In answer to the video "The Significance of Jesus' Resurrection"
Modern (biblical) scholarship highly questions the authorship of Mark, John, Luke, Matthew. Further, and as already noted, the NT itself states in Matt26:56,Jn18:15-27 that the apostles who are reporting the events of Jesus' crucifixion and public humiliation, never witnessed those particular events. So what added benefit is there in bringing in the testimony of someone outside the circle of those to whom the texts are ascribed, and who claims to derive knowledge from them? The allusion here is to Ignatius, who himself states that the birth and death of Jesus were obscured by God who revealed them to the world by some shining star, not eyewitnesses, as there were of course none
"Mary's virginity was hidden from the prince of this world, so was her child-bearing, and so was the death of the Lord. All these three trumpet-tongued secrets were brought to pass in the deep silence of God. How then were they made known to the world? Up in heavens a star gleamed out, more brilliant than all the rest; no words could describe its lustre, and the strangeness of it left men bewildered".Before getting into the passage, this "early" disciple of the apostles named Ignatius is unheard of in secular history and almost nothing in early Christian writings testifies to his having been bishop of Antioch, the centre of Christianity in Roman Syria, nor of him readily dying a martyr at 2 conflicting dates according to "tradition" by Trajan's direct order. We're talking of the same Trajan known as a tolerant ruler who requested stringent procedures before laying any accusations on Christians. Yet he executed this Ignatius simply for having witnessed the apostles' sacrificing their lives in preaching Jesus whom they had seen resurrected. In his supposed prison letters, Ignatius confronts Christians that argued against basic tenets of current Christian orthodoxy, including the death, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. These groups were arguing against these notions based on the fact that they are absent from "the original documents"
"When I heard some people saying, If i do not find it in the original documents, I do not believe it".Instead of pointing to the verses depicting the death, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, Ignatius vaguely says that they exist in those originals, adding that Jesus himself is sufficient as proof. This group was basically accusing Ignatius of following and believing in a tampered, and falsified gospel.
It is therefore no surprise that the Quran charges Christians for believing with "no knowledge" what it calls a "conjecture"
4:157"they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture".The NT shows in Matt26,Jn18 that the disciples did not witness anything but Jesus' arrest by the Romans, and among the disciples only Peter saw Jesus' questioning by the high priest at the courtyard. None of the disciples saw or were present at Jesus' alleged public beating, humiliation and crucifixion. While there is mention in Jn19:25-27 of a "disciple" being near Jesus at the cross, there is no proof that this unnamed disciple mentioned by John's Gospel's writer (mentioned in the 3rd person by the way, why would John mention himself in the 3rd person?) is John the son of Zebedee. That traditional interpretation is still a matter of dispute among scholars. Also, the other gospels dont mention a "disciple whom Jesus loved".
So that "beloved disciple" who witnessed the crucifixion is the John who authored the gospel that holds his name, yet that "beloved disciple" fails to mention the spectacular transfiguration of Jesus, and the talking cloud, of which he was only 1 of 3 eyewitnesses Matt17:1-13,Mk9:2-13? That is not to mention that "beloved disciple"'s silence of other events of which he was the privileged eyewitness, leaving instead others who werent present to those events to testify in his place. Incidents such as the raising of Jairus' daughter Mk5:37-42 or Jesus' ascension Lk24:33-51. There are various theories on the identity of that unknown and unnamed male disciple "whom Jesus loved" that allegedly stood near Jesus on the cross. According to the NT, he was one of the unknown eyewitnesses who recounted the event to the several unknown writers of the Gospel of John, as attested by the text
Jn21:24"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true".Who are "we" and who is the one whose testimony is believed to be true?
The NT sometimes speaks of "disciples" without them being necessarily those among his inner circle of 12. For example Paul says the resurrected Jesus firstly appeared to Peter then to the twelve 1Cor15:15 at a time when Judas was already dead Matt27:5, and his successor had not yet been chosen Acts1:26. The other Gospels also say nothing about any disciple or any women being near the cross, or talking with Jesus while he was on the cross. They only mention a group of women watching the scene from a distant place. Accepting this for argument's sake, unlike his male followers, these women would probably have been allowed to watch without being arrested, provided that they didnt try to interfere.
Execution sites were guarded by Romans who would certainly not allow access to the followers and accomplices of one who was supposedly executed for being a political agitator that could threaten the state Matt27:37,Mk15:26,Lk23:38,Jn19:19-22. It isnt even known how Jesus - or any other victim of this brutal Roman execution method - was affixed to the cross. The earliest artistic depictions of Jesus’ death were made centuries after the fact, long after the Roman Empire had turned Christian and outlawed this punishment. Also, there are very few archaeological remains of crucifixion as a practice in general. In fact the only known solid piece of physical evidence is a 1st century C.E. heel-bone pierced by a nail, found in 1968 in a Jewish tomb in Jerusalem. The piercing doesnt even follow the image of crucifixion made famous in Christian iconography.
During the years when Jesus was growing up, many people believed that the End Times necessary for the appearance of the warrior king Messiah per the HB had already arrived, and that this liberator would soon organize a revolt against the hated Romans and drive them out of the country. There were many claimants to the role before, and after Jesus.
The Romans were fully aware of this and were constantly on the look out for rebel leaders and their accomplices in a time where uprisings against the state were more frequent in Palestine than any other part of the Empire.
In light of these historical realities, and the fact that the end times messianic figure did not materialize in Jesus, that it appeared to many that he was murdered, those who nevertheless believed him to fit the role could not but paint this aspect of his life in "purposeful" obscurity, as shown above. In addition, his death/failure became his self-predicted success, purposefully orchestrated, in fulfillment of ancient prophecies retrospectively applied to him, or rather misapplied to anyone familiar with the HB. The whole NT is a poorly written apology of a new concept of the end times king messiah, as here candidly stated
Jn20:31"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name".
Matt12:15-21 attempts to show that Jesus' appeal to secrecy was in fulfilment of Isa42:1-4, a passage that only relates to what Matthew infers by the most farfetched analogy. He implies that by the vast majority of Israel's being purposefully denied access to the truth, the Gentiles instead will be saved. But for these gentiles to have access to this truth after Jesus' death, there had to be a select few who would understand the secret scheme. The plot was supposedly achieved through obscured parables only his disciples would understand Mk4:11-12,Matt13:13-15 yet we many times read throughout the NT how his closest followers who supposedly were among those select few at least struggled in comprehending him if not completely misunderstood him. In fact towards the end of Jesus' mission people in general and his closest entourage had no clue about his messianship, to the point that when Simon identifies him as the messiah, Jesus tells him that he could only have received that information in a supernatural way Matt16. The simple reason is that the historical Jesus did not go around claiming to fulfil the messianic predictions of the HB. The claim was later made for him. If he did, people would have laughed their lungs off, including the Romans. The Gospel writers, writing at least 50 years after the events knew that what Jesus accomplished had nothing to do with the highly anticipated establishment of the kingdom of God. They were thus left with no option other than painting the whole matter as they did.
The Jewish people were thus divinely blinded for that purpose, at least temporarily as stated in
Rom11:11"I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous".As if God could not provide salvation for both Jew and Gentile without deliberately withholding knowledge so that only some Jews are saved.
No comments:
Post a Comment