Jamal Badawi – Jesus 39 – Trinity Atonement Blood Sacrifice 06 Sin Atonement 4

			alaikum and I welcome you once again to Western focus. Today's program will be our Tuesday nights
there are a series Jesus to beloved messenger of Allah. And it will be our sixth on Trinity,
atonement, and both sacrifice.
		

			Last week we started analysis of the tournament. And today we have our second segment on your horse
we shall be nice in here once again from St. Mary's University is Dr. Jim odo as enlightened.
		

			For the benefit of our viewers, could we please have a summary of last week's program? Okay, we
began some analysis of Paul's theory of atonement, which was introduced after Jesus peace be upon
him. We examined some of his assumptions. First, his assumption about human nature, the assumption
that Adam was perfect before he ate from the tree. And we said that if Adam weren't perfect, you'd
have not disobeyed calories from the tree. And as such, the human actually was created to perfect
from the very beginning. And that's why he disobeyed.
		

			We also examine his assumption about the divine attributes.
		

			Because on one in one sense, the theory says that God is loving, merciful and forgiving. But on the
other hand, it says he would not accept even the very sincere repentance, and insists on bloodshed
of his son before he forgives.
		

			We discussed the logic also of the creed of atonement. And he indicated that it claims to reconcile
justice with mercy. That is inconsistent, that is consistent inconsistent with either justice or
neither justice or mercy. It is not just for human beings to be regarded as born with the stigma of
sin, to be condemned in advance of commission of any sin.
		

			To realize this point, the human is imperfect, he would not achieve salvation, except if he is
perfect, which is an impossibility, or that the innocent in that case, Jesus should be punished in
order to serve the one who the sinner
		

			movement is regarded as merciful to refuse the very sincere repentance of an early human, or for
insistence of the bloodshed of the Beloved Son of God as the theory claims. In fact, there is much
more mercy and grace of God forgiving to the imperfect human, so long as they are repentant. And God
is definitely able to do that. And finally,
		

			if
		

			you say, only humans,
		

			infinite is the record of women, according to the theory
		

			for the sins of humanity,
		

			and Dr. Jamal cell claims is Jesus actually voluntarily choose to give us the divine attributes. And
he also chose to come by giving it up in human form. Now, first, I'd like to know if there's any
biblical basis to that claim. And
		

			well, just a general comment. Well, first of all, in terms of biblical basis, there are theologians
who research to support this common argument
		

			to the the writings of Paul in particular.
		

			And then attempt really to reconcile the idea of divinity of Christ as they want to present it with
the fact that he lived like any other human being that he was limited by a human body.
		

			I would definitely say to that is in the book of Hebrews, chapter five, verse seven, where Paul's
refers to Jesus and use the tail in the days of his flesh, in the face of his flesh. However, that
idea is expressed more clearly. in Paul's letter.
		

			As to the Philippians chapter two, verses six through nine. But the difficulty in quoting this,
again is the clear diversions in the various translations of the Bible, which I think would have
some implication in terms of interpreting what Paul really wanted to say.
		

			For example, if you refer to the King James Version,
		

			referring to Jesus Ponce's called who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery, to be equal
with God.
		

			However, in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, we find that that statement has been
considerably toned down. And it reads like this quote, who, though he was in the form of God, did
not count equality with God as thing to be grasped,
		

			but emptied Himself taking the form of a servant positive, being born in the likeness of men, and
being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
And then he continues indicating that this is why God put his name above any other means.
		

			But despite of the difference in the translation, I should say, which might be significant in terms
of which one did he get is more hints with respect to the situation than the other. But when we
focus specifically on the issue of atonement, both of them really speak about Jesus having been in
the form of God, number one, number two, that he entered himself to be life.
		

			I see, explains the first part of my question. Now, how about your comments?
		

			Well, the first thing that one observes, in commenting on this kind of idea is that it is an
innovation or as the Arabic term goes bizarre, it's an innovation introduced by Paul, at least
insofar as the Old Testament teaches, is, I'm not saying that this ideas does not exist in other
mythical religion, this is a different topic that you can come through, but at least insofar as you
have this is an innovation.
		

			New who is in the Old Testament, which was confirmed by Jesus, by the way, do we find that this the
idea of the Divine emptying himself from his divinity? So the main question here is this? What did
Paul really mean by that expression? What is the degree of religious symbolism that was used in this
world to express his opinion?
		

			Well, first of all, if we take the first part, what did Paul mean when he says that Jesus was in the
form of Gods?
		

			Did he mean it? Literally, that is Jesus was divine or equal to God?
		

			Now, I'm not going to answer that question. From the standpoint of other writers in the New
Testament, not from the standpoint even of the own statement of Jesus, but in the light of what Paul
himself said, as a word. In the New Testament.
		

			For example, in the first Corinthians, in chapter eight or six, we find that * speaks there. And
Nick makes a clear distinction between God and Jesus. He says, There is only one God, the Father,
and one mode. And both could also be teacher or Master, which is not necessarily bad, and one Lord
Jesus Christ, obviously, that shows that he didn't really think of Jesus and God as a coin.
		

			On the other hand, as indicated in some previous programs, in the symbolic or religious language of
the Bible, that God was used to mean God life for the presenting Gods does not in the divine sense,
with the first example to the book of Exodus in chapter seven, verse one, when Moses was described
as simple as God, to the Pharaoh, but that doesn't mean listen, God.
		

			Is it reasonable, then, to conclude that Paul did not really mean when he said that Jesus was in the
form of God, that He was actually God was equal to God. Let us get to the other key expression, that
for us.
		

			That was even when he says that Jesus emptied himself and took the form of a servant or slave, some
translations of tentative translation of the origin of words. First of all, * does not exactly
explain to us what he means. Nor does he say, of what did Jesus empty himself? When did he NPM
cetera. Now, if God has already admitted that Jesus is not equal to God, then it follows that Jesus
was not divine.
		

			Because divinity is not a relative, not as either it's there or not. Again, you can see
		

			Elizabeth.
		

			Now, we cannot say then that Jesus emptied himself from divinity in order to come to the world in
human form as some theologian contended, because there was no divinity to begin with, at least
according to Paul's expression.
		

			Let us also remember that divinity, or the divine, never ceases to be divine, for a moment, let
alone more than 30 years, the life of Jesus on Earth.
		

			To say that is basically like saying God, cease to be gods or God became no Gods for a period of 30
years. Obviously, an explanation like that would be contrary to the Old Testament, Jesus confirmed,
it would be contrary to the teaching of Jesus and contrary to any reason. In fact, one cannot
explain it even in terms of mystery. That's it issue of history. This is not very relevant. Because
mystery does not explain something which is self contradictory and impossible, because it's just
like saying, God is omnipotent. But he was not omnipotent. For more than 30 years, God is infinite
and perfect, but he was not infinite and perfect for searches because he was in human form. So this
		

			might shed some light as to
		

			what what is really meant by empty himself?
		

			Well, this argument has been made before because some argue that it was not necessarily a complete
process. Now, would that solve the problem? If
		

			it was not solve the problem, it might even there's more discipline problems. But before commenting
that I'd like to go back again to the divergence sometimes in the translations of the Bible.
		

			In fact, in some translations, it's used the tense to tendency or,
		

			for example, in today's English version gctv.
		

			The same passage in Philippians, chapter two, verse six reads, instead of his own three, when he did
his color,
		

			he did his own, up to the turn on his being used. Now, if we take it to giving up here as giving up
the divinity, as some has argued, then, of course, there is no
		

			difference at all between saying that this emptying was complete, or partial, because according to
the Nicene Creed,
		

			it is stated that Jesus was perfect man, and perfect God, at the same time.
		

			Now, if we say that he emptied Himself, then you cannot continue to describe you, as perfect, and
perfect. That's why the perfect God who gives up or empty himself of parts of his divinity cannot be
oppressive, is no one is knowing that there is no longer that.
		

			Likewise, if we say that Jesus was a perfect human, but possessed also divinity, alongside with this
way, that in part or in full, then he is not a perfect man. Because what makes a human a human is
that is not designed. What makes you and me like each other is that none of us is divine, if one of
us claims to be divine, or have even parchment of energy, then he is not a perfect man, because he
doesn't share that with the rest of us basic manual processes, the same characteristics essentially
like other human beings, and as such, we cannot really say that, whether to say that the empty was
Pacha would solve the problem actually would raise even more difficult problem, because
		

			you can clearly say that a person for example, is 100%, man and 70%, divine because it's partially
empty, doesn't seem to be really make much.
		

			sense, and above all, why it's empty? Or what was the purpose of God emptying himself from divinity.
		

			fulcrums argued that God became for purpose and his purpose was to share with men whose life also to
identify with him and express his love of mankind. Now, could you evaluate this form of reasoning,
		

			when this kind of explanation seems to assume, at least implicitly, that the knowledge of God is
imperfect, so that he needs himself to incarnate in physical limited form in order to achieve more
understanding new feelings, or new perception of what is going on?
		

			However, I see that this kind of assumption implicit as it may be, is really contrary to the Old
Testament and content
		

			To the Quran, for that matter, because the knowledge of God is accepted by Jews, Christians and
Muslims alike to the infinite knowledge and absolute knowledge. Why does God then need to
		

			incarnate in physical forms in order to know all this? If we accept that logic, and if we know that
God is also necessary to all his creatures, including animals, does that mean that God would not
show his love and concern for animals without reincarnating in their form, to humans, in animal
form, glory to God, one can never really even entertain this kind of thought. In fact, this reminds
me with dialogue, Muslim Christian dialogue that I had once with Christian friends in Montreal.
		

			And during the course of the dialogue, he, the Christian speaker was trying to explain this
incarnation of God in the form of Jesus. And he said, me, defends himself, he said,
		

			I cannot really understand or feel, how the end feel, I can speculate, I can guess. But I cannot
fully appreciate how the ENT feel, unless I, as a human, become an ENT, myself. Well, this kind of
explanation to me, seems to reflect an image of Gods which is men like that, which is impressive, as
the same limitation like all humans, do, the same lack of knowledge. And this images are not really
befitting for God. One who is one of those attributes is the absolute and infinite
		

			knowledge. That doesn't mean to do that, in order to obtain knowledge, he knows all the secrets and
details of our hearts, even
		

			even before we are created. And as far as the expression of love. One expression of love takes
		

			a number of ways, while respecting and adoring the divinity, and holiness.
		

			How would you answer?
		

			Those who say that
		

			God didn't do anything?
		

			Well, maybe the best way to answer that question is to raise a couple of questions, rhetorical
questions, or clarification?
		

			Can the perfect God becomes interesting?
		

			And the infinite Gods be finite?
		

			And the almighty become weak, incompetent, or wise or unwise? In brief, can Gods become non GAAP? No
guides are non GAAP.
		

			I believe that any sensible person, regardless of his or her religious background, would say that
this is impossible. It's not outside Valesky against guns.
		

			But you could go back and ask why not? Isn't God able to do everything? Why can he resist?
		

			The kind of assumption, the kind of question that says here is the problem itself. In other words,
the contradiction is basic in the nature of the issue itself.
		

			Now, we know that the basic attributes of God in terms of exploring perception and greatness
definitely would preclude perceiving God's infinite, we competent, unjust, no good. These are all
excluded by definition. Because these are essential, divine attributes. When it is true, of course,
		

			in one sense that you could say this, God can do everything, and nobody can put any limitations on
this world. But God Himself does not do anything, he chose not to do anything, which is contrary to
his divine attributes.
		

			So if God decided to be good, decided to be just, it would be pointless to say, for example, when
but God is able to be unjust, is able to be no good morning, good. Of course, this doesn't make
sense because he himself excluded that by virtue of his divine attributes.
		

			Similarly, to also say that the divine emptied himself from divinity is actually a contradiction
because
		

			you're really talking about something that's definitive.
		

			And when we say that, for example, Jesus died on the cross, one accord, it just figures and the one
who died was the divine minus divinity because he emptied Himself.
		

			So then divine minus divinity.
		

			Now, if we conclude from that, that the one who really was the human, then as we mentioned, because
this does not really constitute the perfect storm,
		

			Infinite sacrifice which is necessary to carry away in the sense of all mankind, according to the
theory of
		

			us, God can do anything but he excluded such as English doesn't go with his divinity.
		

			Now, all of this, especially on pause expression, since a lot of contradictions in a
		

			way of listening to pause expression, in a way which it might be free of these contradictions. The
only way in my humble understanding
		

			is only in the case where
		

			you take there was inserted himself an allegorical
		

			meaning,
		

			not that God
		

			said from his divinity, but that Jesus, the human, into his own well, are free entities, well, that
is submitted fully and totally to God is created. So that he puts the will of God adopted his own
wisdom into his will in favor of the will of God, his desires in favor of what's done, or did to
him, and lived in complete submission and obedience to His creator. And in that sense, Jesus, peace
be upon him shares this good quality with many other great prophets. For example, in the story of
Prophet
		

			Abraham, Ishmael, when God when God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his only son at that time, for 14
years proposition,
		

			Abraham was the duty to obey God, so he emptied his own will, and several of the will of God, His
own desire and love of his child, in favor of absolute and unqualified obedience to God. So what I'm
saying that this is a good quality in Jesus, but it's also good quality, which is shared with other
great prophets and messengers in history, without any notion of deification of Trinity or atonement.
After all, it was Jesus himself, who repeatedly said, as we caught it in previous programs, that
he's doing only that will have this load is killing only what is yours. And above all, in john 1428,
he says, he saw that is greater than I'm always
		

			allowed to ask your comments on the physicists, at least in human history that only one person was
fully assembled, not Nursing at all, and that being Jesus, now with a Muslim acceptance, I would
like to begin by saying that there is no Muslim who understands his religion properly, could ever
say, for example, an expression like Jesus was a sinful person is implemented. This is contrary to
the teaching of Islam and contrary to the respect that Muslims thought, to show the prophets
		

			nor do I know of any must and again, understand Stand properly, who would claim that any profit also
other than Jesus, integrate profit, was a sinful person, because this is also disrespect to other
prophets and contrary to the teachings of Islam,
		

			but the holiness of purity of prophets, does not mean that they have a nature, which is not like
other humans or non human nature. Nor does it mean that they are perfect in the very absolute sense.
Because perfection in the very absolute sense is a quality of God and of God. I know not even the
holiest of all of the prophets. Okay.
		

			And Jesus Himself, indeed, confirmed that in the Gospel according to Mark in chapter 10, verse 18,
when somebody ran after him and said, Good mustard, he says, Why could you leave good, there's only
one that is good, and that is God. So we deferred, and he denied even that he's absolutely but he
has good respect. It's in the human sense of absolute sense. He always referred to God as the only
one who was totally pure and totally holy, totally.
		

			Great. Now, Jesus and other prophets, then WordPerfect, you can say, on seamless, but only in human
terms, that is insofar as they were still human beings.
		

			Now, that also means as we have indicated in a previous series on profit tools, that if profit is
definitely infallible, in the matter of belief, you would not make a mistake in the matter of belief
in God or else you would not be chosen to communicate the message of God. Nor can a prophet be
accused of any major sin that will blemish his moral character. That's why as indicated in that
series, Muslims do not accept the negative stories attributed to some profits of committing adultery
or
		

			Other things which is not appropriate for a man, she was invited to be a good example for when he
tried to guide, but this does not deny, as indicated also, that it profits, great as you may be
making these minor errors, not deliberate disobedience to God, but small errors here and there,
which results from the limited human nature because all prophets, Jesus, Muhammad, Abraham would all
human beings. So from an Islamic standpoint, all prophets share this purity and seamlessness in that
sense, with grace of Jesus.
		

			But even from the biblical standpoint, we find, for example, Prophet john the baptist, or Yeshua, is
referred to in the Bible, in the Own Words of Jesus as one who is the greatest among all those who
were born of women. There is no mention in the Bible at all, in the New Testament, of any sin
committed by john the baptist, in fact, he died as a Mercer as we all know, he was the one actually
you baptized Jesus,
		

			himself. And as we know, the baptism was used as a symbol of purification, or watching all your
sins.
		

			So it must be readily accepts that Jesus, peace be upon him, was sinless. But all prophets also, in
that sense, were sent this on the absurdity of the Quran alone. And I would say that this is a much
more charitable approach and position for the Muslims than the approaches taken by some even
Christian, believing and practicing theologians.
		

			into just points of I would not give an example from the writings of people who were atheist or anti
christ. But I give you a reference, for example, to a very well known Christian theologian by the
name of Dennis, nine hands, and I NC ha nine hands, who has seven very standard and important works
on the violence study of the Bible.
		

			And that was quoted in an article or epilogue that she wrote in the book edited by john Hicks. He
called the myth of God in Canada,
		

			written by a group of Norwegian and clergy from the Church of England,
		

			and nine hams article, he inquires, and he says, and what historical basis? Can we validate a claim
just that Jesus was sinless? And then he continues on page 180. In the course, to prove and
historical negatives,
		

			such as the seamlessness of Jesus is notoriously difficult to the point of impossibility.
		

			How, for example, could even the most constant companion of Jesus, have been sure that he remained
unbroken Be true to his own principles, and never, for example, looked on a woman to lust after her
between the ethics in the sense of Matthew 529 Hampton hasten to say that this question is not meant
at all to cast any doubt about the sexual purity of Jesus peace be upon him,
		

			but simply to indicate that the claim of absolute seamlessness cannot be justified, as he is on
historical record on any historical record. And then he goes on to say that the Gospels themselves
are not sufficient documents at all, that might give this proof, because they are very brief. And
explaining that to you refers to a study that was made by bH streeters who once calculated that,
apart from the 40 days that Jesus spent in the wilderness, of which he says we have very limited
wear for virtually nothing, aside from this 40 days period, everything that was reported about
anything that Jesus said or did
		

			occupies a span of only three weeks. And then you say is the point is clear? How could you on the
basis of reports on a person for only three weeks out of his entire life of nearly 30 years or more,
you can say that this person was absolutely
		

			similar, even if the person was very closely watched by the most intimate people. And then he goes
on to discuss those who said that what the record says about Jesus gives a clear indication of the
his behavior outside of those spirits. And it says that this is true, but those within Smith the
gospel also, were primarily concerned
		

			vindicate certain natural, supernatural claims of Jesus, and this is not the only one perhaps we can
pick up.
		

			Well, I'd like to be on but since our time together we tend to very much hopefully we'll continue
with this topic next week. And thank you all for joining us during this time and focus once again.
As always, any questions or any comments you may have would be most appreciated. Our phone number
and our address will be appearing on your screen. From all of us here in this time and focus