Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Was Jesus’s death on the cross an act of blood atonement?
02-02-2018, 06:03 PM
Post: #1
Question Was Jesus’s death on the cross an act of blood atonement?
Continued from
Which son did God ask Abraham to sacrifice - Isaac or Ishmael?
http://www.religionforums.org/Thread-Whi...#pid305155

(02-02-2018 04:30 AM)JerryMyers Wrote:  Even so, Jesus never preached about his own death and resurrection in this earth.

Yes, he did preach about his own death and resurrection. Let’s read Luke 24:6-8 to help us remember this:

“Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again. Then they remembered his words” (Luke 24:6-8).

Don’t worry. I have a bad memory, too, what with all my years of drugging and drinking. That’s why I read my bible a lot. The death of Jesus as atoning sacrifice for our sins is also preached, both by Paul and in the gospels:

Paul: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Here, Paul and Luke agree on the third-day resurrection as well, suggesting the Pauline faction within Christianity stood on the more solid footing.

Gospel of Luke: “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me... Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations” (Luke 24:44, 46-47).

The gospel case is less convincing because, lacking a causative verb form, Indo-European languages such as Greek and English must resort to a coordinating conjunction or preposition to indicate causation of the acts in the second clause by those in the first. Unfortunately, biblical Greek has fewer of these conjunctions than we do. The word they used for my boldface and in Luke was

kai: and, even, also
Original Word: καί
Part of Speech: Conjunction (Strong’s Concordance, word 2532)

This seems to indicate mere coincidence of circumstance instead of causation, as “also” does in English; “even” suggests either “happening despite.” As none of Greek’s conjunctions come unambiguously marked for causation, we must look at a second gospel verse to verify it:

Gospel of John: “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

Thus it was Jesus who took away our sins, although whether he did so by his ministry or by his death is left open. His death certainly mattered, as it told us the price of the words he gave us. In other words, while I have doubts about blood itself becoming the basis for atonement, nonetheless Jesus did sacrifice his life on our behalf. He could have just stayed home with Joseph, working as a carpenter, and no one would have bothered him.

(02-02-2018 04:30 AM)JerryMyers Wrote:  For all we know, the term ‘die for’ is not meant to be taken literally at all.

I take the word “die” quite literally when it’s my own little pink body at stake. And we all take “die for” literally in sentences such as, “He died for his country in the Korean War.” There are very few, if any, places in the bible where death does not mean death. Or when such deaths happen on behalf of someone else, that they don’t in fact happen for someone else. The bible’s language on death is stark: We’re all gonna die, and it’s because death is linked to sin. In Mosaic Law, sin required an atoning blood sacrifice, which by that day meant bringing an animal to the tabernacle for slaughter by the priests.

Jesus never negated this law (Matthew 5:18). In order to create an occasion for liberation from it, he effectively sacrificed himself by pursuing his ministry to the end, and allowing the party of officials and troops to arrest him at Gethsemane. Of course I don’t believe the physical liquid, blood, can atone for anything. Jesus paid for his words, which the Pharisees hated so much, with his life. But his sacrifice was real, and it was made on our behalf.

Old Testament doctrines of blood atonement stemmed from the penitent’s act of giving an animal to the priests instead of using it for himself. Blood symbolism was so powerful in biblical times, in view of the lex talionis then prevailing, however, that blood atonement terminology was used to describe acts of sacrifice. Today we’re allowed to sacrifice money or material goods on a voluntary basis. What a change Christ enabled!

Throughout our conversation, you’ve told me that Paul’s missionary journeys meant nothing since his Christ was false. Then you told me that Jesus’s death on the cross meant nothing, since it had no redeeming effect on our sins. If these things are true, then why are we Christians? We may as well become Jews or Muslims, who preach a unitary God in which we can do little to petition effectively for forgiveness of sin, but must simply accept God’s capricious decision to either forgive or condemn us, or even become atheists, who’ve left that nutty game of fatalism behind.

As before, I can’t take up all your questions, given how the thread is ramifying and broadening. Both you and I have ovserved it’s straying from its original Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. (It’s reached Einstein’s physics now; and I’m guilty there! Big Grin) But I did read and consider those questions I’ve omitted, and may be able to respond later. In fact, at this point I’m just starting a new thread, as you suggest!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2018, 07:02 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2018 07:04 PM by muhammad_isa.)
Post: #2
RE: Was Jesus’s death on the cross an act of blood atonement?
(02-02-2018 06:03 PM)Amememhab Wrote:  ...
Yes, he did preach about his own death and resurrection. Let’s read Luke 24:6-8 to help us remember this:

“Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again. Then they remembered his words” (Luke 24:6-8).

That doesn't really contradict the Qur'an. Remember, the Qur'an states that he wasn't crucified, but it appeared as though he was. I assume that the Qur'an means that he did not die on the cross/stake. Rising again on the third day is another way of saying that he appeared again on the third day, apparently coming back to life. In any case, what was actually said by Jesus, peace be with him, and the way "the gospels" would phrase it would be affected by the author's belief on what happened.

(02-02-2018 06:03 PM)Amememhab Wrote:  As none of Greek’s conjunctions come unambiguously marked for causation, we must look at a second gospel verse to verify it:

Gospel of John: “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

The gospel of John shouldn't even BE in the Bible .. it's author does not present facts, but his own belief! Why stick in this "gospel", and leave out the gospel of Thomas? Not good!

(02-02-2018 06:03 PM)Amememhab Wrote:  Throughout our conversation, you’ve told me that Paul’s missionary journeys meant nothing since his Christ was false. Then you told me that Jesus’s death on the cross meant nothing, since it had no redeeming effect on our sins. If these things are true, then why are we Christians? We may as well become Jews or Muslims, who preach a unitary God in which we can do little to petition effectively for forgiveness of sin, but must simply accept God’s capricious decision to either forgive or condemn us..

What are you saying here? That Jews and Muslims don't have religious knowledge about sins?

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: He leadeth me beside the still waters.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2018, 07:08 AM
Post: #3
RE: Was Jesus’s death on the cross an act of blood atonement?
Thanks for starting this new thread.
The other thread – ‘Which son did God ask Abraham….’ was skidding off the tarmac.

Amememhab Wrote:  Yes, he did preach about his own death and resurrection. Let’s read Luke 24:6-8 to help us remember this:

“Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again. Then they remembered his words” (Luke 24:6-8).

Don’t worry. I have a bad memory, too, what with all my years of drugging and drinking. That’s why I read my bible a lot. The death of Jesus as atoning sacrifice for our sins is also preached, both by Paul and in the gospels:

No, he DID NOT. You may have bad memory, I don’t (maybe not yet). Smile Heck ! I don’t even drink.

And I will say it again – Jesus NEVER preached about his own death and resurrection. Other people did. Let’s read Luke 24:6-8 to help us remember this:

“Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again. Then they remembered his words” (Luke 24:6-8).

Who was saying this ?? Jesus ? No. The Bible said it was an angel in the form of man. Ok, fair enough, but which saying of Jesus was the angel referring to ? You provided the answer too – it was in Luke 24:44, 46-47, and I quote again from the NIV “He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”.

Did you see what was missing in the sayings of Jesus as recorded in Luke 24:44-47 compared with what the angel was recorded to say in Luke 24:6-8 ?? If you still missed it, it’s the phrase ‘and be crucified’, which was glaringly missing in Jesus’ words in Luke 24:44-47, BUT, was in Luke 24:6-8. Could an angel of God be lying on what Jesus had said ? Highly unlikely. Could Luke or the scribes had edited the scripture ?? Highly likely, after all God did warn of man’s mishandling of His Words in Jeremiah 8:8. Think about it.

As for “the Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day”, I will say it again, ‘the Messiah will suffer’ means Jesus was equating himself to all the prophets before him who too endure sufferings in bringing the Message of God to the people and “rise on the third day” was a reference to Hosea 6:2, and not about him rising from the dead in his earth lifetime.

Note that Jesus also said, in the same Luke passage, ‘repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached’ and NOT about him having to die for the sins of man. So, why would you think Jesus preached about his death and resurrection when he had clearly said repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached ? Who do you listen to – Jesus or other people ??


Amememhab Wrote:  Gospel of John: “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

Thus it was Jesus who took away our sins, although whether he did so by his ministry or by his death is left open. His death certainly mat-tered, as it told us the price of the words he gave us. In other words, while I have doubts about blood itself becoming the basis for atone-ment, nonetheless Jesus did sacrifice his life on our behalf. He could have just stayed home with Joseph, working as a carpenter, and no one would have bothered him.

Do Christians always take the words of the Bible literally ??

Let me ask you, “What was Jesus doing all the time on earth ?? He was preaching righteousness and to believe in God who sent him. When he preached righteousness, and the people do listened and followed his ways, then, it also means these people would have stopped their sinning ways too or in other words, the sins are taken away from these people (which taketh away the sin of the world). The phrase “in the world” here again, is a figure of speech to emphasize many, and not everyone’s sin in the world are taken away. It’s similar to when someone expect you to know something and you did not know, he might say to you “You didn’t know that ? Everyone in the world knows that!” – it does not mean every man, women and child in the whole world knows that, it just means most people, or everyone in the room know that, except you.

So, what about the ‘Lamb of God’ ? Christians understand the phrase ‘lamb of God’ as a reference of Jesus to be slaughtered (that is, to be sacrificed) as we like to think a lamb as an animal that get slaughtered and ended on our plates and the Christians believed John, in making this reference, was also indicating that Jesus will be sacrificed (of course, not to be eaten, but) for their sins. But, was John making an analogy comparison of an act of a ‘slaughter of a lamb (for food)’ to the act of ‘sacrificing for mankind sin’ when he said “Behold, the lamb of God” ?? Obviously not, as John the Baptist do not even eat meat.

What then, was John the Baptist trying to show by ‘the lamb of God’ reference of Jesus?? We need to ask ourselves what does a lamb usually signify besides ‘ lamb chop’ on our plates?? I will tell you - a lamb is a subservient animal – that is, one who is always subservient to and guided by its herder. In other words, John the Baptist was using the analogy of a lamb to show Jesus as someone who is subservient, devoted and had given his life in pleasing primarily, only God. So, let me ask you again - why would you think Jesus preached about his death (for man’s sin) and resurrection when he had clearly said repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached ?


Amememhab Wrote:  I take the word “die” quite literally when it’s my own little pink body at stake. And we all take “die for” literally in sentences such as, “He died for his country in the Korean War.” There are very few, if any, places in the bible where death does not mean death. Or when such deaths happen on behalf of someone else, that they don’t in fact happen for someone else. The bible’s language on death is stark: We’re all gonna die, and it’s because death is linked to sin. In Mosaic Law, sin required an atoning blood sacrifice, which by that day meant bringing an animal to the tabernacle for slaughter by the priests.

Okay, so, Christians like you, DO take the words of the Bible literally.

“He died for his country in the Korean War” does not mean he MUST die for his country – it means, as a soldier or someone who fight to liberate his country, he accepted the fact that he can get killed in a battle, but, that does not mean he WANTED to be killed. I am sure, every country in the world will take all necessary protections to prevent their soldiers FROM being killed in battles, eventho’ we know lives will be lost in wars. Likewise, Jesus, accepted the fact that being a prophet of God who bring the Message to the people, he too will attract many enemies and he accepted the fact that, like the previous prophets before him, he too will endure sufferings and the possibility of being killed but again, that does not mean he was willing to be killed. His actions and his words tells us he was NOT willing to be killed BUT he will accept his fate, whatever that will be (not to my will but the Will of my Father) which is what all righteous people do.

Amememhab Wrote:  Jesus paid for his words, which the Pharisees hated so much, with his life. But his sacrifice was real, and it was made on our behalf.

That depends on your understanding of ‘his sacrifice’. If you understand ‘his sacrifice’ to mean he never give up to preach the Message of God, no matter how much the Jews abused him, then, yes, I agree with you. If you understand ‘his sacrifice’ to mean he must die for the sins of man, then, I will tell you he was not even willing to die, let alone, die for the sins of all mankind. Jesus’ words AFTER the supposedly resurrection, tells us he was not even crucified and if he was not crucified, how could he be killed ? And if he was not killed, how could he be resurrected ??

Amememhab Wrote:  Throughout our conversation, you’ve told me that Paul’s missionary journeys meant nothing since his Christ was false. Then you told me that Jesus’s death on the cross meant nothing, since it had no redeeming effect on our sins.

Did I tell you all that ?? On Paul’s ‘Jesus’, I quoted to you Jesus’ warning of deceivers who will come saying ‘I am the Christ’ and I said Paul’s ‘Jesus’ fitted this warning from Jesus. I also asked you - can you think of anyone else who came after Jesus’ departure that fit Jesus’ warning ? I took that as ‘No’ since you never came back on that or maybe you could have missed it.

On Jesus’ ‘death’, I said death and resurrection on their own have no meaning, which mean to say, you need to link Jesus’ ‘death and resurrection’ to something to make it meaningful, and the Christians did just that by linking Jesus ‘death and resurrection’ to him saving mankind from their sins by his death. I then said, Jesus never preached about his death and resurrection but he preached repentance, which, bring us back full circle to the top of this post.

Amememhab Wrote:  If these things are true, then why are we Christians?

Good question. Are you disturbed by my comments ? Of course, I am referring to gospel of Thomas 2. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2018, 09:22 AM
Post: #4
RE: Was Jesus’s death on the cross an act of blood atonement?
(02-03-2018 07:08 AM)JerryMyers Wrote:  ...Jesus NEVER preached about his own death and resurrection.

"Jesus said unto them, 'The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men and they shall kill Him and the third day He shall be raised again..." Mt.17:22-23

'...He taught His disciples and said unto them, 'The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men and they shall kill Him and after that He is killed, He shall rise the third day." Mk.9:31
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2018, 04:01 AM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2018 02:09 AM by Amememhab.)
Post: #5
RE: Was Jesus’s death on the cross an act of blood atonement?
(02-02-2018 07:02 PM)muhammad_isa Wrote:  Remember, the Qur'an states that he wasn't crucified, but it appeared as though he was.

At least Muhammad cared for women, as he called the crucifixion narratives slanders against Mary (Quran 4:156), although the pronoun referent of “their” shifts abruptly from Jews killing prophets to those who killed Jesus, the Pharisees, yet again although modern Jews deny they ever killed Christ, as for them it either never happened or was strictly a Roman affair. Some Muslims read this as indictment of Christianity, although the “people of the book” under discussion appear to be Jews. Still we have the denial of Jesus’s death itself:

“Of the major theological divides that separate Islam and Christianity, one of the most difficult to pin down is the denial of the crucifixion of Jesus in Muslim tradition. Though the assertion that Jesus did not die on the cross appears in only part of one difficult verse...(Quran 4:157), scholars agree that the majority view within Islam is that this verse “affirms categorically that Christ did not die on the cross and that God raised him to Godself.”

“It Was Made to Appear Like that to Them”
Gregory R. Lanier
Reformed Theological Seminary
http://journal.rts.edu/article/it-was-ma...tradition/

Of course I didn’t mean to suggest that Muslims can’t pray to God; they do pray, and a lot! Nonetheless I sense a fatalism in phrases such as “Allah permitting” and “if Allah wills it” which I lack critique for as I simply don’t understand the Islamic treatment of themes related to predestination and force of will. And indeed, these themes hardly absent themselves from Christianity, especially in the Hebrew bible, yet even in Paul’s letters, where he described himself as a “servant of Christ.” A servant follows orders.

My general impression is that Islam is a strong religion after my own Judaic heritage, elaborating sophisticated arguments for its theological positions, and, once upon a time, in the 9th century, birthing a high civilization of new mathematics and astronomy, not the backward dictatorship our sneering dismissers blow their noses at. Muslim engineers, using accurate star charts astronomers such as al-Rahman had compiled from decades of painstaking naked-eye observations, improved the astrolabe’s gearing and added an adjusting pin which allowed correction for the equation of time, aiding the navigation of dhows plying the East African coast.

Even if the badly-eroded Antikythera computer’s mechanism, circa 200 to 1 BCE, had included more functions than Muslim models did, the Arab and Persian devices were compact, light in weight, and easy to use, and the resulting interest in trigonometry filtered into Europe along with al-Khwarizmi’s monograph on algebra, where by the 16th century Italian, French, Dutch and Danish mathematicians would marry geometry to this algebra to write what amount to series solutions of the cosine function, making the generation of tables faster and more precise than before. In the 17th century, subsumed by calculus, five-digit trig and log trig tables at 10’ intervals were being printed.

The tragedy of the Islamic world as it lost this civilizational initiative and descended into chaos and corruption persisting to our time strikes me. Christian Western Europe had been through such chaos of course, after the fall of Rome; we call it the “Dark Ages.” Europe was a backwater compared to the Baghdad of 850 CE. But while we began a halting recovery in the 1100s—set back by the Black Death of 1347-51 and a violent 15th century featuring the Wars of the Roses and analogous continental conflicts—science finally flowered in Europe, not Marrakesh, not Alexandria, not Baghdad, not Islamabad. Why? I think it’s because the Muslim conception of Allah is too punishing, too rigid, insufficiently endowed with tolerance.

There are signs of increasing adoption of grace into our God within Muslim nations, however, and it’s a hopeful trend. I’d like were it to prevail. I’ve told you this whole tale to reach one point: “Islamic tradition itself is not entirely unanimous on the question of Jesus’ death” (Reynolds, link below). Is it possible that Islam might contemplate a crucified and risen Christ, while Christians abandon a doctrinaire Trinity to espouse the unity of God, that our religions would more closely approach one another theologically?

Much of Trinitarian reasoning depends on the transitive law: If a = b and b = c, then a = c. Hence Jesus is the Word and the Word is God; therefore Jesus is God. I figure this line of thought subject to failure, if the kingdom of heaven isn’t transitive. If so, then Jesus may well be the Word, and the Word be God, yet Jesus not identical to God. Co-eternal, with familial status as Son, surely, but a separate being. Anglicans commit to the Trinity although the Nicene Creed doesn’t use that word. On Jesus’s giving up his life on the cross in order to deliver his message, there’s less flexibility. It’s too essential to Christianity for me to retreat from it.

The Muslim Jesus: Dead or Alive?
Gabriel Said Reynolds
https://www3.nd.edu/~reynolds/index_file...0alive.pdf

(02-02-2018 07:02 PM)muhammad_isa Wrote:  The gospel of John shouldn't even BE in the Bible .. it's author does not present facts, but his own belief! Why stick in this "gospel", and leave out the gospel of Thomas? Not good!

What makes the three synoptic gospels, or Thomas, more factual than the Johannine gospel? After all, John’s gospel basically started the Coptic church, even if the latter trended toward Eastern Orthodox. John concurs with the other three gospelists on many points, even if presenting its own view of Christ.

(02-02-2018 07:02 PM)muhammad_isa Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 06:03 PM)Amememhab Wrote:  Throughout our conversation, you’ve told me that Paul’s missionary journeys meant nothing since his Christ was false. Then you told me that Jesus’s death on the cross meant nothing, since it had no redeeming effect on our sins.

What are you saying here? That Jews and Muslims don't have religious knowledge about sins?

Rather, abundant knowledge of sin, yet perhaps not enough of forgiveness.
~ Wink

(02-03-2018 07:08 AM)JerryMyers Wrote:  And I will say it again – Jesus NEVER preached about his own death and resurrection. Other people did. Let’s read Luke 24:6-8 to help us remember this: Who was saying this? Jesus? No. The Bible said it was an angel in the form of man.

Luke 24:4 reports “two men stood by them in shining garments,” who are generally presumed to be angels, although Luke calls them “men.” And at 24:18-21, Luke reports another man, Cleopas, apparently a resident of Jerusalem, as saying to two of Jesus’s disciples, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth...how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel.” Here death on the cross and redemption thereby both receive mention.

Of course Jesus left us no words he wrote himself. He was probably illiterate despite his excellent reasoning and verbal skills as we saw in Luke 3:46-48, although no other known gospelist, canonical or not, relates this episode of the 12-year old Christ. Jesus is said to have grown up to be a carpenter, and 98% of the population of those days were also illiterate—isn’t it nice we have public schools with teachers college-trained in pedagogy to children? Luke probably never met Jesus, who may have died before he was born.

Such scanty material is all we have to go on. And no, we can’t cry, “Interpolation!” to get out of every biblical scenario we dislike. If we do, pretty soon we may as well declare the entire bible a 4th century fabrication, even if surely interpolations do exist in these texts.

(02-03-2018 07:08 AM)JerryMyers Wrote:  A soldier or someone who fight to liberate his country, he accepted the fact that he can get killed in a battle, but, that does not mean he wanted to be killed.

Indeed. Few of us want to die. And our country does genuinely care for its troops, having learnt from its ugly, cavalier Civil War and WWI veterans’ experience. Of 16 million Americans who served in WWII, only 416 thousand died, fighting one of the most vicious wars we’ve ever known, with less technology, tactical protocol and body armor than we have now. Roughly a million more incurred disabling injuries. Ja. Pretty hazardous duty, although better than historical armies which often lost half their soldiers to the Grim Reaper. The big military truth remains the same: If you die for your country, you’re dead—and you didn’t run when the call came. I’ve never faced that test, being about 10 years too young for Vietnam.

(02-03-2018 07:08 AM)JerryMyers Wrote:  Do Christians always take the words of the Bible literally? Let me ask you, “What was Jesus doing all the time on earth?” He was preaching righteousness and to believe in God who sent him.

I’d say he was preaching love, child after child taken into his bosom in front of congregations as he declared, “Of such is the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14). Righteousness is a component of love, for wrongdoing erases any love we had in our hearts. Yet the Pharisees were righteous without love, and we saw where that went.

Again, Jerry, I must leave off much of your post, some of which will take a trip to my local college library to research. I hope I can return to those points soon.
~ Smile
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2018, 05:23 AM
Post: #6
RE: Was Jesus’s death on the cross an act of blood atonement?
(02-02-2018 07:02 PM)muhammad_isa Wrote:  Remember, the The gospel of John shouldn't even BE in the Bible .. it's author does not present facts

and the rest of the Bible does? Don't make me laugh! Big Grin

Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2018, 08:30 AM
Post: #7
RE: Was Jesus’s death on the cross an act of blood atonement?
Amememhab Wrote:  Luke 24:4 reports “two men stood by them in shining garments,” who are generally presumed to be angels, although Luke calls them “men.” And at 24:18-21, Luke reports another man, Cleopas, apparently a resident of Jerusalem, as saying to two of Jesus’s disciples, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth...how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel.” Here death on the cross and redemption thereby both receive mention.

Sure, Luke reports 2 men, Mathew reports an earthquake and an angel, Mark reports a young man sitting on the right when they entered the tomb and John made no mention of any angel or men. Putting these aside, the point is, Jesus never preached his death and resurrection as redemption of sins – he never said it, other people said it because they misunderstood the phrase ‘die for’ and they believed Jesus was crucified. If you want to know whether Jesus was crucified or not, study what he said AFTER the supposedly resurrection.

Amememhab Wrote:  Of course Jesus left us no words he wrote himself. He was probably illiterate despite his excellent reasoning and verbal skills as we saw in Luke 3:46-48, although no other known gospelist, canonical or not, relates this episode of the 12-year old Christ. Jesus is said to have grown up to be a carpenter, and 98% of the population of those days were also illiterate—isn’t it nice we have public schools with teachers college-trained in pedagogy to children? Luke probably never met Jesus, who may have died before he was born.


I would not say Jesus left no words as many of his sayings are in the Bible, not to mention, the gospel of Thomas, irrespective whether it was rejected or not.

Amememhab Wrote:  Such scanty material is all we have to go on. And no, we can’t cry, “Interpolation!” to get out of every biblical scenario we dislike. If we do, pretty soon we may as well declare the entire bible a 4th century fabrication, even if surely interpolations do exist in these texts.

No, we don’t cry ‘interpolation!’ because we dislike the passage, we cry 'interpolation!’ when there are earlier manuscripts that do not contain such passages and we cry ‘red flag!’ when words spoken do not matched up with the story lines or when discrepancies emerged between 2 related stories of the same event – that would only be a logical and rational thing to do. To ignore them completely would be blind faith.


Amememhab Wrote:  The big military truth remains the same: If you die for your country, you’re dead—and you didn’t run when the call came. I’ve never faced that test, being about 10 years too young for Vietnam.

Sure, if you literally died in a battle fighting for your country, you are dead – anyone can see that. The point is, however, when you enrolled yourself in the army, you did that not to die, but, you did that to defend the sovereignty of your country. Thus, the term ‘die for your country’ means your total commitment and dedication to your country – its your first and foremost priority. You can even say ‘I will die for my family or my company’ which would mean the same thing and NOT that you MUST or NEED to literally die for your family or company.


Amememhab Wrote:  I’d say he was preaching love, child after child taken into his bosom in front of congregations as he declared, “Of such is the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14). Righteous-ness is a component of love, for wrongdoing erases any love we had in our hearts. Yet the Pharisees were righteous without love, and we saw where that went.

Not quite right, love is a component of righteousness and NOT righteousness a component of love. You cannot be preaching righteousness of God and at the same time preach transgression, hatred or disrespect for fellow mankind. However, you can preach love or be an example of love without being righteous to God. I know an atheist couple who would not even harm a fly. If the Pharisees are without love, then, they cannot be righteous in the first place, or in other words, their ‘righteousness was just hypocritical.


Amememhab Wrote:  Again, Jerry, I must leave off much of your post, some of which will take a trip to my local college li-brary to research. I hope I can return to those points soon.

No problem, @Amem – a man got to do what a man got to do. Smile

Take care now.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2018, 10:29 AM
Post: #8
RE: Was Jesus’s death on the cross an act of blood atonement?
(02-02-2018 06:03 PM)Amememhab Wrote:  Was Jesus’s death on the cross an act of blood atonement?

Yes, because His sacrifice causes reconciliation:

"Who by Him do believe in God, that raised Him up from the dead and gave Him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God." 1 Pe.1:21
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2018, 04:16 PM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2018 04:18 PM by muhammad_isa.)
Post: #9
RE: Was Jesus’s death on the cross an act of blood atonement?
(02-04-2018 04:01 AM)Amememhab Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 07:02 PM)muhammad_isa Wrote:  What are you saying here? That Jews and Muslims don't have religious knowledge about sins?

Rather, abundant knowledge of sin, yet perhaps not enough of forgiveness.
~ Wink

Almighty God is the Most Merciful..
Every chapter in the Qur'an (except one) begins with
Bismillah-hiRahman-niRahim (In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

A pious person (or God) dying does not change that.
If God does not allow suffering in the next life, why does He allow it in this life?

Makes no sense to me

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: He leadeth me beside the still waters.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2018, 04:28 AM
Post: #10
RE: Was Jesus’s death on the cross an act of blood atonement?
journeyman Wrote:  Yes, because His sacrifice causes reconciliation:

"Who by Him do believe in God, that raised Him up from the dead and gave Him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God." 1 Pe.1:21

Nope, his ‘death’ (if that’s your understanding by ‘his sacrifice’) did not cause reconciliation, but his preaching did, that is, to those who listen to him.

On 1 Peter 1:21, I can tell you “that your faith and hope might be in God” means Peter himself never believe Jesus is God but it’s thru Jesus, who himself believe in God (“Who by him do believe in God”), that your faith and hope might be in God, not in Jesus. Peter said that because he knew Jesus is not God. So, if Peter said your faith and hope should be in God, and not in Jesus, what do you think Peter meant by ‘(God) raised him up from the dead and gave him glory’ ??
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Blood Sacrifice George Chandler 14 470 02-01-2018 01:50 PM
Last Post: RamaRaksha
  Bowing Down Is the True Act Of Worship Chika 119 7,759 11-11-2015 07:52 PM
Last Post: arthra
  Atonement for Sin? Azrael17 13 2,115 05-31-2013 03:09 PM
Last Post: EqualAtheist
  Blood Sacrifice kevlar 0 399 01-17-2012 08:41 AM
Last Post: kevlar
  The Burning of Quran – A Modern Act of Barbarism Manahel.Fatima 64 4,966 06-20-2011 07:54 PM
Last Post: Fender
  Rare AB- Blood Types All Prayer Requests 9 2,767 04-25-2011 06:11 AM
Last Post: For the love of god
  and the Moon shall turn to blood... biomystic 25 3,170 12-21-2010 02:49 PM
Last Post: EqualAtheist
  CROSS may 13 2,613 08-31-2010 06:52 PM
Last Post: The Word
  Sacrifice, Repentance, Atonement, Sin, and Temptation! Azrael17 7 1,317 08-25-2010 12:08 PM
Last Post: The Word
  Jesus’ test for faith. Have you tested your faith? Greatest I am 0 3,740 05-31-2010 05:07 PM
Last Post: Greatest I am



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)