Do We Need the Cross for Salvation?

Debate Format and Introduction

Well, I do want to welcome you to the 2018 G3 Conference and this special pre-conference debate addressing global warming. Just kidding. That's the only levity that we'll have all night, I'm sure. My name is Michael O 'Fallon, and I am the founder and editor of Sovereign Nations.

It's an organization committed to the rights of sovereign nations and the faith that stands as the bedrock foundation of Western civilization. Tonight we come together to do what so many seemingly can't do in other arenas of disagreement and politics, and that is to debate, to argue one position and truth claim against another, and yet to do so with respect for our fellow man.

With us tonight are what I believe to be the best two representatives of both Christian and Muslim apologetics. I personally selected each participant for their ability to both represent their own position with strength, while at the same time being careful to not misrepresent the opposite side or engage in ad hominem argumentation.

My job is to simply and fairly moderate without any biased interference. The men with me tonight completely disagree with one another in regards to the following question. Do we need the cross for salvation?

Representing the Islamic side of this question is a gentleman that we have brought all the way from Pakistan to be in warm Atlanta, Georgia this evening. Would you please welcome Adnan Rashid. And representing the Christian side of this argumentation will be Dr. James White from Phoenix, Arizona.

Tonight we will follow a modified Lincoln-Douglas format. The opening statements will be 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes of rebuttal. Then we will have four 10-minute sessions of cross-examination, where one man can only ask questions and one man can only answer questions.

We will then have 10 minutes apiece for a close, and then we'll be handling some audience questions. After the rebuttal period, we will have a brief five-minute break, and as well we would ask that you find some paper and submit some questions up to the front desk here at the moderator's stand during that time.

So if you just give me one minute, I'm going to head down to the moderator's table. Dr. White will come up and take the podium and start with his opening presentation. Mike, I need the paper. Thank you.

I'm sorry. I prepared his arguments for him before. Thank you very much. It is indeed an honor to be with you here this evening. Our subject is one that should interest every person in this audience, whether you come from a Christian or a Muslim background, or maybe even no religious background whatsoever, because the fact that it separates two of the world's major religions on an extremely important issue.

Both Christianity and Islam acknowledge the historical reality of the person of Jesus, the Messiah. But we have very different beliefs as to who he was and specifically what he accomplished. This evening, our focus is upon soteriology, upon the doctrine of salvation, and specifically Christ's redemptive work.

We disagree about who he was. Christians believe he was the son of God, the very incarnate second person of the Trinity. Muslims, of course, do not believe this. But while that is relevant to our debate this evening, we are going to be focusing specifically upon the Christian belief that the cross is necessary for salvation.

Is the cross necessary for salvation? For the Christian people, the cross is the center point of history, the jewel of the triune God's eternal intention to demonstrate his glory in the gracious, free, and perfect redemption of an undeserving people.

In Islamic theology, the cross has no redemptive meaning. Jesus did not die upon the cross, was not crucified, and hence did not rise again. There is no need for substitutionary atonement in Islamic theology.

The Christian view of Christ is considered excess in the Quran, and Muslims often speak of the worship of the cross as kufr, an act of unbelief, or even worse, shirk, an act of idolatry. Now, either the cross is the greatest redemptive act of the creator, that by its very audaciousness renders all other salvific claims irrelevant and empty, or it is a tremendous slight and insult to God.

By its very nature, it precludes any kind of middle ground. It has to be one or the other. So for our debate this evening, in the very brief time that I have, I must demonstrate the centrality of the cross in divine revelation.

We will begin with the writings of Jesus' apostles. Secondly, I will trace this truth from its prophetic underpinnings in the writings of the ancient prophets of what we call the Old Testament or the Tanakh.

And finally, we will consider the necessary nature of this great work of redemptive love. So let us turn to what the scriptures say as a foundation, first and foremost. In Acts chapter 2, we read Peter saying,.

Another aspect of the proclamation here at the earliest period of the apostles is the cross, the redemptive act of God in Jesus Christ. Later on in Acts chapter 4,. Even in the working of miracles, in the healing of the sick man, it's Jesus Christ and him crucified and risen from the dead that is central to the Christian proclamation.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 1, we read,. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made useless. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God.

And only a few words later,. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified. To Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God.

You can tell that in this proclamation of the gospel, the cross and the salvific work of Christ, absolutely central in this earliest period of the Christian faith. Paul later says in that same epistle,.

For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. But we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom from which God predestined before the ages to our glory, the wisdom which none of the rulers this age has understood.

For if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. The glorious Lord was crucified. This is central to the Christian proclamation. When Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus, he said,.

For he himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall. How did he do this? By abolishing in his flesh the enmity. How do you bring Jews and Gentiles together into one body?

The cross of Jesus Christ, which is the law of commandments contained in ordinances so that in himself he might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross by it having put to death the enmity.

And when he wrote to the Colossians, he likewise said,. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in him and through him to reconcile all things to himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross.

He was prophesied to be the prince of peace. How does he bring about that peace? Through the blood of his cross. Through him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven, the cross has cosmic significance in the earliest Christian writings.

In that same epistle, Paul said, When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us.

And he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. The very reason that Christians can believe that they have peace with God is focused upon that center point of history where the God-man gives his life voluntarily upon the cross of Calvary.

In the book of Hebrews, likewise, therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Again, the cross at the very core, the very center, not only of how we have peace with God, but likewise, how we as Christians are to live the Christian life, the model that we are to have is to have our eyes focused upon Jesus Christ.

So the New Testament witness cannot be questioned. The cross is absolutely central. But is that some innovation? Is it an excess? Does it go beyond the prophetic word? Well, the Lord Jesus taught his disciples after his resurrection in Luke 24, 44, that all things which are written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.

This is a key element of the New Testament teaching. And in that process, one of the texts that clearly he directed people to was Psalm 22. He directed us to Psalm 22 with some of his own dying words on the cross.

You are probably familiar with the words as they come across in Aramaic, Eli, Eli, lama, sabachthani. In Hebrew, Eli, Eli, lama, al-sabachthani. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Now, as Jesus is hanging upon the cross, this is not, as is often misunderstood, some idea that, oh, he's been abandoned by God and he senses failure here or something like that.

He is specifically quoting a phrase that everyone would have understood. It would be like me saying, amazing grace, how sweet the sound. I don't have to continue on from there because pretty much everyone in this room knows the rest of that particular hymn.

Well, Psalm 22 is one of the songs of the people of God. And so, Jesus is directing us to the 22nd Psalm. He's directing us to it. Well, when we go to the 22nd Psalm, what do we find? All who see me sneer at me.

They separate with the lip. They wag the head saying, commit yourself to Yahweh. Let him deliver him. Let him rescue him because he delights in him. This is exactly what the Messiah is experiencing on the cross.

This is exactly what is happening round about him. I am poured out like water and all my bones are out of joint. My heart is like wax, it is melted within me. My strength is dried up like a pot shirt and my tongue cleaves to my jaws.

And you lay me in the dust of death. And then one of the key texts, for dogs has surrounded me, a band of evildoers has encompassed me. They pierced my hands and my feet. Now, why do I have that graphic of some ancient Hebrew fragment up there?

Well, if we need to, we can get into whether it is like a lion or they pierced my hands and my feet. There is dispute about that. The Greek Septuagint and certain Masoretic texts say they pierced my hands and my feet.

Others say like a lion. It's a textual variant. We can get into it if we need to. Maybe we won't, we'll see. But definitely, we'll be able to do so if the need arises. But just consider this text as a whole and you'll see it is being fulfilled in what takes place at Calvary.

It continues on to say, I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me. They divide my garments among them and for my clothing, they cast lots. This is the description of what the Lord Jesus himself experienced upon the cross of Calvary.

At the end of Psalm 22, posterity will serve him. It will be told to the Lord, the coming generation, they will come and will declare his righteousness to a people who will be born that he has performed it.

The point here is very clear. Psalm 22 ends with the vindication of the suffering servant. And this is what Jesus intends us to see on the cross when he cries out, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani. He points us to Psalm 22 and we see the consistency between what is said in Psalm 22 and the fulfillment in the New Testament scriptures that I've already read in your hearing.

Here we have the famous Isaiah scroll from Qumran. And this is the very section where we find what is today known as Isaiah 53. Surely our griefs he himself bore and our sorrows he carried, yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.

But he was pierced through for what? For our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon him and by his scourging, we are healed. We have substitutionary suffering taking place here, written 700 years before the events in Christ's life.

That graphic I show you is written 100 years before Christ was born. All of us, like sheep, have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way, but Yahweh has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.

This is substitution in his suffering. He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter and like a sheep that is silent before it shears, so he did not open his mouth.

By oppression and judgment, he was taken away. And as for his generation who considered that he was cut off out of the land of living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due. But Yahweh was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief.

If he would render himself as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring. And my friends, I stopped just to say, look around the room. 2 ,000 years later, he will see his offspring. Here we are speaking a different language and we follow him.

He will see his offspring. He will prolong his days and the good pleasure of Yahweh will prosper in his hand. As a result of the anguish of his soul, he will see it and be satisfied. By his knowledge, the righteous one, my servant will do what?

Will justify the many. Why? As he will bear their iniquities. Almost sounds like it's coming straight out of Romans 3 and 4. The gospel 700 years before Christ. Therefore, I will allot him a portion with the great.

He will divide the booty with the strong because he poured out himself to death and was numbered with the transgressors. Yet, he himself bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressors. I don't have time to get into the fulfillment of this in the book of Hebrews and Christ's role as our high priest and all these other beautiful things.

But here, you have the very voice of prophecy, the consistency. So, let's consider these things together. God is holy, just, pure, and cannot abide that which is evil and impure in his presence. God announced his redemptive purpose as far back as Genesis 3 .15.

We don't have time. I could not even list the prophetic passages relevant to the ministry of Jesus Christ in the time that is allotted to me. But we've looked at two very clear ones, but they are not the only ones.

The state of man having fallen in Adam, this is one of the areas of disagreement. The state of man having fallen in Adam required a radically powerful redemptive act of God. The law pointed toward a greater fulfillment.

Imagine that high priest, every time he comes in and he sprinkles the blood upon the mercy seat, there's still blood there from the last time, and he's going to have to do it again the next year. And the next year, that repetitive action was meant to point toward a greater fulfillment.

Every person who functioned within the context of that law, if they would but look, could see that greater fulfillment that would be coming. The cross is the ultimate display of all of God's attributes.

He sovereignly orchestrates its time and its place. It took place exactly when God decreed that it would take place. It shows his holiness. It shows his wrath against sin. I've said many times, if when you look at the cross, all you see is love, you're not seeing all the cross.

Because the love that is seen there is seen more deeply and properly against the background of God's wrath against sin. His holiness stands in the background. The nature of the one giving himself, the very God-man shows his condescension, his love.

Remember earlier, the Lord of glory, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, the glorious Lord. His sufferings demonstrate his deep mercy and his compassion for sinners. He could have called a whole legion of angels, but he does not do so.

He restrains that power in grace and mercy. The cross fulfills God's law, which is a reflection of his very nature. And this is another area we're going to have to discuss because we believe it is absolutely vital that God's law be fulfilled.

Either his wrath must come against sin or there must be propitiation. You can't just simply wink at sin. You can't just simply say, I forgive sin without the law being made right. This is a major difference this evening.

Without atonement, the law remains broken and violated. God's glory marred and as a result, forgiveness becomes arbitrary on God's part, unknowable on our part, and uncertain in our experience. Only in the cross do we find God's holiness, justice, wrath, love, compassion, mercy, and grace fulfilled in one cosmic moment of prophetic fulfillment.

It is truly the center point of history. Everything before it pointed to it, everything since exists in the light of it and points back to that center point of history itself. So, why was the cross necessary?

Because God eternally ordained it as the means of his own self-glorification. Eternally, it's part of God's decree. God prophesied the cross and in the self-giving ministry of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, 700 years earlier.

God's entire purpose to graciously join a people to himself through the Son, providing for them full and free redemption from sin in his voluntarily taking their punishment upon himself, that act requires their purchase by this one central redeeming act of Father, Son, and Spirit.

All who were involved in the cross and in the resurrection. And so, as a result, we look to the book of Revelation and the book of Revelation points us toward the future and fulfillment and gives us a vision of what it's like in heaven.

The continuous worship of God that takes place there, how it's undisrupted by what takes place here upon this earth. Man may rage, but God remains absolutely sovereign over his universe. And there, we're given a vision once the Lamb has come forward, the Lamb who is slain.

You have the elders and you have myriads of angels and they're worshiping God. And we are told in Revelation 5, and they sang a new song saying, to the Lamb, worthy are you to take the book and to break its seals for you were slain and purchased for God with your blood, men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

You have made them to be a kingdom and priest to our God and they will reign upon the earth. Is the cross necessary for salvation? If there is an empty tomb, there is your proof because God raised him from the dead.

This was the central core of the message of Jesus' disciples. This is the Christian teaching. And we thank you this evening for being here to listen to this very important discussion. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Dr. White.

And now with his opening presentation, if you can give us just a moment as we switch VGA cables,. Adnan Rashid.

Right. Before you start the time, thank you for inviting me to America to have this debate. I'm always very pleased to debate Dr. James White. I have a lot of respect for him. I've told him this many times, so I'm not going to waste time telling him any more of that.

I always exchange presents with Dr. James White every time we debate. It seems this time he doesn't have one for me, unless you pull something out of your bag. But I always like to give presents to Dr. James White because I know he's a dedicated Christian, and I have a large collection of books on Christianity.

This particular one is an interesting one. It's a New Testament in Latin, published in 1697, and interpreted by Theodore Beza, who was also a Calvinist. So, a token of our friendship to Dr. James White.

Very much. And I do have things for you later. Can start my time now. Right. In the name of God, the merciful, the beneficent, I am Adnan Rashid. I'm from London. This time I traveled from Pakistan to debate Dr. James White.

And the topic today is, do we need the cross for salvation? Very, very interesting topic. Dr. James White preached a very passionate sermon, and if I didn't know what I know today and listen to Dr. James White, I would have been ready to baptize myself.

But unfortunately, that's not going to happen because I have this to present, what follows. What James will have to show us tonight, salvation cannot be achieved without the cross. And teachings of the Old Testament and the New Testament on salvation through works slash repentance or the law are erroneous and or abrogated.

Jesus, not Paul, was responsible for teaching salvation through the cross alone. I will show today, salvation can be achieved without the cross. Blood sacrifice was not necessary for salvation. Following the law and repentance was enough to achieve salvation.

Paul is alone in his notion of salvation by the cross. The Old Testament, the synoptic tradition, and James were not consistent with Paul on this matter. Islam is in agreement with the Old Testament and the Jesus tradition on this matter.

There are a number of atonement theories. I wonder why Christian scholars have to go through so much trouble explaining the concept of atonement via the cross. And they have come up with so many theories.

One of them is ransom theory and the satisfaction theory, acceptance theory, penal theory, which is what James White believes in, the government theory, mortal theory, and the Christus Victor theory. James, he believes in penal substitutionary theory, which simply means that God is very angry with humanity.

Humans are full of sin and a sacrifice must be done to satisfy God. It has to be done and that is justice. Salvation in the Old Testament, we will start with the Old Testament and see whether salvation was possible without blood sacrifice because Paul, he states in Hebrews 9 .22 that without a blood sacrifice, salvation cannot be achieved or our sacrifice will not be accepted.

However, when we look at the Old Testament, we see so many passages, so many chapters, so many instances where salvation or forgiveness or redemption was achieved without a blood sacrifice. For example, we have the book of Numbers 31 .50 where jewels were simply accepted.

Leviticus 5 .11, flower was good enough. Deuteronomy 9 .18, Moses simply repents for the people and the list goes on and on and on. Amos 5 .18 -24, why would God not accept their sacrifices? Hosea 6 .6, I desired mercy, not sacrifice.

In fact, in chapter 14, verse 2, the Israelites state that we will offer sacrifices from our lips. We will offer the bulls of our lips. We cannot offer bulls anymore as blood sacrifice. For that reason, we will simply repent from our lips and we hope for forgiveness.

And there are so many instances in the Old Testament where I can simply go on and on and on and talk about salvation or redemption or forgiveness is achieved without blood sacrifice. Now, in the book of Ezekiel, chapter 18, verse 21 -23, we read, but if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live.

He will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him because of the righteous things he has done. He will live. Simply, he will follow the law and he will live. There is no need for a blood sacrifice.

You simply repent. You follow the law, the rules, the commandments of God, and you will be forgiven. This is exactly what Islam teaches. And we will see in due course how Islam is very consistent with what the Old Testament teaches and what Jesus is thought to have taught.

When we come to the New Testament, the gospel of Matthew is a very interesting one. It is often called the gospel of the law because it talks about the law so much. Jesus put so much stress on following the law.

And when a young man came to Jesus in the gospel of Matthew, we are told he asks Jesus, what is good for me? What do I do to achieve salvation or success, to achieve eternal life? And Jesus tells him to follow the commandments.

Simply follow the commandments and you will have success. Here is the point where Jesus should have told him, I have come to redeem you, to free you from sin, to get you your redemption. But he doesn't tell him that.

There is another instance where we have debated Christian scholars and activists as to why Jesus cannot be God. Because he missed many golden opportunities to teach that to his followers and he never taught that.

In the gospel of Mark, chapter 29, verse 12, we are told that a Jewish man, he comes to Jesus and asks him, what is the first commandment? And Jesus tells him, hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.

Worship thy Lord with all thy heart, with all thy mind, with all thy soul. This is the point where Jesus could have taught him, I am the second person in the Trinity, there is the Holy Spirit as well.

The Jewish people have been worshipping one God and one person and one being and you only knew one person, that's the Father. Now things have changed, new covenant has come across and there are two more persons you have to worship.

Jesus didn't do that. Likewise, in the book of Matthew, when this young man comes to Jesus, he asks him about salvation, about eternal life and Jesus tells him, simply follow the commandments, follow the law.

And then in the gospel of Matthew, we are told that you will never enter the kingdom of heaven if you do not follow the commandments of God. So you can either achieve eternal paradise or hellfire by doing charity or not doing charity, again in the gospel of Matthew.

So we can go on and on and on talking about the gospel of Matthew where Jesus Christ actually talks about the importance of law, salvation through the law. In fact, in chapter 5 verse 17, Jesus is believed to have said that, think not I've come to abolish the law, rather I've come to fulfill the law.

And anyone who teaches you to go away from the law, even on a minor point or on one point will be considered least in the kingdom of heaven and we will see what Paul did later on. Paul completely broke away from the Jewish law and he preached that, that only faith in the cross or faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is enough for salvation.

You do not have to follow the law. Paul was very clear on that point. The gospel of Luke and Acts. Luke was written apparently or allegedly by Luke and the book of Acts is also attributed to a man called Luke.

Whether Luke actually wrote the gospel or the book of Acts is another question altogether and myself and Dr. James White can debate this topic another time, the canon and the authorship of the gospels and the controversy about the authorship.

I'm not going to go into that. Let's assume for a second or for the debate, for the sake of the discussion, that Luke was indeed written by a man called Luke, although these attributions were made to these authors or these individuals in the mid-second century, years after these documents were written.

And almost all major Christian scholars are unanimous on the point and I'm not talking about liberal scholars, I'm talking about conservative scholars. They are unanimous that these documents were initially written as anonymous documents.

So Luke amazingly omits when he copies from Mark and this is another theory which scholars follow that Luke and Matthew, they plagiarized from Mark much of the information they put into their gospels.

And when it comes to copying from Mark, chapter 10, verse 45, Luke amazingly omits the salvific formula. He doesn't talk about and to give his life a ransom for many. In the gospel of Mark, chapter 10, verse 45, we read this part but in the gospel of Luke, we do not see this part.

He simply omits it. I wonder why. So even in the book of Acts, omission of vicarious atonement in Acts is very visible to scholars. Scholars have picked on that and they have highlighted the point that the book of Acts doesn't put much stress on atonement by the cross.

One example is when the story of the Ethiopian eunuch is told and he is reading parts of Isaiah 53 and he asks Philip as to what this means and Philip starts to preach to him about Jesus without telling him that this is actually talking about the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and that sacrifice will atone for your sins.

You will have salvation through that. Jesus doesn't go into that. Sorry, Philip doesn't go into that. So this is a problem. Why would Luke, if Luke is the author of these two documents, the book of Luke and the book of Acts, why does he not put stress on the issue of atonement?

Rather, the central point in the gospel of Luke is that Jesus died as an innocent man. He was killed by the Jewish scribes and priests innocently and that is the point of the gospel of Luke. This is what we see as the prominent idea which Luke wants to discuss in these documents.

At no place does Luke state Jesus died for you or for your sins. Even speeches in Acts do not contain the atonement theology. Who thinks so? Dr. James D .G. Dunn. I think Dr. White will, he will, sorry, right, it's okay, no problem.

Dr. White, sorry, yeah, that's fine, no problem. So James D .G. Dunn, he talks about this problem, the problem of Luke not talking about atonement. An important corollary to the Acts sermon's concentration on the resurrection is the absence of any theology of the death of Jesus.

His death is mentioned but only as a bare fact, usually highlighting Jewish responsibility. The historical fact is not interpreted. It is never said, for example, that Jesus died on our behalf or for our sins.

There are no suggestions that Jesus' death was a sacrifice. In other words, in the synoptic tradition, we find very little evidence or very little stress on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. That we find in the writings of Paul, not in the synoptic tradition.

And in the Gospel of Matthew, as already clarified, we find a lot of stress on the law, following the law, and that's where the salvation is. In the Gospel of Luke, Luke doesn't talk much about atonement or anything like that.

Acts 20, 28 seems to have a formula which insinuates that there was a sacrifice but not clearly. And Dunn talks about that. Even 20, 28, the church of the Lord or God or of God, which he obtained with his own blood or with the blood of his own, not properly speaking, part of an evangelistic proclamation, remaining more than a little puzzling and obscure.

In short, an explicit theology of the death of Jesus is markedly lacking in the Kerygma of the Acts sermons. He also states, so far as the Kerygma of the Acts sermons is concerned, we have to say that it lacks a theology of the cross.

It makes no attempt to attribute a definite atoning significance to the death of Jesus Christ. It mentions the death of Jesus Christ but doesn't extend that death to claim that this death was actually a source of atonement for humanity.

Now there's another problem in the Gospel of Luke, which apparently talks about atonement, but there is a problem with it. The problem is whether we accept the longer ending of Luke 22, 19 to 20, or whether we accept the shorter ending.

I'm sure James is aware of this problem and I'm not going to spend much time on it and we can possibly talk about it in the crossfire. But to highlight a simple point, Codex Beza omits, which is an early Greek manuscript, it omits the longer ending, which actually talks about, Jesus, this is my body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me.

And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. So the words for you in the verse 19 and the formula for you in the verse 20, this part is omitted in D.

D is the name of Codex Beza, which is an ancient Greek manuscript and it is one of the earliest witnesses that doesn't contain the longer ending. No doubt, majority of the Greek manuscripts do contain it.

This is why people like Bruce Metzger, scholars like Bruce Metzger, they believe that this passage may be original. It may be original. Others disagree. People like D .C. Parker on Luke 2220, he believes the shorter ending is likely to be the original writing because it is more in line with Luke's theology.

It is more in line with Luke's narrative, his language. So Finland also concludes that there is a problem there in the Gospel of Luke, that this longer ending does not actually help the narrative. Rather, it creates a problem because of the manuscript evidence, which can be discussed in due course.

The Gospel of John, John's lamp of God that takes away the sin of humanity. Now, amazingly, when you put the synoptic Gospels on one side and the Gospel of John on the other side, we do not see this formula, the lamp of God, put in the synoptic tradition.

For some reason, John's Gospel has this formula, this extension of this story where John the Baptist had baptized Jesus in the River Jordan. E .P. Sanders on John's Gospel, he states, it is impossible to think that Jesus spent his short ministry teaching in two such completely different ways, conveying such different contents.

And there were simply two traditions, each going back to Jesus. One transmitting 50 of what he said and another one, the other 50%, with almost no overlaps. Consequently, for the last 150 or so years, scholars have had to choose and they have almost unanimously and I think entirely correctly concluded that the teaching of the historical Jesus is to be sought in the synoptic Gospels and that John represents an advanced theological development in which meditations on the person and work of Christ are presented in the first person as if Jesus said them.

So scholars do believe that the Gospel of John cannot fully serve as a source of history of Jesus, rather synoptic tradition is to be preferred. Now James versus Paul, Paul is the man who came up with this theory of atonement, salvation through the cross, as seen already that in the Old Testament, there are plenty of passages to claim or to assert that salvation can be sought or can be achieved by other means other than blood sacrifice.

The Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus put a stress on the law, follow the law and you will have salvation, you will have eternal life. Luke does not talk about atonement to my knowledge and John cannot be trusted when it comes to historicity of these events.

So who are we left with? Paul. And Martin Luther in the 16th century believed that Paul and James are two opposite ends. They are opposing each other theologically and James is saying one thing and Paul is saying another and it is impossible to reconcile them.

It is impossible to reconcile them. In fact, for this reason, Martin Luther referred to the epistle of James as an epistle of straw, having praised it for his good teachings, for its usefulness and it can be used by Christians.

He has nothing against those who use it, but he doesn't consider it any important. He thinks it is an epistle of straw. Why? Because James taught the law. James upheld the law. He believed in salvation through belief with works, not belief only as Paul put it.