In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"
Another way to look at the issue is to define what a false prophet is, in light of this youtuber's own precious Bible. In the HB a false prophet is one:
- whose prophecies do not come true Deut18:22
- who speaks in the name of other gods Deut13
- who proclaims any precept of the Torah to be abrogated or adds to it Deut13:4-5. It is to be noted that a case is mentionned where a prophet -Elijah- was commanded to conduct the famous challenge of the two bullocks on Mount Carmel, even though that temporarily violated the Torah prohibition against offering sacrifices outside the Temple or places designated fit for the ritual by God. And this is an "accepted" innovation. The book of Ezekiel for example is so full of cases where the prophet overturns, adds to Torah comandements and revises historical incidents that the famous Talmudic "sage" Hananiah ben Hezekiah needed 300 oil barrels to keep him busy overcoming the contradictions. His successors praised him for not having to hide the book of Ezekiel that simply exposes the fact that its writer either had no Torah in his time or had a different one because he obviously knew for example the First Temple, its order of service, the laws of the priesthood and of the land and yet treats those issues differently.
The HB in Deut13 warns the people to be very suspicious of anyone with the ability to perform what may seem as unexplainable supernatural deeds. The NT similarly says false prophets may be allowed the performance of miracles as a matter of test to the believers Matt24:4-5,23-25,2Thess2:9-10. John the Baptist was a true prophet but performed no supernatural miracles Jn10:41,Matt21:25-26.
Besides, to base one's faith on the sight of "miracles" is very dangerous for one never really knows whether the "miracle" was in fact an illusion or other clever trick. The prophet Moses' opponents reflected that reality when they described his miracles as illusion without external reality
7:132"And they said; whatever sign you bring us to bewitch us, we are not going to believe you".
As the HB says, God may even purposefully allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test to the people, whether their hearts and minds will be dazzled and swayed into ungodly ways or remain steadfast in their faith.
In Ex7:11 Pharaoh commands his court magicians to imitate with their magic Moses' miracles, and some of these miracles were in fact successfully replicated, showing that seemingly supernatural occurrences do not necessarily come from God. Miracles therefore, whether in the Quran or the HB, do not serve the function of attesting to an individual claim to prophethood, rather have the twofold purpose of comforting an already believing heart as well as demonstrate the tremendous responsibilities of those that witness it.
The Bible doesnt even give instructions on how to recognize demonic miracles because technically, they are no different than the divine ones. But it shows how to recognize if the author is a false messenger. The djinn, as described in the story of the prophet Solomon, are capable of what is deemed supernatural bending of the expected laws of nature. But what they have no access to, except as Allah deems fit, is knowledge of the unseen, information that could only be obtained through revelation. Knowledge of the unseen, and of information that could not have been accessible to the messenger, prophecies coming true, uprightness of character are all very strong indications of a person's claims of prophethood. That is why the Quran, although it never denies that its messenger could and did perform miracles, treats this aspect of prophethood as inconsequential in determining the veracity of the claim, dismissing the requests of the doubters and disbelievers and leaving the matter to the Creator. The sending of signs is at all times depending in His will and wisdom. The Quran therefore, in its arguments, brings repeated attention the aforementioned 4 aspects of prophethood, with an additional focus on knowledge; based on what authority, and knowledge do the disbelievers among the polytheists and people of the book persist in their denial and deviations
46:4"Say, [O Muhammad], "Have you considered that which you invoke besides Allah? Show me what they have created of the earth; or did they have partnership in [creation of] the heavens? Bring me a scripture [revealed] before this or a [remaining] trace of knowledge, if you should be truthful."
In conclusion, messengership does not necessitate that the forces of nature be bent at will and upon request. Miracles are entirely dependent on God's will and the prophets are nothing but mere mortals tasked with transmitting a message of warnings and glad tidings
17:90-3"And they say, we will by no means believe in you until you cause a fountain to gush forth..or you should cause the heavens to come down...or bring Allah and the angels face to face...or you should have a house of gold...Say; Glory be to God, am I aught but a mortal messenger?"
Just as a side note of what will be explained in more details in another response, The belief that whatever is written in the Torah is binding eternally is rooted in the belief that the promised messiah will reinstate all of the mosaic law that is now in great parts abandoned due to the Temple's destruction. Besides rendering Jesus' alleged sacrifice as a liberation from the "curse" of the law a useless concept, but that is another issue, not a single commandment the Israelites were given in the prophecy of Deut18, says that whatever the prophet commands in the name of God has to be in the Torah.
What it states unequivocally is that when this time comes and that this Prophet arises, ie the prophet Muhammad, whoever does not hearken to his words whatever He speaks in the name of God, they will be held accountable. Deuteronomy 18 then clarifies how one can distinguish this Prophet from others, for which the answer is NOT that he follows the Torah eternally, but that whatever he states comes to pass in the name of the Lord. If one argues that every commandment is binding in the Torah for one to be considered a true Prophet, then this negates practically every single injunction given to the Israelites, i.e. the rites of sacrifice, which are included in Deuteronomy 12 and 17, among other.
Why the Israelites arent going around driving idolaters from Israel, battling the descendants of certain specific nations whom they were commanded as an everlasting ordinance to exterminate off the earth's face, as well as not forsaking the Levites, because they have no inheritance? This surely has nothing to do with the rites of the temple and we know of countless Prophets in the Hebrew Bible that weren't driving out idolaters, between the time of Moses to this day even when the Temple was standing. Further, as even the Hebrew Bible admits, Prophets have come and with other laws that would replace laws that were given by Moses, amongst them Solomon in Kings telling Israelites how to behave, even when the Temple is destroyed. Is every one of these Prophets a liar, despite the Hebrew Bible calling them true prophets?
The fact is, God Himself has rendered most of the laws of the Torah obsolete, proving that the revelation to Moses and the Israelites was never meant to be the final law to the Jews, let alone mankind. And if one wants to argue that eventually, the messiah shall restore these laws at the end of time then one still has to accept that for the vast majority of Jewish history, God made these laws inapplicable. The notion of restoration of the Torah is actually a reaction by the scribes of the HB to the reality of their position, the revocation of the covenant through the abrogation of its laws.
In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"
At around the age of 40, Muhammad would retire in al Hira where he would meditate, and his loving wife Khadija would bring him food to help him in the process. A narration from Aisha relates how 6 months prior to that momentous event, the prophet had dreams every single night of happenings that would occur the following day. He was being prepared in an increasing manner to be in touch with the metaphysical realm. During one of those seclusions, Muhammad, extremely respected for his wisdom, truthfulness, honesty, charity and honourable character, is formally introduced to his momentous mission with the first revelation, consisting of the first 5 verses of Sura Al Alaq
96:1-5"Recite in the Name of Your Lord Who created. He created the human being from a clot. Recite and your Lord is Most Honourable, Who taught (to write) with the pen, taught the human being what he knew not".
The one who taught Muhammad these heavenly words was the same whom he would see in his dreams months prior. This led him to think at first that he was hallucinating. So when he first resisted the command to "read". In answer, the angelic visitor repeatedly hugged him with strength so he would know he was not hallucinating, that his experience was tangible and real. After resisting and interrupting three times and pressed three times, Muhammad allowed Jibril to reveal the verses in totality and recited exactly as he was commanded.
We're not talking of God or the angel of God, wrestling with a prophet, and that prophet overcoming him, as is alleged in regards to prophet Joseph in the Biblical account.
The prophet Muhammad's encounter with the metaphysical realm is very realistically depicted. He is a normal human being whose first reaction is fear and denial upon seeing a supernatural creature in a remote location, alone. That fear and confusion however did not pertain to the revelation itself, which he flawlessly recited when pressed the third time.
As he was comforted by his entourage, then confirmed in his prophethood by the old Waraqa, his disbelief dissipated. That short and shocking introduction to revelation was followed by a long period, where no such supernatural encounter occurred. This is highly corroborative of the prophet's sincerity, as he was expected to keep on receiving revelation to enhance his credibility and corroborate his extraordinary claims. But as time passed, up to 3 years according to tradition, the prophet himself, despite his initial terror started longing for Jibril to return. When he did, it was again a magnificent but shocking sight
"While I was walking I heard a voice from the sky. I looked up towards the sky, and behold! I saw the same Angel who came to me in the Cave of Hira', sitting on a chair between the sky and the earth. I was so terrified by him that I fell down on the ground. Then I went to my wife and said, 'Wrap me in garments! Wrap me in garments!' They wrapped me, and then Allah revealed: "O you, (Muhammad) wrapped-up! Arise and warn...and desert the idols." (74.1-5) Abu Salama said....Rujz means idols." After that, the Divine Inspiration started coming more frequently and regularly".
This time, the prophet did not resist uttering the revelation. Thereafter his heart was progressively accustomed to bearing the connection with the metaphysical realm through concise revelations, he would not experience fear and terror whenever the angel appeared. In fact, contrary to his initial resistance, a little after his first encounter, the prophet became so eager in memorizing, understanding and communicating the revelation, that he would hastily repeat what Gabriel inspired him, as he was receiving it. The Quran came to check him on that anxiousness, and to appease his fear
75:16-9"Move not your tongue with it, [O Muhammad], to hasten with recitation of the Qur'an. Indeed, upon Us is its collection [in your heart] and [to make possible] its recitation. So when We have recited it, then follow its recitation. Then upon Us is its clarification [to you]".
It is important to emphasize, prophethood came totally unexpectedly to him
28:86"And you did not expect that the Book would be inspired to you, but it is a mercy from your Lord".
He in addition never entertained, prior to it, the idea of political and religious leadership. As his early critics among the notables themselves objected, he was unimportant from that perspective prior to claiming prophethood and to them, such a weighty message, if true, should only be delivered to a notable 43:31. He did not display any such intent prior to it as his opponents themselves could not deny, nothing out of the ordinary in his demeanor and ambitions as would have been evident for anyone with political aspirations, besides his notoriety as a trustworthy and upright individual 10:16. That is also putting aside his state of shock following his vivid encounter with the divine, revealing utter unpreparedness for its implications. To these may be added the well-known facts of his denial of any desire for material gains out of his mission and, more particularly, his turning down of the Quraysh leaders' repeated offers of wealth, leadership and power to him in lieu of his abandoning his mission or compromising some of its tenets as repeatedly alluded to both in the Quran and traditions.
The exact process of revelation is a process unknown to humans and the prophets themselves do not understand its intricate details 17:85 however from the prophet Muhammad's testimony in the oral tradition where he describes the way he felt it coming to him, we know it could sometimes be a very powerful and internally violent experience. Especially so the very first revelation of sura Alaq that left him overwhelmed, exhausted and terrorized. But he never thought he was being visited by evil entities like the jinn, that were believed to come to the poets with eloquent words. The prophet never doubted that his encounter was with an angelic entity, as described earlier. The Quran unequivocally identifies the carrier of God's word to the prophet as the angel Gabriel. And although no self-serving reports exist where the angel of revelation formally introduces himself, we do have many reports where the prophet identifies the agent of revelation as Gabriel.
In the darkest times of his prophetic mission, towards the beginning, the prophet Muhammad would often retreat in fear, as any human being would be in that situation. Violent opposition and derision, intense sacrifices and possible death, are the lot of the prophets, especially at the beginning of their call. Revelation would come to comfort him and pull him out of that state of mind. He would be told to rise and through acts of devotion, to prepare himself spiritually to be able to bear what is about to come down on him from on high
73:5"Surely We will make to light upon you a weighty Word".
The Quran often uses the image of vastness, greatness found in nature and more particularly the mountains when it wants to express the greatness of a thing, more specifically of this Revelation
14:46,10:22-23,42:33,59:21"Had We sent down this Quran on a mountain, you would certainly have seen it falling down, splitting asunder because of the fear of Allah, and We set forth these parables to men that they may reflect".
This kind of imagery, again pictured in 13:31, is meant at contrasting those whose hearts are more inert and harder to penetrate by divine guidance, than a massive mountain would be. This literary style also serves the purpose of picturing the importance of Revelation; it takes a special kind of creature wit a special kind of internal disposition to be able to bear it, in addition to bearing the consequences of having to communicate it. The word used in sura sharh to describe what kind of burden Muhammad was relieved from through God's expansion of his chest is wizr, used for something nearly unbearable
94:1-3"Have We not expanded for you your breast, And taken off from you your burden, Which pressed heavily upon your back".
What is rendered "pressed heavily" is anqada which actually is used when something is about to break. The prophet Moses at the beginning of his call and prior to his confrontation with Pharao requested from God the same spiritual relief and strengthening 20:25. God repeatedly gives Muhammad instructions to prepare himself spiritually, through acts of devotion, for the momentous task at hand
73:5"Surely We will make to light upon you a weighty Word".
There are narrations speaking of the effects of revelation, not only on the prophet but on those around him; his camel would sit and sink into the sand, a close companion whose knee happened to be under that of the prophet almost shattered.
All of the various manifestations of revelation on him were far removed from any sign of neuronal illness, as some malicious critics have recently suggested, since he never lost consciousness or memory during the process. The slander of epilepsy, unsurprisingly finds its source 200 years following the prophet's death by the pens of Bible loving Christians the likes of Theophanes. The Arabs knew what was the disease of epilepsy, even had a word for it. Once Ibn Abbas narrated
“This black lady came to the Prophet and said, ‘I get attacks of epilepsy/sara'a and my body becomes uncovered; please invoke Allah for me.’ The Prophet said (to her), ‘If you wish, be patient and you will have (enter) Paradise; and if you wish, I will invoke Allah to cure you.’ She said, ‘I will remain patient,’ and added, ‘but I become uncovered, so please invoke Allah for me that I may not become uncovered.’ So he invoked Allah for her".
None of his revelational experiences as reported in the ahadith conform to the symptoms of a mental illness. When he was first visited by Gabriel who compelled him the "Read". He was fully conscious and returned home terrified. When the painful ringing of a bell occurs, he retains what was revealed to him then recites it. His companions witnessed sweat drops forming on his forehead even on cold days, after which he would recite the revelation. When the burden of revelation descended on him and his face turned red on account of its intensity, Ubida b. Samit said he would then begin reciting. Similar events would precede a recitation, as witnessed by his companions, such as when his camel's legs would sink in the sand or a person's leg above which the prophet's leg was resting would almost crush from the weight.
Even though some physical effects of the revelation may resemble those of epilepsy, such as trembling and foaming, they could as well be due to the intensity of the process upon his body. This effect (trembling or foaming) was not generalized and again, immediately after the prophet would gain lucidity and begin to recite. Epileptic seizures are for the most part followed by a state of confusion and amnesia. The Prophet experienced revelation in all situations, when he was seated, standing, walking or riding, morning and evening, and even when he was talking to others, whether friends or foes. Revelation would come unexpectedly and cease just as suddenly. It would last only for a very brief period.
The prophet's experience, besides being witnessed as it occurred to him and changed his demeanour, or when it physically affected things around him, is also attested in the ahadith, speaking of a man appearing out of nowhere on several occasions in the life of the prophet and the community. That person would then take on a leading role, including to teach the prophet and his followers, publicly, the daily prayers, as well as to command him and the Muslim soldiers, to besiege the treacherous tribe of Bani Qurayza. These are not trivial issues, whether from the point of view of the religion, or the life of the community, showing that the prophet, although the uncontested leader of his people, was not acting from his own accord in essential matters. The ahadith relate several other encounters with the same man, unknown to the closest companions, appearing in unlikely circumstances among the people, then disappearing, and always in slightly different physical shape. He would be identified as the angel Jibril whenever the people inquired to the prophet. This "man" was around the prophet and the community from the very beginning, as the prophet was taught the first revelation, to other instances where the companions witnessed him teaching the Quran to the prophet, to when they saw him visit the prophet when he became sick. In terms of resemblance, the prophet likened him to a companion named Dihya. Someone else once confused him with Dihya too. Dihya as a side note, was not influential in the community in any way, even after the prophet's death did not attain to any leading position, neither was he among the closest companions whose decisions were considered by the prophet, nor was he knowledgeable so as to contribute to the Quran. Despite this closeness of interaction, none among the community was able to get a hold of the mysterious visitor, or could interact with him once the purposes of his visits were over. Medina's population at the time was around 20.000, the type of social life was very open and each individual had a very large network of friends and kinsfolk. It would have been impossible for this man to escape the people's grasp, let alone the numerous hypocrites who were always on the lookout to discredit the prophet, had he been known or been living in or anywhere near Medina. Other appearances were observed during battles, with men dressed as the occasional visitor of the prophet was
"Narrated Sa`d: On the day of the battle of Uhud, on the right and on the left of the Prophet were two men wearing white clothes, and I had neither seen them before, nor did I see them afterwards".
Just as the first revelation of the Quran caused him extreme fatigue, as well as overwhelmed him emotionally, we see the same pattern in regards to the revelational experience of the prophets of the HB. When the word of God descends it is described as Deut33:2"fiery", and prophets the likes of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel stated concerning the revelational experience that it can be
Isa8:11"overwhelming"
Jer20:9"And it was in my heart like a burning fire"
and Ezek2:2,8"the spirit entered me when He spoke to me, and it stood me on my feet...hearken to what I speak to you, open your mouth and eat what I give you..".
Daniel fell in a swoon when the angel Gabriel began speaking to him Dan8:15-18. He lost consciousness a second time when the angelic carrier of revelation visited him and spoke to him directly Dan10:4-9. The angel Gabriel, after having assumed the shape of a human being, infused Daniel with strength in order for him to regain consciousness and be able to speak Dan10:10-19.
Obviously none of this pattern among the Israelite prophets and the Ishmaelite prophet parallel with Saul/Paul's encounter with a shining light. Similarly, the Pharisees' reaction was justified in Acts2:13 when they mockingly alluded to people on the day of pentecost as a group of drunkards, for their odd, erratic behavior and incomprehensible speech; this type of effect that the indwelling spirit of holiness supposedly had on them was something unheard of in the prophetic history. No prophet who received the holyspirit ever behaved in such a manner, whether the prophets of the HB down to the last Ishmaelite prophet.
Concerning Malachi, it is described as
Mal1:1"The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel in the hand of Malachi".
Again when comparing true inspiration to the alleged prophetic dreams of false prophets God states
Jer23:29"Is not My word so like fire? says the Lord, and like a hammer that shatters a rock?".
There always is an element of compulsion, implying that when God chooses an individual to be the recipient of revelation, prophecy seizes him against his will, as alluded to by Ezekiel who was fearfully setting himself to confront a highly sinful nation of Israelites
Ezek3:14,11:5"and I went, embittered in the wrath of my spirit, and the hand of the Lord became strong upon me..Then the spirit of the Lord fell upon me".
Depending on the manner in which it is communicated it can be extremely terrorizing, the prophet Amos compares it to the roaring of a lion Amos3:8, and when revelation was collectively bestowed upon the Israelites, they even thought they would die, begging Moses to put a halt to the experience by becoming their sole intermediary with God Deut5:23-27. There are also mention of various degrees of revelation intensity, such as in Numbers11:17 speaking of God intensifying the spirit of prophecy that was filling Moses, or doubling the power of the spirit of prophecy from a prophet to another, from Elijah to Elisha who effectively was granted double the miracles than his master Elijah 2Kings2:9.
It is also important emphasizing that the medium of revelation is always angelic, just as with the prophet Muhammad.
The weightier the revelation in terms of implications and importance, the more intense and overwhelming it is to the human recipient. One cannot compare the revelation to Zakariyya of a future child, to the revelation of the Torah and the covenant experienced by the Israelites at Mt Sinai who consequently thought they would die, or to the revelation bestowed upon Muhammad, one that could shatter a mountain if it was made to descend on it. The Quran speaks of the capabilities and prestige of the carriers of revelation to Muhammad's heart so as to highlight this weightiness. There is a reason why Waraqa the Christian in his old age, after learning of what had occurred with Muhammad immediately declares it is namus, the Arabic transcription of the Greek nomos meaning Law or Torah. Waraqa recognized that what Muhammad experienced was the same as had once happened to Moses with the sending down of the Torah on Sinai.
Nobody witnessed Paul's vision of Jesus and even the accounts given in the NT contradict themselves about what was allegedly seen or heard. No Apostles witnessed the alleged crucifixion, they all fled according to the NT Matt26:56. Nobody saw an angel telling Mary about the risen Jesus.
No Apostles witnessed Jesus talking to Satan, no Apostles witnessed Mary giving birth to Jesus and they didnt see the angels.
There were no witnesses to the Holy Spirit descending upon the various prophets within the HB that spoke to Israel.
General revelation, descending upon people indiscriminately happened only once in the history of mankind and was stopped quickly, upon the people's request, fearing they would die as already shown above. And for the already shown reasons, prophecy needs a special kind of eligibility, preparation, and purity of soul. All the wires of the vast electrical system of a city cannot be expected to receive the same high amount of electricity that immediately arrives into the initial thick wires directly from the main generator. Hence the vain and misplaced requests of some of the prophet Muhammad's contemporaries to experience revelation like he did
2:118-9,74:52,6:124"We will not believe until we are given the like of what was given to God's messengers. Allah knows best where to place His messengership".
The Quran is the testimony of God not based upon whether we see an angel coming to Muhammad or not, the Quran is the testimony of God based upon its own internal evidence. We know an angel came to Muhammad because of the Quran, not the other way around
36:2-3"by the Quran full of wisdom, Most surely you are one of the messengers",
the wisdom of this Quran is the evidence that it is from God and that Muhammad is His prophet. Prophets are those whom God chooses to speak with, and their authority comes by the signs that God manifests to people. Belief in Prophets isnt based upon who is witnessing what, its dictated by what they bring to establish their Prophethood. We have the Quran, Christians never saw the resurrection and dont even have one Bible.
In answer to the video "The Crucifixion 06 - Dilemmas of Denying the Crucifixion, Part 1"
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.
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 desperate 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 "The Crucifixion 06 - Dilemmas of Denying the Crucifixion, Part 1"
Here are some other interesting facts pointing to the fictional nature of most of the Gospel account, especially in relation to Jesus' last moments; -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..
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 "The Crucifixion 06 - Dilemmas of Denying the Crucifixion, Part 1"
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 "The Crucifixion 06 - Dilemmas of Denying the Crucifixion, Part 1"
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".
