Posts Tagged ‘atonement’

Inner evidence of Gospels confirms: NT Bible is not eyewitness account

June 4, 2015

<www.religiousforums.com><Thread : Did Jesus have Scribes, ie are the Gospels actual witness accounts?>

Please click the post # below.

The Deist said:
None of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses
paarsurrey said:
I agree with you. The inner evidence of the NT Bible confirms this.
Regards

Paarsurrey wrote:
Gospel According to Saint Luke
Chapter 1
[1]Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us;[2]According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word:[3]It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,[4]That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.​

Luke was not an eyewitness, he says so and admits it in so many words.

Regards

Popcorn likes this.

to know why we believe what we believe: “Jesus did not die on the Cross”

July 4, 2013

I visited the blog<http://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/qa/> and commented there.

The relative posts are given below for the viewers. One may join the discussion on that blog or here to find the truth in the matter.

 

Prayson Daniel

December 3, 2012 at 07:03

Hej Matthew.

It is fine to doubt and lose faith. I were in your position when I were 15-22. The best part of this period is that we start searching to know why we believe what we believe.

I wrote a lot of atonement of Christ in my blog, if you would like to find them, I have a search box all the way at the bottom.

A simple answer is no. By Jesus rising from the dead, it showed that God affirmed His atonement, and that what Jesus claim to be is true is true. I think your atheist friend failed to understand the notion of atonement as described in both old and new testament. When Jesus died a cruel death(not just physical death, but away from God’s presence of His grace and love, to God’s presence of justices and wrath), He took away the just punishment to which those who He came to save rightly deserve. Resurrection does not cancel the payment but affirms it. You could reply to your atheist friend by asking if she understands what atonement is and how it works in Jesus of Nazareth.

Matthew, the only way to keep what you believe is to know what you believe and why you believe. Take online classes on critical think(introduction to logic), buy a book or two on philosophical foundations of Christianity and systematic theology. Doubt is a gift that enable you to dig deep. I would be glad to help you help yourself. Just let me know what you need.

Yours,
Prayson

 

paarsurrey

July 3, 2013 at 17:30

Quoting your words “By Jesus rising from the dead”; I would like to state that since Jesus did not die on the Cross in the first place and he was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position; so there is no case of resurrection of Jesus from the dead; hence, there is no reality in the Christian belief of atonement.

Thanks

 

Ephrem Hagos

July 4, 2013 at 14:23

I submit that there is complete misunderstanding concerning Christ’s death on the cross because of confusion in differentiating between the TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT.

In the first, the Scriptures consistently testify about Jesus Christ’s perpetual demo, a.k.a., life-transforming “vision” of his divine identity and absolute authority, which “not even death will ever be able to overcome” (Matt. 16:18), about which Moses and Elijah witnessed in person at the Transfiguration (Ibid. 17: 1-13; Luke 9: 28-36), which were proved beyond doubt on the ground (Matt. 27: 50-56) and widely acknowledged on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

In the second, the so-called “near-dead position” is a speculative variant of the miracle of the apostate prophet, a.k.a., Jonah. (Matt. 12: 38-42)

 

paarsurrey

July 4, 2013 at 17:16

@ Ephrem Hagos

@ Prayson Daniel
The “near-dead position” in real terms is not speculative and fulfills the prophecy of Jesus of what was to happen to him and how the message of one true God was to be spread in future among the Israelites by Jesus.

Jonah was not dead in the belly of the fish and came out of it alive and spread the message entrusted to him by the one true God; similarly Jesus was not to die; neither on the Cross nor in the tomb he was put by his friends after the event of Crucifixion. Like Jonah went to his people after the incident of the “in the belly of the fish” and spread the message to his people; so was Jesus to go to the lost ten tribes of the Israelites who were residing in the region that fall in the present Afghanistan. KPK province of Pakistan, Kashmir; and history confirms that Jesus did go to India.

This way the prophecy of Sign of Jonah was fulfilled.

 

Did Jesus himself claim that he was sent for the atonement of sins of others?

May 1, 2013

I think Jesus did not claim himself that he was sent for the atonement of the sins of others.

This was a concept Paul and the Church tried to put in the mouth of Jesus.

Jesus never died on the Cross, so he could not claim for that.

Please quote Jesus’ own words in his own original language which was Aramaic, as you know.

Christians or non-Christians all are welcome here to express themselves fully. It is a fact that Jesus did not die a cursed death on Cross.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

 

Did Jesus wager or bet or gamble? | Pascal’s Wager

April 11, 2013

Jesus did not wager or bet or gamble in my opinion. He neither did it nor did he promote such ventures. May be Paul did it; I am not sure, but perhaps his apologists followers like Blaise Pascal did play it; hence we get Pascal’s Wager.

Christopher Hitchens hints about this Pascal’s Wager and makes its critical assessment in following words:

“Eternal Punishment and Impossible Tasks

The Gospel story of the Garden of Gethsemane used to absorb
me very much as a child, because its “break” in the action and its
human whimper made me wonder if some of the fantastic scenario
might after all be true. Jesus asks, in effect, “Do I have to go through
with this?”

It is an impressive and unforgettable question, and I
long ago decided that I would cheerfully wager my own soul on the
belief that the only right answer to it is “no.” We cannot, like fear-ridden
peasants of antiquity, hope to load all our crimes onto a goat
and then drive the hapless animal into the desert.

Our everyday idiom
is quite sound in regarding “scapegoating” with contempt. And religion
is scapegoating writ large. I can pay your debt, my love, if you
have been imprudent, and if I were a hero like Sidney Carton in A
Tale of Two Cities I could even serve your term in prison or take your
place on the scaffold. Greater love hath no man. But I cannot absolve
you of your responsibilities. It would be immoral of me to offer, and
immoral of you to accept. And if the same offer is made from another
time and another world, through the mediation of middlemen and
accompanied by inducements, it loses all its grandeur and becomes
debased into wish-thinking or, worse, a combination of blackmailing
with bribery.

The ultimate degeneration of all this into a mere bargain was
made unpleasantly obvious by Blaise Pascal, whose theology is not
far short of sordid. His celebrated “wager” puts it in hucksterish form:
what have you got to lose? If you believe in god and there is a god,
you win. If you believe in him and you are wrong—so what?

I once
wrote a response to this cunning piece of bet-covering, which took
two forms. The first was a version of Bertrand Russell’s hypothetical
reply to the hypothetical question: what will you say if you die and are
confronted with your Maker? His response? “I should say, Oh God,
you did not give us enough evidence.” My own reply: Imponderable
Sir, I presume from some if not all of your many reputations that you
might prefer honest and convinced unbelief to the hypocritical and
self-interested affectation of faith or the smoking tributes of bloody
altars. But I would not count on it.” Unquote

Reference: “God is not Great” by Christopher Hitchens: Pages: 211-212, Chapter Fifteen, “Religion as an Original Sin”

How could Pascal defend with reason Paul’s made-up creed of the “Original Sin” mentioned above which even Jesus never believed in or supported? Like Paul invented the concept of “Original Sin” so did the Christian apologist Blaise Pascal invent “Pascal’s Wager”, of no use.

Christianity’s creeds: Jesus was a god, Jesus was son of god, Trinity, Jesus died a cursed death on Cross; Jesus got resurrected from dead, Jesus’ ascension to heavens, original sin, atonement; these beliefs are fabricated creeds of Paul and Church. Jesus never believed in such unreasonable, irrational and deceptive creeds; hence even a genius cannot defend them.

Why leave Jesus?

In the name of justice and love; Christianity presents a very cruel God and concept of atonement of sins, which is neither practical and rational, nor natural and logical

June 12, 2009

Marianne says:

The apostles were not dull witted. Jesus spent 3 years training them and they were very smart and prepared to do their job.

To say they were somehow stupid is an insult to their teacher Jesus.

Paarsurrey says: But this is what the Bible presents them to be.

Marianne says:

They believed in the resurrection of Lazarus, because they were there when it happened.

Paarsurrey says:

Had they believed that Jesus had given life to a physically dead Lazarus; then they would have not deserted Jesus on the Cross’ they just ran away; actions speak more than the words sometimes.

Marianne says:

Jesus died on the cross, and then he rose from the dead.

Paarsurrey says:

If Jesus was physically dead, then his friends would have not been in hurry to take him to the tomb. They believed that Jesus was near-dead, hence they hurriedly took him to the tomb for treatment.

If they had believed that he must be physically and literally dead and was to be alive from the dead, they would have kept him in the open; at least for the Jews to see Jesus perform the miracle. That never happened; and they did not expect it. They knew that Jesus was not physically dead.

Marianne says:

HE never went to India. This is a fairy tale of unbelievers.

Paarsurrey says:

The scribes did not write the gospel books to record the facts for the public. They wrote it for a specific purpose to support Paul’s weird theological philosophy.

They did not mention accounts of Jesus’ earlier life; they had no interest in it.They did not have interest in what Jesus did after he went from Galilee. Jesus seeing their poor belief; secretly went to India.

Marianne says:

Unless you accept the atonement death of Jesus on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead, your faith is wrong, and your relationship with Jesus is = 0 (zero), meaningless.

Paarsurrey says:

There is no direct relationship between sins and Jesus’ supposed death on the Cross; which never happened. Sins are forgiven from the time of Adam to today under a separate process; whether Jesus died on the Cross or did not die on the Cross.My relationship with Jesus is meaningful; I believe in the same God Allah YHWH whom Jesus also believed.

Marianne says:

Jesus came to die for our sins. If you reject this, then you reject him.

Paarsurrey says:

Sorry, I don’t agree with you. Jesus came with a message from God Allah YHWH; that is why he was a Messenger and Prophet. Sins are forgiven by God Allah YHWH. Jesus has no authority to forgive sins; it is sole discretion of God Allah YHWH; this should be clearly understood.

If a passerby in the street committs a sin; you won’t kill your son for the atonement of the passerby’s sins. It will be a most cruel thing to do.

In the name of justice and love; Christianity presents a very cruel concept of God and atonement of sins, which is neither practical and rational nor natural and logical.

I respect your faith; but this is what I sincerely belive and with logical reasons.

You are welcome to express your faith; no compulsion; but it should not be blindfaith, it should be a reason oriented faith supported by reasons and logical arguments. Blindfaith is no faith.

I love Jesus and Mary as described in Quran.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Quran Study for Christians Friends – Page : 1555

May 1, 2009

5vc1864Quran Surah/Chapter Maryam or Mary

Continued from the post dated 30th April of the same title.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1555&region=E1

I do love Adam and Eve as I do love Jesus and Mary

March 15, 2009

I Posted the following comment on the blog: EVANGELIST BILLY BOLITHO, on the link:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4663342674507117519&postID=2969850247259466970
“Who is responsible?”

Paarsurrey says:

Hi

Jesus’ death on the Cross has no bearing or relevance with the sins of a person. Adam sinned or made some mistake; he repented, asked forgiveness from Allah, and he resolved not to commit the same mistakes again. Allah forgave him and was please with him again. Adam became as complete and perfect of a man as he was before making the mistake, in my opinion.

That was a great experience of Adam; and sons of Adam followed him in this of his example, in my opinion.

Jesus declared voluntarily that he was Son of Adam, having no father, it is acceptable. This way Jesus humbly declared that his way was the way of Adam. To err is human; so being a humble man Jesus perhaps knew that he was apt to make mistakes. So Jesus resolved to follow Adam’s example to ask forgiveness from Allah, in my opinion.

All perfect men called Messengers do the same things; however, more wise amongst them ask forgiveness from Allah for the mistakes not yet done by them; so that they are forgiven beforehand by Allah. One such perfect man is Muhammad; with this wisdom Muhammad was endowed with the title Khatamun Nabiyyeen or the Seal of the Prophets Messengers, in my opinion.

Now the wise persons should have to follow Muhammad; asking forgiveness from Allah for the sins and mistakes one has not yet committed. This is the impression one should get from this Seal of Prophets to become in the image of Allah; not physically but in attributes within the spheres of humanity, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Adam and Eve.

Thanks

I am an Ahamdi peaceful Muslim

P.S. I have added a page titled “Ask Paarsurrey” on my blog for the questions. Please view it on the side bar of my blog for peaceful questions and discussions. Everybody is welcome; even those who differ with me.
https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/

Jesus was a perfect man only if he got married and had children

February 8, 2009

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4781545&postcount=7
If Jesus did not marry; then he is father of none

Originally Posted by dolphinlove:
ok…
now i dont know how many times we have told you the purpose of Jesus coming to earth. We have told you numerous times the reason he did not marry, his purpose what not to marry, his purpose was to come here and teach, amongst other things!

Paarsurrey, you obviously cant by the idea of a man is not a man unless he gets married, has sex and has a child.
That is not the only thing that makes up a man, many other things make up a man as well you know.

Paarsurrey says:

Hi

Well your claim for Jesus is not of a man; your claim is for a perfect man, and a perfect man must marry and have children, only then we could know what his behavior was with his wife/wives, his sons and daughters.

One cannot look on Jesus as an exemplary Model of a husband or as a father to his sons, so essential for a family. Why should one deny Jesus of these natural instincts gifted to him by God Allah YHWH? Just for some imaginary sins of the Catholics and their atonement! Can’t one stop sinning so that there is no need for this imaginary sacrifice, which never happened, for Jesus’ sake?

Let Jesus enjoy his life; like you all yourself enjoy so much. Why to make Jesus a scapegoat, for nothing?
One could however differ with me with solid reasons; that is one’s birth right.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

When to forgive and when not to forgive?

December 11, 2008

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=4529026#post4529026

When to forgive and when not to forgive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by w_stewart
Islam does not allow a sinner to repent. Once a man sins, he is to be punished cruelly even to the point of his death. The concept of forgiveness is germane to their religious tradition.

Hi

I think you have not studied Quran in the least. Never mind you may start it now.

[42:35] Or He can destroy those who are in them because of that which they have earned – but He forgives many of their sins –
[42:36] And He destroys them so that those who dispute concerning Our Signs may know that they have no refuge.
[42:37] And whatever you have been given is only a temporary provision of this life, but that which is with Allah is better and more lasting for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord,
[42:38] And those who eschew the more grievous sins and indecencies, and, when they are wroth, they forgive,
[42:39] And those, who hearken to their Lord, and observe Prayer, and whose affairs are decided by mutual consultation, and who spend out of what We have provided for them,
[42:40] And those who, when a wrong is done to them, defend themselves.

[42:41] Remember that the recompense of an injury is an injury the like thereof; but whoso forgives and thereby brings about an improvement, his reward is with Allah. Surely, He loves not the wrongdoers.

[42:42] There is no blame on those who defend themselves after they have been wronged.
[42:43] The blame is only on those who wrong men and transgress in the earth without justification. Such will have a grievous punishment.
[42:44] And he who is patient and forgives – that, surely, is a matter of high resolve.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2…=42&amp; verse=34

I think now the concept of when to forgive and when not to forgive is clear to you. It is very rational; if forgiveness could reform the wrongdoer, then he may be forgiven, but if the wrongdoer gets more encouraged then he is not to be forgiven.

Islam does not make one a coward; but wants that one should be graceful.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Jesus is neither Son of God nor God in physical/literal sense but in metaphoric sense as per usage of Bible

November 15, 2008

Our learned friend R H Kelkar, who has translated New Testament into Marathi, a language in South India, has made following observations in his write-up titled “The Meaning of ‘Nava Karar “which could be viewed in entirety at :

http://marathibible.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/the-meaning-of-nava-karar/

We only give here only one point mentioned by him:

The New Testament or ‘Nava Karar’ portrays God as a loving and forgiving father, who sent His son Jesus Christ to this world in human form with an offer of salvation for all humanity.

Paarsurrey says:

The above point is not correctly derived by him from the OTBible; and hence it is not supported by Quran- the pristine and most secure Revealed Book among the Revealed Religions and hence incorrect. God is not a physical being; He has rather created the whole physical phenomenon as He willed. Nobody shares this or other of his attributes. Hence God is nobody’s physical or literal father.

God is father of the humans in a metaphoric sense, nothing could get created without his order/will; and this is the theme of the OTBible. God has no literal wife or He needs no sex that his off-shoots are called Sons of God. This is only in the metaphoric sense otherwise it does not carry any meaning literally and physically. GodAllahYHWH needs no wife or son; this is only a phenomenon of the mortal beings and a sort of extension of life given by the Creator to one’s species. GodAllahYHWH is immortal. Quran is very clear in this aspect:

[112:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:2] Say ‘He is Allah, the One!
[112:3] Allah the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4] ‘He begets not, nor, is He begotten,
[112:5] And there is none like unto Him.
http://www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=112

We can agree with R H Kelkar if he reconciles to the above explanation.

Jesus did not pay any debt of any human beings as maintained by R H Kelkar. Jesus never died a cursed death on Cross as incorrectly invented by Paul at Rome to misguide the Christian sheep. Jesus was not a scapegoat of Paul and his associated i.e., the Catholic Church.

If anybody has any debt, he shall have to pay it himself. When Paul propounded this philosophy, Jesus was at that time traveling in India, happily among his Jewish lost sheep of which he was also a shepherd. He was never a shepherd of the Gentiles; this is a concept wrongly ascribed to Jesus; this debt Paul shall have to pay for.

OTBible Says:

Son of God

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. JOHN 3.16

A DESCRIPTIVE TERM:
And they made a proclamation in Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of captivity. EZRA 10.7

Then said he, These are the two sons of oil, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. ZECHARIA 4.14

Behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial [satin], beset the house round about. JUDGES 19.22

The good seed are the children of the kingdom. MATTHEW 13.38

JESUS NOT THE FIRST BORN SON:

ANGELS
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan was among them. JOB 1.6 & 2:1

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. JOB 38.7

CHILDREN OF RIGHTEOUS:
That the sons of god saw the daughters of men that they were fair. GENESIS 6.2

THE ISRAELITES:

And thou shalt say to Pharaoh. Thus said the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born. EXODUS 4.22

And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. EXODUS 4.23

You are the children of the Lord, your God. DEUTERONOMY 14.1

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea. Ye are the sons of the living God. HOSEA 1.10

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/biblical/chapter_4.html

Ahmadiyya under guidance of the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 Says:

• The Term “Son of God”

While the term “Son of God” has been used in reference to Jesus, it should be noted that God has used this title for many of His chosen ones.

For example, God, in the Old Testament refers to David: “I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’” * (Psalm 2:7)

Furthermore, in a New Testament genealogy, Adam is listed as the “Son of God” (Luke 3.38).

In fact, some may argue that Adam could have a greater claim over the “Sonship of God” because, unlike Jesus, he had neither an earthly father nor mother.

In order to reconcile these references and many others, it is not unreasonable to conclude, that the Biblical usage of the term “Son of God” does not necessarily connote a literal “sonship to God” but a metaphorical one instead.

The Nature of Jesus

This metaphorical understanding is furthered by Jesus’ own words and actions. Jesus is known to have engaged in many human devotional activities such as fasting and praying. But perhaps the most significant evidence is that Jesus claimed to lack knowledge of the future because, as he claimed, only the Father possessed perfect knowledge. (Mark 13:32).

This is especially notable since Christian doctrine holds the view that Jesus’ nature is a “hypostatic union”. That is, he was “fully divine” and “fully man” at the same time. If this were true, then he should have at no point denied his own omniscience.

These, in addition to other philosophical considerations, lead one to question the biblical term “Son of God” and its literal application to Jesus.

http://www.alislam.org/topics/jesus/

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim