Channel: Jamal Badawi
Series: Jamal Badawi - Jesus
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
Hello, welcome to another episode of Islam and focus Assalamu alaikum peace be unto you. I'm your host for today's program, Hamad Rashid filling in for our brother nimish, who is away and not available for today's program. Today we have our 53rd first program in our series dealing with Jesus beloved messenger of Allah. And we'll be doing our 18th program on the topic of sin, atonement, and about sacrifice. And today, more specifically, we'll continue with our discussion on the resurrection of Jesus, peace and blessings be upon him. Brother Jamal, it's good to be back with you on this llama focus program.
I wonder if I could have you, as is our custom on the program to very quickly summarize and highlight the main points that were touched on in last week's program. Sure. We discussed the question of breaking or failure of the soldiers to break the legs of Jesus while breaking the legs of the other two robbers. And we talked about this change order, which in which it was done.
We discussed the question of resurrection of Jesus and how the news began to spread among early Christians. But we noted again, like crucifixion, that there are lots of problems of consistency involved.
We also examine the story of resurrection, as reported in the New Testament. And you have seen that there are six areas where there is a great deal of difference between the various accounts of different Gospels. Who went when did they go? Or she go? What happened to the rock? Was it more by itself or by the angels? Who was seen there?
What did he or they say? How Where was the response to the instruction was done or not the detail the disciples are not an find that lots of variations in the way the story is presented. Following that, and began to examine some other aspects of the question of resurrection, as pointed to by some biblical scholars that it is very unlikely that the women went to anoint Jesus more than two days after he was buried two nights in one day, which is not the custom of Jews or anyone else for that matter.
We discussed also briefly the story of having soldiers who were nasty was the only one who mentioned that and the implication, how could people dare to come to take the body when the soldiers are there? And then we began to examine this, the reports about sighting of Jesus peace be upon him after his election. And we indicated that biblical scholars say that in the oldest gospel, the Gospel according to Mark, that story is not there, that's verses nine through 20 is not in the best and most authentic editions, which means that it could have been probably a later edition, and that led the john sinton
noted biblical scholars to conclude that the story of resurrection was really added,
on the on behalf of Matthew, without being based on the
Gospel of Mark. Well, I'm interested by the demand and getting your opinion as to the reason why the writer of the Gospel according to Matthew might have added the story about the resurrection. Okay, it was noted in a previous program, so I've probably not going into details and answering this, that there are lots of evidence pointed to by biblical scholars, that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew seem to have been very much obsessed with Old Testament prophecies and their fulfillment in Jesus He keeps repeating this happens so that what has been written by the prophets can be
and apparently he must have read the Psalm number 64, verse 21, it says that his bonds will not be broken. So it is quite possible that the story of not breaking the leg of Jesus, as claimed by by Matthew was something that was written regardless of its historicity simply to say look, so that the Prophet
See in the Old Testament has been fulfilled.
One side remark Yes, that was made in more detail in a previous program, that that prophecy be in the 34th psalm of David, if you read it carefully, you notice that it talks about someone who will be saved from his enemies to the point that not even his bonds would be broken, not that he will be dead, but these ones are not broken, which that doesn't mean anything in terms of being saved as some seem to indicate. So that could possibly be could have been a reason why he wanted to.
I wonder if we're gonna have the turn now to an examination of other accounts of the story, perhaps beginning with the Gospel according to Luke.
Like Matthew, Luke also mentioned the story of resurrection of Jesus peace be upon him, but in a way, which really raises a number of questions. You particularly mentioned in chapter 24, especially verses 3113 through 31.
He speaks, for example, about two travelers who are going to the township or village of Emanuel em in a apostrophe s in Nice.
And he said that Jesus drew near those two travelers that's after resurrection, and started to talk to them about what happened in Jerusalem, and began to insert it while they were working. for that long distance mind the minds interpret Scriptures for them. He accused them of being foolish, because they should have predicted everything that's happened in Jerusalem. That is the crucifixion of Jesus. And then, the story says that when these two travelers with Jesus with them, came close, or drew close to the village, they noted that Jesus was drawing away from them. So we asked him since the day he was close to any to stay with them, so he went with them. And he started to eat
with them. They said, they sat around the table. And then he took the bread, and started to bless the bread. And now only were they able to recognize that he was Jesus. And as soon as they recognized him, he vanished. Well, there are at least three questions here. First of all, when two people are traveling in the offing, and all of a sudden somebody comes and talk to them? Wouldn't they ask him? Why are you wearing green? How can you in French just intervene in our private discussion to people walking and talking in the open and somebody just talked to them wouldn't be asking questions.
The second question,
with all the explanation of everything in the Scripture, in the very articulate way that Jesus was reportedly have done to those travelers?
Didn't that attracted attention to ask, what is that knowledgeable person? How did you learn all that good things and this depth, in depth knowledge of Scripture?
Could they not recognize him from his voice? I know, some people who never saw me sometimes just recognize the voice everyone and say, Are you so and so? And Jesus who listened to his disciples for that long wouldn't they recognize his voice? We know that every human has a certain distinction, and he has his voice, and the way our spine he or she talks? A third question. It says that they sat around the table to eat. So when he sat with them, at the table, he didn't even see his face to recognize that you are Jesus. Only when he broke the bread and bless it. Could they recognize him? That this are very fundamental questions and then look contains. And he says, subsequent to that
Jesus appeared in Jerusalem,
in the middle of the disciples. And it said that when he appeared, they were afraid and they thought him to be a spirit. So he asked them to handle him and to recognize you know that he is Jesus, the same Jesus is not a spirit and he started to give him something to eat honey and fish. And again, that raises questions. First of all, according to the Bible, after death, when resurrection takes place, there is no physical body anymore and give you more documentation from the, from the New Testament.
In the Gospel according to Luke chapter 20, verse 36, it says those who resurrect from the dead or from dead are not physical, and that they are equivalent or equal to engine This was
attributed to Jesus as having said, and of course no engine would have flesh and bones or Jesus said handling flesh and bones.
A second difference is in the first Corinthians
verses 2042 through 44
We're gonna say that clearly that it is sewn a physical body it is raised as spiritual body, which means after resurrection. The body is actually not physical at all. And that was, by the way in chapter 15, First Corinthians chapter.
In the very same chapter, First Corinthians 15, verse 15, it says, it leaves me flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The first reference attributed to Jesus himself by Luke, in 2439. He says, handing me for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see that I have. So you just made it clear that the Spirit wouldn't have flesh and bones. Now, how could we reconcile that with the fact that Jesus all of a sudden appeared in the middle of the room?
I have a very strange answer to that question, by a well known theologian by the name of Dr. Floyd Clark, who was a professor emeritus in Johnson college in the US,
which he stated, I have the vegetative in dialogue in Albert Hall in London, in the summer of 85.
When he was confronted with this question, he said, well, but Jesus said, I am flesh and bone. He didn't say, flesh and blood, because he has already given his blood on the cross. And he says that the Jesus came to the disciples in Jerusalem in a physical but bloodless body. And he said, The evidence is that his blood was not oozing from his injuries when he came to them. Now, it's very difficult for me, I don't know for others. How could we imagine somebody who has physical talking and walking with only flesh and bones but bloodless?
And if as Luke describes that he was on the spirit, not physical, then what is the point even of telling people to handle him and see that he was flesh and bones?
Like they say, you can't have your cake and eat it, either he was spirit, in which case, it is pointless to say, handle me, or that he was physical? In which case, how could he entered while the door was closed, as john describes quite clearly, in chapter 20, verse 26, it has to be one way or the other. Either choice poses a very difficult problem with the authenticity issue. And the way you made mention of the gospel of john, I'd like to turn out of that fourth gospel of john, and ask you whether or not his account was any different from the ones we've discussed. There had been some differences. In the Gospel of john, as we know, it's the only non synoptic of the florid, canonized
Gospels. He describes that particular in chapter 20. And he says that
Mary Magdalene was alone. And that's different from others, as you indicated previously,
and she was crying there. And then it says, some voice talks to her, that person is Jesus. And he said, Why are you crying woman? And she responded that they have taken my masters or my Lord, and I don't know where they placed him.
And when she turned
back, she discovered that it was Jesus actually, who was talking at the beginning, she was told she was a gardener.
She didn't care. At that point. She didn't discover it was useless if she just thought it was a gardener. So she asked that person said, if you
have carried away My Lord, tell me, where do you have led him so that I go and take him away?
At that moment, Jesus called her and said, Mary, and that was, when she recognized his voice. She started to claim enhancer, he said, Don't touch me, because I haven't ascended to my Father. He also told her that I'm going to ascend to My Father and your Father, my God, and your God.
And then it says, After that he appeared to the disciples in the room when the door was closed and showed them his hands and his side.
Since Thomas, the doubter was not present with them when he heard about the story. He said, No, I wouldn't believe until I handed him on touching myself and put my hand through his, you know, handgun side. That's right. And then it says, Eight days later, Jesus came again and asked Thomas to examine him and to make sure that he was the same Jesus. And then it went on again to this to say that Jesus appeared another time
on Nick tabria, when they were fishing when the disciples were fishing
But you see the way that the john or whoever wrote the gospel of john is not known.
It is a number of questions and make the story really quiet. unlikely. Even though from the standpoint of john, it definitely service, the theological purpose behind which your
gospel was these questions that you mentioned? What in particular, were you thinking about the new spring? What are these questions that are raised? Okay, that are at least four issues that really should be examined carefully. First of all, the impression that the person can get from reading john, Chapter 20, especially verse 15,
that Mary Magdalene was alone there, and that she wanted to take the body of Jesus. And that is for sub questions in turn. First, how could we imagine a single lonely woman who wants wanted to carry the body, a dead body of a man who is wrapped in 100 pounds of mirror and arrows as john reported in chapter 19, verse 39, so his regular weight, and it's 50 160 pounds, plus 100 pounds of coffin around him, a total of about 260 pounds. What there is no indication that I know of that Mary Magdalene was a superwoman she'd have to be
260 pounds. And she's alone, according to John's narration, secondary word to get she wants to take the body of Jesus peace be upon him. And what did Lillian Did she really mean by taking him away? Where to?
Okay. Another issue is,
if we take the story of Matthew, that the soldiers were there already to watch and prevent anybody from getting close? How could you dare even raise the issue of carrying the body of Jesus? If we take Matthew's story about a second issue?
Now, why did Mary Magdalene think that Jesus was a gardener?
Is it possible then, to theorize that Jesus was saved from the cross? But because he was afraid of being caught again, to hide himself from his pursuers for the time being before ascension to heaven? He disguised himself in the form of a gardener? We don't know. The real question is an interesting
a third issue. When he told Mary Magdalene that I have not ascended to my Father yet. We know that in the among the Jews, when you use the term did not ascend to my father yet, which means I did not die yet, as some of you thought that I died on the cross.
A fourth issue
that he said, Not only that, I'm going to assume to My Father and your Father, He is the very interesting term. He said, My God, and knew God, and that was even after resurrection.
Now, how could we then say that Jesus was God incarnate if he's willing to ascend to his God means his own creator. And even if we say no, in his life on Earth, during his mission, he was both gods and men. So after resurrection, he became gods, again, God does not ascend to himself or God. And of course, the fact that he entered the room, as john reports, in itself
seems to indicate again, if we take that interpretation, that he was not really a physical body, how he's talking about ascending to his garden theater, then,
in addition to these four questions that I think are very significant ones in my hand and understanding, we find that nook also is quite different
john, and talking about Jesus showing his body or his hands and legs, look for examples simply say that Jesus showed them his hands and his feet, which does not necessarily mean show them the impact or the effect or marks of crucifixion damage to show hands and legs assume that I am the same Jesus, here's my hand, here's my legs, but doesn't have any connotation with crucifixion.
But john become, that became very explicit. Yes, in saying, you know, that Thomas insisted to see the mark of the minute, you know, in his hands and his feet, and that after eight days, Jesus showed him and he asked him to put his hand in his side, when it was quite obvious that john alone seemed to be giving that very explicit description which seemed to the
dramatize the story of crucifixion make it quite consistent with the basic theme of his gospel, that the essence of the Christian teaching the way he interpreted and the report interpret was that God sacrificed his son and he died on the cross to try to emphasize that nakina remarks were already on his hands and knees. Unlike other writer gospel writers, at least insofar as showing them. The main point here is that if Jesus during his life, before crucifixion, where as some theologian claimed, full man and full guards at the same time, then of course, his death on the cross with the accused the end of the physical or human aspect of his life, and then he becomes done after that, right foot
God only, not for now. And we all know that God is not to be seen in the Gospel, according to john chapter four, verse four, verse 24, it says, God is a Spirit. And the Spirit, of course, as Jesus Himself said, doesn't have flesh and bone and Jesus perfectly, appears to them. And if we assume that Jesus became flesh, again, it means that the Word became flesh twice, the first time when Jesus came, and the second time after resurrection, and there is no evidence to support that anywhere in the Gospel. And if we opened the door that the Word became flesh more than once, what prevents us from saying, as the Hindu, for example, claim that God reincarnated time after time in different
forms of history? Where do you stop it? So there's been problems with the way, john put it in this explicit way. He raises very various questions, as you mentioned, we've spent a fair amount of time talking about the differences between the four Gospels. Let's look at the flip side now and ask you are there any elements or areas of agreement between the four gospels that relating to the resurrection of Jesus? Well, there are two issues of agreement. But in fact, they are problematic, because they are contradictory points of agreement, if one look at it critically. First of all, they all agree that Jesus predicted or prophesied His crucifixion and resurrection that has been
mentioned in more than one place.
Secondly, there is agreement also, that the disciples did not believe when they were thrown that Jesus actually appeared after various disasters, crucifixion,
that they dealt with that. And these two
areas or agreements are very difficult to reconcile with each other. How? When,
and first of all, in several places, we are told that even though the reports were consistent about the appearance of Jesus, some people continue to insist that this is not true or does not believe it. Take one of the people who are very close to him, Thomas, the doubters. He was told about that by other disciples, but still even he didn't believe. And he insisted that he has to put his you know, his hand in his hand and feet before he can believe.
Now, if you go to the to the Gospels, we find that the prophecies made by Jesus peace be upon him, according to the Gospels, about his death and resurrection were made in public. In fact, if you take the oldest of the gospel, the Gospel according to Mark, in chapter eight, we are told, especially in verses 31, through 33, that when Jesus says clearly that he is going to be delivered, that he you know, going to be can, what is in three days,
poems, sorry, Peters. Peters, started to rebuke Jesus and it says Jesus rebuked him, and actually he was the very harsh language, he said, Go behind me, Satan. There are similar reports that are found, for example, in Matthew chapter 16, verses 21 through 23. In Luke, chapter nine verses, verse 22.
From these texts, it seems quite apparent that the question of crucifixion and resurrection accordingly was well known for everybody, to the monk to choose, let alone Even those who are very close to Jesus peace be upon him.
Now, how could we explain their denial and their doubt that Jesus actually emerged, when one can understand the excitement that might accompany something miraculous, strange or different? But to continue to die with, after several reports were made of the sighting of Jesus is indeed very, very difficult to reconcile and understand, if he has already told them that this is, what's going to happen. Do you think it might be possible that the disciples of Jesus might have forgotten his prophecies about his death and his resurrection, it is quite possible that one person
may forget, but it is very difficult to think of collective amnesia. Where all the disciples or the masses, the most close disciples of Jesus, all of them at the same time, not a single one, remember even those who went to the grave, or to the thump on Sunday morning, and how could they forgets?
If this has already been predicted and explained, Time after time again,
let's look at a quotation from Mark that might shed light on that, in chapter eight, verse 31, it says, and he began Jesus, to teach them, that the Son of Man must suffer many things, number one, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, number two, and the scribes and be killed. Number three, and after three days, he will rise for prophecies that appeared here in March. Now, it is quite obvious that he speaks here about four episodes, this election is only one of them. Now, according to the Gospels, the first three prophecies were fulfilled relative
it means then, logically speaking, that they must have anticipated the fourth one, they forgot the whole thing. Yes, you can say but they have seen one prophecy after the other, obviously, they must have been looking forward for the great moment. And since the resurrection would have been a wonderful thing, if the Gospels,
description, words to be true and authentic, then one would logically expect that masses of people would be looking would be staying there even counting there for the three days waiting for the glorious moment where he will come back to life, as he promised, after they have seen already that many of the elements of the prophecy has already been achieved. Even the women who went in the morning or the woman according to john,
they didn't go to see the glorious moment of resurrection, they went to anoint him. Yes, which we have discussed before as something very unlikely. It follows from that, that it is not very reasonable in my humble understanding to say that Jesus, on one hand, prophesied His
resurrection. And then the closest people to him despite all of this continuous reports, and the stunning event that the old should have been looking for, still denied time after time, is highly unlikely. Well, we only have a few minutes left, but there is one another very important question, let's touch on the remaining time we have. And that is your view of how these stories can be reconciled or explained
before they accept the authority of the gospel. We've talked about the contradictions. I think we have grave problems could have been ideal for the right the gospel writer to extend that to us. But of course, in the absence of that and be apparent difficulties, we have no choice but to discuss the possibilities. The first possibility that Jesus actually predicted or prophesied is his crucifixion, and resurrection, which is a more common thing. But this can be easily rejected because we have indicated before not all, early Christians believe in his crucifixion, there is a great deal of conflict in the story itself back communicable caspersen sheds doubt about the whole thing. And
according to john, Chapter 20, verse nine, it says that even after the resurrection of Jesus,
Peters, and the disciple, not by Jesus, personally, john did not know
that description, as john says, did not read a scripture that he must rise from the dead, which is very strange. If these people didn't know, in spite of all of the indication before what's going to happen, who else would know? A second possibility that Jesus actually did not predict anything about his crucifixion and resurrection, and that's why people get surprised. So some of the later authors tried to add the story to strengthen their faith, even though in terms of historicity doesn't have a particularly delicious, so they said Jesus actually voluntarily laid down his life. I don't think I would have time to discuss two other possibilities, but perhaps we can catch up next time. We have
exhausted our time. We'll come back to this point, perhaps in our next program and explore it a little bit further. We want to thank you for watching and invite you back next week. Assalamu alaikum peace be unto you.