Of all Christian mysteries, none is as important as the concept of the crucifixion of Christ and the Atonement. In fact, Christians base their salvation on this one belief. And if it really is, shouldn’t we all do it?

If it were really like that means …

Well, I don’t know anything about you, but the concept of Jesus sacrificing himself for the sins of humanity sounds pretty good to me. And why shouldn’t it be that way? I mean, if we can trust that someone else has atoned for all our sins, and we can go to heaven based on this concept, shouldn’t we close the deal immediately?
If it were really like that, that means….

So let’s check it out. We are taught that Jesus was crucified. But then again we are told a lot of things that turn out to be doubtful or even untrue, so it would be very reassuring if we could confirm this fact.

So let’s question the witnesses. Let’s ask the gospel writers.

Hmm, a problem arises. We don’t know who the authors were. This is a less known (ie waaay less known) Christian mystery – the fact that all four New Testament gospels are anonymous. [1] Nobody knows who wrote it. Graham Stanton tells us: “Unlike most Greco-Roman writings, the Gospels were anonymous. The well-known headings that give an author’s name (‚The Gospel According to …‘) were not part of the original manuscripts, because they were added only in the early second century. ”[2]

Added in the second century? From whom? Believe it or not, it’s also not known.

But let’s forget all of this. After all, the four gospels are part of the Bible, so we have to respect them as scripture, right?


Well, maybe not. After all, the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states: „It is safe to say that there is not a single sentence in the NT in which the MS [manuscript] translation would be entirely uniform.“ [3] Let’s add Bart Ehrmans Famous words added today: „Perhaps it is easiest to see things in a comparison: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.“ [4]

Wow. Difficult to imagine. On the one hand, we have Matthäus, Markus, Lukas and Johannes who tell us … oh, sorry. I wanted to say we have anonymous, anonymous, anonymous and anonymous who tell us … well what? What do you tell us? That they couldn’t even agree on what Jesus was wearing, drinking, doing, or speaking? Finally, Matthew 27:28 tells us that the Roman soldiers put a scarlet cloak on Jesus. John 19: 2 tells us that it was purple. Matthew 27:34 says the Romans gave Jesus sour wine mixed with vinegar. Mark 15:23 says that he was mixed with myrrh. Mark 15:25 tells us that Jesus was crucified before the third hour, but John 19: 14–15 says it was “around the sixth hour”. Luke 23:46 says Jesus‘ last words were: “Father, I command my spirit into your hands!

Now wait a minute. The righteous followers of Jesus were attached to every single word. On the other hand, Mark 14:50 tells us that all disciples have left Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. But, well, some people – not disciples, I guess, but people (anonymously, of course) – stuck to each of his words hoping for some words of wisdom and they heard … different things?

Believe it or not, after this point, the Gospel accounts are still contradictory.

After the supposed resurrection we hardly find a single topic in which the four Gospels (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20) agree. For example:

who went to the grave?
Matthew: “Maria Magdalena and the other Maria”.
Markus: “Maria Magdalena, Maria, Jacobus´ mother and Salome”.
Lukas: “The women who came from Galilea with him” and “some other women”.
Johannes: “Maria Magdalena”.
Why did they go to the grave?
Matthew: “to see the grave”.
Markus: They brought “specialty so that they would come and anoint”.
Lukas: They “brought spice”.
Johannes: no reason given.
Was there an earthquake (something that no one in the area would most likely miss and no one would have forgotten)?
Matthew: Yes.
Markus: no mention.
Lukas: no mention.
Johannes: no mention.
Did an angel come down? (I mean, come on, boys – an angel – should we believe that three of you somehow missed this part?)
Matthew: Yes.
Markus: no mention.
Lukas: no mention.
Johannes: no mention.
Who rolled the stone away?
Matthew: The angel (the one that the other three anonymous didn’t see …)
Markus: Unknown.
Luke: unknown.
Johannes: unknown.
Who was in the grave
Matthew: “an angel”.
Markus: “a young man”.
Lukas: “two men”.
Johannes: “two angels”.
Where were you?
Matthew: The angel sat on the stone, outside the grave.
Markus: The young man was in the grave, „sat on the right side.“
Lukas: The two men were in the cave, standing next to them.
Johannes: The two angels „one at the head and one at the feet, since they laid the body down“.
Who and where was Jesus first seen?
Matthew: Maria Magdalena and the “other Maria,” on the way to report to his disciples.
Markus: only Maria Magdalena, without mentioning where.
Luke: Two of the disciples en route to a „village called Emmaus, located about seven miles from Jerusalem.“
Johannes: Maria Magdalena, outside the grave.
So where does all this take us? We should ask ourselves whose idea was this script?
But hey, the Christians tell us that Jesus had to die for our sins. A typical conversation could sound like this:
Monotheist: Oh. So do you think God died?
Trinitarian: No, no, forget that thought. Only the man died.
Monotheist: In this case, the victim did not have to be divine if only the human part died.
Trinitarian: No, no, no. The human part died, but Jesus / God had to suffer on the cross for our sins.
Monotheist: What do you mean by „had“? God doesn’t have to do anything.
Trinitarian: God needed a sacrifice and a human would not have done so. God needed a sacrifice large enough to atone for the sins of humanity, so He sent His only begotten son.
Monotheist: Then we have different concepts from God. The god I believe in has no needs. My God never wants to do anything and He can’t because he needs something to do it. My God never says, “I want to do this, but I can’t! First I need that certain something. Let’s see where I can find it? ” In this scenario, God would be dependent on something that could meet his needs. In other words, God had a higher God. This is simply not possible for a strict monotheist, because God is the One, Most High, Self-sufficient, the source of all creation. Humanity has needs, God does not. We need His guidance, mercy, and forgiveness, but He doesn’t need anything in return. He may wish worship and easement
Trinitarian: But that’s the point: God tells us to worship Him and we do it with our prayers. But God is pure and clean, and people are sinners. We cannot approach God directly because of the impurity of our sins. So we need a mediator through whom we pray.
Monotheist: Question – Did Jesus sinn?
Trinitarian: No, he was sinless.
Monotheist: How pure was he?
Trinitarian: Jesus? 100% pure. He was God / Son of God; so it was 100% holy.

Monotheist: But then, according to your criteria, we cannot approach Jesus any more than God. Your requirement is the incompatibility, the sinful man and the purity of something 100% holy. If Jesus was 100% holy, it is no more accessible than God. On the other hand, if Jesus was not 100% holy, then he was defiled himself and could not turn to God directly, and even less be God or the Son of God or God’s partner.
A just analogy would be to meet a very righteous man – the most holy, living man, holiness shines from his being, comes from his pores. So, we’re going to meet him, but we’re told that the „saint“ won’t agree to the meeting. In fact, he can’t stand being in a room with a stained mortal. We can speak to his porter, but the saint himself? Fatal! It is far too sacred to sit with us lesser beings! So what do we think now? Does that sound sacred or crazy?

Common sense tells us that holy people are accessible – the holier the more accessible. So why should humanity need an intermediary between himself and God? And why should God ask the sacrifice of what Christians call „His only begotten son“ when he says according to Hosea 6: 6: „Because I enjoy love, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God, and not the burnt victim. ” This lesson was worth two mentions in the New Testament, the first in Matthew 9:13, the second in Matthew 12: 7. Then why does the clergy teach that Jesus had to be sacrificed? And if he was sent for this purpose, why did he pray to be saved?

Perhaps Jesus‘ prayer is explained in Hebrews 5: 7, where it is said that because Jesus was a righteous man, God saved him from death. “And in the days of his flesh he offered prayer and supplication with strong cries and tears to him who could help him out of death; and is also heard because he honored God. ” (Hebrews 5: 7). Well, what does it mean: God „heard“ him – that God heard it loud and clear and ignored it? No, it means God heard his prayer. It certainly cannot mean that God heard and rejected prayer, because the sentence “because he had honor in God” would otherwise be meaningless, according to the motto: “God heard his prayer and rejected it because he was one righteous man was. „

Hm. Doesn’t that indicate that Jesus wasn’t crucified at all?

But let’s go back and ask ourselves, why should we believe that we have to believe to be saved? On the one hand, original sin is believed to be binding, whether we believe it or not. On the other hand, redemption applies on the condition (of faith) to the crucifixion and atonement of Jesus. In the first case, belief is considered irrelevant; in the second it is required. The question arises: “Did Jesus pay the price or not?” If he paid the price, our sins are forgiven. If he didn’t pay him, it doesn’t matter either way. After all, forgiveness has no price. One person can forgive another’s debt and still insist on repayment. On the argument that God forgives, but only if He is sacrificed for it, He says that He does not require this (see Hosea 6: 6, Matthew 9:13 and 12: 7) pulls a wing and wagon wheels onto the career path of rational analysis. So where does this formula come from? According to Scripture (the previously mentioned anonymous script that lacks uniformity in the manuscript) it does not come from Jesus. Furthermore, the Christian formula depends on original sin and we have to ask ourselves why we should believe the concept if we cannot prove the rest of the Christian formula.

But that’s another discussion.
Anonymous (just kidding)

Copyright © 2008 Laurence B. Brown — used with his permission.
Laurence B. Brown, MD can be contacted at: BrownL38@yahoo.com. He is the author of The First and Final Commandment (Amana Publications) and Bearing True Witness (Dar-us-Salam). Soon the story thriller: The Eighth Scroll, and the second edition of The First and Final Commandment, will be revised and divided into MisGod’ed and the sequel God’ed.

[1] 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.
[2] Stanton, Graham N. p. 19th
[3] Buttrick, George Arthur (Ed.). 1962 (1996 Print). The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Volume 4. Nashville: Abingdon Press. pp. 594–595 (Under Text, NT).
[4] Ibid., The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. p. 12.


Source: https://www.islamland.com/deu/articles/religise-mysterien-101–die-kruzifizierung