In answer to the video "History Supports Paul’s View of Jesus, Not Muhammad’s View (PvM 10)"
Paul was rejected by the Jews, who sought to murder him. Jesus' followers resented him, but he succesfully infiltrated their ranks after he deceived them by partaking in the HB sacrificial system to prove his allegiance to Moses' law, the same law he was busy disparaging and cursing Acts21. But to the pagans to whom he focused his preaching, the reception was completely different, he told them exactly what they wanted to hear and what they were used to hear in their pagan religions.
Paul's letters were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until 60-90 meaning Paul's theories were already established before the unknown writers of the gospels started their works and earlier christian thought was quickly branded heretical. That is why we only hear Paul's side of the story in his rants and diatribes aka "epistles". We never get Jesus' close circle's side. They are barely mentionned, despite their presence in Jerusalem during the so-called early persecution of the church followed by the scattering of the brethren. Peter's side of the argument against Paul is absent. He is disposed of after the "Council of Jerusalem" of Acts 15.
Nor do we have James' account of the whole mess when he summoned Paul three times to Jerusalem and Paul instead takes a tour of Macedonia. Besides making a ruling favorable to Paul's idea of dismissing the circumcision of the gentiles, James is quickly silenced and never heard of again. The NT tries to hide the fact that these men disagreed and competed against each other. The Pauline Church claims to have resolved the conflict, yet all we have are the words of the Pauline Church.
None of Jesus' own apostles ever affirms Paul's authority (2 Peter being pseudepigraphical). As Paul gained ascendancy and had taken over the leadership of the church, a direct attack on Paul would mean the certain condemnation of their writings and would eliminate any chance of having their (In fact Jesus' true) message included within the canon of the church. In fact, Paul never developed a kinship with the men who had been close to Jesus, such as his brother, James, or his other disciples who were now the leaders of the Jerusalem Council Acts15. Paul remained aloof from the people associated with Jesus and his teachings, in fact it is stated in the church rejected (unsurprisingly) Clementine Recognitions how Saul attempted murdering James before his "conversion". If the followers of Peter and James had been the ones to choose what to include in the NT this more dramatic picture of Paul would have appeared instead of Luke's minimization of Paul's persecution of the Christians such as holding the cloaks of those who were throwing the stones or consenting to Stephen's death.
Inevitably there would be a clash between men like James and Peter on one hand who had known Jesus and wanted to disseminate his teachings, and Paul who claimed to have met Jesus only in a vision and whose religious ideas were contrary to those of Jesus' original followers.
In answer to the video "History Supports Paul’s View of Jesus, Not Muhammad’s View (PvM 10)"
The non-Christian sources Christians reference for Jesus' crucifixion arent by contemporary historians aside from a disputed Roman passage which will be discussed shortly, or the few forged lines awkwardly inserted in between 2 flowing sections in Josephus' voluminous works. These writings have pages and chapters devoted to petty personalities such as robbers or simple kings, yet Josephus, this devout and zealous orthodox Jew, and who remained so until his death, ie the last person to accept Jesus as a god or as the Jewish King-messiah is said to have given a short comment in the middle of an account on another character (Pilate) about how Jesus was indeed the wonderful, divine, and prophecied Jewish King-Messiah. Just a short passage about the long awaited Jewish King and yet he reports in much more details about John the Baptist and other self-proclaimed messiahs like Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, the "Egyptian Jew" messiah? The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian. There is a reason why none of the early Church fathers up to the 3rd century never quoted this most-appropriate passage in their controversies with the Jews and other works despite their familiarity with Josephus' writings; it is a late forgery.
For example Origen the Church Father who spent most of his life contending with the pagan writer Celsus, and using Josephus' works failed to mention this "ultimate rebuttal". Origen even condemns Josephus for not having accepted Jesus as the messiah in his writings. It isnt until Eusebius the official propagandist for Emperor Constantine, who judged that
"it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived",
the Church father notorious for his deception and distortions of evidence to advance the cause of the church, described by St Jerome himself who thought of him as well as other Church Fathers such as Origen as sometimes
"compelled to say not what they think but what is useful",
that we see a mention of the passage. The first ever mention of the passage unsurprisingly comes at a time where Christianity monopolised what should be the truth, torching whole libraries, yet keeping Josephus' histories which they needed to advance their cause, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ.
In fact the Latin version of Josephus' work translated by Jerome is very similar to the quote Eusebius attributes to Josephus, except of course for the crucial parts about Jesus. Even later Christian apologists and open deciever such as Chrysostom who judged that "often it is necessary to deceive", and Photius both rejected this passage in their works yet they needed evidence such as this in their writings. Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defenses against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words. Because of the overwhelming evidence against its authenticity, Christian apologists try turning to another much briefer reference in "Book 20" Yet Josephus's second reference falls both because it is dependent upon the earlier (false) reference for explanation – and because it actually refers to "Jesus, the son of Damneus" who was made "high priest by king Agrippa".
Finally, even though Josephus is the only non-Christian source that mentions John the Baptist, yet he presents a different picture of him than the NT portrayal, and makes no reference to him proclaiming anything about Jesus.
No contemporary writing or immidiately following his time mention a thing about the extraordinary events surrounding his life or alleged crucifixion. Yet we have archeological and historical proof for the existance of Bar Kochba, another messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus, performed no spectacular wonders. In short, none of the sources Christians bring up, religious or else, amount to more than circular reasoning in regards to determining the historical Jesus. The earliest sources are Christian, meaning the NT itself, written 30-70 years after the supposed events, by non eye witnesses. Up to 70 years is a huge time gap where legends, conjectures and deliberate lies could have been grafted into a historical core. The NT itself has no currently existing 1st century witnesses, either as manuscripts or as writings of Christians. We do not have an unbroken chain linking the Apostolic Fathers to the gospel writers to Jesus. So yes, relying on the NT is circular reasoning, besides the fact we are talking of grandiose events that could not have been missed by independent witnesses who were active and writing in that time and place. What secular historians will attest to, is not that a miracle worker named Jesus did and said what is narrated about him in the NT, but that an early 1st century community existed that believed what is said in the NT about someone called Jesus. Historians will then conclude that the existence of such community attests to a true core regarding a historical person named Jesus who could have said some of what was attributed to him. Each historian will then work out what that true core was, based on textual criticism, archaeology, independent sources and conjecture.
Muslims got their answer to this through revelation
"That is Jesus, the son of Mary - the word of truth about which they are in dispute".
Of course, this description of what every prophet and slave of God was, doesnt line up well with those that raised a particular prophet to divine status.
Tacitus was a Roman historian born a good 20 years after Jesus' death. He started writing some 60 years later, meaning 80 years after Jesus. He was by no means a historical witness and only relied on hearsay if we were to accept the passage attributed to him as authentic. That passage talks of the persecutions of early Christians, mentions how the founder of this religion
"was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished, as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate".
None of the Church fathers nor any Christian writer prior to the 15th century mention that passage, despite their familiarity with Tacitus' works and their need for such weighty evidence by a renouned historian. Not even Eusebius who in the 4th century cites all sources available from Jewish and pagan sources. What is even more troubling is that the note on Jesus is part of a passage relating the mass persecution and killing of Christians under Nero. Yet for 3 centuries, in discussions of the Christian history of martyrdom, no appeal is ever made to Tacitus’ account of the dramatic and horrifying Neronian persecution. Only 1 surviving copy of this writing exists, supposedly "copied" in the 8th century CE (700 years after it was supposedly written) by Christian hands. As is the case with the Josephus passage which is universally recognized as interpolated, if not entirely forged, interpolation at least, cannot be ruled out in Tacitus' case. Although mainstream scholarship accepts the passage as authentic, even James Rives, prominent scholars of the Roman world, recognizes there are plenty of disputes over Tacitus’ precise meaning, the source of his information, and the nature of the historical events that lie behind his report.
There exist no Roman records of Jesus' execution by Pontius Pilate . The opposite would have been extraordinary anyway, as such executions occurred by the 100s and the authorities did not bother archiving each case. But here we have the most renowned of Roman historians citing the alleged event, and yet he is ignored by Christian apologists up to the 15th century. In fact the reference to Jesus is absent from a 5th century Christian writer Sulpicius Severus who quotes the passage attributed to Tacitus in nearly the same words.
Concerning the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata (125-180 CE), what Christian apologists assume as a reference to Jesus, since he never names Jesus, keeping in mind that crucifixions occured by the 100s sometimes daily around Jesus' time, these references of Lucian were written near the end of the 2nd century. Even if one were to assume that the reference is to Jesus it does nothing to establish the historicity of the crucifixion as neither Lucian (nor Tacitus as is explained above) quote their sources. Of course that by their time the Jesus legend had already spread among early Christians. Lucian, like Tacitus, is simply repeating Christian beliefs mockingly. The Quran exposes those who started the rumors of the crucifixion. The same claim which Christians proudly laud as their pillar of belief, is one which the rest of the world sees as the epitome of ridicule. Paul alludes to these mockeries when he says "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles". This verse further belies the idea that the spread and acceptance of a claim proves its truthfulness somehow. Christians were the ones busy propagating the false news of Jesus' crucifixion, once his Jewish enemies succesfully initiated and passed on the rumor. It is thus expected for any external observer of the Christian movement, to simply reiterate what they claim about themselves, especially if such a claim undermines them in the eyes of that observer.
It was thus certainly appropriate for both Tacitus and Lucian to allude to the execution of the leader of Christianity. Not as a way to validate their claim or to represent historical reality, but rather to further deride the movement. Finally, having a narrative account about someone doesn't make the person historical. That is a basic premise of historical research. The work of a historian is to determine whether the account is relating myths or facts. The sources of these 2 non-Christian authors are unknown, neither are they witnesses to the events. This makes it impossible to discern myths from facts from their writings about Jesus, especially considering their bias against Christians, leading them to repeat the denigrating information being circulated about their leading figure.
Sulpicius Severus wrote in the 5th century about alleged Christian persecution under Emperor Nero yet no historian or any Christian writer ever confirmed this, including Josephus who did not fail describing and denouncing Nero's abuse of power.
Another funny forgery is The Lentulus Letter, attributed to a fictitious predecessor to Pontius Pilate, governor of Judaea, called "Publius Lentulus". The letter is addressed to the Roman Senate, reporting Christ's "raising of the dead", describes him as "the most beautiful of the sons of men."
In a desperat bid, some Christians use a passage by Suetonius who wrote a biography called Twelve Caesars around the year 112 AD, where he mentions the political agitations of a "Chrestus" in Rome in 54 AD, which of course couldnt be Jesus. Also, 'Chrestus' does not equate to 'Christ' in English but to 'the good' in Greek. It was a name used by both slaves and freemen. Suetonius was explaining why the Jews (not Christians) were expelled from Rome and is referring to a Jewish agitator in the 50s.
In answer to the video "History Supports Paul’s View of Jesus, Not Muhammad’s View (PvM 10)"
The death and birth of great personalities was meant to be accompanied by great signs, in the minds of ancient people. The gospel writers were no exception. However the over dramatization surrounding Jesus' death found in Matt27:45-52, which clearly was an effort by that unknown writer to connect Jesus to the prophecies of Zech14, isnt reported in other Gospels let alone contemporary historical writings, with the eclipse, earthquake and deads coming back to life to be seen by many (where did they all go by the way, did they just keep wandering around for some time like zombies in the streets of Jerusalem?).
That is besides the other spectacular events such as Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, his witnessed ascencion to heaven and other various wonderful displays allegedly seen by many. None of all this is reported in history including the works of Josephus or Philo who lived very close to the time and at the place where all these things supposedly happenned and wrote profusely about every noted personage of Palestine, describing every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era, even Galilee natives historians such as Tiberias who wrote detailed accounts of the period and of the Jews covering the entire time Jesus existed.
Same deafening silence regarding other contemporaries of Jesus such as the Roman aristocrat and prodigious writer Seneca, and Pliny the Elder or other historians of the time who failed to mention these amazing events yet their works covered vast subjects relevant to their period. Seneca's silence was such an embarrasement even to early Christians that in the late 4th century forgeries were made in the shape of an exchange of letters between him and none other than the apostle Paul.
Romans were renouned record keepers and they recorded earthquakes which they called prodigies yet the only ones spoken about around Jesus' era happenned in 37 BCE (too early to fit the NT tale) and again in 110 CE (too late).
Partly for this reason, even many biblical scholars doubt that these cataclysms surrounding the alleged crucifixion really happened.
Even Peter who was giving his speech in Acts 2 only 50 days after the alleged event along with Paul who in 1Cor15 was trying to convince the people on Jesus' resurection never mentionned these extraordinary, corroborating events in front of an audience that badly needed it. When Paul was made to face the Sanhedrin, instead of appealing to all the miracles witnessed by the multitudes, the supernatural events seen by many and all testifying to what he was preaching, simply claims innocence of the charges against him based on scriptures. Not only does he omit these miracles, but he doesnt even speak of the crucifixion, nor of the resurrection. Yet these events were attested by the 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus, many of whom, supposedly still alive.
Nor does he request the testimony of any of the apostles, still actively working miracles, as Paul himself amply did on his missionary trip and could therefore have easily done now.
It is important to add that in Acts2, Peter, speaking to the disbelieving audience mocking the erratic drunk-like behavior of some Christians, does appeal to the miracles Jesus performed in his lifetime so as to strengthen his arguments. These miracles were, according to Peter done by God through Jesus (ie with God's authority as the Quran states) and were all witnessed by that audience "as you yourselves know". So to Peter, it certainly was necessary to remind his skeptical audience of the miracles that marked Jesus' life, even though they had witnessed them and knew about them. Yet when Peter alludes to the crucifixion and resurrection, he says nothing of the supernatural and cataclysmic events they had supposedly previously witnessed, so as to enhance his claims for the divine necessity of Jesus' suicide. He instead refers back to prophecies of the HB. Peter, just like Paul and all of contemporary secular historical records ommit those events because they never occured.
Although Christian apologists choose to ignore Matthew's account and his miracles -for obvious reasons- when trying to prove the historicity of the crucifixion, they do try to find some basis for the eclipse by refering to an obscure pagan personality of whom next to nothing is known about; Thallus. He is mentionned in a 9th century work that relies on a 3rd century Christian writer called Julius Africanus who himself paraphrases -not quotes- Thallus about a solar eclipse none knows when and where it happenned exactly and neither does Thallus link it to Jesus. As a side note the only recorded eclipse closest to Jesus' location and time of death occured in the year 29 in the Persian Gulf which doesnt fit the Jesus chronology and would have been of negligible impact in Jerusalem, 100s of miles away.
In answer to the video "History Supports Paul’s View of Jesus, Not Muhammad’s View (PvM 10)"
Here are some other interesting facts negating the crucifixion as depicted in the NT. The Jews didn't have any authority to try jesus for a death penalty, among other reasons, because of the procedures they had put into place so as to avoid the harsh mosaic punishments befalling their community for their frequent capital offenses:
-the NT says that the high priest headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin, that role fell to Nasi and the Av Bet Din, neither of whom are mentioned in the NT.
-To pass a death penalty a Jewish Sanhedrin had to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple, but in 28CE which is prior to Jesus' supposed execution, the Chamber was destroyed so the Sanhedrin moved to another room on the Temple Mount, and then into the city itself (Talmud, Shabbat 15a, Rosh haShanah 31a).
Deut17:8-13"go up to the place that G-d your L-rd shall choose"
means the chamber of carved/hewn stone. Just as the Tabernacle was the only place in which to bring animal offerings until the final place was identified as the Temple, so to was the place for the court identified as the chamber in the Temple. Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13). Around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted. When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence.
-The Sanhedrin never met at night Matt26:57,Mk14:53 or in secret, on Shabbat or any holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2).
- A death penalty case required two eye witnesses to the crime even when the Jews had the authority. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of 24 hours was given before it was carried out, giving time for witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned
-Jewish trials were never held in anyone's house, only in the Temple
So, in addition to the many legal proceedings which would have had to be broken for such trial to have taken place as is depicted in the Gospels, something that never happened in Jewish history, the Jews, living under Roman dominion, didn't have any authority to try Jesus for a death penalty. Why would they even make such effort, organizing this secret meeting just prior to the Passover festival, a time of religious preparations, breaking a long list of mosaic commandements along the way, yet knowing that their endeavor would be fruitless and their judgement would bear no legal weight? And not only in the eyes of the authorities but in light of Jewish law itself since the halakha requirements for a legal trial were not fulfilled? When the Pharisees take him to the authorities, Pilate tells them to
"Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law".
This is because, supposing Jesus did break some religious law, which he never did, this charge would carry no weight in Roman courts except if it threatened the state. To try creating a valid criminal case they begin accusing him of rebellion against the state and claiming kingship. These charges have no bearing on Jewish law, so that this historically exceptional Sanhedrin had to be hastily set up. This is because the messianic king supposed to usher the era of Jewish dominance over the entire world will do just that. Bar Kochba, a messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus was supported by those very Pharisees, hoping he would fulfill those very "crimes" they supposedly accused Jesus of comitting.
That "pre-trial" was thus irrelevant on all counts. They could have just handed him to Pilate, on the charge of rebellion, this way saving time on passover eve, in preparation for their festival. They would have also avoided breaking a long list of requirements while setting up this hasty trial, making it invalid even by their own law.
The whole story is fiction, meant at demonizing the Jews so that the blame is not shouldered by the Roman executioners, when they reluctantly put Jesus to death. The gentile authorities, painted as borderline Christians, were this way appeased and could be targeted for missionary activity, as occured soon after. Consequently, we never see in history Christians blaming, oppressing and mass murdering Italians in retaliation for Jesus' death, but rather Jews, despite them being in fact the necessary tools in the cosmic scheme of salvation through God's suicide..
In answer to the video "History Supports Paul’s View of Jesus, Not Muhammad’s View (PvM 10)"
Matt26:20-30,Mark14:17-25,Luke22:14-23 all agree that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder, a set of rituals occuring on the first night of Passover Lev23:5-8. Jewish days begin at sunset (not at midnight or even at dawn) and end at sunset. Thus anyone "preparing" for Passover during daylight would celebrate it from sunset.
Jesus was crucified on the next day of the Passover Seder. This would have to be the 15th day of Nissan. John's unknown author contradicts this by stating Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover, or the 14th day of Nissan Jn19:14-16. He terms it “preperation day” in Koine Greek, an expression alien to Jewish scriptures. No preparation work may be performed on a Festival day. If a Festival falls on a Friday for example, any preparations for Shabbat must be made earlier than friday, before the Festival begins.
Thus, the Thursday would have to be what the Greek author refers to as "preperation day" for BOTH the passover seder AND for Shabbat. But the passover never begins on a Thursday night in recent times, and hardly ever did, even in Talmudic times. Neither did Passover begin on thursday night etween 26 CE and 40 CE, the various times thought to surround Jesus' death. As a side note these variations are due to the NT confusing Jesus' basic timeline. For example Jesus is said to have been born when Herod was King of Judea Lk1:5, Quirinius was Governor of Syria Lk2:2 and Caesar Augustus was the emperor of Rome Lk2:1. Yet those three occurrences never overlap historically so it is impossible to say if Jesus supposedly died in the 20s or 30s of the 1st century.
Anyway, the reason for passover not occuring on Thursdays is that the Rabbis who originally constructed the calendar deemed it an unacceptable burden on the community for there to be two consecutive days on which any food preparation is forbidden.
This important discrepency of the so called 2Tim3:16"God-breathed" scriptures, cannot be explained throught the typical "different perspectives of the Gospel writers" argument. Jesus simply could not have been crucified on both days. John's account of the Last Supper, in accordance with the rabbinical perspective stated earlier, in Jn13 does not include the rites of a Passover Seder as the drinking of wine, or eating matzo/unleavened bread and herbs as we find in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John's author was aware that the passover lamb had to be sacrificed on the afternoon on Nisan 14, so that it could be eaten after sunset (now Nisan 15), along with the matzo, herbs etc. Lev23:5-8.
The author of John had good reason to change the crucifixion day from the 15th of Nisan to the 14th of Nisan. Also, this Gospel was one of the last books written in the NT, around the 2nd century CE when the church had already become predominantly Gentile, so the author of John was appealing to their pagan influences, hence the "lamb". This animal is exclusively used in John, the pagan notion that a lamb was to be worshipped as a god, something that was widely practiced in the Roman Empire. He integrated that idea with elements of Judaism - in this case, the command in the Torah to slaughter the Paschal lamb on the eve of Passover or on the 14th day of Nissan Ex12:6,Lev23:6.
As an interesting side note, Matt26:17,Mk14:1,12,Lk22:1,7,Acts12:3,20:6,1Cor5:7,8 all quote Jesus in the last supper using "artos" for bread, meaning leavened bread (unless it has the azumos in front of it). In Judaism this is a sin because it is UNleavened bread/azumos artos (or matzo in Hebrew) that must be eaten on a Seder.
Also, according to John, when Judas Iscariot leaves the Last Supper with the moneybag, the disciples immediately presume that he is taking money to purchase food for the festival meal Jn13:29. In the other Gospels, they had just eaten it. Again in Jn18:28 the Jews who were handing Jesus over to Pontius Pilate to be crucified on the morning of the crucifixion did not enter the headquarter
"so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover".
Yet in the 3 other Gospels they had already eaten it because the Passover Seder took place the previous night. This is why Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not mention the fear the Jews had of entering the home of Pilate.
In answer to the video "History Supports Paul’s View of Jesus, Not Muhammad’s View (PvM 10)"
Besides failing on a historical level for lack of external evidence, the crucifixion story as depicted in the Greek Christian writings fails on an internal, theological level. According to habakkuk1, the everlasting God "will never die". The Quran equally states
25:58"And rely upon the Ever-Living who does not die, and exalt [Allah] with His praise".
Humans have a dual nature, the body and the spirit. Lets call that human being John. John has thus a human body and a spiritual essence. John gets nailed on a cross and dies. His body expires while his spirit transitions to the hereafter. To say that John did not die on the cross because his spiritual essence survived would be false. Similarily God, according to the trinity doctrine has both a human body and a spiritual essence. God gets nailed on a cross and dies. His human nature expires while his spiritual essence transitions. To say that God did not die because his spiritual essence survived would then be as false as in John's case.
Yet even from a materialistic standpoint, death is the end of life. In religion, death ends life in the present world and begins life in the hereafter. How does the ever-living, eternal God cease living in anyway shape or form? Assuming God did not die when he was crucified. This would then undermine the notion of atoning sacrifice. Death and loss is what validates the atonement. If God did not die, losing nothing in the process, then what did He sacrifice on the cross? Habakkuk1 is a general statement. It excludes death in any way. It doesnt say God's spirit cannot die while his body can. This is an example of what an explicit statement, closed to any misinterpretations, is. It is what is referred to in religious terminology, a firm verse, or as the Quran says, muhkam. A religion based on solid explicit tenets, does not seek ambiguous verses and try to derive isolated meanings upon which to build an entire belief system. Whenever confronted to ambiguous verses, that are open to several contradicting interpretations, we consider the context, the words used and cross reference them with other similar verses. More importantly, whatever the conclusion we come up with, the interpretation may never contradict the explicit, firm, decisive verses. But that is not how Pauline christianity works. In order to circumvent the statement that God "will never die" and make it fit the belief of divine sacrifice, it is said that this sacrificing Christian god didnt really die. Assuming God did not die when he was crucified. This would then undermine the notion of atoning sacrifice. Death and loss is what validates the atonement. If God did not die, losing nothing in the process, then what did He sacrifice on the cross?
Further, why would God go as far as killing his son (or self) to prove his trustworthiness and capacity to truly forgive, and how is it a proof of love? Only an unjust, deluded criminal, unworthy to be the judge of mankind would think that murder is a proof of love. Why would anyone trust an entity, divine or else, willing to commit suicide (or even worse, kill its own progeny) to prove its love? One would instead try helping such entity out of its delusion. One would not want in anyway to be associated with such demonstration of "passionate love".
God, since times immemorial has been demonstrating His love through the prophets, sending promises of mercy and forgiveness before that mythological Greek drama was invented. Believers have always known and trusted this fact attested in scriptures over and over again, which God made contingent on repentance and obedience to His commandements. Nobody thought God would fail His promise, or was incapable of forgiving the servants that wholeheartedly turn to Him. The Quran treats such hopelessness in God as a mark of disbelief
39:53-4"Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful. And return [in repentance] to your Lord and submit to Him before the punishment comes upon you; then you will not be helped" 15:56"And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord except for those astray?".
That attribute of mercy is in fact the only one described in the Quran as "written upon" God 6:12,54. Christians on the other hand do not expect God to be merciful, to the point they need him to prove his capacity to forgive by murdering his own self/son. Furthermore, a judge that forgives someone because of the actions of another, Jesus' sacrifice in this case, isnt a merciful judge. Forgiveness wasnt triggered by the mercy of the judge, rather by the price paid by another. So although Christians do believe in their God's absolute mercy, in reality their concept of the divine is far removed from it. The profound difference in relation to that theological aspect between Islam and Christianity goes back to the story of the garden. While in the Quran, the story ends with hope and forgiveness, in Christianity it is misconstrued in a way the Jews who read the same scriptures before them, vehemently dispute.
In the Quran Adam is sent away from the garden with the message that whenever guidance is recognized and acted upon, then mankind "shall not go astray nor be unhappy". There is therefore in the Quranic account of creation no place for unconditional, senseless and indiscriminate condemnation. On the contrary, the incident is concluded with forgiveness and spiritual guidance. The Christian belief on the other hand is that there was no forgiveness, sin became ingrained in human nature and transmitted to Adam's progeny. On top of that, God, instead of sending the solution to that "problem" in the shape of Christ's atoning death, establishes a long line of prophethood and laws to be followed. This divinely decreed deceptive crooked system was bound to fail in the face of human depravity, for several thousands of years, until the issue of salvation was finally resolved with the crucifixion. This theology appeals to people who have despaired of life, themselves and God. It is toxic, as it crushes the person's self esteem, making him yield to dark thoughts of hopelessness in oneself, and it is satanic as it discourages the building of a relationship with a merciless, unloving God. Hope is therefore found elsewhere, neither in God nor man, but in an intercessor that fixes the defects of both so as to reconcile them. He is a sinless man and a merciful, loving God, both in one since the divine cancels sinfulness and the human cancels mercilessness and unlovingness. His divine nature makes this man capable of perfect deeds thus pleasing God and restoring His (God's) hope in man, while his human nature makes this God capable of dying, and through this self-sacrifice, capable of showing love and mercy, thus pleasing man and restoring his hope in God.
That is why the Quran quotes Jesus himself, emphatically denying the man-made, unscriptural notion of sin atonement as understood by those that deified him
5:72"and the messiah said; ...serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates with Him, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the Fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust".
In this short statement, Jesus nullifies everything Trinitarian Christianity stands for, the idea of a divine entity other than God being the means by which one's eternal felicity and freedom from sins depends.
In another place, Jesus, instead of taking upon himself the sins of mankind, denies even the sins of his own followers that began deifying him. He washes his hands from their deviations and submits to God's justice, leaving the entire prerogative of salvation in God's hands
5:116-118"If You should chastise them, then surely they are Your servants; and if You Should forgive them, then surely You are the Mighty, the Wise".
In the monotheistic faith, the prominence of God's attribute of mercy does not mean it comes freely. It is earned, through concrete, repeated, steadfast actions proving one's sincere penitent resolve. This however is only beneficial in relation to God's rights. But if a sin includes infringing on other people's rights then the divine law has declared it an injustice to deprive a victim of its due rights. In that case it is upon the victim to either benevolently forgive and turn away, or demand restitution for the harm done. No human sacrifice was needed before Jesus for people to known and trust in those things which the prophets said. It is ironic that in the book of Isaiah, the one most appealed to and distorted to prove the abhorrent notion of human sacrifice as the only prerequisite for sin atonement, God says
Isa55"my ways are different from yours".
This comes right after the reassuring statement that God is near and hearer of prayers so
"Let the wicked leave their way of life and change their way of thinking. Let them turn to the LORD, our God; He is merciful and quick to forgive".
God's nature is contrary to human's who need and ask their debt to be settled in case of foul play. There are no debts between men and God, He doesnt lose anything from people transgressing His commands neither does He gain from their worship. His glory remains unchanged in both cases. That is why he does not need to be propitiated.
For His mercy to be released, the sinner does not need to act in relation to God but to his own self, through repentance and mending of ways. This deed is one that has no effect on God but on the sinner, cleansing his own soul. It is as a result of the person taking action to cleanse his self, that God releases His mercy, blotting out the sin completely and forgives Isa43. This is the main, among many other avenues for forgiveness which the HB gives besides blood atonement.
The concept of atoning sacrifice is nowhere to be found in Jesus' words anyway. He nowhere speaks of his own death as an atonement for sin. He is instead depicted as talking of his life as being a ransom Mk10:45, but in a clear context of dedication and humility. He is dedicating his life for the sake of others, like all selfless people should. It is Paul who connected these words with expiation for sins in 1Tim2. This spin caused intense debates and disagreements throughout the ages among all branches of Christianity; ranging from the notion of Jesus' life being the ransom paid back to Satan who held humanity in hostage, to the idea that God the Father was the one to receive the payment, and many other nuances in between. The inherent problems to every proposition, the contradictions each of them create with various Christian doctrines such as God literally ransoming himself to himself, is what led the Roman Catholic Church to describe the ransom theory as a "mystery of universal redemption".
In answer to the video "History Supports Paul’s View of Jesus, Not Muhammad’s View (PvM 10)"
Islam isnt a continuation of what the followers of their respective prophets later named "christianity" or "judaism". It is the continuation of the purest form of willful servitude to the one God, characterizing itself with the unadulterated, timeless message it upholds, which was transmitted to mankind since Adam. This timeless message being, as condensed in 98:5, a cognition of God's oneness and uniqueness and, implicitly, of man's responsibility to Him; a turning-away from all false concepts that compromise God's attributes, all over-estimation of oneself, and superstitions, with a great emphasis on kindness and charity towards all of God's creatures indiscriminately.
The Quran came to preserve and revive these concepts majoritarly abandoned and modified with time, as is easily seen through a cursory reading of what survived from the previous scriptures. So Just like the prophet Ibrahim was neither a Jew not Christian, but one who willfully surrendered to Allah 3:67 his descendant the prophet Muhammad was told to follow the same original path of submission to the will of God
6:161,16:123"Then We revealed to you, [O Muhammad], to follow the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth; and he was not of those who associate with Allah".
Judaism, or more precisely the so called Mosaic law was a system meant for the children of Israel only, and until the rise of the prophet "like unto Moses". That prophet, per the clear context of the prophecy made at Horeb, would establish a new nation under a new law code. Since coming from the "brethren" of the Israelites, he would not be bound by the law of the Israelites, and especially not in its corrupt state, including its laws meant to punish the Israelites for their sins as well as contain their propensity to sin. But the Israelites on the other hand would be bound by whatever this prophet tells them, under the threat of divine destruction, as per the prophecy in their own book, and as happened to them when they opposed the prophet Muhammad. Islam therefore is certainly in line with "the religion of the prophets". Christianity is a complete departure of this "way of the prophets". It cherry picks which parts of the so called Mosaic law to literally or metaphorically observe, and which parts to dismiss. It is a man made system meant to appeal to a gentile audience which, in the first place, wasnt even bound by the Mosaic law. And this, in total opposition to Jesus' mission and practice. Being an Israelite prophet he was bound by the law, and hence directed his message to the Israelites only to admonish them for their sins and religious hypocrisy, and bring them back to the essence of the law which they were likewise bound to observe.
For this reason, the followers of the last Ishmaelite prophet are considered closer to the path of Ibrahim than the nations that preceded them and claimed spiritual descendency from him
3:68"Indeed, the most worthy of Abraham among the people are those who followed him [in submission to Allah] and this prophet, and those who believe [in his message]. And Allah is the ally of the believers".
Judaism sees in Islam the manifestation of God's promised blessings of Ishmael, admits that Islam is the only religion along with Noachidsm (the system revealed to, and taught by Noah, as alluded to in the Quran 42:13) that can earn non-Jews success in the hereafter. They see in both of these "gentile religions" a complete compatibility with the universal spiritual principles revealed prior to Moses and the mosaic law (which is exclusively binding on Jews). Trinitarian Christianity on the other hand is a different issue.
Islam doesnt need Judaism to be justified but it is interesting to see how the closest people to Christianity, reading the same books, those who should a priori understand and accept the Christian proposition, in regards to their doctrines are actually further from them than from Islam which they see as a legitimate gentile religion
2:113"And the Jews say: The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say: The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the (same) Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say; so Allah shall judge between them on the day of resurrection in what they differ".
The truth of Islam is independent of whether Jews, Christians or Buddhists recognize it. It stands firm and strong because of its own internal arguments while the aforementioned groups crumble in the light of their own internal evidence, let alone common sense.
Christians are often the ones trying to disparage Islam by painting it as seemingly in disconnect with the Judeo-Christian system. This argument, as shown earlier is built on false assumptions; that Islam claims to be in continuity with these 2 religions, and that Christianity itself is a continuation of Judaism. Ironically and as the Quran alludes to, Judaism, which is supposed to be the precursor of Christianity, actually argues, based on the same books of the Christians, that the latter is a sinful way while Islam is in congruence with the pre-mosaic system. This is a quiet devastating observation to those trying to use that sort of analogy of continuity against Muslims.
In answer to the video "History Supports Paul’s View of Jesus, Not Muhammad’s View (PvM 10)"
Despite their clear spiritual failures and consequent divine disapproval and severe destructions, those most conceited in their spiritual and racial label were, and still are, the Jews. In the NT, Jesus and John the Baptist harshly reprimanded them for that attitude. The Quran removed their delusion as well as anyone, including followers of Muhammad, who might think God would favor them on account of ancestry or due to the righteous deeds of an ancestor 2:80,111,3:24,5:18. It challenged the Jews specifically in that regard
2:94,62:6"if you think that you are the friends of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death if you are truthful".
But as the Quran pointed, they would never do such a thing
2:96"on account of what their hands have sent before".
They know and are fully aware of their failure as a community bound by a momentous covenant with God, and thus know that should they wish for death and consequently meet with their Lord, He will take them to account collectively as per the terms of the covenant, just as He demonstrated in this very world.
When those labelling themselves Jews, Christians or any other name, persist in following corrupted spiritual notions alien to that pattern of the prophets, despite receiving proper explanations of their errors and those of their predecessors, they are termed followers of "nothing good". They arent even upholding their own scriptures in sincerity
5:68"Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Torah and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord".
The Torah and Injeel attest to
"that which is revealed to you from your Lord"
ie the Quran.
To reject the Quran, a revelation interconnected with the previous ones and coming from the same Source 6:91,26:196,29:46, which in addition guards, protects, revives the pattern of the prophets, therefore means to deny their own scriptures that attest to its veracity, more particularly of the one that carried and propagated it
6:20"Those whom We have given the Book recognize him as they recognize their sons; (as for) those who have lost their souls, they will not believe".
Those on the other hand who recognized the Quran upon hearing it as attesting to the truth of their scriptures and the pattern of the prophets are the
3:113-115"upright party; they recite Allah's communications in the nighttime and they adore (Him). They believe in Allah and the last day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and they strive with one another in hastening to good deeds, and those are among the good. And whatever good they do, they shall not be denied it, and Allah knows those who guard (against evil)".
They were greatly devoted to their own scriptures prior to the coming of Islam. They sincerely followed the truth therein, without bias, instead of the conjectures of their corrupt leadership, nor their personal low desires in exchange of worldly benefits. It is only natural then that when they
5:83"hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth)"."
They
3:199"believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to you and (in) that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before Allah; they do not sell the signs of Allah for a small price; these it is that have their reward with their Lord".
This verse 3:199 stresses the obligation in believing in the Quran for them to be believers in their own scriptures, as it confirms the prophecies in their books and restores the truth. This does not need happening overnight and they might seek further information, study and knowledge to further confirm the initial gut instinct that made them recognize the truth of the Quran.
They are mainly the learned men among the Israelites 26:197,29:47 firm in knowledge as well as those among the common masses who adhere to their scriptures with sincerity and the best of their ability 4:162. They are those who overcame the stiff-neckdness and arrogance of their people, effortlessly and naturally recognizing the truth 46:10. Same is the case with the learned and austere and sincere believers among the Christians 5:82-4, and who will consequently be rewarded appropriately 28:52-4.
The Quran says that
3:110,28:52"those whom We gave the Book before it, they are believers in it".
It is a testimony to the conversions of Jews and Christians in Muhammad's lifetime and as a prophecy witnessed today. The image of God literally giving them the Book is a praise of their merit, a metonym for them having been granted wisdom and knowledge, because of their willingness and openness for guidance. To this effect the Quran quotes them testifying to their entire submission to their revealed scriptures, even before the revelation of the Quran
28:53"surely we were submitters (lit. Muslims) before this".
As stated above, the principle of being a "Muslim", voluntarily subservient to the divine will, is a feature of the rightly guided prior to the term becoming the sole prerogative of Muhammad's followers. These are the ones to be sought for confirmation of the Quran's veracity, among the followers of previous scriptures 10:94. There is a reason why it calls them "those that read the book", in contrast to others among them, pictured as donkeys that carry a load while totally unaware of its contents 62:5. The verse 10:94 is not telling Muslims to seek further knowledge about some supposed incomplete information in the Quran. It speaks of doubt as regards the Quranic statements being true.
The Quran repeatedly points to all scriptures of the prophets coming from the same original source, and having the same common thread of truth running throughout them. If anyone is in doubt as regards the statements of the Quran being true, then he may seek corroborating information in the previous scriptures
"But if you are in doubt as to what we have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers".
The context is directly linked to information concerning the Israelites and their Egyptian bondage, as in 17:101. Similarly in 16:43,21:7 it tells the prophet's opponents to go and seek confirmation among the "people of the reminder", as regards the veracity that messengers were always sent as humans. Here again, as it does in 10:94 and elsewhere, the Quran uses a powerful image to depict the sincere and learned ones among the followers of previous scriptures, who should be sought for confirmation of a Quranic statement. They are those who have safeguarded whatever remains of truth of their scriptures and tradition, remembering it firmly and passing it on truthfully, in contrast to those among them who threw their scriptures behind their backs as if they were unaware of their contents 2:101.
With this reality in mind, it is thus meaningless to state that being Jew or Christian is equivalent to being on the right path. Success in the Hereafter doesnt depend on labels
2:111"And they say: no one will enter the Garden except he who was a Jew or a Christian".
God, who knows the secrets of the hearts, answers such assertion by first dismissing it as baseless scripturally and lacking any evidence whatsoever. It then lays stress on humility, instead of boasting of one's man made labels. It finally explains, that even being Muslim isnt enough of a label
2:112"whoever submits himself entirely to Allah and he is the doer of good (to others) he has his reward from his Lord, and there is no fear for him nor shall he grieve".
The true path is therefore independent of any label, its validity being contingent on agreement with the established pattern of the prophets, as revived in the Quran, with Abraham being the prototype monotheist and unflinching, humble servant of God, the spiritual leader/imam of mankind, the hanif/upright, who never adopted polytheism 2:128-135,3:67. Ibrahim was neither a precursor of Judaism nor of Christianity, as advocated in the conflicting theological, sometimes tribal and prejudiced analysis of his life details and the implications, by these groups 3:65. One example among many would be in regards to the implication of sacrificing his only son, which carries entirely different connotations to a Jew than to a Christian.
Muslims in turn must bear witness to being affiliated to the path of Abraham and those eminent personalities that followed him, the only path acceptable to God. In an answer to Ibrahim's prayers that in his footsteps might come a nation voluntarily submitted/muslim to the One God 2:128-132, Allah raised a prophet among his Ishmaelite descendants, who revived his spiritual path, urging his followers to be upright (hanif) in the religion 10:105,22:31, to turn away from polytheism
22:78"And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving as is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you a hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper!".
The notion of Abrahamic religion is an Islamic one. No such concept exists in Judaism and Christianity. The Quran calls it the millah/way and din/religion of Ibrahim, consisting of reasoning to derive monotheism, faith and deeds in the way of Allah 2:130,135,3:95, 6:161,16:123,22:78.
