<\/p>\n
The Crucifixion<\/strong><\/p>\n www.islamreligion.com website<\/p>\n 2013 – 1434<\/p>\n Of all the Christian mysteries, none rank as highly as the concept of Christ\u2019s crucifixion and atoning sacrifice.\u00a0 In fact, Christians base their salvation on this one tenet of faith.\u00a0 And if it really happened, shouldn\u2019t we all?<\/p>\n If it really happened, that is.<\/p>\n Now, I don\u2019t know about you, but the concept of Jesus Christ having atoned for the sins of mankind sounds pretty good to me.\u00a0 And shouldn\u2019t it?\u00a0 I mean, if we can trust that someone else atoned for all of our sins, and we can go to heaven on that concept alone, shouldn\u2019t we instantly close on that deal?<\/p>\n If it really happened, that is.<\/p>\n So let\u2019s check this out.\u00a0 We\u2019re told Jesus Christ was crucified.\u00a0 But then again, we\u2019re told a lot of things that later prove to be doubtful or even untrue, so it would be reassuring if we could verify the fact.<\/p>\n So let\u2019s ask the witnesses.\u00a0 Let\u2019s ask the gospel authors.<\/p>\n Umm, one problem.\u00a0 We don\u2019t know who the authors were.\u00a0 This is a less popular Christian mystery (i.e., waaay<\/em> less popular) \u2013 the fact that all four gospels of the New Testament are anonymous. [1]<\/a><\/sup> \u00a0Nobody knows who wrote them.\u00a0 Graham Stanton tells us, \u201cThe gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous.\u00a0 The familiar headings which give the name of an author (\u2018The Gospel according to\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u2019) were not part of the original manuscripts, for they were added only early in the second century.\u201d [2]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Added in the second century?\u00a0 By whom?\u00a0 Believe it or not, that is anonymous as well.<\/p>\n But let\u2019s forget all that.\u00a0 After all, the four gospels are part of the Bible, so we must respect them as scripture, right?<\/p>\n Right?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Well, maybe not.\u00a0 After all, The Interpreter\u2019s Dictionary of the Bible states, \u201cIt is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] tradition is wholly uniform.\u201d [3]<\/a><\/sup> \u00a0Add to that Bart D. Ehrman\u2019s now famous words, \u201cPossibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.\u201d [4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Whoa.\u00a0 Hard to imagine.\u00a0 On one hand, we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John telling us . . . oh, excuse me.\u00a0 I meant to say, we have Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous and Anonymous telling us . . . well, what?\u00a0 What do they tell us?\u00a0 That they can\u2019t even agree on what Jesus wore, drank, did or said?\u00a0 After all, Matthew 27:28 tells us the Roman soldiers dressed Jesus with a scarlet robe.\u00a0 John 19:2 says it was purple.\u00a0 Matthew 27:34 says the Romans gave Jesus sour wine mingled with gall.\u00a0 Mark 15:23 says it was mixed with myrrh.\u00a0 Mark 15:25 tells us Jesus was crucified before the third hour, but John 19:14\u201315 says it was \u201cabout the sixth hour.\u201d Luke 23:46 says Jesus\u2019 last words were \u201cFather, into Your hands I commit my spirit,\u201d but John 19:30: says they were \u201cIt is finished!\u201d<\/p>\n Now, wait a minute.\u00a0 Jesus\u2019 righteous followers would have hung on his every word.\u00a0 On the other hand, Mark 14:50 tells us that all the disciples deserted Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane.\u00a0 But okay, some people \u2013 not disciples, I guess, but some people (anonymous, of course) \u2013 hung on his every word, hoping for some parting words of wisdom, and they heard . . . different things?<\/p>\n Believe it or not, after this point, the gospel records become even more inconsistent.<\/p>\n Following the alleged resurrection, we hardly find a single issue the four gospels (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20) agree upon.\u00a0 For example:<\/p>\n Who went to the tomb?<\/p>\n Matthew:<\/em> \u201cMary Magdalene and the other Mary\u201d<\/p>\n Mark:<\/em> \u201cMary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome\u201d<\/p>\n Luke:<\/em> \u201cThe women who had come with him from Galilee\u201d and \u201ccertain other women\u201d<\/p>\n John:<\/em> \u201cMary Magdalene\u201d<\/p>\n Why did they go to the tomb?<\/p>\n Matthew:<\/em> \u201cTo see the tomb\u201d<\/p>\n Mark:<\/em> They \u201cbrought spices, that they might come and anoint him\u201d<\/p>\n Luke:<\/em> They \u201cbrought spices\u201d<\/p>\n John:<\/em> no reason given<\/p>\n Was there an earthquake (something nobody in the vicinity would be likely to either miss or forget)?<\/p>\n Matthew: Yes<\/p>\n Mark:<\/em> no mention<\/p>\n Luke:<\/em> no mention<\/p>\n John:<\/em> no mention<\/p>\n Did an angel descend?\u00a0 (I mean, come on, guys \u2013 an angel?\u00a0 Are we to believe that three of you somehow missed this part?)<\/p>\n Matthew: Yes<\/p>\n Mark:<\/em> no mention<\/p>\n Luke:<\/em> no mention<\/p>\n John:<\/em> no mention<\/p>\n Who rolled back the stone?<\/p>\n Matthew:<\/em> The angel (the one the other three anonymouses \u2013 now, let\u2019s see, would that be \u201canonymouses\u201d or \u201canonymice\u201d?\u00a0 \u2013 didn\u2019t see)<\/p>\n Mark:<\/em> unknown<\/p>\n Luke:<\/em> unknown<\/p>\n John<\/em>: unknown<\/p>\n Who was at the tomb?<\/p>\n Matthew:<\/em> \u201can angel\u201d<\/p>\n Mark:<\/em> \u201ca young man\u201d<\/p>\n Luke:<\/em> \u201ctwo men\u201d<\/p>\n John:<\/em> \u201ctwo angels\u201d<\/p>\n Where were they?<\/p>\n Matthew:<\/em> The angel was sitting on the stone, outside the tomb.<\/p>\n Mark:<\/em> The young man was in the tomb, \u201csitting on the right side.\u201d<\/p>\n Luke:<\/em> The two men were inside the tomb, standing beside them.<\/p>\n John:<\/em> The two angels were \u201csitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.\u201d<\/p>\n By whom and where was Jesus first seen?<\/p>\n Matthew:<\/em> Mary Magdalene and the \u201cother Mary,\u201d on the road to tell the disciples.<\/p>\n Mark:<\/em> Mary Magdalene only, no mention where.<\/p>\n Luke:<\/em> Two of the disciples, en route to \u201ca village called Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem.\u201d<\/p>\n John:<\/em> Mary Magdalene, outside the tomb.<\/p>\n So where does this leave us, if not wondering whose idea of scripture this is?<\/p>\n But, hey, Christians tell us Jesus had to die for our sins.\u00a0 A typical conversation might go something like this:<\/p>\n Monotheist:<\/em> Oh.\u00a0 So you believe God died?<\/p>\n Trinitarian:<\/em> No, no, perish the thought.\u00a0 Only the man died.<\/p>\n Monotheist:<\/em> In that case, the sacrifice didn\u2019t need to be divine, if only the man-part died.<\/p>\n Trinitarian:<\/em> No, no, no.\u00a0 The man-part died, but Jesus\/God had to suffer on the cross to atone for our sins.<\/p>\n Monotheist:<\/em> What do you mean \u201chad to\u201d?\u00a0 God doesn\u2019t \u201chave to\u201d anything.<\/p>\n Trinitarian:<\/em> God needed a sacrifice and a human wouldn\u2019t do.\u00a0 God needed a sacrifice big enough to atone for the sins of humankind, so He sent His only begotten son.<\/p>\n Monotheist:<\/em> Then we have a different concept of God.\u00a0 The God I believe in doesn\u2019t have needs.\u00a0 My God never wants to do something but can\u2019t because He needs something to make it possible.\u00a0 My God never says, \u201cGee, I want to do this, but I can\u2019t.\u00a0 First I need this certain something.\u00a0 Let\u2019s see, where can I find it?\u201d In that scenario God would be dependent upon whatever entity could satisfy His needs.\u00a0 In other words, God would have to have a higher god.\u00a0 For a strict monotheist that\u2019s just not possible, for God is One, supreme, self-sufficient, the source of all creation.\u00a0 Humankind has needs, God doesn\u2019t.\u00a0 We need His guidance, mercy and forgiveness, but He doesn\u2019t need<\/em> anything in exchange.\u00a0 He may desire servitude and worship, but he doesn\u2019t need<\/em> it.<\/p>\n Trinitarian:<\/em> But that\u2019s the point; God tells us to worship Him, and we do that through prayer.\u00a0 But God is pure and holy, and humankind are sinners.\u00a0 We can\u2019t approach God directly because of the impurity of our sins.\u00a0 Hence, we need an intercessor to pray through.<\/p>\n Monotheist:<\/em> Question\u2014did Jesus sin?<\/p>\n Trinitarian:<\/em> Nope, he was sinless.<\/p>\n Monotheist:<\/em> How pure was he?<\/p>\n Trinitarian:<\/em> Jesus?\u00a0 100% pure.\u00a0 He was God\/Son of God, so he was 100% holy.<\/p>\n Monotheist:<\/em> But then we can\u2019t approach Jesus any more than we can God, by your criterion.\u00a0 Your premise is that humankind can\u2019t pray directly to God because of the incompatibility of sinful man and the purity of anything 100% holy.\u00a0 If Jesus was 100% holy, then he\u2019s no more approachable than God.\u00a0 On the other hand, if Jesus wasn\u2019t<\/em> 100% holy, then he was himself tainted and couldn\u2019t approach God directly, much less be God, the Son of God, or partner with God.<\/p>\n A fair analogy might be that of going to meet a supremely righteous man\u2014the holiest person alive, holiness radiating from his being, oozing from his pores.\u00a0 So we go to see him, but are told the \u201csaint\u201d won\u2019t agree to the meeting.\u00a0 In fact, he can\u2019t stand to be in the same room with a sin-tainted mortal.\u00a0 We can talk with his receptionist, but the saint himself?\u00a0 Fat chance! He\u2019s much too holy to sit with us lesser beings.\u00a0 So what do we think now?\u00a0 Does he sound holy, or crazy?<\/p>\n Common sense tells us holy people are approachable\u2014the holier, the more approachable.\u00a0 So why should humankind need an intermediary between us and God?\u00a0 And why would God demand the sacrifice of what Christians propose to be \u201cHis only begotten son\u201d when, according to Hosea 6:6, \u201cI desire mercy, and not sacrifice.\u201d This lesson was worthy of two New Testament mentions, the first in Matthew 9:13, the second in Matthew 12:7.\u00a0 Why, then, are clergy teaching that Jesus had to be sacrificed?\u00a0 And if he was sent for this purpose, why did he pray to be saved?<\/p>\n Perhaps Jesus\u2019 prayer is explained by Hebrews 5:7, which states that because Jesus was a righteous man, God answered his prayer to be saved from death: \u201cIn the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission\u201d (Hebrews 5:7, NRSV).\u00a0 Now, what does \u201cGod heard his prayer\u201d mean\u2014that God heard it loud and clear and ignored it?\u00a0 No, it means God answered his prayer.\u00a0 It certainly can\u2019t mean that God heard and refused the prayer, for then the phrase \u201cbecause of his reverent submission\u201d would be nonsensical, along the lines of, \u201cGod heard his prayer and refused it because he was a righteous man.\u201d<\/p>\n Hm.\u00a0 So wouldn\u2019t that suggest that Jesus might not have been crucified in the first place?<\/p>\n But let\u2019s back up and ask ourselves, why do we have to believe to be saved?\u00a0 On one hand, original sin is held to be binding, whether we believe in it or not.\u00a0 On the other hand, salvation is held to be conditional upon acceptance (i.e., belief) of the crucifixion and atonement of Jesus.\u00a0 In the first case, belief is held to be irrelevant; in the second, it\u2019s required.\u00a0 The question arises, \u201cDid Jesus pay the price or not?\u201d If he paid the price, then our sins are forgiven, whether we believe or not.\u00a0 If he didn\u2019t pay the price, it doesn\u2019t matter either way.\u00a0 Lastly, forgiveness doesn\u2019t have<\/em> a price.\u00a0 A person can\u2019t forgive another\u2019s debt and still demand repayment.\u00a0 The argument that God forgives, but only if given a sacrifice He says He doesn\u2019t want in the first place (see Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:13 and 12:7) drags a wing and cartwheels down the runway of rational analysis.\u00a0 From where, then, does the formula come?\u00a0 According to scripture (the aforementioned anonymous scripture lacking manuscript uniformity), it\u2019s not from Jesus.\u00a0 Furthermore, the Christian formula for salvation hinges off the concept of original sin, and we have to ask ourselves why we should believe that concept if we can\u2019t substantiate the rest of the Christian formula.<\/p>\n But that is a different discussion.<\/p>\n Signed,<\/p>\n Anonymous (Just Kidding)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities. p. 3, 235. Also, see Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. p. 49.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Stanton, Graham N. p. 19.<\/p>\n