In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
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.
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.
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
The Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest known manuscript of the NT and in the gospel of Mark, it doesnt mention anything about the resurrection. In that manuscript, the gospel of Mark stops at verse 16:8.
Nothing, whether in the wording used or the context indicates that this ending was unintended. The author simply knew nothing of the resurrection tale. The story ends right after the discovery of the empty tomb and after the 3 women leave the tomb. These women, according to Mark, feared telling anyone of what the angel reported, despite the angel's instructions to tell the disciples. And yet, if the women told no one, how could Mark be telling his story?
The last 12 verses describing Jesus' resurrection and his appearance to the disciples were added later, as part of the overall retrospective re-write of Jesus' story. Mark is regarded as the earliest Gospel and the other Gospels, namely Luke and Matthew seem to be an effort to develop upon Mark's account.
Eusebius and Jerome explicitly state that almost all the Greek MSS available to them end at verse 8:
Eusebius Ad Marinum 1 - "How is it that in Matthew the Savior, after having been raised, appears 'late on the Sabbath' but in Mark 'Early on the first day of the week'? The Solution to this might be twofold. For, on the one hand, the one who rejects the passage itself, namely the pericope which says this, might say that it does not appear in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark. At any rate, the accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark with the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said to them, 'Do not fear. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene' and the words that follow. In addition to these it says, 'And having heard this they fled and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid.' For in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies."
Also, Eusebius, in his Church History (3.39.) notes the role that a presbyter named Aristion had in the transmission of Mark's gospel. We also read in Peake's Commentary, p818 that
"A 10th century Armenian MS ascribes the passage to Aristion, the presbyter mentioned by Papias."
Jerome 120 to Hedybia Concerning Twelve Questions 3 -
"The solution to the question [of why the endings of Mark and Matthew contradict one another] is twofold. Either we do not receive the testimony of Mark, which appears scarsely in copies of the gospel, while almost all books in Greek do not have this pericope at the end..."
These 2 men are writing in the 4-5th century and testifying that even by their time, the longer ending is absent from the vast, if not all original Greek manuscripts available to them. The most revealing admission is that Mark, the disciple to whom the Gospel is ascribed, might not have been the one testifying to the events and whose words were canonized in their days. In the 2nd century, Church figures such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Tatian paraphrase or thematicaly allude to the contents of this omitted passage. This simply shows the evolving nature of Christianity's 2Tim3:16"God-breathed" scriptures, the progressive inclusion of oral legends into the text. Besides the lack of physical evidence, there are also obvious stylistic and thematic differences between that passage and the rest of Mark's Gospel.
In Contra Celsus, Origen's famous work addressing the objections of the pagan thinker Celsus, Origen tries (unsuccessfully) to defend the assertions of Christianity, including the most important, that Jesus resurrected. He quotes detail citations from Matthew, Luke and John to support the resurrection as he was specifically challenged to produce post-resurrection evidence yet he doesnt mention anything beyond Mark16:8. This despite ORigen being the most outstanding Christian manuscript expert of his time, using all scriptural means at his disposal to support the post-resurrection story against the charges of the sceptics.
Modern scholars contend that
"At least nine versions of the ending of Mark can be found among the 1,700 surviving ancient Greek manuscripts and early translations of the gospel".
The NIV bible also comments
"The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"
Roman Catholics are not required to believe that Mark wrote this longer ending. The NAB translation includes the footnote:
"[9-20] This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20."
The Codex Sinaiticus, besides exposing the fact that the resurrection was an unknown story in the earliest Gospel, also contains two New Testament books that arent part of the current canon: the Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century and the Epistle of Barnabas, which is more blatant than the current Gospels on explicitly blaming Jesus' alleged murder on the Jews.
The Didache, composed anywhere between the mid 1st century and the 3rd century, by an early Christian sect which focused on Torah observance while leaving the door open to gentile converts, makes no mention of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and its Eucharist celebration makes no connection of the meal with the body and blood of Christ, nor does it speak of some of the most basic tenets of Pauline thought such as original sin or faith without works
"Since the writings which now constitute the New Testament were for long not agreed to be sacred, they were repeatedly edited revised and elaborated. The story of Jesus and his sayings was changed according to the context and interests of successive believers. So different sets of believers read and transmitted variant texts… Some additions, revisions and deletions to early Christian writings were on a much grander scale. The intrusion of seven spurious letters into the Pauline corpus, the helpfully compression of two of Paul’s letters to make 2 Corinthians, and the clumsy addition of revised endings to the gospels of Mark (16:9-20) and John (21) – both destined to include extra post-resurrectional appearances of Jesus to the disciples – all illustrate the fluidity and porosity of these texts before they became canonical… The easy alterability of the earliest writings about Jesus, by addition, omission or redaction, indicate that for all the sacredness of their subject, the gospels themselves were not regarded as sacrosanct. Or put another way, for a century or more after Jesus’ death, Christian groups existed, and flourished, without the New Testament. The existence of the gospel of Mark, probably the earliest of the canonical gospels, did not present Matthew and Luke from changing what Mark had written , or from writing their own gospels…"(Keith Hopkins – Professor Cambridge).
Similarly, the Q Gospel, believed to be the source out of which the 4 canonic Gospels expand upon, knows nothing of Jesus’ death and his resurrection. It is inconceivable that its compilers knew of such things, particularly the resurrection, and neglected or chose not to mention them.
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
When challenged by the Pharisees to display a miracle, Jesus promised them his resurrection after being dead for 3 days Matt12:39. Once he is supposedly resurrected, he doesnt appear to those who specifically asked him for the sign and to whom he said he will reappear. Instead, Jesus' followers come to the Pharisees, claiming that the sign had occured. Neither is there any claim that the risen Jesus ever appeared to anyone but believers.
There is only the word of a mere handful of "witnesses" whose stories vary from person to person, and we dont even know who transmitted those biased accounts until they were eventually put to writing by scribes whom nobody knows.
The conflicting testimonies of the evangelists in Matt28:1-10,Mk16:1-20,Lk24:1-12,Jn20:1-18 are so unreliable, they would not stand up to critical cross-examination in any court of law.
"One of the first exercises students of the Gospels do is to consult a parallel version of them, allowing an examination in four columns of the ways in which they relate to each other… As one notices the parallels and differences, a host of questions flood in and one thing above all becomes clear: no single, agreed picture of Jesus is likely to be possible on this evidence." (David F. Ford – Professor Cambridge).
Matthew and Luke's unknown authors dont claim being eye witnesses. John's unknown author vaguely refers to John in the 3rd person during the resurection account, and doesnt claim to be a witness to the event. Paul's 500 witnesses to the risen Jesus 1Cor15 isnt reported by the gospels, the Jewish historian Josephus, Roman historians, and early Christian writers. In his account, 25 years after the alleged event, Paul doesnt give a geographic location where these
"upwards of five hundred brethren"
had simultaneously seen the resurrected Jesus, neither does he say whether he was among them, or whether he had heard of it through "inspiration" or from other Christians. None of those 500 witnesses ever came forward to give testimony to what they saw. Paul further says Jesus apeared to the 12 while Judas had comitted suicide before the event. In fact, there is virtually not one detail of the crucifixion and resurrection narratives upon which all four Gospel authors agree. Yet, it is upon this story that the entire Christian religion stands or falls?
Even the date of the crucifixion is an issue of contention among the four Gospels.
We could go on in details and show how these discrepencies play out throughout the NT, suffice it to say, in 1Cor15, the most celebrated creed of the resurrection, Paul states that among the disciples, Peter (aka Cephas, Simon) saw the risen Jesus first while Lk24:33 states he was with "the eleven" gathered in Jerusalem. That is why in Matthew and John's accounts he appears to the disciples together. Paul does not speak of Jesus' appearance to the women, in fact he dismisses their testimony entirely as if it never happenned. The Gospels on the other hand, despite disagreeing which of the women saw Jesus first, all agree the first testimony was that of a female. Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary Matt28:9 or to Mary Magdalene alone Mk16:9,Jn20:18. In his missionary zeal, Paul needed weighty arguments (the words of women certainly werent!) and the reference to Jesus' inner circle of disciples was more appropriate.
The apologetic argument that these and many other differences are due to eyewitnesses recounting the same story through different angles doesnt hold. Besides these differences being so blatant that no objective enquirer can accept this defence, we have the very basic fact that those after whom the Gospels are named were not even eyewitnesses. They didnt even write their accounts of the story until at least 40 to 70 years after it allegedly took place, as they heard it from unidentified sources. How did these authors interview their sources of information? What criteria did they use to determine the reliability of the people that told them the details of the stories that they wrote? There is a reason why the resurrected Jesus only appeared to his already devoted followers, who are our only source of the story, instead of his opponents to whom he allegedly pledged will show them proof of his resurrection Matt12:39.
Despite these facts, and basing themselves on the assumption that the resurrection story, or rather stories, are actually true, Christians ask why did the Roman and Jewish opponents of Jesus not dig up the body of Jesus in order to disprove the claims made exclusively by his devoted followers? The true question should be, still assuming the story to be true, how could we know that his opponents did NOT dig up his body in order to disprove the resurrection story? And if they succesfully did, how would we hear about it today considering the centuries of Catholic censorship and fabrications that started very early on in Christian history? Also the decayed body displayed by the authorities could have easily been dismissed as not Jesus' by his devoted followers.
Although today's apologists love to suggest a "tradition" of early visitors to the tomb of Jesus (without a shred of evidence), nothing can disguise the fact that until the 4th century Christians got along just fine without a Jesus tomb and had no special reverence for the place of his supposed execution. The Christians' difficulty in finding all the hallmarks sites of the NT, sometimes even having the same hallmark in different locations where different sects reside, is often blamed on a conspiracy by Emperor Hadrian who had supposedly deliberately built his pagan sanctuaries over their sacred sites.
The same excuse is used for the confusion on the location of Jesus' tomb (the current one is unmarked and without a shred of evidence to connect it to Jesus). Far from being concerned with early Christianity, at that time just a cluster of cults among many others, and virtually unknown in the Roman world, in reality, the emperor Hadrian sited his temple and forum complex precisely where it would be found in most other Roman cities – at the intersection of the major east-west and north-south roads.
An interesting question to ask is, where was Jesus between his crucifixion and resurrection? Was he in heaven, in accordance with his promise to the crucified thief that Lk23:43"today you shall be with me in paradise? If so, how can we account for his post-resurrection statement to Mary Magdalene
Jn20:17"touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father"?
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
During the years when Jesus was growing up, many people believed that the End Times necessary for the appearance of the warrior king Messiah per the HB had already arrived, and that this liberator would soon organize a revolt against the hated Romans and drive them out of the country. There were many claimants to the role before, and after Jesus.
The Romans were fully aware of this and were constantly on the look out for rebel leaders and their accomplices in a time where uprisings against the state were more frequent in Palestine than any other part of the Empire.
In light of these historical realities, and the fact that the end times messianic figure did not materialize in Jesus, that it appeared to many that he was murdered, those who nevertheless believed him to fit the role could not but paint this aspect of his life in "purposeful" obscurity, as shown above. In addition, his death/failure became his self-predicted success, purposefuly orchestrated, in fulfillment of ancient prophecies retrospectively applied to him, or rather misapplied to anyone familiar with the HB.
The whole NT is a poorly written apology of a new concept of the end times king messiah, as here candidly stated
Jn20:31"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name".
Matt12:15-21 attempts to show that Jesus' appeal to secrecy was in fulfilment of Isa42:1-4, a passage that only relates to what Matthew infers by the most farfetched analogy. He implies that by the vast majority of Israel's being purposefully denied access to the truth, the Gentiles instead will be saved. But for these gentiles to have access to this truth after Jesus' death, there had to be a select few who would understand the secret scheme. The plot was supposedly achieved through obscured parables only his disciples would understand Mk4:11-12,Matt13:13-15 yet we many times read throughout the NT how his closest followers who supposedly were among those select few at least struggled in comprehending him if not completely misunderstood him. In fact towards the end of Jesus' mission people in general and his closest entourage had no clue about his messianship, to the point that when Simon identifies him as the messiah, Jesus tells him that he could only have received that information in a supernatural way Matt16. The simple reason is that the historical Jesus did not go around claiming to fulfil the messianic predictions of the HB. The claim was later made for him. If he did, people would have laughed their lungs off, including the Romans. The Gospel writers, writing at least 50 years after the events knew that what Jesus accomplished had nothing to do with the highly anticipated establishment of the kingdom of God. They were thus left with no option other than painting the whole matter as they did.
The Jewish people were thus divinely blinded for that purpose, at least temporarily as stated in
Rom11:11"I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous".
As if God could not provide salvation for both Jew and Gentile without deliberately withholding knowledge so that only some Jews are saved.
When Jesus was apprehended and judged by the Romans, with the complicity of the Jewish leaders who wanted to get rid of him for his denouncing their sins as past prophets did, he did not claim to be the king messiah, neither to the Jews who were seeking a pretext to make him arrested, pressing the question to have him confess Matt26:63-64,Mk14:62,Lk22:70 nor in front of the authorities, who eventually sent him to be crucified. By doing so, and acceding to the request of the Jews, the romans validated the Jewish charge against him of messianic kingship which is punishable by death under state laws.
Now that Jesus and his band became official outlaws wanted by the state, his close apostles are reported to have fled with Peter even denying he knew Jesus 3 times. The Romans, lobbied by their Jewish stooges, deemed the allegation against him enough for him to be crucified. This punishment was most often reserved to those who threatened the political status quo, regardless of their background motives (religious or else). Jesus was a typical person the Romans would go after in those days, a charismatic leader who proclaimed a kingdom "with God" not "with Caesar" at its head was seen as an immediate threat. The person didnt even have to present a violent danger to be inflicted with such punishment, nor tangible evidence, especially a non-Roman citizen or a slave. Simple suspicion, in this case instigated by their Jewish minions, or even non-violent anti-government talk such as the promised rule of God's kingdom, was enough to trigger the authorities.
As to Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the decision to execute a political agitator, a man known for his brutality against his subjects, is obviously a scribal corruption with an agenda. The Greeks were writing the Gospels after the Roman legions had returned to crush the Jewish rebellion of 66CE and did not want to antagonize Roman power and attract their hostility at that point in time. What is insteresting to add is that, contrary to similar cases where accomplices would be tracked down and killed to crush a potential rebellion, the Romans left Jesus' disciples to freely preach their gospel.
This shows that, as said above, Jesus was seen as inconsequential in terms of posing a violent threat, that the savage Roman police would easily be triggered on simple basis of suspicion and that they would readily accomodate their local puppets to safeguard their own dominion in the distant regions of the empire.
As Paul candidly admits,
1Corin15:17"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins".
In essence, the validity of Christianity stands or falls on this claim. Yet the admittedly crucial nature of that event is contrasted by the scarcity of material related to it within the Gospels. Barely 5 people witnessed the risen Jesus, and when analyzed critically, these testimonies are contradictory and inconsistent. In Mark, Matthew and Luke, Jesus' message is centred not on the resurrection, but on the establishment of God's kingdom on earth, a metonym in those days for God's rule of justice and restauration of JEwish glory among the nations, with the defeat of the Romans. It is only with the development of Christology with John's Gospel and Paul's writings, as well as the Greek Church fathers, their rich Hellenistic background of mythologies and legends of deified leaders, that supplied the fertile ground for the short story of Jesus' resurrection, his interpolated deification.
This Hellenistic perspective however isnt on par with the Jewish background which the writers and early Christian scholars claim provide proof for their beliefs on Jesus. In Jewish understanding, the resurrection of the dead is a common theme that has already occured in the past and that shall happen again in the messianic era, without any divine connotation or connection with atonement for sins.
These men were formulating their ideas, interpreting inherited traditions while still infused with stories of demigods, Achilles, Dionysus or Heracles to name but a few. By the time they expressed their thoughts and the Gospels were put to writing, the Jerusalem Temple had been destroyed in 70CE, and the centers of Christian thought were spread around the Mediterranean. This opened the way for non-Jews and foreigners to Jesus' socio/cultural/religious background to take the reigns of power in the early church.
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
The NT shows in Matt26,Jn18 that the disciples did not witness anything but Jesus' arrest by the Romans, and among the disciples only Peter saw Jesus' questionning by the high priest at the courtyard. None of the disciples saw or were present at Jesus' alleged public beating, humiliation and crucifixion. While there is mention in Jn19:25-27 of a "disciple" being near Jesus at the cross, there is no proof that this unnamed disciple mentionned by John's Gospel's writer (mentionned in the 3rd person by the way, why would John mention himself in the 3rd person?) is John the son of Zebedee.
That traditional interpretation is still a matter of dispute among scholars. Also, the other gospels dont mention a
"disciple whom Jesus loved".
So, that "beloved disciple" who witnessed the crucifixion is the John who authored the gospel that holds his name, yet that "beloved disciple" fails to mention the spectacular transfiguration of Jesus, and the talking cloud, of which he was only 1 of 3 eyewitnesses Matt17:1-13,Mk9:2-13? That is not to mention that "beloved disciple"'s silence of other events of which he was the privileged eyewitness, leaving instead others who werent present to those events to testify in his place. Incidents such as the raising of Jairus' daughter Mk5:37-42 or Jesus' ascencion Lk24:33-51.
There are various theories on the identity of that unknown and unnamed male disciple "whom Jesus loved" that allegedly stood near Jesus on the cross. According to the NT, he was one of the unknown eyewitnesses who recounted the event to the several unknown writers of the Gospel of John, as attested by the text
Jn21:24"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true".
Who are "we" and who is the one whose testimony is believed to be true?
The NT sometimes speaks of "disciples" without them being necessarly those among his inner circle of 12. For example Paul says the resurrected Jesus firstly appeared to Peter then to the twelve 1Cor15:15 at a time when Judas was already dead Matt27:5, and his successor had not yet been chosen Acts1:26. The other Gospels also say nothing about any disciple or any women being near the cross, or talking with Jesus while he was on the cross. They only mention a group of women watching the scene from a distant place. Accepting this for argument's sake, unlike his male followers, these women would probably have been allowed to watch without being arrested, provided that they didnt try to interfere. Execution sites were guarded by Romans who would certainly not allow access to the followers and accomplices of one who was supposedly executed for being a political agitator that could threaten the state Matt27:37,Mk15:26,Lk23:38,Jn19:19-22. It isnt even known how Jesus - or any other victim of this brutal Roman execution method - was affixed to the cross.
The earliest artistic depictions of Jesus’ death were made centuries after the fact, long after the Roman Empire had turned Christian and outlawed this punishment. Also, there are very few archaeological remains of crucifixion as a practice in general. In fact the only known solid piece of physical evidence is a 1st century C.E. heel-bone pierced by a nail, found in 1968 in a Jewish tomb in Jerusalem. The piercing doesnt even follow the image of crucifixion made famous in Christian iconography.
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
The Quran isnt trying to escape the truth, nor is embarrassed from it, but is simply making several important observations that have far more ground to stand on than the Christian proposition, in regards to Jesus' end in this world.
Firstly, It does not say that it was made to appear that Jesus died on the cross, in a purposeful divine plan to confuse his contemporaries. It answers in 4:157-8 the Jews' mockeries about having succeeded in killing a supposed prophet of God. It refutes their arrogance and reiterates Allah's unchanging way concerning the prevailing of His messengers/rusul.
According to this divine pattern, certain messengers sent with clear proofs for their arguments and warnings of destruction leads God to implement these threats upon the rejecters once the deadline is reached 58:20-21,48:22-23,36:26-32,40:51,77,43:42. The Messenger, along with those that are with the Messenger are saved, and those that are not perish or are forcefully subjugated. Among these messengers are Nuh, Hud, Ibrahim, Salih, Shuayb, Musa, Jesus and Muhammad.
The verses 4:157-8 declare that contrary to those Jews' boastful claims, Jesus was not crucified NOR KILLED. This rebellious attitude towards Jesus and assumed hatred of him to the point that they even sarcastically call him a prophet in their mocking self-conviction can easily be understood if one considers the depiction that is made of them in the NT. In their vehement rejection of him, they lobbied the Romans to crucify him without evidence. So sure were they of being justified in having Jesus killed that they willingly took upon themselves and their children the responsibility of his harsh penalty, all the while mockingly and sarcastically referring to his kingship to the Jews Matt27. There are several passages where the Quran reflects this cynicism, such as their sarcastic declaration of being hard-hearted to divine guidance 2:88,4:155.
Some have attempted saying that the Quran merely denies that the Jews killed Jesus, not that the crucifixion didnt happen at all, and that the purpose is to show that his death occurred by God's will. However, the verse would not deny both killing and crucifixion had the purpose been to show who was "really" behind Jesus' death. Neither does it at any point present Allah as the real "culprit". The wording denies the idea of Jesus dying in anyway shape or form, whoever makes the claim. If the verse wants to give "credit" to God instead of the Jews, then it still doesnt deny the physical reality of the matter, had Jesus truly been crucified; it doesn't present his execution as a reality at any point. The rabbis, as described in the NT instigated the Romans to have him crucified. Meaning the Jews quoted in the Quran are correct outwardly in their sarcastic self-conviction. The Quran would have been incorrect had it been shifting the blame from them, unto God. Besides, the Jews, being monotheists understand the deeper reality of God being the ultimate cause of all things. While making the statement, they understood that God is in control of causality at all moments and allowed them doing what they think they achieved in regards to Jesus.
The verses in the Quran however clearly dismiss whatever way the disbelievers attempted at Jesus' life, including their desire to crucify him as was common in those days, and they did attempt many ways 5:110 including stoning him.
The object of the verses therefore isnt to deny the crucifixion specifically, nor to delve into the Christian, unbiblical dogmas surrounding it, such as it being the necessary atonement for mankind's supposed sins and inherited depravity from Adam. These strange concepts are indirectly addressed and refuted in verses establishing the principles of non-transmission of sins and individual accountability. The object of these verses is rather to negate the idea that Jesus' opponents succeeded in murdering him by any means, just like they were now attempting with the Ishmaelite prophet. Should they have succeeded it would have defeated God's word and promise concerning the truthfulness of His prophets and their warnings. Jesus, the messenger sent with an undeniable manifestation of the Truth as well as clear warnings of destruction to befall his rejecters, was protected by Allah like others before him.
God would console his messenger, just as was done with his predecessors, those sent with an undeniable manifestation of the Truth, that they will be protected. Just as Jesus and Ibrahim were preserved from any harm and humiliation when seized by their opponents 5:110,21:68-71,29:24,37:97-8, Muhammad was rescued from the harm and the constant plotting of his enemies 5:67,8:30,33:37 like Salih before him 27:47-53. Allah promised Moses and his brother Aaron, reassuring them prior to their encounter with the greatest tyrant of the earth
40:45,28:35"We will strengthen your arm through your brother and grant you both supremacy so they will not reach you. [It will be] through Our signs; you and those who follow you will be the predominant".
All of them were raised and honoured, and their opponents brought low when the promised divine chastisement came to fruition. See similar passages in the HB Isa49:2,Jer11:18-23,15:20-21,20:11. An important thing to note is that truth ultimately prevails and the will of God established. Believers are eventually made to prevail over the oppressors and disbelievers. This might happen in their lifetime or in the hereafter, in or outside the time of a prophet. The Quran has enshrined this principle in sura Buruj, as it begins by relating the story of those martyred for their faith in God in a pit of fire, and then follows with the destroyed nations to whom prophets were sent. Allah assures us that He does what He intends, and that what matters is the grand scheme of things in which His will reigns supreme
85:1-16"Indeed, the vengeance of your Lord is severe".
Something worthy to note at this point is that the prophet Muhammad, had he been the Quran's author, had nothing to gain and everything to lose in terms of credibility and hope of acceptance among the Christians by making such a claim. Every Christian around him and beyond believed he was crucified, and every Jew, as is depicted from their self-convicting sarcasm, were more than ready to take upon themselves the guilt of his execution. It was to them a kind of cynical slap in the face of their Christian age-long oppressors. The Quran here, in a matter of paramount significance to its audience, as it does in other places, does not seek to accommodate any group of people at the expense of the Truth.
But the whole matter appeared as if they had succeeded in their evil, murdering plots because, among other reasons, Jesus was missing, or as the Quran says God "tawaffa" him, purified him and made him ascend to Heaven. This instead prevented the humiliation that wouldve happened if his enemies got to the body. If they presented it to the people in a humiliated state, leading to a psychological victory for the Israelites
4:158"Allah took him up to Himself".
They couldnt even kill him, nor could they damage his body and God states He would raise him up to himself, meaning that not only his body wouldnt be humiliated but it would be honored by God instead.
God thus lifted Jesus up and did not leave a trace of him with them yet even without proof for their claims, the Israelites that wanted him dead managed to start a rumor that quickly spread and was believed. The resulting confusion was similar to that of the rumor of the prophet Muhammad's death during the battle of Uhud 3:144. Roman crucifixions occured daily and by the hundreds, of any agitators to the point that they would sometimes run out of wood for the crosses. The accusing Jews could easily pass off their boastful claims as fact in those circumstances, regardless of whether they truly believed their own claim or not. This rumor spread among both friends and foes. It is entirely possible at this point that not only the Jews were unaware of Jesus' true whereabouts, but neither were his followers. The confusing absence of a prophet has been a means of testing the followers left behind, whether they would remain on the clear path outlined by the prophet when he was in their midst, maintain his directives, or start innovating in the religion and go back to their sinful ways. This occurred with Moses, as he retreated away from his people to receive revelation, just as it did with Muhammad when many fell into despair during the battle of Uhud, and later when he died
3:144"And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels?"
The Nazarenes, like the calf-worshiping Jews thus failed the test of steadfastness in the absence of their prophet. As the rumours of Jesus' death started by his enemies became widespread, his disillusioned followers retrospectively painted the whole thing as a divine masterplan, with all the Christologies that ensued. Those among them that maintained Jewish law were sidelined by Paul's movement very early on, and within just 2 generations the little remnant of Judaism within the Jesus sect was erased. It was supplanted by a wave of converts from the greco-roman world who found in this transformed and readapted original Jewish sect, a favorable echo for their own beliefs, naming this new religion, Christianity.
It is thus meaningless to argue that because the corruptions the Quran denounces were introduced early on, then it follows that these were original teachings of Jesus. Had Moses and Aaron not quickly and violently corrected the corruptions to their teachings, executing the guilty by the thousands, nothing would have prevented the same kind of falsehood to be passed off as "genuine teachings" of Moses, as was done with Jesus
5:117"I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness".
Jesus did not have the occasion to do as Moses and Aaron did very early on so as to prevent the lies attributed to them from becoming "orthodoxy". However, if they escaped Jesus condemnation, it does not mean God was unaware of their evil doings.
Isnt it surprising that the Lord's prayer taught by Jesus himself (as opposed to every other prayer that others taught to say in Jesus’ name), never mentioned Jesus, nor vicarious atonement, nor him as messiah, nor him as intermediary, nor any trinity, among anything else Christological? This foundational prayer is more anti-christian than any passage one may find in the entire Bible.
We're not talking about the lack of Christological references in terms of labels, but in terms of concepts. The prayer is far removed from the ideas established by the Pauline movement, the creeds of the Church Fathers and later councils. Not only are those concepts absent but every sentence of the prayer clashes with mainstream Christian tenets. For example vicarious atonement, not only isnt it mentioned by name or implicitly as a concept, but in addition we have Jesus, who is supposed to be the embodiment of that notion, refuting it
"forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us".
No need for Jesus, forgiveness is attained through one's own efforts. The same is conveyed in the parable of the prodigal son Lk15. The unrighteous son is forgiven by his father simply for turning to God in sincere repentance. Not only is he forgiven but he is welcomed with a warm celebration. It is his state of contriteness that brought him back to life, not the blood on the cross "he was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found".
The idea of vicarious atonement stems from the notion of human depravity; none may claim righteousness on his own due to a sinful nature that pollutes every deed and thought. Yet Jesus undermines that notion too; temptation isnt the product of inherent human depravity and satanic influence. Rather it is God, who is perfectly righteous, whom the worshiper asks
"not to lead us into temptation".
Jesus teaches his followers to begin the prayer by calling upon "our" Father who is in heaven, not to the divine son who is on earth. Nothing distinguishes Jesus from a regular believer in terms of sonship to the Father. The same fatherhood that applies to him applies to the others. It is the Father's name only that is to be hallowed, His will is to be done, and He is the Sustainer of the devotees, including Jesus
"Give us today our daily bread".
These innovations might have initiated among Jesus' close circle, through re-interpretations of his teachings, or among the wave of new converts that supplanted them. To this new, outer circle, the claim that he was captured and killed resonated as closer to the truth and a more honest assessment of his disappearance.
His gruesome death became an attractive narrative of heroism and martyrdom not only for the sake of his followers but for the entire human race.
Jesus is portrayed as fearing death and wanting to avoid it Jn7:1,11:54,Luke 22:42. He begged God (himself) 3 times, putting his forehead to the ground, to take his soul before experiencing suffering and death in Matt26:38. He does not want to experience what he was about to go through but nevertheless submits his will to that of the father, whether he decides to make him bear the cup of suffering or not
"Yet not My will, but Yours be done".
Clearly, had he been given the choice, he would have refused "dying for the sins of mankind" despite having supposed foreknowledge of the divine plan of salvation since the beginning of creation, a plan which he himself sketched together with his divine partners. It also shows one of the co-equal partners submitting his will to another. Yet we never see the reverse, with the Father obediently submitting his will to the Son or the Holyspirit. That "hesitation" from Jesus cannot be attributed to his human nature as he himself states that it is his soul that feared and doubted Matt26:38. Then, when on the cross Jesus grieves for God's abandoning him. Even Revelations5 which is sometimes quoted to defend the notion of a predetermined divine masterplan of salvation through Jesus, is in fact speaking in eschatological terms, just as the whole book does. It speaks of the salvation of some people after events of great tribulation, ie the end of times. Then we have Heb5:7 throwing in the ambiguous statement that Jesus' prayers were heard and accepted by God, and this includes the desperate cry to "let this cup pass from" him. The realization of his prayer, his inability to take on the full brunt of the "sins of mankind" came in the form of Simon of Cyrene who relieved Jesus from his cross and carried it half way till Golgotha Matt27:31-33.
This embarrassing change to the divine master plan of salvation forced another author in Jn19:17-18 to have Jesus carrying his own cross, the symbol of mankind's sins, all the way until he reached Golgotha where he was crucified. The cross in fact was not a Christian symbol until the 6th century. Could the whole "Simon of Cyrene" tale be orthodoxy's early response to a story popularised by certain gnostics that it was not Jesus but Simon who had been nailed to the cross?
The predictions Jesus makes as regards his impending death on the other hand are portrayed as willful self-sacrifice. In these versions, we see other inconsistencies. When he tells his disciples, several times and explicitly how he would die, they are taken by complete surprise when the events unfold Matt16,17,20,Mk8,9,10,Lk9,18. Not once are they depicted, following his supposed death, as patiently waiting his predicted resurrection after just 3 days. Neither are they depicted recalling the secret miracle once it unfolds. Even when he appeals to prophecies at the third and last prediction of his death
Lk18:34"The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about".
Clearly, there was a general atmosphere of confusion as to Jesus' disappearance, a confusion which the writers could not deny as it corresponded to the reality they knew about and witnessed. But, because they were writing from the lens that he was crucified, they had to retrospectively paint this confusion as a misunderstanding by the disciples of Jesus' clear predictions. Between Jesus' desire to avoid death, his repeated predictions as to his willful execution, the misunderstandings of the disciples, the story line lacks consistency and seems muddled. We see the same pattern with other major themes retrospectively applied to Jesus, such as his messiahship, again painted as shrouded in obscurity due to the "misunderstanding" of his closest disciples. The simple reason is that the historical Jesus did not go around claiming to fulfil the messianic predictions of the HB. The claim was later made for him. If he did, people would have laughed their lungs off, including the Romans. The Gospel writers, writing at least 50 years after the events knew that what Jesus accomplished had nothing to do with the highly anticipated establishment of the kingdom of God. They were thus left with no option other than painting the whole matter as they did.
Prior to Jesus becoming God, the pagans scoffed at the notion of a human savior dying a cursed death then resurrecting. But the later introduction and spread of the deviant notion of Jesus' divinity made the Christian religion fit more easily into their paradigm.
As the Quran says in the context of Jesus' supposed divine sonship
9:30"they immitate the saying of those who disbelieved before".
Gentiles of the region believed in Mithraism, a religion already spread all throughout Europe and Asia minor centuries prior to the birth of Christianity. Among such beliefs is the death and resurrection of Osiris. Those ritually sharing in that death and resurrection through baptism had their sins remitted. The pagan Roman authorities thus welcomed the new religion seeing it was in congruence with centuries of tradition of dying and/or mutilated savior gods.
As the early church father Justin Martyr conceded
"when we say...Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus".
Paul, who was at most a hellenezied Jew, was explaining Jesus teachings in ways that were unheard of by Jesus' disciples. 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. The church was so weak that within the same generation of the disciples, this Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, whose distinction from mainstream Judaism was only in the belief that Jesus was the messiah, turned upon its heels, abandoned Jewish law, adopted concepts unheard of anywhere in Judaism. There is a reason why the Gospel writers including Paul do not quote the Hebrew Bible but the Greek Septuagint which was hated by the rabbis as it represented the Hellenization of many Jews of the time. The early church thus became irrelevant very early on following Jesus' departure, due to Paul's efforts at supplanting it, dismissing Jewish law as obsolete, reinterpreting core Semitic concepts of God so as to appeal to his pagan audience.
After Jesus' death, Paul's main problem was to convince his Jewish audience that the messiah's death, without accomplishing any of the messianic criteria, instead of being a failure was actually a necessity. He did so by introducing the doctrine of total depravity, making all humans de facto sinners and therefore in need of an atoning sacrifice Rom7:14-25,Rom3:10-11,5:13,8:7-8,1Cor2:14,Eph2:1-3,Titus3:3. His addressees however already believed in the resurrection of the dead, in a just God who forgave the sins of a penitent heart. Nothing was missing in their system that Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection could fix. Paul's redeeming hero was a redundancy to them, so he was obviously met with fierce resistance wherever he preached his unscriptural ideas. This led him to eventually turn to the gentiles among whom he found a much more favourable audience. All this is evident from a cursory reading of the NT and the writings of Paul. That is how Christianity was shaped, using its target audience's sensitivities all the while toning down to the maximum its Jewish heritage.
The sect that "won" and became "orthodoxy" achieved victory by political rather than epistemic means. The dominant branch was but one among many early, conflicting Christian sects, as even reflected in Paul's letters and the desperate struggles he had with them to maintain control of his own congregations. The process was not a difficult one considering Mithraism's tendency to accommodate with other rival cults, throughout its vast geographical spread, before and after Christianity. Christianity of course wasnt that accommodating, doing everything to supplant it due to the disturbing similarities. Many Church Fathers (Justin, Origen, Tertullian) attempted rationalizing Mithraism's similarities with their religion; "satanic imitations" being the standard explanation. The fine details of those similarities are now lost due to the Christian destructions of all "mithraes" they could put their hands on as well as persecute its followers. The task of reconstructing which themes Mithraism absorbed from Christianity so as to embellish its own narrative, versus what actually pre-dated Christianity, becomes a speculative task. But the presence of such vehement defenses by church authorities reveals their major embarrassment, their discomfort at their opponents' accusations of plagiarism. Instead of engaging their critics in debate, these church fathers and other Christian "orthodox" writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries slandered their opponents with exaggerated or even false charges, shunned them or socially intimidated them. This pattern of engaging their critics is in itself revealing of their own insecurities.
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
4:157-158 states that those who differ on what is stated in the verse about Jesus not having being killed are in shakkin/suspicion about that very statement. It then goes on to say why Christians entertain shakkin/suspicion about the Quranic statement that Jesus was not killed: they have formed a wrong conclusion about events that they themselves had no knowledge about and are following nothing but a conjecture, started by those Bani Israel contemporaries and enemies of Jesus. Some claimed to have killed him and others that they crucified him yet they had no body to prove their lies, no trace of Jesus was ever found.
This devastating defeat was retrospectively written as a divinely planned victory since before the universe's creation. IT was then put in writing by several unknown authors whom nobody knows, who attributed their works to Jesus' close disciples yet these disciples are reported to have fled the scene at Jesus' arrest.
Add to this the fact that not even a single historian exists, attesting to the wonderful and cataclysmic events surrounding the crucifixion that were allegedly witnessed by an entire city.
The NT itself testifies to the fact that his close circle, let alone the rest of his followers never approached the dead body and could not therefore burry it. The passage of Acts13:27-29, which is attributed to Paul, shows that the disciples included among those guilty for the execution anyone who took part in the recovery of Jesus' body. Thus, Paul emphasizes that Jesus was buried not by his followers but by his enemies yet Jn19:38, which was written after Acts, speaks of 2 elements among those who buried Jesus -Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus- as being secret followers of his. This obvious manipulation with the burial party being turned from hostile to favorable and positive is an effort to first of all circumvent the difficulty of having Jesus' body dumped in an unmarked pit as would have been done by his executioners, and second find reliable witnesses to the event.
These invented characters would have then "faithfully" transmitted their testimony to their brothers in faith and Gospel writers, without being noticed. How strange is it that Joseph of "Arimathaea" (a mysterious and unknown "city of the Jews" Lk23:51) was a Jesus disciple Matt27 yet he is unheard of until the very end. He is a convenient hybrid to the whole plot; close enough to the Jewish elite to avoid suspicion so that he may approach the body, but yet a closet Christian. HE is a
"honourable member of the Jewish council, also waiting for the kingdom of God".
Regardless, this Joseph was needed to rescue Jesus' body. Thats not to speak of another similar character only found in John3, called Nicodemus, a "ruler of the Jews" who was allegedly attracted to Jesus because of his miracles yet besides the "water to wine" one, Jesus' hadnt yet performed any miracle, did not begin his ministry, even though Jn2:24 states many miracles were performed only to later claim that a healing he performed in Capernaum was only his second miracle Jn4:54.
Contradictions and sidestepping aside, this Jewish ruler was supposedly convinced from seeing water turned to wine because "no man can do these miracles..except God be with him". One can only wonder what would have his reaction been had he seen what Pharao's magicians were able to do when urged to replicate Moses' miracles.
Modern (biblical) scholarship highly questions the authorship of Mark, John, Luke, Matthew. Further, and as already noted, the NT itself states in Matt26:56,Jn18:15-27 that the apostles who are reporting the events of Jesus' crucifixion and public humiliation, never witnessed those particular events. So what added benefit is there in bringing in the testimony of someone outside the circle of those to whom the texts are ascribed, and who claims to derive knowledge from them? The allusion here is to Ignatius, who himself states that the birth and death of Jesus were obscured by God who revealed them to the world by some shining star, not eyewitnesses, as there were of course none
"Mary's virginity was hidden from the prince of this world, so was her child-bearing, and so was the death of the Lord. All these three trumpet-tongued secrets were brought to pass in the deep silence of God. How then were they made known to the world? Up in heavens a star gleamed out, more brilliant than all the rest; no words could describe its lustre, and the strangeness of it left men bewildered".
Before getting into the passage, this "early" disciple of the apostles named Ignatius is unheard of in secular history and almost nothing in early Christian writings testifies to his having been bishop of Antioch, the centre of Christianity in Roman Syria, nor of him readily dying a martyr at 2 conflicting dates according to "tradition" by Trajan's direct order. We're talking of the same Trajan known as a tolerant ruler who requested stringent procedures before laying any accusations on Christians. Yet he executed this Ignatius simply for having witnessed the apostles' sacrificing their lives in preaching Jesus whom they had seen resurrected.
In his supposed prison letters, Ignatius confronts Christians that argued against basic tenets of current Christian orthodoxy, including the death, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. These groups were arguing against these notions based on the fact that they are absent from "the original documents"
"When I heard some people saying, If i do not find it in the original documents, I do not believe it".
Instead of pointing to the verses depicting the death, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, Ignatius vaguely says that they exist in those originals, adding that Jesus himself is sufficient as proof. This group was basically accusing Ignatius of following and believing in a tampered, and falsified gospel.
It is therefore no surprise that the Quran charges Christians for believing with "no knowledge" what it calls a "conjecture"
4:157"they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture".
In answer to the video "Sin and Salvation, Part 6 - Sin in Christianity"
Just as a prelude, this youtuber claims that humans can only be holy through Christ. Yet Throughout the book of Leviticus in the HB, the speech is interrupted every now and then in between very intricate purity rituals, reminding the higher reason for the practice
"You shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy".
Having said that, we get to the issue bothering him. The only context where blood sacrifice is an obligation is when the Temple of Jerusalem is built and the people living close to it are allowed to bring their animals there. Without a Temple Jews are forbidden from bringing sacrifices. When the Temple is rebuilt in the messianic age, animal sacrifices will resume. This by the way undermines the Christological notion of the human god/lamb's once and for all atoning sacrifice.
The concept that blood offering is a primordial requirement for sin atonement, isnt found in Jesus' sayings but in
Hebrews9:22"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission".
Nowhere in the Jewish Scriptures do you find the message that without blood there is no remission. Besides the HB being filled with prayers of forgiveness and admonishment to repent, with or without an offering, such a notion renders meaningless the Lord's prayer in the NT. Jesus would have been teaching his followers a useless prayer of forgiveness.
Lk11"Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us"
What is further striking is that throughout Acts, where the apostles give a number of speeches in order to convert others to the faith, the notion of Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice is absent.
The mistake that atonement of sin requires a blood sacrifice comes from a mis-reading of Lev17 where Jews are forbidden from eating blood and told its only purpose is on the altar or to be thrown away into the dirt Lev17:13, but nowhere does it say that only blood atones.
The Torah is very specific on what types of sacrifices are brought, and for what purpose (thanksgiving, celebration, gifts to God, atonement of very specific sins, guilt, etc.). There are various types of offerings and very few had anything to do with sin. All of this is explained in Leviticus. The offerings range from animals, money, flour, incense, etc. and of course never human beings, as in the Christian model, something the God of the HB abhors.
Even then, repentance is still required along with the offering for the expiation of the specific sin to be complete. But one always finds the overarching principle that sacrifice is nothing compared to the foremost thing: obedience
1Sam15:22"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD ?"
Of course God does not delight in something of lesser value than another, like a human would delight in sweets rather than more valuable wholesome foods. David says:
Ps69:30-31"I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving. [This] also shall please the LORD better than an ox [or] bullock that hath horns and hoofs"
see also Prov15:8,16:6,Isa58:3,5,Jer4:1-2,7:3,22-23,25:5,26:3-6,36:3,7,50:20.
This obedience of course translates into following God's commandements. The Abrahamic religions are religions of faith and deeds. The Abrahamic God did not entangle mankind in a system only His intervention can resolve, through the dramatic sending of His son/self to be beaten and murdered. He did not burden mankind with what they cannot bear, so as to purposefully condemn them.
Blood atones, but there are many other types of atonements for sins that were ordained long before the presence of a Temple, such as the time between the Exodus from Egypt and the arrival at Mount Sinai as alluded to by
Amos5“Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the wilderness, people of Israel?"
These parallel ways for sin atonement, other than blood, also applied during and when the temple was destroyed
Deut4:27-31"Adonai will scatter you...But from that place you will seek out Adonai your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him out with all your heart and all your being...and you will start listening to His Voice, because Adonai your God is a compassionate God.."
What is damaging however from a Christological perspective is that the prophets of the HB did envision a time where such a thing would happen. None said a thing about believing in Jesus or any other messianic claimant, as an alternative way to be accepted by God. Instead, they were commanded by God Himself to turn to Him in prayer and repentance Hos3,14,1Kings8:46-50. This would have been the perfect occasion in scripture to integrate Jesus in the grand scheme of divine salvation. But it doesnt.
Here are some of these ways which the prophets prescribed for sin atonement, nothing about believing in Jesus or the messiah;
- repentance and confession 2Sam12:13-14,Jonah3:10,Lev26:40-42,Ezek18:21-32,33:11-16,Hosea6:6,Ps32:5,Prov21:3,Isa55:7. This way was preached by all prophets for the removal of sin because God is forgiving
Ps86:5,Numbers14:20"Then the LORD said, 'I do forgive, just as you have asked".
David was forgiven simply through repentance as referenced earlier in 2Sam12:13. Not only that, he is also told in Ps51:18-19 that in regards to this very sin, no blood was required of him. If David's sin could be forgiven without blood, what prevents the notion from applying to other sins, just as the HB teaches in countless places?
- truth, justice, love and charity Micah6:6-8,Prov16:6,Daniel4:27
- prayer whether sincerely made by Jews or non-Jews Hos14:2-3,1Kings8:46-52,Daniel9:19,2Chron7:13-14,6:24-40,Prov15:8,Jonah3:5-10. Numerous passages, including Hosea 14, say how prayers have taken the place of sacrifices. This is reflected in
Ps51:17"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, and a broken and contrite heart"
and
Hos6:6"I desire kindness and not sacrifices, the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings".
In Ps40:6 we learn that while God does place an importance on blood sacrifice, He puts more importance on penitence and the resolve to do better.
- suffering as a means of refinement Deut8:16,Isa48:10,Ps105:19
- death Isa22:14
- flour offerings to be placed on top of the fire offering, not necessarily on top of the blood Lev5:11-13. This could be done by placing this particular flour offering on top of other flour offerings Lev6:11 the same way as one blood offering is placed on top of another Lev4:35. This type of offering was brought by the poor, who could by definition, not afford sacrificing an animal. Flour is not mixed with the previous offering of another person, nothing indicates it was. Blood is usually sprinkled on the side of the alter, the rest drained at its base. Flour is placed on top. Nowhere do we see that the blood is placed where sin offerings are placed. The pieces of the animal offering placed on top have had their life blood drained long ago. Lev1:9 even insists these parts be washed first. At no point is there any requirement for the meal offering (flour here) be mixed with blood on top of the altar. How will it even burn if it is soaked with blood?
- money Ex30:15
- jewelry Num31:50
- incense Num17:11-12
In fact we even read that even while the Temple is standing, it is no guarantee that blood sacrifice will expiate for sins Lev26:31. Obedience is the primary requirement for a sacrifice to be accepted, as stated earlier. Blood does not "automatically" atone
Prov15:8,21:27"the sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination before the Lord".
Even while the Temple is standing, a penitent heart is what makes the blood expiate the sins. That is why in the absence of a Temple and the impossibility to bring a sacrifice, atonement for sins is still achieveable.
In answer to the video "Sin and Salvation, Part 6 - Sin in Christianity"
After the tree incident, God curses the serpent with "arur atah" which is never used next when He addresses Adam and Eve. God tells them "arurah ha'adamah", cursed is the earth/ground. This speaks of the earth/ground that Adam will have to work - but God does not curse Adam nor Eve. This is the major point lost by Christians, God did not curse (arur) Adam nor Eve by causing them to unwillingly inherit a sinful nature to their descendants; they were punished (not cursed = arur) with the pain from childbirth, subjugation of women to men, and having to work for food. This has nothing to do with sin or cursing man with a sinful nature.
As to Gen3:15, the seed of Eve spoken of, refers to mankind in general because God here is addressing Eve. Similarily in Gen16:7 Hagar's seed refers to her Ishmaelite descendants because she is being addressed, not Abraham. The passage of Gen3 isnt figurative and its plain reading is obvious, refering to the enmity between serpents and humans. Some Christians like to see in that passage an allegory of Jesus' utter defeat of Satan, which obviously didnt happen. Satan is still active even among those that are most adamant in their belief in him, such as Paul 1Thess2:18. Paul also made the false prophecy that this anticipated defeat shall happen very shortly Rom16:20. 2000 years later, sin still exists, even among those that accepted Jesus, just as it remains a threat to those that sincerely repent 1Jn1:8,3:8-9.
Whether man is a sinner by nature or not is immaterial to Judaism since it teaches the way to repentance and reconciliation with God.
The Torah says man has an inclination towards evil from youth not birth Gen8:21 but that doesnt make everyone a sinner from birth, having inherited Adam's sin, nor does it mean one is in a state of being from which he must be "saved". In fact even the non Jewish king of Tyre was found to be Ezek28:15"perfect in your ways from the day you were created until wrongdoing was found in you". Each person is accountable for his own sins and can find the way to forgiveness through sincere repentance and resolve in walking aright Ezek18:20-22,Deut24:16,2Kings14:6,Jer31:30,Job34:23.
