Of all the Christian mysteries, none rank as highly as the concept of Christ\u2019s crucifixion and atoning sacrifice. In fact, Christians base their salvation on this one tenet of faith. 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. And shouldn\u2019t it? 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. We\u2019re told Jesus Christ was crucified. 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. Let\u2019s ask the gospel authors.<\/p>\n
Umm, one problem. We don\u2019t know who the authors were. This is a less popular Christian mystery (i.e., waaay less popular) \u2013 the fact that all four gospels of the New Testament are anonymous.[1] Nobody knows who wrote them. Graham Stanton tells us, \u201cThe gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous. The familiar headings which give the name of an author (\u2018The Gospel according to . . .\u2019) were not part of the original manuscripts, for they were added only early in the second century.\u201d[2]<\/p>\n
Added in the second century? By whom? Believe it or not, that is anonymous as well.<\/p>\n
But let\u2019s forget all that. After all, the four gospels are part of the Bible, so we must respect them as scripture, right?<\/p>\n
Right?<\/p>\n
Well, maybe not. 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] Add 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]<\/p>\n
Whoa. Hard to imagine. On one hand, we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John telling us . . . oh, excuse me. I meant to say, we have Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous and Anonymous telling us . . . well, what? What do they tell us? That they can\u2019t even agree on what Jesus wore, drank, did or said? After all, Matthew 27:28 tells us the Roman soldiers dressed Jesus with a scarlet robe. John 19:2 says it was purple. Matthew 27:34 says the Romans gave Jesus sour wine mingled with gall. Mark 15:23 says it was mixed with myrrh. 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. Jesus\u2019 righteous followers would have hung on his every word. On the other hand, Mark 14:50 tells us that all the disciples deserted Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. 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. For example:<\/p>\n
Who went to the tomb?<\/p>\n
Matthew: \u201cMary Magdalene and the other Mary\u201d<\/p>\n
Mark: \u201cMary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome\u201d<\/p>\n
Luke: \u201cThe women who had come with him from Galilee\u201d and \u201ccertain other women\u201d<\/p>\n
John: \u201cMary Magdalene\u201d<\/p>\n
Why did they go to the tomb?<\/p>\n
Matthew: \u201cTo see the tomb\u201d<\/p>\n
Mark: They \u201cbrought spices, that they might come and anoint him\u201d<\/p>\n
Luke: They \u201cbrought spices\u201d<\/p>\n
John: no reason given
\nWas there an earthquake (something nobody in the vicinity would be likely to either miss or forget)?<\/p>\n
Matthew: Yes<\/p>\n
Mark: no mention<\/p>\n
Luke: no mention<\/p>\n
John: no mention<\/p>\n
Did an angel descend? (I mean, come on, guys \u2013 an angel? Are we to believe that three of you somehow missed this part?)<\/p>\n
Matthew: Yes<\/p>\n
Mark: no mention<\/p>\n
Luke: no mention<\/p>\n
John: no mention<\/p>\n
Who rolled back the stone?<\/p>\n
Matthew: The angel (the one the other three anonymouses \u2013 now, let\u2019s see, would that be \u201canonymouses\u201d or \u201canonymice\u201d? \u2013 didn\u2019t see)<\/p>\n
Mark: unknown<\/p>\n
Luke: unknown<\/p>\n
John: unknown<\/p>\n
Who was at the tomb?<\/p>\n
Matthew: \u201can angel\u201d<\/p>\n
Mark: \u201ca young man\u201d<\/p>\n
Luke: \u201ctwo men\u201d<\/p>\n
John: \u201ctwo angels\u201d<\/p>\n
Where were they?<\/p>\n
Matthew: The angel was sitting on the stone, outside the tomb.<\/p>\n
Mark: The young man was in the tomb, \u201csitting on the right side.\u201d<\/p>\n
Luke: The two men were inside the tomb, standing beside them.<\/p>\n
John: 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: Mary Magdalene and the \u201cother Mary,\u201d on the road to tell the disciples.<\/p>\n
Mark: Mary Magdalene only, no mention where.<\/p>\n
Luke: Two of the disciples, en route to \u201ca village called Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem.\u201d<\/p>\n
John: 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. A typical conversation might go something like this:
\nMonotheist: Oh. So you believe God died?<\/p>\n
Trinitarian: No, no, perish the thought. Only the man died.<\/p>\n
Monotheist: In that case, the sacrifice didn\u2019t need to be divine, if only the man-part died.<\/p>\n
Trinitarian: No, no, no. The man-part died, but Jesus\/God had to suffer on the cross to atone for our sins.<\/p>\n
Monotheist: What do you mean \u201chad to\u201d? God doesn\u2019t \u201chave to\u201d anything.<\/p>\n
Trinitarian: God needed a sacrifice and a human wouldn\u2019t do. God needed a sacrifice big enough to atone for the sins of humankind, so He sent His only begotten son.<\/p>\n
Monotheist: Then we have a different concept of God. The God I believe in doesn\u2019t have needs. My God never wants to do something but can\u2019t because He needs something to make it possible. My God never says, \u201cGee, I want to do this, but I can\u2019t. First I need this certain something. Let\u2019s see, where can I find it?\u201d In that scenario God would be dependent upon whatever entity could satisfy His needs. In other words, God would have to have a higher god. For a strict monotheist that\u2019s just not possible, for God is One, supreme, self-sufficient, the source of all creation. Humankind has needs, God doesn\u2019t. We need His guidance, mercy and forgiveness, but He doesn\u2019t need anything in exchange. He may desire servitude and worship, but he doesn\u2019t need it.<\/p>\n
Trinitarian: But that\u2019s the point; God tells us to worship Him, and we do that through prayer. But God is pure and holy, and humankind are sinners. We can\u2019t approach God directly because of the impurity of our sins. Hence, we need an intercessor to pray through.
\nMonotheist: Question\u2014did Jesus sin?<\/p>\n
Trinitarian: Nope, he was sinless.<\/p>\n
Monotheist: How pure was he?<\/p>\n
Trinitarian: Jesus? 100% pure. He was God\/Son of God, so he was 100% holy.<\/p>\n
Monotheist: But then we can\u2019t approach Jesus any more than we can God, by your criterion. 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. If Jesus was 100% holy, then he\u2019s no more approachable than God. On the other hand, if Jesus wasn\u2019t 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. So we go to see him, but are told the \u201csaint\u201d won\u2019t agree to the meeting. In fact, he can\u2019t stand to be in the same room with a sin-tainted mortal. We can talk with his receptionist, but the saint himself? Fat chance! He\u2019s much too holy to sit with us lesser beings. So what do we think now? Does he sound holy, or crazy?<\/p>\n
Common sense tells us holy people are approachable\u2014the holier, the more approachable. So why should humankind need an intermediary between us and God? 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. Why, then, are clergy teaching that Jesus had to be sacrificed? And if he was sent for this purpose, why did he pray to be saved?
\nPerhaps 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). Now, what does \u201cGod heard his prayer\u201d mean\u2014that God heard it loud and clear and ignored it? No, it means God answered his prayer. 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. 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? On one hand, original sin is held to be binding, whether we believe in it or not. On the other hand, salvation is held to be conditional upon acceptance (i.e., belief) of the crucifixion and atonement of Jesus. In the first case, belief is held to be irrelevant; in the second, it\u2019s required. 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. If he didn\u2019t pay the price, it doesn\u2019t matter either way. Lastly, forgiveness doesn\u2019t have a price. A person can\u2019t forgive another\u2019s debt and still demand repayment. 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. From where, then, does the formula come? According to scripture (the aforementioned anonymous scripture lacking manuscript uniformity), it\u2019s not from Jesus. 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,
\nAnonymous (Just Kidding)<\/p>\n
Copyright \u00a9 2008 Laurence B. Brown\u2014used by permission.
\nThe author\u2019s website is www.leveltruth.com. He is the author of two books of comparative religion entitled MisGod\u2019ed and God\u2019ed, as well as the Islamic primer, Bearing True Witness. All of his books are available through Amazon.com.<\/p>\n
Footnotes:
\n[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.
\n[2] Stanton, Graham N. p. 19.
\n[3] Buttrick, George Arthur (Ed.). 1962 (1996 Print). The Interpreter\u2019s Dictionary of the Bible. Volume 4. Nashville: Abingdon Press. pp. 594\u2013595 (Under Text, NT).
\n[4] Ibid., The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. p. 12.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Source: https:\/\/www.islamland.com\/eng\/articles\/religious-mysteries-101–the-crucifixion<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"