Jesus 40 – Trinity Atonement Blood Sacrifice 07 Sin Atonement 5

AsSalamu Alaikum and welcome once again to asylum focus.

Today we have our 40th on our series on Jesus to beloved messenger of Allah. And this will be our seventh on Trinity, atonement, and by sacrifice

we started two years ago on analysis of atonement, and this will be our third segment. I'm your host, Rashad minich. And here once again from St. Mary's University is Dr. Joel,

provide a summary of last week's pronoun, please, sure, we began to discuss some of the ideas of porn about the notion that Jesus introduced himself and came in the form of a human. And we said that this would not be consistent with the Divinity or divine attributes if we take this emptying as contained from his divine nature.

And we said that those who try to explain this emptying that it was only partial, does not really solve the problem. It's complicated further, because what are we talking about partial emptying, or complete emptying of divine attributes. It is contrary to the Nicene Creed that holds that Jesus was full man and full guard at the same time.

We also discussed the notion that God came in the form of a human in order to get the feeling of the human and shared with them. And he said, God does not need that, because his knowledge is infinite and eternal, doesn't have to experience to, to get this information.

We also dealt with the apology that God is able to do everything. And he said, Yes, but it doesn't mean that God can become no God, because by definition, he excluded these things, because of his divine attributes. So we're not saying that anyone can impose a restriction on the will of God. But what he taught us about his divine attributes restrict our assumption of what he may or may not do, something that should be consistent with his glory, and his divinity.

And we said, finally, that if we were to accept the notion of empty at all, it should be only in symbolical, meaning in a sense that Jesus devoted his life and gave it for God, that He tries to do the will of God instead of his own desires as a human. That's the meaning of emptying a matter in which he shares with other great prophets and messengers, and even other holy papers about history. And finally, we said that some people argue that the there's only one person who was totally sinless in human history, and that was Jesus. And we refer to some biblical scholars like Dennis,

who were and Cadbury and others who said that this claim cannot have any

historical basis

that what has been mentioned about Jesus are reported in the gospels occupies only the span of three weeks, if we exclude the 40 days in the wilderness, about which very little information is available. It towards the end, we will basically saying that, in addition to these problems,

that the writers of the Gospels as 900 indicates, were people who were really trying to vindicate the supernatural claims they have about Jesus as being divine.

And he then refers to another

famous American theologian by the name of Cadbury, in his book Jesus, what manner of men

and he caught him assume that the gospel narratives do not often disclose the methods of Jesus, not worthy, written by persons sensitive to the criterion of modern originality. And then he later on says, We must then admit, or must admit that we have not evidence enough to guarantee the self consistency of Jesus. So so far, what we have quoted are opinions of biblical scholars who are believers in Christianity sympathetic to his and this is definitely more favorable even than the writings of others

in the writings of others in context to this could you give us any

Other examples of these are examples of these writings he has there are other examples and avoiding even any examples from writers who are atheist, agnostic or anti christ. I'm just referring to some people who might even share the though they may not be Christian, but they share the biblical heritage.

In in my own hands article also really fares to

CG Montefiore, it's an empty e. f. e. He's a Jewish scholar. In his book, rabbinic literature and gospel teachings, he comments on the teaching of Jesus,

about the duty to love one's enemy. And he says, quote, Jesus is to be regarded as the first great Jewish teacher to pray in such a sentence. And then later on, he says, yet, how much more telling his injunction would have been if we had a single story about his being good to, and praying for a single rabbi, or finishing? Because of course, the Bible is full of very strong attacks against the Jewish surprise and preseason accusation of hypocrisy and so on. So what he's saying, basically, if nothing, the enemy really was mentioned by Jesus, why do we don't why not have studies throughout the gospel that seem to document that and show that Jesus will also praying for the Pharisees and

rabbis?

So the like I said, this is sort of a scholar who is not necessarily an atheist or anything of that nature that still doesn't adopt the notion suggested by Paul,

I'll be interested to hear that some of the theological responses are through the difficulties that you just stated.

One, there are some for example, who say that a person

who would give up or bring about his own crucifixion

is definitely

a person who was teaching and whose person

stands in

contradiction to the wickedness of the people who crucified Him. That is, he was taught me saying this is why would he be crucified by people who are even or at that time for which

wicked people

there are others also who say that any person who is able to attract so many people to him,

and that this whole hour showed a great deal of devotion to him to the point that some of them even offered the lights.

And because of that belief, is definitely a person who demonstrated his absolute sinlessness.

What from my standpoint, as a Muslim, I have no problem with the sinlessness of Jesus as described earlier.

a sense in which Jesus, like other great prophets also shared the same quality.

You know, to say that Jesus broke crucifixion to himself, or death, his followers were attracted and followed him, is a method that can be said, very clearly, sometimes even more clearly, about other great prophets and their followers. We know that many prophets also brought about their own death of Gnosticism, because of their steadfastness. In the Gospels, themselves, you find the story of john the baptist, who insisted on seeing that, I think, in the truth, despite all of the pressure, and he paid his knife for that his head was cut off and put on a chain. The Correia was martyred many other prophets of the life. This does not mean that any of them is the only absurdities. And this person

will say that they are shared with Jesus also

exposing themselves to danger for the sake of truth followers. Among the followers of many prophets, there are millions and or hundreds of millions who are attracted to these profits, some during their lifetime, some many years after, and we offer the lights also for their faith. And that applies for example, to the followers of Islam and many other religions for that matter. So to take that really as

an indication of Jesus being exclusively The only reason this person is is not me. Well, granted, it applies to other prophets, historical facts seem to show that it is a common, good quality, not of one person, several great prophets.

Interesting line of argument about the absolute seriousness of Jesus, and the argument goes as follows is clearly

She alone was born without a new father. And as such did not inherit sin like, like like the rest of us? How would you comment on that? And before I comment on that, I'd like my best to explain the viewpoint of those views this argument on the basis of my humble participation in variety of dialogues and dialogues with, with Christian friends, and also on the basis of what I read in their own literature. So it's not just getting critical literature written by others, to express their views.

And I think that this is only fair.

The common argument goes like this, as I've been exposed to, that the nature of Adam was totally changed when he ate from the tree, from perception to imperfection, and sin entered into him,

that all the descendants of Adam automatically inherit the sin through the seeds of Adam, she is the more scientific test to the sperm of adversity, everybody coming from his descendants have inherited that corruption, for that sin.

And then, as one writer puts it, he says that Jesus was born without a human father. And as such, he was born from an lifeless seed of a woman. And in his birth, there was no involvement of the corruption which exists in that living seed of Adam.

There are others also who said that Mary was totally sinless, or that God purified to be the mother of Jesus.

This kind of discussion cannot be sustained on interfaces, on reason, or even on proven science, I'm not talking scientific theories and proven science. I'm sure that as a medical doctor, yourself, must have been stamped when I was exposing this view of some of the Christian evangelist about the conception of Jesus. Because the first expression that the Some say that

Jesus was born from a lifeless seed of a woman. And I think you and I, and even biology students in high school would know that the the seed of the woman or the album is very much alive. Exactly. It's very well, it's the living cells. It's not like the cell phone. It's just as life as the sperm of the of the minion.

Secondly, what is even more surprising is that he says that because Jesus was created only from the seed of the woman without an agency of the human, of the Father. And

then he did not inherit the human corruption or human sinfulness that comes to Adam. And again, it's well known in genetics, that the genetic code, the genetic characteristics are inherited from both mother and fathers. No biblical scholar has ever argued that Mary does not have father and mother like everybody else. And every sin in her body carries the same hereditary characteristics that come from both father and mother. And as such, Jesus also coming from that cell, or one of his neighbors, definitely also inherited the same characteristics or the seeds of both Adam and Eve. So it's rather

it's rather

unscientific to put it mildly, grossly unscientific to make a claim like that, with respect to the

the conception on birth of Jesus, he inherited the human nature

from his mother.

How about other assumptions about the seriousness of marriage?

Well, to be sure, first of all, that there is no misunderstanding of what I'm going to say this, as I said, in the previous program,

that my Muslim who understand his religion properly would ever make negative statements, or disrespectful statements about Jesus peace be upon him. And that applies to his mother as well. And the authority of the Quran, which is for the Muslim, the literal Word of God, in His last prophet.

In fact, the Quran describes me specifically as a chest and righteous woman, was chosen by God to bear in the Jesus, the great prophet of Allah.

But what we are discussing basically, is the theory that says that Jesus was uniquely sinless, that he alone

was sinless, no other prophets. This is the thing that we are trying to show that it is not correct in any regular practice,

to avoid this problem, that Jesus in fact, was born right here on Earth from a woman who has

We said before inherited the human nature, of course, you have parents and Jesus inherited from heart. In turn,

we find that some argue that Jesus did not really inherit sinfulness through his mother. Why? Because they say, because his mother also was absolutely sinless was pure. Well, if we accept that argument that because Jesus did not inherit any sinfulness when he was divine, then his mother shares that with him when he's not unique in that. So his mother also was absolutely send this according to the same theory. And as such, would be with deserve to be worshipped also like him, if we accept or carry that logic, its conclusion.

Now, if we say that God was able to purify nearly in a simple way, without in

theory, just simply decide to purify heart,

even though she inherited the seeds,

from her mother and father message of Adam,

then we can also say what is wrong or what prevents Gods also from purifying any other human beings as simply as if you're married, whether it's Jesus, or they're great prophets or other holy men, without implication of divinity, and without exclusive sinlessness attributed to one prophet or the other. In fact, if you go back to the office, for example, in the 51st, son of David, in verse seven, it makes a clear indication that a person who returns would be purified as if he's just born of his mother.

In addition to this, the Bible, if you look at it, you will notice that the term purity cannot be really used or sinlessness cannot be used in the very absolute sense at all. Because we said absoluteness applies to the, to the divine alone. In fact, at one point, even it indicates that any person who was born of a woman cannot be totally pure or totally clean, of course.

I'd be interested if you have any specific documentation, when, for example, in the book of Job in chapter 25,

especially verses four to six,

indicates that and it is even in a really explicit turn. But before I say that, I'd like to clarify two points. One, there is no difference whatsoever that Jesus was born of a woman, ordinary,

to the term son of men, son of man, was referred several of times in the New Testament to refers to Jesus, that who is the son of man Jesus. You'll find that in Matthew chapter eight, verse 20, chapter nine, verse six, and Jesus himself even called himself Son of Man, in Matthew 16, Chapter 16, verse 30, let us go back down to the old testament to the book of Job 25, four to six. And that, quote, according to the Revised Standard Version, how

can man be righteous before God?

How can he who is born of a woman, be clean, behold,

even the moon is not bright, and the stars are not clean in His sight?

That's the sight of God, how much less man who is a mega

mega, which means a worm, and the son of man who is a worm,

and the son of man who is a worm?

Well, it is obvious from the text of the Bible.

That it is plainly stated with precaution course, that the Bible speaks here in relative terms.

That is to say, when the Bible says that any man was born of a woman cannot be totally clean, or the Son of Man cannot be totally, in a pure or described as a worm, we have to stick it really in a very careful way not in the way it appears, but rather only invest in relative terms. What I humbly understand that to mean is that a human being can be the best a prophet or otherwise, a human being can be holy can be pure, the purest among all human beings, but what are the human really as compared with the glory of God is nothing not that is bad, in comparative terms, with the absolute perception of God, new human beings, Jesus Muhammad, Abraham or any can measure on any point on the

scale as compared Of course it is. A scale is the scale when you speak of without

The glory and perfection of God.

Now.

So when we talk about perfection here are purity of prophets are very or others who is speaking in terms of human terms in the best possible human way that you can understand

an attempt to

the solution of that problem Currently, the fact that Jesus was born of a woman, and was called Son of man. Paul says in First Corinthians chapter 15, verse 57,

when he compares Adam, with Jesus, and he calls Jesus the second Adam.

And he says that the first one, that's Adam is of dusk.

The second one, Jesus, is of heaven. But the question here is, what does that truly mean?

Does it mean that Adam was physically from us, and Jesus was physically from heaven. Of course, that is not an appropriate understanding. Because we know that Jesus grew in the womb of his mother, and was born of oma, nobody saw him coming from heaven, you know, in the physical form,

that if he means by that,

but the Spirit of Jesus is from heavens, and what's the difference between his Spirit, the Spirit of Adam, your spirit, and my spirit, all the spirits of the souls that really come from God will come from heaven. So whatever

attempts to reconcile that sin remains true, that Jesus peace be upon him was that human beings are perfect as human, as many other prophets were perfect, sinless, as many prophets as his mother was, in the absolute or exclusive, you can't exclude properties. The same applies to them.

I like to ask a

question on a loaded point sotiria Lau, Adam succumbed to temptation. Genius, did not. Now how would you see that from a Muslim perspective? When, according to both not only stunning perspective, according to the Koran and according to the Bible, no question that Adam was tempted,

and that he disobeyed. However, it should be made clear that the temptation to which Adam was subjected is different from the temptation of Jesus.

In the Bible, for example, we are told that Satan

appears to Jesus and tries to convince Jesus to worship Him that Jesus worshipping Satan, and that he can give him in return, the kingdom of Earth and so on.

In the case of Adam, however, the temptation even noiseless

was not really that blasphemous, you might say, Adam was simply tempted to eat from the tree, with the hope that this would make him live forever, in Paradise, or get the knowledge and more and more knowledge. And in a moment of weakness, Adam, by his human instincts for God's, the instructions, given to him by God, and He ate from the tree.

In the case of Jesus, however,

the condition took place in the wilderness, and the Satan wanted Jesus to bow down and worship him. Well, obviously, Jesus cannot and should not succumb to this kind of condition as a prophet of God.

But if any other Prophet was with Jesus in the wilderness at that time, he would have done exactly the same thing as Jesus did.

No profit at all, great prophet of God can be imagined or conceived, to succumb to the temptation to which Jesus was subjected to worship Satan, instead of God. Such a nice thing that any Prophet would have immediately knew that it's wrong, not only a prophet, in the holy man, he's either rejected this. Let me just give you an illustration.

The, the temptation that was given to Prophet Abraham,

when he was taking his first son, Ishmael, and only son for that time Fishman to sacrifice in according to God's instruction, that tradition goes that Satan appears to him several times, trying to persuade him not to carry out this and giving an old kind of rationale that you know, your son, your beloved one, but even then,

Abraham was a steadfast prophet and he did not succumb to this kind of condition.

If he succeeded in that definitely would have succeeded if Satan said worshipping, which is even clearer blasphemy that by his nature as a prophet, you would have rejected that

Another great prophet was subjected to similar kinds of conditions. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, was offered

all that he needed property to be the king to be the Great Leader, everything that you could possibly think of in return for giving up this mission, as God's ordained him. And he does not accept that at completion. And he puts his life like other prophets in danger.

Now, no Muslim at all would conclude from that, that Prophet Muhammad, for example, is the opening is the only second Adam, or that he among all prophets is the only one who's sending this are the ones who did not succumb to temptation. The same respect. The same honor,

as far as the Muslim is concerned, is according to all prophets, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, the Korea, john the baptist, and hundreds of them differently would have succeeded in a simple test of worshipping God, not Satan. That's the ABC of the mission.

Getting back to to pass the atonement.

Is there any historical standpoint or from a historical standpoint? Is there any evidence to support or negate?

What to answer that we may realize that poem, and others, of course, we say that Jesus died for our sins, or to atone for the sin, especially the beginning the original sin of Adam and Eve,

that according to the Bible itself, we know that Adam and Eve were already punished.

They were already punished for their sin, they were dismissed from Paradise. And what's even worse, they were dismissed from the closest presence of God, of course, they still have the presence of God, but the closeness to God was less than the intellect.

In addition to this in human history, we find that sin was already punished. In many cases, we know of many nations, civilizations, oppressive individuals and tyrants were punished already for their sins, at least in this life, the dominance of the Pharaoh and his league and many others in our nation that would destroy

on the other hand,

and according to the Bible, also we find that hundreds of years before even the birth of Prophet Jesus peace be upon him. God chose many prophets and messengers, and he blessed them. To some he spoke like Moses,

some of them because his friend, like Abraham, with some like Abraham, also he made a covenant. So this seems to show that the the notion of original curse or Original Sin from Edmonton Jesus comes is not necessarily the better explanation. Because how could all these things happen by way of punishment and blessing between Adam and the coming of Jesus? If we assume, as the theory of atonement holds,

that all humanity was convinced until Jesus came to save it with his blood? What was the role and function of those prophets?

What would be your comments Dr. Deadly to those who say that the coming of Jesus was actually the climax of human history. What this will lead to this agony usually like to use a term like God's unique entry into history through Jesus. But the question is, that is the incarnation of God in the form of Jesus was the climax of history, we would definitely expect that every prophet before Jesus would have spoken about that in very clear and decisive turn in a repeated way. The truth is that not a single Prophet, not according to the Bible isn't said that God in one time or the other will incarnate in human form sacrifices, beloved, in order to forgive mankind. There were prophecies

about the Messiah, but not the way it has been described in this theory. The question here is how come that theory or doctrine was discovered, all of a sudden, a lot of time after the end of the mission of Jesus. Now, one explanation is, is that the doctrine of atonement was revealed gradually. And that's why it is not explicit in the Bible. Now, is that an acceptable explanation? When graduating this revelation in legislative and legal matters is something that's understood even desirable, but the ultimate religious truths which relate to divine attributes, the condition of salvation, whether God incarnate or doesn't, are very essential issues that must have a minimum of

clarity from the very beginning this serious matters should not be left too confusing and conflicting interpretations. And if you check the office, the ample documentation

There's about the fundamentals of beneath the oneness of God, the repentance and the necessity of, of good deeds. So this is not subjected to

two graduates. Now, thank you very much for that. And we I think at this point, we'll have to enter the continuing sec Sharla.

And thank you very much for joining us here in this our focus. As always, any questions or any comments you may have would be most appreciated. Our phone number and our address would be appearing on your screen. From all of us here in this violence office. Assalamu alaikum