Jamal Badawi – Jesus 49 – Trinity Atonement Blood Sacrifice 16 Crucifixion 8
AI: Summary ©
The history of crucifixion is discussed, including the presence of Jesus and the significance of marks on his body. The speakers explore various topics, including the cloak, the handles, the praying recitation, and the death of Jesus on the cross. They also discuss the theory that Jesus was killed by soldiers and that the witnesses were not the ones who witnessed the scene. The lack of evidence suggests that Jesus was killed by soldiers and that further questions can be asked in the future program.
AI: Summary ©
Welcome once again to starboard focus. Today we have our 49th on Jesus delivered messenger of Allah
and our 16th on sin, atonement and sacrifice. inshallah we hope to continue our analysis of crucifixion in the New Testament. I'm your host, Charlotte Mason here once again from St. Mary's University. is dr. john better so I conducted
for the benefit of our viewers, how about a quick summary of last week's program, please? Okay, we continue to examine the story of crucifixion in the four Gospels and try and find out the areas of similarities and differences between them. More specifically, we found that there are a number of important differences, first of all, with respect to the Last Supper, when it took place, who was sent to prepare for it? How many people arrived with Jesus? The way in which Jesus identified Judas? When did Satan enter into Judas during the dinner or after? We also examine the question of the arrest, or seasoning of Jesus peace be upon him, first, dealing with the prayers that he needs
before his arrest, and the stress in which he gone through? What happened exactly at the moment of arrests? How was he identified? What happened to those who came to arrest him? What was the response of Jesus?
What happened after that? Which house was he taking? And what was the time of the trial before the chief priest. After that, we examined also another aspect of the story, which has a number of differences also, which is very difficult to reconcile,
like, who saw Peters in the house of the chief priest, where was Peters asked about his relationship to Jesus. And then we discussed also the notion of the masses, demanding the freedom, the freedom of barabas and insisting that Jesus should be crucified, even though the Roman Governor's indicated that this man is innocent and has committed new sin. And he was very convinced of his innocence and repeated so many times. And we said that this is very unlikely that a tyrannical Roman governor would despite his conviction of the innocence of Jesus, still crucify him, or get him to be crucified, and also mentioned that the notion of washing his hand, as john synthon indicates, is not
really a Roman custom. It is a Jewish custom, and Pilate was not a Jew. So that was, as far as you've when you've gone into the discussion of
crucifixion so far. Perhaps at this point, you should now turn to the crucifixion itself. I like to ask you how the four gospels compare, in this regard, when I've prepared a chart also like the one raised last time, and these differences in terms of factual issues can be summarized in seven basic points, beginning with the box number 21.
There is here the question of preparation for crucifixion. Now, according to Mark, Jesus was given a purple cloak, sword and also was put in his head and he was mocked by the soldiers of Pilate. That's in chapter 15, verses 16 to 20. According to Matthew,
he was given a scarlet cloak, and read was put into his right hand. Chapter 27, verses 28 through 29.
according to Luke, however, Jesus was marked by Herod's soldiers, not pilot soldier, because as we mentioned last time, Luke is the only one who speaks about this trial before Herod. That's chapter 23, verse 11.
According to john, however, he agrees with the mark, that Jesus was given a purple cloak, Chapter 19 verse two.
Now the second issue of comparison, relates to who carried the cross when Jesus was taken for crucifixion.
And that appears in box number 22.
Now according to Mark, Matthew, and Luke
That is on the three synoptic gospels.
The one who carried the cross was Simon.
And the references are given there chapter 1621, for Mark 2732, for Matthew 2326, for Luke, according to the gospel of john or gospel according to john,
it was Jesus actually who carried the cross chapter 19, verse 17, I must add before moving to the second box, that in addition to these differences, we'll find that Luke gives a slightly different description. And he says that a multitude of people followed Jesus, also many of the women who came from Galilee. And that describes a very lengthy discussion between themselves and Jesus. He also is the only one who speaks about the prayer by Jesus, Father, forgive my people or forgive them, for they know not what they are doing.
Now moving on to box number 23. There is another third area of comparison,
what was given to Jesus before crucifixion.
According to Mark, he was giving wine and murder, murder is something which is better.
But he refused, he refused to take it at all. That's chapter 16, verse 23.
According to Matthew, however, Jesus was giving wine and go, GA and God is a source of bacteria, which are usually formed on oak trees.
And it's different also from Mark, not only in terms of what material was he was given. But it also said that he tested this stuff, but refused it. That's chapter 2027, verse 34. No, Luke and john say nothing about that particular
issue.
Now, moving to box number 24, we get to the fourth area of comparison.
That is what was the reaction of the two robbers who were set to be crucified on either sides of Jesus peace be upon him?
Now, according to Mark, and Matthew, both robbers, reviled Jesus, you know, like telling him, Are you not the Christ, save yourself and save us? You know, this sort of thing. So they were really teasing him or you know, reviving him. In the case of Mark chapter 16, verse 22, Matthew 27, verse 44.
And Luke, however, gives us a totally different version of the story. And he says, Only one of the robbers reviled Jesus, while the other one rebuked his folio, his fellow robber, for, for, you know, reviving Jesus. And that's why Jesus told him that you will be in paradise today. That's in chapter 23, verses 14 through 43.
In the Gospel, according to john, he simply says that to others were crucified with Jesus. But he did not give any detail about this violence of Jesus. That's in chapter 19, verse 18.
If we move to box 25, we have the comparison.
What was the cry of Jesus on the cross?
And the Gospel according to Mark, it said that he said, ignoring Eloi
Eloi. And it says, After that also, he made another loud cry, and then died.
In the Gospel according to Matthew, however, it says that he said, a lie in it or illegally, he and I.
And then this was also followed by another mouth cry, and then he died.
In both cases, the gospel writers say that a no or lie, was interpreted by the audience, as quoting on Elijah. In the case of Mark, it was chapter 16, verse 33, Matthew, chapter 27, verse 46, Luke, however, and john, give us a totally different, you know, physiology of the crime. according to Luke, for example, in chapter 23, verse 46, he says that Jesus Christ on the cross and he said, Father, into thy hand, I commit my spirit.
And there is no mention of a second drive, and obviously different words in altogether.
The Gospel According to john in chapter 19 verse
30 It is said that Jesus said, It is finished. And then it says he bowed his head and deliver the spirit.
We have a sixth comparison in box number 26.
As to how the gospel writers described the inscription which was written on the top of the cross.
In the Gospel according to Mark, he says, it said, the King of the Jews, just the King of the Jews, Chapter 16, verse 26.
In Matthew, however, the wording is different. It says, This is Jesus, the King of the Jews, Chapter 27, verse 37, Luke has a third different variation. This is the king of the Jews, different from both,
Mark and Matthew, that is 2338. And other ancient manuscripts also add in Luke, that this inscription were written also, or were written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.
And the gospel according to john, we have still a fourth description of the same thing. Because it says the inscription says Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews, Chapter 19, verse 19, of course, one would not expect with such a few words in such a dramatic event, that will be such variations in describing precisely, you know, these few words.
The seventh and final comparison and this issue appears in box number 27.
As to the events following the death of Jesus on the cross as described in the Gospels.
Now, in the Gospel, according to Mark, it said that the curtain of the temple was thrown from top to bottom.
Chapter 15, verse 30.
In Matthew, it says that also, but it adds a lot more. It gives a very detailed description of very strange things that happened or purported to have happened after the death of Jesus on the cross. It says, for example, that the earth
shook.
rocks were split. graves were often that many of the saints who died before came out from death, and missed many people that appears in chapters 27, especially verses 51 through 54.
In the Gospel, according to Luke, he also speaks about the splitting of the curtain of the temple. But he also speaks about darkness on the whole land between the six hours to the ninth hour, that's chapter 23, verses 44 and 45.
JOHN doesn't say much about what happened, doesn't have any part of the description.
This are seven issues all pertaining to the crucifixion. And definitely the discrepancy between the various narratives is quite, quite obvious. It's not just reconcilable things or partial coverage by one writer or the other. But there are some factual difficulties of of the very same events.
Now you seem to have
burned off quite well in in your diagrams. But I'm not nearly take it one step further, in addition to the comparisons that
that were made between the four gospels, is there any other observation that maybe you'd like to touch on in particular to the to this subject matter? Yes, what I did actually in the chart was simply just to compare factual information without commenting much on on their viability, or you know how much authenticity one can attach to them. But there are a number of questions which were raised,
strangely enough by biblical scholars themselves and others,
especially pertaining to this issue of crucifixion.
Take, for example, the Gospel according to Mark in chapter 22, verses 39 through 46.
It tells us that when Jesus was praying in get semi,
the angel or an angel appears to him to strengthen him, it says, and that raises a number of questions. First of all, if Jesus peace be upon him were God incarnate, according to the creator of the church, if he were indeed full man, and fully God at the same time, why should the full and perfect God need the strengthening of anyone coming from one of his creatures
One of his engines, he wouldn't need that.
If God Himself is the source of all strength, and if Jesus is God or divine, he would not
to need the strength of anyone.
But rather he can, he is the source of strength for all.
We cannot say that this means this means simply that Jesus in his human form, not divine form,
was seeking this assurance of the angel. Because according to the definition of the Trinity, and the notion of deification of Jesus is supposed to be both full man and full gather at the same time and the divinity and humanity are so conjoined, that they are not separate.
Another question is that the Gospels consistently tell us that Jesus peace be upon him, knew that he's going to be crucified, that his crucifixion would be for the sins of mankind, at least as reported by the gospel writers, so that he sacrificed himself. And as he was described, he became obedient unto this even.
Now, if this was the case, why is it that the Gospels also the very same gospel say that Jesus was very stressed, he was praying earnestly, that God saved him to take this cup away from him doesn't serve him from the cross, it means them that he was praying that his purpose of coming be negated, which would be very difficult to, to accept, you say the the creed, which Paul suggested and the church adopted, indicate that the core of the mission of Jesus is basically to die for the sins of humanity to shed his blood and then to resurrect. And if this is the case, we cannot expect that Jesus pray that this will not happen, and that humanity will not be saved. If blood is the basic
prerequisite for salvation of mankind, he wouldn't pray to negate his basic mission. We all know from the Old Testament and from the Quran, because this story is similar to that also, that when Prophet Abraham was commanded by God, to sacrifice his son, he did not waver, he was just about to kill his son with his own hands, which is even more difficult than somebody often
for this. And definitely Jesus would not be less in faith or college than Abraham would not be less at all. So one would not expect really him to act this way. So he's not really the one that the gospel speak about.
It is possible to say that maybe Jesus as a human was distressed, that he was praying earnestly to his creator, to God to save him from the crucifixion. But if we take that assumption, then we cannot say at the same time that Jesus was God incarnate, or that his fundamental mission on Earth was to die for the sins of humanity, both cannot be true at the same time.
Another issue, which is quite an important one also
is the running away or escape of all the disciples, each one of them after Jesus was arrested, except, of course for Peter who followed from far away, but he denied even Jesus afterwards. Now, this is very unlikely. And it leads to a number of questions. First of all, the disciples of Jesus were people who were very special, except, of course, for Judas who betrayed him. But basically, they were people who sacrificed a great deal in order to follow Jesus. And one would expect them to have a minimum of faith, a minimum of courage.
And because these are the cream of the people,
on the other hand, we find that these disciples and many other early Christians, many sincere committed believers in the beginning, especially in the first century, were imprisoned or tortured, and many of them even lost their life. But they never wavered
in their faith, how could we say that his disciples who are very close to Him in His presence, run away and live him in this way that's described in the Gospels. After all, those disciples were not accused of any insurrection, for example, they were not accused of any crime, which makes them a threat of punishment.
I don't say that the day would be expected to defend Jesus in the face of all of these surges, but at least to stay with him, to follow
all of them to follow him where the soldiers are taking him. How was it possible for Peter to have the courage according to the gospel, to draw his sword and cut off the ears of the servant of the highest
Priest in the presence of the soldiers, as we find, for example, in Mark, chapter 14, verse 47.
And then he would not be arrested, would not be accused of assaulting the servants of the high priest by the soldiers coming with him. This sounds rather strange. But after all discouraged again, you find him running away and denying Jesus when he was asked if he was one of his followers that's in the house of the of the chief priest.
Now, if the disciples of Jesus understood and believed that Jesus indeed was God incarnate, or divine, as some suggested later, is it reasonable to think that they will be intimidated or afraid, from some of his own creatures, the soldiers who came to arrest him?
And if the disciples expected that Jesus would be classified, as he himself prophesied several times, and explained it in public, according to the Gospels, why is authentic? Especially that his prophecy does not include that they also will be crucified with Him or even be arrested? Why should they panic and run away like that? The conclusion that one can arrive from the negative picture which is drawn about the disciples in the gospels, is that it is very unlikely. And perhaps that is a very serious problem with respect to the historicity and authenticity of the whole story of crucifixion for that matter. And sometimes one wonder whether somebody wanted to paint them in that
picture so as to justify teachings which did not come through them.
Why is that?
Why is the concern is such a big problem, maybe you can clarify. Okay, if we say that the all the disciples ran away, it means that they were not witnesses to what happened to Jesus during crucifixion, okay. All right. That means that you are removing the most important and the most authentic source, authentication of what happened to Jesus in terms of crucifixion.
And if there is any problem with the authentication of the events of crucifixion, it follows, that there will also be problem with the events of resurrection, because it does not have taken place, unless crucifixion and burial has already taken place.
Which means that if there is doubts, about crucifixion, having taking place to start with, we cannot easily accept the story, of course of resurrection is based on, you know, the disciples of Jesus definitely was the closest to Jesus. And with the exception of Judas, they were the cream of the people they were most sincere for the world's most sacrificing and most faithful people. But most importantly, they are the people who know knew him best, were the closest to him throughout his his mission because of the close proximity and keeping all the time with him. Now, to drop all of them in on this crucial events of crucifixion, it means that all the sources that we have about
crucifixion has taken place or come to us through people who are not eyewitnesses, and at the same time, close disciples of Jesus. That would leave us only according to the Gospels with a number of women, and some of the acquaintances who are watching Jesus at a distance as the courses for example, in Luke chapter 23, verse 49.
And even though the Gospels emphasize
the mention of the disciples, specifically, when there is some events that take place,
it is very unlikely that the lump all the disciples together under the title, acquaintances of Jesus, they were always mentioned more specifically. And even if the disciples which is not reasonable to assume, were included among those acquaintances of Jesus. according to Luke, they were watching at a distance, and that distance may have not allowed them to make sure as to who exactly was crucified, was it Jesus was a Judah, we don't know.
We should also notice that the other gospels does not say anything about the witness of any of the disciples of the events of the actual crucifixion, for example,
and the Gospel according to Mark chapter 16. He does not say anything, or mentioned anyone who watched the crucifixion, aside from the soldiers, of course, but simply says many women were looking from afar.
Another example, in Matthew, chapter 27, verse 55, he says that beside this
Just quote, there was also many women there, looking from afar. So it doesn't say even any of the any word about the disciples or the mother of Jesus for that matter. In the Gospel according to Luke chapter 23, verse 27. He says that Jesus was followed by great marks a multitude of people that included with the women who came from Galilee, supposedly, but there is no specific mention at all of the disciples. See, it is only in the non synoptic gospel, the gospel according to john, which is quite different from the first three according to biblical scholars, we find that the story is quite different. In his 19th chapter, verse 25,
john, or the writer of the gospel of john says that standing by the cross was also Mary, the mother of Jesus, this was the only place that his mother was mentioned, as a witness to the crucifixion, and marry her sisters and marry the Night Villain, by chance, just came like three or three Mary's. And this is the only place where that's mentioned that they were standing by the cross. However, we find that even in john, his mother nearly mysteriously disappears from all the events of the resurrection of Jesus, even though she was expected to be the first one to be told about the resurrection of his son, the first one to come to see her son. And if there wasn't any anointment,
she would be the first one also, to go. That's what I mean, by the serious problem with the authentication of what happened in terms of the witnesses that the most important witnesses did not report that definitely seems to be our country indications that
poisoning your attention to your chart again, you seem to have a drawing with three crosses on it. What does that illustrate?
Well, we find that john, alone, among all the four
gospel writers,
describes something that others didn't mention his whole, that is the breaking of the legs of Jesus on the cross.
And he says that it was the custom in the day of the preparation, that the bodies of those who were crucified would not remain on the cross.
For example, in the Gospel, according to john chapter 19, verses 31 through 37, this whole section,
the writer of that gospel said that the Jews ask pilots, that the legs of those who are crucified, be broken, so that the bodies might be taken away before the Sabbath begins.
And then it says that the soldiers came, and they broke the leg of the thirst, rubber,
and then broke the leg of the other rubber who was crucified around Jesus. And then when they came to Jesus, they found him already dead. So they did not break his leg as well. Now, if we look at the drawing here in the corner of
this chart, this three crosses.
You'll notice here that the way of breaking the legs of the three crucified persons, which include Jesus is very strange, indeed, very strange procedure, because it varies elsewhere in the Gospel, that these two robbers were crucified on both sides of Jesus. So that's why in the admitted cross, we have j for Jesus, and then our one the first rubber, the second drummer who were crucified around him.
Now the way the gospel describes is that they broke the leg of the first trouble first. So we have an arrow going from our one, going all the way, skipping Jesus, making a bypass, going to the second rubber, breaking his leg, and then coming again to the middle, to break the legs of Jesus. What that sounds like a very strange way of doing in if the soldiers have the clearance to break all three legs, one would expect them to begin either from right or left to break the leg of the first one, move on to Jesus was in the middle and then move on to the to the second drummer. So this is a very furious way of however the the scripting,
but this even does not fully
explained that this difficulties with that description and afraid we might not have some time to elaborate on that, but this whole issue of breaking the legs even there is some additional questions that need to be examined more carefully. Lastly, we seem to over time, maybe we can pick it up at this point in next week's program. As always, we would appreciate any questions or any comments that you may have our phone number
edges will be appearing on your screen. Thank you. Thank you all for joining us.