Jamal Badawi – Jesus 41 – Trinity Atonement Blood Sacrifice 08 Sin Atonement 6

			AsSalamu Alaikum and welcome once again to this common focus. Today's program will be our 41st, our
series Jesus, beloved messenger of Allah, and it's our eighth on Trinity atonement on ba sacrifice.
inshallah, we hope to continue with our fourth segment today on analysis of atonement. My name is
Rashad Nish, I'm your host here once again from St. Mary's University is Dr. Jamal vettori, as
always,
		

			as you like to do is to have a program could we have a summary of last week's show, please? Sure.
Last week, we continued to discuss what might be called the absolutely unique sinlessness of Jesus
peace be upon him,
		

			which some believe is absolutely unshared with anyone else. And he indicates that from the
standpoint of a Muslim, the moral quality and integrity of Prophet Jesus peace be upon him is an
article of faith, there is no need to emphasize that the Muslim belief or that the disk quality of
seamlessness of Jesus is also shared by other great prophets and messengers, and there is no reason
to exclude them from that description.
		

			We also discuss the seamlessness of Mary and we said that if her sinlessness was absolute, unique
and perfect, and different from any other human being, then she should be also verified and to be
regarded as God like Jesus. If, on the other hand, we took her as a pious woman similar in her piety
to prophets and others, then we can say that still Jesus would have inherited the imperfect human
nature, through his mother, he, after all, is a seed of his mother, and as such, he cannot be
divine.
		

			Some reference also was made to the question of absolute perfection, and sinlessness. And we
indicated that according to the Bible, this does not apply to any human being, including the
prophets, Jesus is one of them. Because it's the book of Job in chapter 25, especially verses four
to six, which clearly indicate that anyone who is born of a woman cannot be a pure that is in the
absolute sense, of course, but Jesus differently was pure, and that any person who is a son of men,
again, cannot be totally pure, or fully or absolutely pure, absolute purity belongs to God alone.
There is no need to say that Jesus was born of a woman, in this case, merely that he was called Son
		

			of man, and he himself referred to himself as a son of man, that we discussed in previous programs.
		

			All of this seems to indicate that the notion of absolute perfection and sinlessness does not apply
to any human being including the great prophets. But you can only speak about Jesus and other
prophets as perfect or sinless, in as much as human perfection and sinlessness can be achieved while
they are still being humans, created with the potential for good and evil, but they succeeded to
overcome that evil and to become really true servants of God.
		

			Now, we also compared Adam and Jesus was normally referred to as the second Adam and the nature of
temptations faced by both of them. And when we analyzed the doctrine of a tournament, from the
historical standpoint, we have found that sin has already been paid for in history through various
punishments. And also we found that many prophets were blessed by God without waiting for the blood
of Jesus to wash their seamless nature or sinful nature.
		

			Then it was indicated that if it was true that the coming of Jesus peace be upon him was the the
climax in human history. And if we were to accept Paul's theory of atonement, that this particular
theory is the only way of salvation for all mankind, then we would have expected that this should be
outlined very clearly and conclusively in the Old Testament in the teaching of all of the prophets,
rather than being something
		

			That evolved over a long period of time depending on historical circumstances, and the background of
people who devise that doctrine like for himself, ultimate religious truth definitely deserves much
more clarity than that. Even Jesus, peace be upon him, and self never claimed to be God incarnate.
So the theory of atonement to be brief really was formulated many years after Jesus, really by Paul,
who was neither a disciple nor even an eyewitness to the mission of Jesus. And there is no rationale
at all, even in the theory, for the specific timing of this sacrificial atonement, you To clarify,
what exactly is the problem with the time?
		

			What I mean by that is that we are not aware of any reasonable explanation as to why this The
Curious or substitutionary sacrifice through the blood of Jesus took place in particular, in this
time, that was 2000 years ago, let's say, why not before that, and why not after that. Now, if the
substitutionary sacrifice was meant to remove the impact or the effect of the original sin committed
by Adam and Eve, then why did not that sacrifice take place immediately after Adam and Eve were
dismissed from the garden?
		

			Why wait for 1000s of years, why in generation after generation of humanity has been suffering from
the impact or the effect
		

			of original sin?
		

			Sometimes it is argued that God has tried to guide humanity so many times throughout history, by
sending prophets, but there was no use. So he finally sent his, quote, unquote, on the sun, in order
to solve the problem of sin, once and for all. Now, if that were true, then the proper timing for
that sacrifice should have been immediately before the day of judgment, in order to take care of all
the past since this is particularly significant, in view of the fact that even after Jesus peace be
upon him came,
		

			the word is still essentially, as it was, human beings are still of two types. There are those who
are overcome by sin. And then there are those who try to overcome sin, through sincere repentance,
prayers to God to help them overcome their weakness and their imperfection. And this is a matter
which preceded Prophet Jesus peace be upon him, was taught by Jesus himself, and was taught by
Prophet Muhammad, the last prophet, also after What's the difference? Is this is basically the
nature of the world and the nature of the humans. How did that particular sacrifice in that
particular point of time, system event that took a couple of days really took care of this and once
		

			and for all? You seem to insist, after all, that, that believing in the atoning blood of Jesus or
any profit for that matters,
		

			is the only way. Sin does not really have any particular justification, especially if it is that is
claimed to be as an exclusive way of attaining salvation and overcoming the tendency in the human to
some, definitely, there are other very legitimate ways that we're taught by all of the prophets
before and after Jesus. You know, some people we ask the question, how about those who died before
Jesus? What is in DRC? Are they also save
		

			you one? This is a very difficult question that has faced various Christian theologian. Throughout
history. The tradition and position that has been taken on that was that anyone who died before
Christ before Jesus, and does not believe in Him as God incarnate, is condemned. The basis for that
position is that clear, precise language in the New Testament that might give that invocation. An
example of that would be in the Gospel According to john chapter three in verse 18, which says,
quote,
		

			he who does not believe it is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only
son of God. This is non binding. For example, in the same chapter three, in verse 36, you find the
same basic principle is repeat this exclusivist language
		

			Written by by john
		

			or whoever wrote the gospel, because again, there is a big question as to whether it was john or
somebody wrote it according to john, that's another issue was interpreted by some as condemnation
		

			of anyone who died before Jesus.
		

			Even missing infants who are born after Jesus but died before baptism was regarded as condemned.
		

			In some point of history, even those infants if they died before baptism, were not allowed to be
buried in Christian cemeteries because we will not save the they are already condemned because they
haven't been baptized or consciously believed in Jesus as the only son of God. Now, there are some
theologians however, to be fair, who felt that this kind of explanation, even though it's based on
the text of the Bible, is definitely contrary to the elementary principles of fairness and justice.
So they came up with some other what you might call apologetic answers. They said, Well, those who
died before Christ knew about him.
		

			And they lived with the hope of salvation through him, and through his blood, even though they died,
before he came, was this kind of explanation is lacking in any evidence. In fact, there is counter
evidence to this kind of strange assumption. There have been many generations of pious individuals,
including prophets, who died with the hope not of blood of any process, but with the hope of direct
forgiveness of God, without any notion in their mind, no indication whatsoever of believing in God
incarnate. The idea that was devised by Paul, later on, mainly,
		

			a segment of mankind definitely expected some human leaders, not God incarnate human person,
		

			as Messiah as anointed deliverer, Savior, and you know, whatever other description is given to him,
who will defeat the forces of even establish justice and peace on earth. But this does not mean or
is not the same thing as saying that God is coming in a form of men or the divine is committing in
the form of God the sun in order to die on the cross so that he may forgive mankind. These are
totally different things. You know, the concept of Messiah is understood by the by the satellites.
		

			Some, however, added that, in the period when Jesus was supposedly buried,
		

			he went down into the hellfire. And he brought for God out all the believers out of the Hellfire who
died before. And this is rather strange, because it raises two questions. Number one, how did Jesus
distinguish between those who were already in the Hellfire, even though all of them whether they
were good or bad, never heard of him? You never knew him? nor did they have any idea whatsoever
about the concept of autonomy, as devised hundreds of 1000s of years later, by Paul who was not an
eyewitness, how could you distinguish them? Secondly, does that mean that all the great pious people
from Adam until the coming of Jesus were already thrown into Hellfire, including the great patriarch
		

			of monotheism, Prophet Abraham, the friend of God would throw his friends into Hellfire for 1000s of
years until Jesus gets him out. With that apply to Moses who had the honor of speaking to God on
Mount Sinai. With that apply to john the baptist, the person was described in the Bible as sin this
person was never quoted or referred to as committed any sin whatsoever.
		

			All of these people stayed there for this years, possibly centuries, or millennia, even before Jesus
came. That doesn't sound you know, to, to click.
		

			It is fair, however, to add that in relatively recent years,
		

			some Christian theologians began to choose this exclusivist view of atonement and salvation, some
fundamentalists can afford it. But many, many scholars have taken a different view, even the Vatican
itself.
		

			In its various encyclical has already admitted that the plan of God for the salvation of mankind
does include or does not exclude other religious communities. And I think,
		

			to keep insisting that, accepting Paul's ideas, as the only way doesn't seem
		

			to really have any evidence that would be acceptable at all.
		

			A common question that seems to pop up from time to time and aside from
		

			issues that we discussed earlier is, why did God choose this particular way to forgive mankind? He
the way that the describing the atonement, it's a very important and gentlemen question is to be
truthful, I'm not aware of any reasonable cause, or explanation for that there is no
		

			reason why salvation can be achieved only through the bloodshed of the pure and sinless divine Son
of God.
		

			The contrary is true. Let me answer that question, perhaps through a series of questions. That might
be rhetorical questions, a sense of clarifying points. First of all, why didn't this incarnation of
God take place directly without the intermediary of any human beings marry or otherwise, so as to
avoid this inheritance of sin? Through the seeds of any mankind? Or what was mentioned in the book
of Job that he was born of a woman can be cured? Why didn't God incarnate without that she that
nobody would raise any question about his divinity
		

			was not more convincing
		

			about this notion of absolute sinlessness, or Lamb of God, to remove the human element.
		

			Why incarnate also to start with? Why does God has to incarnate does God dwell in human body? The
answer is during the Bible, look at this beautiful statement. In the first Kings, chapter eight,
verse 27, Will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heavens and heavens of heavens cannot
contain the, of course, let alone a human body in the form of a sun, or what? whatever other
		

			form,
		

			but those even who assumed that God is omnipotent, can they assume also that if God is omnipotent,
why can't he forgive human beings directly? without having to send his only son to be killed?
		

			Why can't he do that?
		

			Even though he knows the human beings, he created them, and he knows their weakness?
		

			Why can't you forgive directly? Another issue, in order to forgive it means that you forgive
something without asking for a return. If you owe me $100, and I know that you have financial
problems, and I said, I forgive it.
		

			It doesn't mean that I can come afterwards and says, All right, but in order to forgive your $100
debt, you must pay me something.
		

			Or else there is no forgiveness. Forgiveness means an act of charity. So how do we expect them to
say, in order to forgive you mankind, and show my mercy, I demand also that my son will be killed on
the cross. Does that go with the notion of God being loving, merciful?
		

			Now, if this sacrifice will Jesus peace be upon him was meant to be a universal sacrifice for all
mankind for all time to come? Why was it that Jesus peace be upon him indicated in more than one
occasion, that his mission was limited to what he called the lost sheep of the house of Israel? If
he was sent as the universal sacrifice, it should have been announced from point one, from the very
beginning, is not being consistent without any doubt, throughout his sayings, and throughout his his
teaching, but this did not happen.
		

			And how come this universal mission of Jesus
		

			was only discovered years later, by someone who is not an eyewitness even?
		

			And if the price of sin has already been paid with the blood of Jesus, which washes away sin, now,
by what's right, with God, exercise, or may god exercise his divinity and power and authority by
giving any command to do things or not to do certain things for other humans? Because people would
say like other Unitarian Christians, as we call it, in previous program said, wasn't the price
already paid?
		

			Now, if the blood of Jesus peace be upon him washes away all the sins? Why did Jesus teach his
followers, even those who believed in him to continue to seek the forgiveness of God directly? An
example of that is the famous Lord's Prayer seeking forgiveness. Why was it mentioned in the Gospel
according to Matthew chapter 25, verses 31 on that there is accountability. There is judgment, even
for those who believe in Jesus and his attorneys.
		

			After phase
		

			C, I must add here that this questions are not only questions raised by someone who simply does not
accept false philosophy or ideas. There are many Christian clergy, and scholars who also admit
likewise, that God could have forgiven mankind without this complex, roundabout way of sending His
Son to die on the cost. There was much better, much more direct, at least not direct, it's not
better, in their opinion, way of doing that simpler way. So there's no reason to.
		

			Well, you want to use examples of the simple more directly? I mean, as admitted by the scholars,
yeah. Well, I give you two examples of to a Christian clergy. This were quoted in the book, written
in Arabic by Dr. machete is called makara, which means comparative religion. And the second volume
case is 153 135. And 136. He calls to Christian clergy, who addressed that issue. Those theologians,
of course, were quoted in the Arabic language. So I took some things to try and translate it as
honestly and accurately as I could. And I hope it's very, very close to,
		

			if not literal translation, and you're fluent Arabic anyway. So what I don't claim that by the time
the first one is a priest, by the name of Polish, so but and he says, again, conditionally the
translation, the inclusion of the word, that is Jesus was not necessary to save mankind. And this
cannot be in and this cannot be imagined, in view of the supreme divine power,
		

			even though he had had been justification to transcend the human race, and to service from
destruction, which resulted from sin and disobedience to the divine command, God Almighty, notice
us, God Almighty will, that the ransom be with what is Jesus to him, because in that, there is power
to achieve that objective, and attain it quickly.
		

			The second condition comes from another Christian priest by the name of Buddhist ilias.
		

			Again, it says, quote, there is no doubt that Christ was able to earn some men, and reconcile them
with his father, with one word,
		

			all by a simple prostration to his heavenly Father, on behalf of the entire mankind. But he insisted
to suffers, not because he is sick, so as to love pain, nor because his father is unjust, and
rejoices at the sight of blood, and what blood does not have his only son. God was never an unjust
killer.
		

			But God the Son, will,
		

			with God the father's, to give people an eternal example of love, which is to remain for eternity,
and moves them to regret the sins they committed, and prompt them to reciprocate that love. Quite
frankly, I find that both explanations are quite flawed. And they seem to be much more attention
given to poetic descriptions words, rather than the performance, meaning if there's any that they
may convey. You just stated the problem in both these explanations, maybe some elaborate and tell us
what, okay, I'll correct myself. So on the problem, there are problems problems, I can see at least
five issues here that need some discussion. First of all, is the incarnation of the word or logos,
		

			as they admitted, was not necessary to save mankind, as at least one of them admitted, then that is
also the Trinity was not necessary. deification of Jesus was not necessary. But to admit that even
theoretically, it's just like saying, one may the gods and Gods existence was not necessary for
creation. Ultimate religious truth is not subject to ifs and buts, this are things which are
imperatives. The second problem is that both clergy acknowledged or realized that divine power is
supreme, that the power of God is checked, and that there were many other ways in which God could
have used to forgive mankind.
		

			And then he tells us that God's the son will, with the dad the father, to choose this particular
sacrificial
		

			Your Way, the question here? On what basis? Did they discern this will of God was that word of god
clearly indicated in the Old Testament, or even the word attributed to Jesus peace be upon him? No.
So those clergy, in fact, I'm not really speak, speaking about documented Word of God, but their own
interpretation which they presented as the Word of God, their interpretation as humans is just kind
of like all humans are fallible,
		

			to even to say simply that the sun that is Jesus peace, be upon him, could have frustrated through
God, and pleaded with him on behalf of mankind, indicate also that he was not defined divine,
because the one who prostrate is inferior to the one who, to whom frustration is given, which means
again, only the father is supreme. And anyone who's Supreme, of course, is the only Lord, the one
who prostrate cannot be divine. And as such, the whole theory itself, of blood atonement to God, the
son does not really stand.
		

			Now, the third issue here is this. What does it needs to say that they got the son will with God the
Father?
		

			Are we talking here about two absolute wills? Impossible, because if you have two absolute wills,
divine wisdom, this university has two gods. And if you're talking about identical wills, which are
consistent fully with each other, then you're really talking about one person and the whole notion
of Trinity and persons within God's word does not stand. The first problem is that the rationale
given by those clergy for the blood sacrifice is that it is quicker. And that is gives a better
example of divine love.
		

			And that is not contrary to justice. Well, first of all, this doctrine of atonement is far from
direct, and quick, it tooks, 1000s and 1000s of years, until Jesus was born, about 30 years before
Jesus grew, grew up and began his mission. And possibly, God knows maybe three years for him to
preach his mission. And then so many years after Jesus before Paul finally formulated and edited
this duction Well, obviously, a much faster and more direct way, if that's the criterion was to
directly forgive anyone who repent to God, in sincerity without necessity of bloodshed. As far as
the question of love and justice, we have discussed that already in previous programs. And we have
		

			seen that the notion of blood sacrifice is not consistent with either love or
		

			sacrifice or justice. Finally, the notion of moving people so that through blood atonement, they may
depend on love God more than reciprocate that love. We know that historically, multitudes of mankind
before Jesus and after him were moved or ready to repent, the life was transformed became an
excellent example of loving God and overcoming sin without necessarily believing in the notion of
atonement as presented by that's why I say that the reasoning seems to be quite fluid, these
attention to words rather than meanings, really,
		

			shifts Inside Out of the theory of atonement is far from Universal. What What is it that you mean by
that?
		

			When giving the short time and just try to be very nice. First of all, the notion of atonement, as
presented by Paul and others, simply indicates that the blood sacrifice, if you take it, for
example, to mean removal of the effect of original sin of Adam and Eve, we find that reality shows
that this is not the case. For example, in the book of Genesis and chapter three, verses 16 through
19, it shows that as a result of the original sin, women were destined to suffer the pain of
pregnancy and childbirth. Men suffered earnings that living and this came out to human beings, they
were, you know, destined to die, they can't live forever, as they were living in paradise. And we
		

			notice here that that situation has not changed.
		

			After the first blood sacrifice of Jesus peace be upon him, women are still suffering the pain men
are still
		

			you know, working there to earn the living and people are dying every day. And as such as cannot be
regarded as removing this if you take the substitutionary sacrifice as giving the power to overcome
sin. Again, as we indicated before one only through that theory because it has happened before and
after Jesus without necessary
		

			Certainly resorting to this seminar, and there were many people who believed in Jesus but still
committed sins, just like any other human being. And there are people who didn't believe in it who
committed sin or didn't commit sin. In other words, it's totally independent of what's happening in
eventuality
		

			or the actuality of mind shows that
		

			either interpretation or removal of the of the original sin doesn't seem to to show its exclusive
nature its own perspective either way, and thank you all for joining us.
		

			As always, your questions and comments would be appreciated. I
		

			will be appearing on the screen. Hope to see you next week. inshallah.