Jamal Badawi – Jesus 47 – Trinity Atonement Blood Sacrifice 14 Crucifixion 6
AI: Summary ©
The discussion of Jesus' prophecies and his connection to the Old centers of the world, as well as the intersection of the Old knew with the New Guinea, is critical. The history of Jesus' burial and his actions and trials of his assets are discussed, as well as the inconsistency of biblical claims about his origin. The speakers provide examples of different topics and encourage the audience to use them in their presentations. The discussion also touches on the history of Jesus' burial, including his use of oil and waste, defective material, and his use of oil and waste, among other topics.
AI: Summary ©
AsSalamu Alaikum and welcome once again to Assam focus. Today we have our 47 series Jesus loves messenger of Allah
and our 40s on our segment
a tournament about sacrifice. Today inshallah we would like to talk about crucifixion and the New Testament. I'm your host, Shawnee Mission here once again from St. Mary's University is Dr. Gemma Beto srH. And
for the benefit of our viewers, could you please have a summary of last week's program? Sure. First of all, we continue to clarify that some of the Old Testament prophecies are not all related to Jesus peace be upon him, but some actually applied to other prophets as well. We give example of some of the prophecies that are clearly related to the evidence of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, such as Deuteronomy 1818, Isaiah nine, Isaiah 11, and Isaiah 42.
We said that this does not mean that
there's any reason whatsoever for the Muslim to refuse or negate the idea that there is any prophecy about the coming of Jesus in the Old Testament because on the authority of the Quran, Jesus is a respected and northern messenger of God.
We also discussed some of the prophecies which are sometimes interpreted out of the context of the Bible itself, like Isaiah nine, six, and what it really means to say mighty gods or fathers.
He also discussed some of the prophecies
in the New Testament, which are attributed to Jesus as have said, which did not come to pass. And he said that from a standpoint of a Muslim,
we cannot accept that Jesus actually made these prophecies if they did not really come to pass.
We talked about a few examples. One is the one in Matthew 1928, that the disciples were ruled over the 12 tribes of Israel, and you know that one of them was Judas, and actually didn't happen for others as well. Secondly, on the prophecy about the signs of *, being three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, and he said that again, Jesus did not stay three days and three nights in the separate occurs, it was on the one day and two nights.
The other prophecies, again, that did not realize
is the expectation of the coming of Jesus, His second coming in the lifetime of the disciples, like in Matthew 1627, when he said that those who are standing here will not face death, unless or until this is the Son of Man coming in glory.
Also in Matthew 1023, when Jesus was advising his disciples to keep escaping from one town,
to the other, when they are persecuted, and he said he will not finish going through the talents of Israeli
before the Son of Man will come back. But more dramatically, even is Matthew 24, verses 29 through 35.
Word is a very graphic description of the signs of the Day of Judgment,
through the ICT with this generation will not pass away in all these signs take place, and the signs including the darkening of the sun, and the folding of the sky and the coming of the Son of Man, referring to Jesus in images and again, it says about people who are dead already this generation.
That kind of analysis led us to two basic conclusions. One is that whatever has been attributed to Jesus peace be upon him, as having said was not necessarily his words. The Muslim says that out of respect of Jesus believed in the truthfulness of every word, he said, including prophecy. So are these prophecies turned out to be untrue, then it cannot be the words of an oral
Our true prophets might be someone else's words. And this is true with respect to the prophecies, it raises another question as to whether even some of the passages in the New Testament, which some interpreted to mean that Jesus claimed divinity, also has been? Or has been his own words, or was it also
the words of someone else the deflection of the understanding and belief of the writer himself. But what is more important from all of this discussion, really, of that particular segment? Is that the story of crucifixion could not possibly be substantiated on the basis of Old Testament prophecies. Has Josh McDowell and other evangelical writers have strongly claimed, there doesn't seem to be any basis for that.
So far, you've dealt with the difficulties of attempting to prove the crucifixion, on the basis of the Old Testament, prophecies from the Old Testament. Now, is it possible to accept the story of crucifixion. On the basis of the New Testament specifically, I'm referring to the gospel of the four Gospels. Well, it is true that the story of crucifixion of Jesus peace be upon him appears in the four canonized Gospels.
It is not true, however, from the standpoint of fair, impartial, scholarly analysis, not from the standpoint of biblical criticism, which is part of the theological study in the Christian world,
that the four canonized gospels speak about crucifixion, in a way, which is both authentic and consistent.
I realized that this might sound rather may sound rather strange for many viewers who are or were brought up with the strict understanding that the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus is both authoritative or authentic and consistent and something that there is absolutely no doubt about.
Many times I noticed when discussing with some Christian Brothers and theologians, clergy and other common people,
that whenever a Muslim raises any question about the crucifixion of Jesus and whether it took place or not, the natural response to that is to say when you people deny that, because as Muslims, this crucifixion is denied and rejected according to your Quran, your holy book,
and as such, you really have no grounds whatsoever except to say our Quran that's the Muslim scriptures say that, but you don't really have any grounds
for that, except that you believe that the Quran is the word of God.
Now, I must say that it is true, to be fair, that Muslims firmly believe that the Quran is the word of God, and His revelation is that it is totally free from any error. And the Quran itself makes that challenge produce any error, factual error in the Quran of contradiction.
Now,
the Quran, being regarded as such by the Muslim makes it quite clear in no uncertain terms, that Jesus was not killed or crucified, but it needs to appear, it appears to them as such, if you will, is translated more closely away. And that appears in the Quran in surah, four, passages 157 through 168.
And this is also true, even though it's not in the Koran, that many interpreters of the Quran among Muslim scholars interpreted that particular passage to mean that Judas, who betrayed Jesus actually was crucified in this place by way of punishment for his betrayal.
This is all true and we have discussed that in some previous programs.
What is not true, however,
is to say that Muslims
are the only ones who deny the crucifixion. I think in some previous occasions, also, you find that among many who believed and respected and honored Jesus disliked Muslims, that they were early Christian sects, seven of them, who held the belief that it was not Jesus was crucified. Some of them specifically even believed that Judas was the one who was crucified in this place. We spoke previously about the discovery of the Gospel of Barnabas, which designate Judas as
is the one who was crucified the scrolls of Naja Hammadi in Egypt which again, claims that Jesus actually was watching the crucifixion from the hideout.
The kind of analysis that we are about to embark upon,
will examine hopefully the issue of crucifixion at from a new perspective,
a perspective actually not switching, which is not a Muslim perspective, the perspective actually of biblical scholars who studied the story of prescription in the four gospels quite carefully. The growth measures are important works on it, referring to numerous problems relating to authenticity, and consistency. This includes such big names, I think, among the audience, those who are either theologians, clergy, or those who are familiar with,
you know, theological writings can identify mediums like Dennis nine ham, who served as professor of theology in the University of London, his books called St. Mark, john Singleton, fpmt, or any who was genome theology and shifting the book on St. Matthew,
George Carroll, who also served as Professor of New Testament studies, both in Oxford and McGill, University, and growth on St. Luke. to a lesser extent, also Charles Dodd, who wrote both books, two books, which are related according to scriptures, and another is called the parable of the kingdom.
A combination of many of their ideas or their conclusions, has been summarized in a very nice way. In a book that I cited before written actually in Arabic, by Ahmed Abdul Wahab is speaking about Jesus in the Christian sources. The kind of information and insights that these biblical scholars provide, are simply startling when they are compared with the commonly held notion about perception. Well, that's quite,
quite exciting and probably deserves more examination in depth. Now, maybe I'll ask you to clarify certain points, in particular,
the problems of authenticity, and this is relating to the vessel of crucifixion. Well, the biblical scholar believes, or many biblical scholars would say, believe that the oldest the Gospels is the Gospel according to Mark.
And there is no question that Mark was not
a disciple of Jesus. So he was not an eyewitness. But he was rather a student of Peters, who was the head of the disciples.
And if you look at the other two synoptic gospels that Matthew and Luke one is written about 60 years and the Common Era, and others 50 in the year 50.
Now, the both of these gospels, Matthew and Luke, are regarded, as you might say, an expanded version of the Gospel according to Mark, using mark as their basic source. But in addition using other sources, which biblical scholars refer to as L, M. and Q.
Look,
on the other hand, was also the, not an eyewitness of Jesus.
He was the one who actually wrote also the book of Acts. But it's quite obvious from the introduction to his gospel, that he was not an eyewitness, anyone can just check that in the very first chapter of Luke.
As far as Matthew.
According to many biblical scholars, there is some doubt as to whether or not he was a disciple. This topic will then come to later when we discuss the Bible as a source of information and this issues.
As far as the fourth gospel, the gospel, according to john, which was the last to be written of the four canonized gospels, it is also very much, very strongly I should say, suspected,
to be written by some other john, not really, john, the son of Zebedee, who was a disciple of Jesus, which is a common notion.
This requires more careful examination, we'll come back to that.
But we can conclude at least from the standpoint of authenticity, that at least, at least two of the authors of the four gospels
Mainly, Mark and Luke are definitely not disciples of Jesus, or eyewitnesses. So what they have written, must have been secondhand on the basis of communication from others. And the other two, Matthew, and john and especially john, are doubted or suspected not to be actually eyewitnesses are disciples of Jesus. But it appears to me that the bigger problem is not only the question of authenticity, but perhaps the issue of consistency.
Well, that's moved in and outpoint, from authenticity to the question of consistency. What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean by consistency that if we were to accept
a story, which is very serious, which is for many Christian Brethren, is the foundation of the faith really, about crucifixion, and the ensuing events,
then the story must be free from any contradiction. That is, if you look at the facts, I'm not talking about small points here and there, which might be very
consistent. But we're talking about the consistency of basic facts that could not be contradictory to each other.
This consistency is really important, of course,
the story would be regarded as certainly credible, could be no doubt about it is a fact. However, maybe effect which is not very widely known
is that the story of crucifixion in the four gospels, is definitely far from consistent
to the point of casting doubt whether the crucifixion of Jesus as dramatically presented in the four gospels have taken place at all.
Well, you really touched upon an important point here, now precisely how In other words, what was alleged
or the inconsistency there are many specific examples. Well, lifting, giving you instead of example, because there are so many examples, but let me give you some broad subdivision of these kinds of problems.
I take the subdivision of adoptable Have I mentioned his name before, but you can take any division of community check any writing of any of the biblical scholars on that you can organize their conclusions in a variety of ways. But that seems to be a more easy to follow kind of subdivision. One would be discussion of what happened prior to the arrest of Jesus. Some of the preliminaries, particularly his anointment, and when he was anointed prior to the Last Supper, another category could deal with the events of the last supper preparation for the Last Supper, what went on
during the supper,
a third issue, or category of issues for discussion could deal with the last night,
the night in the tsunami, prior to the arrest and arrest actually of Jesus, according to the Gospels.
A fourth category of discussion might be read to or relate to the trials of Jesus
assets could touch on the actual events of crucifixion,
as six categories on the issue of the burial.
One can add to that also discussion perhaps of what happened to Judas.
Also the question of resurrection and events that relate to that. So there are all kinds of issues really are groups of issues
that need to be carefully examined. Before one can come up with any justifiable statement about consistency or lack of it, that matters. Now these subdivisions that you mentioned appears to be very easy to follow. Maybe we can begin with the preliminaries of crucifixion from the question of announcement. Well, let me start first by giving a very brief
overview of what Mark as the oldest gospel mentioned,
according to Mark in chapter 14, verses one to eight. He says that two days before the Passover, when the chief priests and scribes were thinking, or considering to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him,
but they were afraid In the meantime, that this might lead to some commotion during the season.
And it says, Mark, that while Jesus was in the house of Simon, the leper and Bethany, a woman came, and with her was a jar of costly and maintenance or maintenance should say, she poured that ornaments on his head.
And it says that some people were quite indignant about this waste of such expensive stuff,
which is sold can really result in a good amount of money, which could be used to help the poor.
So some of them reproach the woman for wasting that
argument.
Mark then continues to say that Jesus told them
to leave her alone, and that she has done something good to him. And he said to them, that the poor will be with you.
So you can do good to them. But you will not always have been.
He also added that she anointed my,
my buddy
beforehand, in preparation for my burial.
Now, this is just a sort of summary of what the oldest of the Gospels according to most scholars said. But if we were to take that very same brief events, and compare it with the other three gospels,
we can easily find that there are at least eight different variations in the story, or Navy as to where to go, if you could possibly summarize the differences. And maybe at the same time, state your references, it would be helpful. Sure. Okay, I have prepared the chart here that might help in this process of comparisons.
In the first box, that's box one,
relating to announcements. The question here is when did that take place, that is when it took place, relative to the Passover. You notice in the four lines, I just made abbreviation of the Gospels MK for Mark MC for Matthew, l. k, for both Jay and for john. And we'll follow this subdivision
or symbol system for the rest of the presentation.
According to both mark and Matthew, that incident took place two days before the Passover. And the references are indicated in the case of Mark, it's chapter 14, verse one, Matthew, chapter 26, verse two.
In Luke, however, it is quite obvious that the this incident took place a long, long time before the Passover.
The reference to that would be chapter seven, verse 36. And in addition to that, if you go back to chapter eight,
it says, soon afterwards, he went on through the cities and villages preaching that after the
that incident, and it speaks about so many events. And then in chapter nine, verse 28, in Luke, it speaks that after a day, something happened. That's the Transfiguration of Jesus. So the idea here is that it is not really something limited to one day or two days or two weeks. It looks like a long, long time before the Passover. And the fourth gospel, john, according to john,
the incident is set as taking place six days before the Passover, and better faster is chapter 12, verse one, well, it's quite obvious that the facts here do not seem to match with each other. And this is simple, factual matters.
In the second box,
the question is raised as to in whose house did this incident
take place?
Now again, according to both mark and Matthew, it took place in the house of Simon, Simon the leper
in markets, Chapter 14, verse three, Matthew chapter 26, verse six, according to Luke, however, it took place in the house of a thirsty
chapter seven, verse 36. According to john, we have another version yet that it was in the house of Lazarus, Chapter 12, verse two.
Moving on to box three another
The variation is summarized, who anointed Jesus?
All right? Again, in both mark and Matthew, it simply says, a woman.
In the case of markets 14, three, Matthew 26, seven. And by the way, when it says a woman, it seemed to indicate that she was unknown woman, because if she was known as her name would have been mentioned,
according to look, that woman, or person is described as a sinner.
Chapter Seven, verse 37. In john, however, we have another person, totally different, Mary. And by Mary, we mean Mary, the sister of Lazarus. This is based on two references in the Gospel According to john. One is chapter one, verse three, and the other is chapter 11, verse 19.
In the in the second quotation, that's chapter 11, verse 19, we are told that the Jews went to Mary and Martha to console harwin has brothers, Lazarus died. And we know of course from the Bible, that Jesus brought Lazarus back to life with the power of God according to Muslim belief. And then the second quotation in john 23, it says that Jesus was in the house of Lazarus. So obviously, this is Mary, the sister of Lazarus.
In books four, we have another comparison to make also, how did that woman anointed Jesus.
Now, according to Mark, and Matthew, she anointed him by putting the Orient on his head,
according to Luke, and john
Shan noted him by forwarding the oil on his feet. JOHN also adds an addition to this that she wiped
his feet with her hair. So here we have at least two variations, if not three variations of the same story. In books five.
The question is this as to who the active
to the waste or use of that expensive equipment?
In according to Mark, it says simply some people without designating, Matthew says that disciples when all right, you can possibly reconcile mark and Matthew, it's not an obvious contradiction. But Luke, however, says that there is only one person who was indignant. That is a heresy. According to john, it was Judas. There's courage
in box six,
how these people reacted, that's how they are active to the waste of the oil.
Well, according to Mark,
they thought of this, or they were indignant secretly.
And in addition, they also reproached I just put RFP for brevity, reproach the woman for Western that, according to Matthew, it was not secret. They spoke and we're talking about floral, according to look, he spoke, that is the ferrocene. singular, as sorry, he thought of that secretly. So it's secret, and sing in a singular form. According to john, he spoke in a singular form, again, doesn't seem to give a very consistent picture. Book seven. Why did they object? According to both mark and Matthew, the reason was wasting the expensive stuff. according to Luke, they objected because a sinner touched him and they said, if this really was appropriate, how come he allows a woman to
touch him, according to john, if his waist again? And finally in box eight,
what was the reply of Jesus? Again, according to Mark and Matthew, he simply said something to the effect that the end is diminished.
according to Luke,
he simply said that this woman is forgiven. According to john, it was the end. Again, that is he was and added something also, that is let her keep it for the day of my burial. What I'm saying basically, that in all of these eight points, we don't seem to have really a consistent picture of exactly what happened. These are simply factual matters. And that helps to illustrate what was mentioned. Consistency, well say
In our last lecture but over time, but that chart is very, very useful. And thank you all for joining us here once again this time and for any questions or any comments would be appreciated our phone number and their address will be appearing on your screen. From all of us.