc. told hundreds of years later in the Bible is amazing.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Again, what do you mean by "historically accurate?" We can't expect the biblical texts to be what they aren't. History was reckoned differently by the ancients than it is by us. To us, history is an amalgam of factual details. To them, history was story, and the details were relatively unimportant. You want specific dates, times, weights, measures and verifiable quotations. That's not what they were after. It doesn't matter on what specific dates Jesus was born and crucified. What matters is the impact that birth and crucifixion had on human history. I think the gospels do an admirable job in laying that out for us.

 

[sojourner]

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?

You're on the crosstown bus. This thread is flying cross-country. Get with the program.

 

[sojourner]

Well the Quran is not to be considered a refutation of the Bible or Christian teaching but a improvement.

How can that which is perfectly what it is be "improved?"

 

[sojourner]

Even if you have a Masters in Divinity degree from Harvard - but do you ?

Who said Harvard has the best divinity school? It may have superior law and business schools, but divinity? No better than any of several others.

Dr. Jerald F. Dirks received his Bachelor of Arts (philosophy) from Harvard College in 1971, his Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School in 1974, his Master of Arts (clinical child psychology) from the University of Denver in 1976, his Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.) degree in clinical psychology from the University of Denver in 1978

In 1969, he obtained his License to Preach from the United Methodist Church, and he was ordained into the Christian ministry (deaconate) by the United Methodist Church in 1972.

No more formal training than you ? Really ?

Nope. Not in the bible. What do psychologists know about the bible? They're not trained in the bible.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Who said Harvard has the best divinity school? It may have superior law and business schools, but divinity? No better than any of several others.

Nope. Not in the bible. What do psychologists know about the bible? They're not trained in the bible.

You did not answer my question - do you have a Master of Divinity from Harvard or may be anywhere else ? Now you start discrediting Harvard ? Top Divinity Schools in the U.S.

I would doubt that they'll allow him to be an ordained minister in the Methodist Church without formal bible training.

 

[nazz]

That's right - Islam doesn't require 'Blind Faith' unlike some OTHER religions. We believe in Faith with Evidence.

Peace.

There are many things in the religion of Islam accepted on pure faith.

 

[loverOfTruth]

There are many things in the religion of Islam accepted on pure faith.

Blind Faith is not the same as Faith with Evidence.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/129347-there-any-evidence-truth-islam.html

 

[nazz]

What is wrong? Human sacrifices and self exterminations are forbidden in the Bible and Quran...

Jesus' death was not human sacrifice neither was it self-extermination.

Jesus(pbuh) sacrifice had nothing to do with fighting for hes beliefs but for taking away our sins remember? You can't compare the two, one is about salvation the other one is about what one beliefs.

Jesus did not die for our sins, IMO. Not in the way most Christians believe. He died because he dared to challenge the political and religious establishment of his day. Just as many prophets before him did.

 

[nazz]

Blind Faith is not the same as Faith with Evidence.

Agreed. And what I stated is still true. There is no evidence that Adam and Eve ever existed or many of the other people mentioned in the Bible and Qur'an. There is no evidence to support there was a worldwide Flood (I know some Muslims believe it was only local). There is no evidence of Paradise or Hell. There is no evidence that all people will be resurrected.

Need I go on?

 

[loverOfTruth]

Agreed. And what I stated is still true. There is no evidence that Adam and Eve ever existed or many of the other people mentioned in the Bible and Qur'an. There is no evidence to support there was a worldwide Flood (I know some Muslims believe it was only local). There is no evidence of Paradise or Hell. There is no evidence that all people will be resurrected.

Need I go on?

But there is evidence that Qur'an is the untainted Verbatim Word of God and hence everything(including those stories) mentioned in the Qur'an is the ultimate Truth without a doubt. So Faith follows from Evidence.

 

[nazz]

But there is evidence that Qur'an is the untainted Verbatim Word of God and hence everything(including those stories) mentioned in the Qur'an is the ultimate Truth without a doubt. So Faith follows from Evidence.

The evidence you offer is that there is scientific evidence presented in the Qur'an. That's debatable but it doesn't prove the Qur'an is God's word. But I will grant you it may be a basis for faith.

 

[loverOfTruth]

The evidence you offer is that there is scientific evidence presented in the Qur'an. That's debatable but it doesn't prove the Qur'an is God's word. But I will grant you it may be a basis for faith.

I did not state ONLY scientific evidences. There's a whole bunch of things that is involved in the evidences - I listed and discussed them all through out the thread.

Preservation of the Qur'an
Scientific Facts in the Qur'an
Historical Facts in the Qur'an
Prophecies in the Qur'an/Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)'s Sayings
Literary Miracle of the Qur'an in Arabic

All of that together certainly proves the point. But I do not want to discuss the same things over again in this thread.