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.
AsSalamu Alaikum and welcome once again to Islam focus.
Today's program inshallah will be a 62nd on Jesus beloved messenger of Allah.
It will be on my teeth on sin atonement about sacrifice. I'm your host resharpening Nation here with me once again from St. Mary's University. is Dr. Java doing? So?
You know, you think maybe we could please send a quick summary of last week's program for gone. Okay, we continue to discuss the issue of the resurrection of Jesus peace be upon him, according to the Gospel of Luke. And we refer to two problems. One is the problem of the two travelers who said that Jesus appeared and traveled with them. And that how come they didn't know him? Or asked him when he appeared all of a sudden? And secondly, how could it be that Jesus appeared in body even though he said in Luke 20, that when the
person is resurrected, that he becomes like angels would not be physical.
And then we examine the same story also in the Gospel, according to john. And we inquired as to how could a woman, a single woman, by herself, go to try and carry the body of Jesus with 100 pound around of spices and other stuff, and where to,
despite all of these differences that has been analyzed between the account in the four gospels, you have noted that all gospels seem to agree that Jesus, first of all, prophesied His
crucifixion and resurrection, and that this took place in public to that his disciples did not believe it when they were told that He resurrected, even though this happened once,
not only once, actually more than once.
And we said that both of these issues on which the four gospels agree, cannot be really reconciled with each other.
in order to try and reconcile or analyze those consistencies, we thought that he could be possibly for one or four alternatives or possibilities. The first possibility is that Jesus indeed predicted or prophesied His crucifixion and resurrection, and that this happened, which is the more common theory, and we said that this is unlikely, one, because not all, early Christian sects believe that Jesus was crucified. And that was confirmed by later discoveries, which we discussed in previous programs. To that the increase in consistencies in the story of crucifixion, as it appears in the gospels themselves seem to cast doubt about the events itself, which were written sometimes after
Three, that's one of the Gospels, namely, john in chapter 27. Is that
why Paul, sorry, why Peter, and john did not believe it is that we didn't know he didn't say they forgot that Jesus was supposed to, to arise from the dead. And this is definitely inconsistent with what Mark said in chapter eight, that Jesus declared in public that he will be crucified, and that you will be resurrected. And he rebuked Peter for not, you know, accepting that.
So we conclude from that, that the first possibility is really unlikely if we look at it carefully, in view of what is mentioned in the four Gospels.
The second possibility is that Jesus peace be upon him did not really prophesied His crucifixion and resurrection, and that these events took place unexpectedly. And as such took the the disciples by surprise, which led some later writers, especially those of the canonized gospels,
to add this story that he indeed rejected that in order to show that what he did was actually on the basis of a divine plan. But obviously, even if this is the case, that attempt was not really complete because of this inconsistency that we could not put underneath of will the story. We didn't have enough time in the previous program to discuss the third and fourth
possibilities. That's right. We didn't. So maybe we'll take this time to continue with those two other possibilities. Okay. The third possibility is that Jesus peace be upon him did prophesied His crucifixion and resurrection as the Gospels said, but this happened did not happen. So something different from what he prophesied happen. So some of the writers tried to reconcile this inconsistency by adding at least this journey of prophecy about his crucifixion.
To me as a Muslim, that possibility is absolutely out of question. Why? Because as a Muslim, we believe that Jesus is truthful messenger and prophet of God that his prophecies must be true. And as such, I would definitely reject that as a possibility at all, at least the part that says that he prophesied His resurrection, and if that, indeed didn't happen.
The fourth possibility,
which seems to me more likely, is that Jesus peace be upon him, did not prophesied His crucifixion, we've not prophesied His resurrection, that he was raised without crucifixion, that there was a confusion that someone else was crucified in his place, possibly Judas who betrayed him. Especially if you take some of the narratives outside of the canonized gospels, like the Gospel of Barnabas, we said that Jesus face changed the face of Judas, change to look like Jesus.
And since the disciples thought that it was Jesus was crucified, there emerged, a theological need a theological need, not necessarily a historical
narrative, but there was a theological need to put the story in such a way. But even in that case, the story, unfortunately, was not even in a consistent and believable way, which led to all of the difficulties and inconsistency that we discussed in the previous program and reverse in this one. In fact, one wonders, what did Jesus really mean, as quoted in more than one gospel like and Mark, for example, 1427, in Matthew 2631, when he said to his disciples, in the in the night when he was supposed to be arrested, that you will all fall away?
Did he really mean that he would all die with me? Tonight, you will all think that I am the one who is to be crucified, God knows. But at least the fourth possibility,
to me seems to be more likely.
Now I have two more questions related to this issue. The first one is if Jesus was not crucified, and if Judah or someone else was crucified in his place. Now, why did the body of Judah girl, and maybe,
maybe I should also add to this, that how would you explain the empty tomb Sunday morning? Okay, the I think the essential issue in Brazilian this question, is the whole story about the empty tomb. Because whether this is really something which is historic than which is certain or not. Now, I'm not going to begin by giving you my own answer to that. But I'm going to refer to one of the most famous church historian, well known to people who study theology, Christian theology, by the new Adolf harnack, er in a ck in his book, history of dogma, Volume One on page 85. When he says clearly that the story of the empty tomb
in the third day cannot be regarded as a certain historical fact. It's not
what there is not
offered by harnack should not really be surprising in view of the analysis that we have done in the previous programs, which indicated a great many in consistencies, and, inexplicably, elements in the story.
This difficulties are not only related to the notion of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it's also related to your question in terms of what happened to Judas or his body.
Let's examine that, in view of at least what is mentioned on it. It is interesting to notice that Matthew is the only gospel writer
who says something
at least of the Gospels
To say something about the destiny or what happened to Judas. And he tried to connect that with the prophecies of the Old Testament.
Now, in Matthew chapter 27, verses three and 10, he gives a description and just give the summary for that he says that when Judas found that Jesus is to be condemned or is condemned.
That's after his arrest. And early trials, supposedly, before the Sanhedrin.
he regretted that, and he returned the silver that was given to him by the Jewish priests. And then it says, he went and hanged himself.
He hanged himself.
Well, on the basis of that, the Judas must have hung himself in between the decision of the Jewish Sanhedrin and prior to the trial of Jesus before Pilate.
Now this is the only mentioned about the end of Judas in the four Gospels. However,
we'll find that Luke not in his gospel, but in the book of Acts, in chapter one, verses 15 to 20,
describes a totally different event as to what happened to Judas.
He says, That's Luke, that Judas bought with the silver which was given to him by the Jewish priests, he bought a field, you know, a field, and that Judas sent headlong and burst often in the middle, and that his bowels gushed out.
And that is why he says that the fields, which he bought was called fields of blood, which was known to all the residents of Jerusalem.
Well, it appears from these two narrations about what happened to Judas that there are at least four points which are totally irreconcilable.
One is when did Judas die?
Now, according to Matthew, we have indicated that he must have died, probably before even Jesus was crucified. Something that happened immediately.
according to Luke, and the book of Acts, it happened days later.
Okay. And obviously, it could have not happened immediately because Jesus was arrested, supposedly, at night, he was tried before Pilate next morning. And of course, that's no time to go and negotiate and look for a field and buy it. Even the following morning, or during the day, it was, according to some gospel, the Passover day, that's not the time when Judas used to negotiate in dealings. And people were all busy with the trial of Jesus and all that. So obviously, the question of when Judas
is definitely different, quite, quite different. The second difference is how did Jesus die. According to Matthew,
He hung himself. according to Luke in the book of Act, he fell headlong, and he, you know,
burst open in the middle. Now,
definitely, this story doesn't seem to match. The third difference is why was the field called field of blood.
Now, according to Matthew, it was called field of blood, because it was purchased with a blood money, which the Jews considered to be illegal and unlawful to keep in the treasury of the temple. And that's why they used it to buy the field and that's why they called it the field of blood. But according to the book of Acts, however, it is called the field of blood in view, apparently, of the bloody death of Judas was falling down his bounce gushing out.
The fourth difference, which is a major one also very important one who purchased that field.
According to Matthew chapter 27, especially verse seven, the field was purchased by the Jewish priests. All right. When he returned the money, the stewardess returned the money so they took the money and didn't put it in the Treasury and both be the field. According to the book of Acts, it was Judas who bought the money and he did not return the pieces of silver. Well, obviously it is impossible to say that these differences really are reconcilable, which indicate that either one of the stories is not true, or that in fact, possibly both of them.
Even our legends that none of them really describes accurately what's happened to do this.
So and as such, you can explain the story of the so called the empty tomb,
as harnack said that it cannot really be regarded as an historical fact at all. It could be anything, it could be a myth, but to talk about it in terms of objective historical analysis, it just is not possible.
To get to my second question, let's just assume, for the sake of argument that Jesus was crucified. Now, if this was the case, where was he between his death and his resurrection?
Well, this is another issue where we find also a number of difficulties which are very hard to reconcile. Let us go to the gospel, it makes sense to seek an answer to that, according to the gospel, the Gospel of Luke, that's chapter 23, especially verses 39 through 43.
It is said that Jesus, when he was on the cross, formed one of the robbers around him. Today, you are with me in paradise. Today, you are with me in paradise misandry, that's Friday, when they were both on the cross. So from that text, then it seems to indicate that Jesus went immediately to paradise upon his death, so that he will be with that person also who died because the gospel said that the person was dead, then his legs were broken, or at least his legs were broken, which means he died anyway.
Now, according to the gospel of john, or the gospel, according to them to be more accurate, in chapter 20, verse 17, it said that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb
early on Sunday, that is after one day and two nights that Jesus told her, when she discovered that the person talking to her was Jesus. He said, I did not ascend to my father, and your father, my God and your God. This is the quotation we refer to in the previous program, in which we indicated also that I did not ascend to my father could be an allegorical expression, among the Hebrew is that I didn't die. I didn't die yet, which means that I was not crucified and up to Sunday morning, Jesus was still alive.
We cannot really say No, he didn't say or he meant by that. I did not ascend with my soul only because the reports of the gospel that Jesus appeared not as a soul, but appeared in body and of course, you can't have a body appearing,
living and working without the soul. What is a body without a soul? It's nothing. So that's not really a good answer to that. The problem here is that both of these quotations, which are obviously contradicting, are attributed to Jesus in different Gospels. And again, in my belief, as a Muslim, Jesus would not utter anything unless it is absolutely truthful, which indicates to us that in that story, and many other stories in the gospels, not everything that's put on the tongue of Jesus was indeed uttered by him, he would only say something which cannot proven to be, cannot be proved to be false at all. The problem doesn't even end at that point, because in the book of Acts, in chapter
one, verse three, we find another third variant of where Jesus went, because it says that he went to heavens
40 days after crucifixion, Well, again, that doesn't seem to match immediately, the same day, a few days later, or 40 days.
And if you go beyond the canonized gospels, you find some of the books that are not canonized, like the gospel of Nicodemus, for example, which, by the way, was referred to in the last books of the Bible, that was published in 1926.
It says that Jesus after his death, on the cross, went to hell. And he fixed or got out, Adam, Abraham and other prophets and took them to paradise. And that's rather strange to believe that the prophets the most chosen of God, were suffering for some in some cases, 1000s of years. In the Hellfire and King Jesus got them out. Abraham was called them the Bible, the friend of God with God tortured his friend in Hellfire for 1000s of years until Jesus comes in fiction Of course, the idea of infallibility of the prophets and our respect for them.
Definitely preclude that I say again, that's not in the canonized gospels, but it shows that the hordes during rainy weather within the gospels are outside is full of
difficulties as to where we weren't, looks like legends Really? After having said all this, what can we conclude from the Gospels account of both the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus?
I would say, in my humble understanding that the theological and philosophical development after Jesus, not what he thought after Jesus, made of crucifixion, and resurrection, the very essence of the mission of Jesus, peace be upon him, instead of his own, expressing clear teachings, which obviously, were in line with the teaching of all other prophets of the Old Testament,
it is impossible to understand that crucifixion and resurrection is the core of the mission of Jesus. And then after all, that, we find that his closest disciples are really stunned and surprised
that he was crucified if you work versifying that they refuse time after time, reports that he has resurrected from death, even though again, according to gospel, he told them that this is the what's going to happen. And they understood that supposedly to be the core of his mission, it is impossible.
And how could the core of faith be based on certain historical events that has taken place in a span of nearly two days, in one specific spots
of the whole wide world in Palestine? And in a specific point of time, that's almost 2000 years ago?
And how could we base the entire core of the faith on these few hours as some scholars quoted, and you've left or rejects the 1000s of years of heritage of all prophets in the Old Testament and elsewhere also, which emphasized nothing but the absolute monotheistic faith and believing the one and only through God, that there is no persons in godhood. If we were to narrow down the theological basis of Christianity, not as taught by Jesus, but as interpreted after him to these few hours, it would mean like dn MacKinnon, and his associates said that the whole faith would stand or form on the basis of the historicity or accuracy, historical accuracy of these alleged events. And we have
already seen the tremendous problems involved in this narrations. What MacKinnon and others are saying, is simply an echoing of what Paul said much earlier,
in his attempt to propagate his own idea about salvation through the blood of Christ, as he was reported, because in the first Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 14, and a quote that says, If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain. And your faith is in vain. That's how he was addressing his contemporaries. It appears as if he's trying to defend the necessity of accepting that Jesus was crucified and resurrected regardless of historicity, because the whole face now has been based on that. So you know, forget about historicity, if that hasn't been raised, then the whole preaching would be in vain. And how could the preaching of faith which is essentially the same
face that has been preached for 1000s of years by all prophets could stand or fall on the basis of a historical event, which is itself very doubtful. Even the very famous historian,
church historian at all harnack which I mentioned before, in his book history of dogmas in Volume One, he says that the things which are certain historically, our first that Jesus was not seen or reportedly seen by any of his enemies, after his election, there was all these stories about his election come from perfect proportions followers.
Secondly, that even those followers who reportedly or might have reported because we don't know again, how the stories were recorded recording,
said who said that they have seen him after his crucifixion, we find a great deal of inconsistency in their durations. And we ask
Again that inconsistency is exist even in the story of crucifixion itself. And if there is dealt with avoid crucifixion and contradiction in the story, then of course, resurrection would also be dealt with as well. Like hardneck, for example mentioned, the number of times he appears the what exactly happened in his emergence is this subject to a great deal of difference. A third thing that carnac emphasizes is that the idea of the empty term cannot be regarded as a certain sort of effect. As we have mentioned before, I may add all sorts of what Hannah said, is that
it would have been perhaps more useful and fruitful for coming generations to focus instead on the teachings of Christ, what he taught in terms of moral teaching, spiritual teaching, a lot of them to introduce these ideas of vicarious sacrifice or substitution and sacrifice and ideas which were partly philosophical and partly unethical. What otherwise have been plain teaching of Jesus, not much different from other prophets before him or Prophet Muhammad after him. As Jesus was quoted, to worship the One God was my father, and your father, my Lord, and my God and your God, as Jesus himself was quoted,
we have examined the question of both crucifixion, and resurrection on the basis of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament prophecies, also from the Gospels account, now as sometimes argued by certain people, that there is an external historical evidence of both events in the writing of non Christians, maybe you'd like to respond to that. Yes, sometimes this is referred to specially in the writings of some Roman and Greek histories, also, in some of the rabbinical literature or history is lessened by Jewish historians. One of the best references evaluating those sources, is a book called enigma of Jesus,
written by Dr. Paul, who showed, see or you ch o UD crucial.
And then after going through a great detail in analyzing the nature, in terms of his stresses in terms of, you know, scholarly examination of those histories, he concluded that these sightings are really deficient in many respects, and cannot really give us any additional information, or anything that could help resolve the problems about the history of Christianity or how these ideas emerged.
As far as the Jewish religious writings,
crucial also say that, as he just got in saying that it was it is incoherent, mass, incoherent mass of rabbinical
scriptures. And he says there is only very little allusion to Jesus in those writings. And there is no evidence that any of the writers have had any firsthand relationship or knowledge about what happened to Jesus peace be upon him.
But perhaps the most important potential difference in that respect is the right is the writings of the famous Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, who described in some detail what happened in the special in the middle of the first century or the first and middle part of the first century in addition to other periods. And even in the writings of Josephus, we find that
basically, he does not really mentioned Jesus at all.
And that even in some of his writings, where it is claimed that he speaks about Jesus, it was found that these were actually later editions by Christian writers, but not the original writings of Josephus
catalog 30s interval timer thank you all for joining us.
Our phone number and their address will be appearing on your screen your comments is most appreciated.