In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"
This hadith comes back many times in anti Muslim circles, passed around like a hot potato. A little background check will clarify the issue. The background is actually 9:5, another favorite of anti Muslim critics.
As the surrounding verses make it clear 9:5 is speaking of those who repeatedly broke the contracts, despite the Muslims keeping their engagements, attacked the Muslims first. These people, the Muslims should remain extremely cautious with. The Believers are required to put their trust in God and negotiate with them regardless of their treacherous history if they show an inclination towards peace 8:61-62, but at the same time should not hesitate to cancel the agreements in case they fear treachery on their part. But this must only be done openly and publicly so as to avoid any misunderstanding on the state of war between the parties 8:58, just as was done with the very first verse of sura tawba where a declaration of immunity and dissociation is made with the treaty breakers. Then the Muslims should prepare themselves for every eventual threat from within and outside the community 8:60.
The Muslims should only stop fighting these treaty violators under 2 conditions:
- The first condition is if they clearly become Muslims by praying regularly and pay the poor rate. This is the only guarantee Muslims have against being attacked by a people provably inclined to backstabbing and breaking of oaths
4:91"You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority".
It is in such background that one should read the often misused report in which the prophet says
"I have been commanded to fight the idolators (Other versions "the people") until they bear witness to La ilaha illallah (there is none worthy of worship except Allah) and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. If they bear witness to La ilaha illallah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, and they pray as we pray and face our Qiblah, and eat our slaughtered animals, then their blood and wealth becomes forbidden to us except for a right that is due, and they will have the same rights and obligations as the Muslims".
What is translated as to fight/uqaatil implies fighting opposite an initial attack, as is clear from the context of 9:5. Also, the more complete hadith further portrays the prophet quoting
88:22"Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a watcher over them".
This, in addition to the known proper context of the report, decisively shows there can be no compulsion in religion, as explicitly stated in the Quran in many places. As commented by ibn Taymiya
"what is meant here: Fighting the fighters of those that Allah made permissible to fight, and not those under the treaty and were loyal to Allah".
No forced conversions occured at the conquest of Mecca and sura 88, which is quoted by the prophet in relation to his statement in the hadith, is unanimously believed to have been revealed in Mecca.
- The second condition is if they do not become Muslims but they stop their persecution then
2:193"there should be no hostility except against the oppressors".
That is because
8:38"if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed".
These 2 important point show that 9:5 does not say to fight these hostile idolaters until they become Muslims since an idolater who stops fighting is left to go freely to his homeland 9:6, but until they refrain from their hostile attitude of which a conversion to Islam and the strict and public adherance to each of its ordinances would be a guarantee.
One last time, not all idolaters were fought until they became Muslims, only those that were untrustworthy to be left based on a verbal agreement.
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
The willingness of an individual to suffer and die for a particular cause or belief doesn't prove its truthfulness, neither its validity. For example, the willingness of the leadership of the early Mormon church to undergo persecution and even death doesn't prove the veracity of the Mormon faith system.
Likewise, the New Testament description of some of the disciples undergoing suffering or death does not prove that what they preached or believed was true either.
In fact this argument goes against the Christian missionaries that like using it, if one considers the Gospels' accounts of Jesus' closest followers all deserting him when true crisis arose. The same is the case with Moses whose followers refused following his orders to go to battle and invade the promised land.
The argument of steadfastness in the face of death as a testimony of a prophet's truthfulness in fact only applies to Muhammad, whose small band of followers time after time overwhelmingly stood up to fight in God's cause whenever commanded to do so and regardless of their opponent's disproportionate level of power.
Neither does the criterion of embarrasement work in favor of Christians. For example people invented the Romulus story, and Romulus murdered his own brother. People invented Attis, and he is said to have castrated himself, besides the numerous mythologies of mutilated/dying/resurrected gods and sons of gods contemporaries or close to Jesus' time. Nothing suggests that the Gospels' authors were in anyway embarrassed by their writings when they penned them. There were storytelling, theological and cultural reasons for the authors to associate these things to their heroes, besides possible additions by later scribes.
The same goes for all the evil deeds ascribed to the most illustrious biblical personalities, as a means by which the scribes settled their intertribal prejudices, justified their own sins. If the most prominent personalities are capable of the worst sins, then the regular people shouldnt be blamed for their transgressions.
These inventions were more or less skilfully, appropriately inserted in the original. For example it might be embarrassing in hindsight to depict Jesus as undergoing a sin cleansing ritual but John's author skilfully inserts that the baptiser thought so highly of Jesus that he didnt want to baptize him at first. What Christians don't understand is that the criterion of embarrassment is used by historians to interpret objective facts and evidence, whether one or the other version of a real, actual story is more likely. Historians do not use it so as to create facts as Christians do.
This kind of argument only results in circular reasoning, as the facts interpreted arent independantly attested. For example it would be circular to state that because superman is sensitive to magic, or joker's fear toxins (that made him inadvertently kill a pregnant Lois Lane), or vampires and green kryptonite (the pink one turns him to a homosexual) then it means that he really was affected by all these embarrasing things, or that he even existed.
In the words of Celsus, one of the foremost thinkers of his age whose critique of the Christians was so damaging that Christians destroyed every copy of his work they could find
"Clearly the Christians have used ... myths ... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth ... It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction."
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
Jesus did not proclaim anything dissimilar to what his contemporaries expected from an Israelite prophet.
Jesus was the final prophet in a series of prophets sent to the Bani Israel exclusively Matt10:5-6,15:24-26,21,Quran3:49, to warn them of their constant betrayal of their covenant with God, including their hiding and distortion of the true expression of the Torah, just like Moses foresaw Deut31:25-29 and Jeremiah confirmed Jer2:8,7:21,8:8,23:9-36.
Being the last one in the line of Israelite prophets, Jesus had to prophecy the coming of the final prophet who would be sent to all of mankind and he did so through his prophecies of the paraclete, as echoed in the Quran 61:6. It is this distinction between the prophet Muhammad and the other prophets that makes his prediction a necessity, by his predecessors from among the Israelites, Moses and Jesus included 6:20,7:157,61:6. Muhammad is the only prophet whom the Quran says was announced by previous prophets.
As to Jesus, one can clearly see from his few reported NT sayings that he did not come to establish a new religion. That is why the earliest Christian creed was simple and concise as compared to the one grossly inflated centuries later at Nicea then Constantinople so as to integrate new theological notions. Although speculations were rife about Jesus' nature and relationship with God the Father, prior to the 4th century, the authorities of the church did not view the persons of the trinity as equal in divinity. The Father was understood as the supreme God and the Son came second in worship, subordinate in knowledge and power, followed by the Holy Ghost as third in rank.
Jesus, per the Quran, came to verify the truth remaining in the Torah
3:50,5:46,61:6"verifying what is between my hands MIN/OF the Torah".
Just as the prophet Muhammad was tasked in doing with the Quran, Jesus wasnt going around listing every single error and absurdity of the scriptures and traditions that preceded him. His words and deeds testified to the truth and falsehood in them. Most of those words and deeds have been forgotten, misinterpreted or purposefully put aside by the gospels writer's own admission. These writers reported what was transmitted to them with their heavy pagan Hellenistic perspective, if not outright fabricated events that do not stand the test of internal and external scrutiny. Their sole purpose was to advance the notion of Jesus being "the messiah, the son of God" as candidly admitted in Jn20:31.
The Quran gives several examples of how his words and deeds testified to some of the corruptions of the HB. For example when Jesus, with God's leave, creates life from inanimate material and resurrects the dead, these were meant to demonstrate to an audience highly skeptical of the concept of resurrection how life can be gathered from dust and how a lifeless body can be risen back. During the volatile transmission process of the HB, such concepts, like the concept of an afterlife were almost entirely blotted out from their books. These actions from Jesus acted as a criterion of what is true and false in the HB, confirming the very few passages vaguely attesting to resurrection. The near scriptural absence of those concepts was an obvious manipulation. Because of their sins for which they were successively destroyed and humiliated during their tumultuous history, the Israelites became averse at the notion of an afterlife in which one is resurrected and held accountable for his worldly deeds. And so they progressively denied the concept, leading to the polemics within their sects during Jesus' time. The Pharisees forcefully argued in favor of the concept, using scattered biblical references including 1Kings17:17-24,2Kings4:17-37,13:20-1,1Sam2:6,Isa2:17,26:19,66:14,Ezek37:1-28,Ps71:20,Prov6:22,Prov31(see Rashi),Dan12:1-2 while their main opponents, the Sadducees strongly denied that basic monotheistic tenet.
Jesus' purpose was in addition to allow some of the things that were forbidden to them through the traditions of men (NT Matt15,23). He was the most qualified to do so, through his inspired knowledge
3:48"And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel".
That is why he is depicted in the NT as turning the people's attention away from their oral man-made traditions, and focus instead on the true divine source which he claimed to fulfill to the letter Matt5:17-20. In that passage, the "Law and the Prophets" was a regular expression Jews of Jesus' day used in reference to the entire HB Matt7:12,22:40,Acts24:14,28:23,Rom3:21. The fulfillment of the Torah refers to the revival of its spirit, which the Jews had neglected by focusing more on baseless rituals, and issuing ever new conjectured complications to those rituals, attributing their origins to the revealed Oral Torah/Talmud. These additions had distorted Moses' religion beyond recognition Mk7:7.
Humans, because of their very nature as volitional creatures are bound to differ in almost every aspect of life, as stated elsewhere in the Quran. This isnt necessarily an evil, however the only sphere in which they should not contend but rather unite are the original and clear tenets of the religion. The innovations of the Jews in that area inevitably caused dissension among them and Jesus came to unite them by clarifying their misunderstandings and/or deliberate distortions
43:63"And when Isa came with clear arguments he said: I have come to you indeed with wisdom, and that I may make clear to you part of what you differ in; so be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me".
Jesus wasnt an all-knowing being charged with resolving every conflict, his function wasnt to unify them in every aspect of life, but only in the relevant religious matters hence the statement in the verse "part of what you differ in". The Quran here again, as it does in countless places, demonstrates its surgical precision in its meaningful choice of every word. To further corroborate, when God the all-knowing best of judges swift in reckoning will resurrect and gather the people, He shall judge between them in all that which they differed
39:46"Say: O Allah, Originator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the seen! Thou (only) judgest between Thy servants as to that wherein they differ".
Perfect judgement and final resolution of conflicts is only possible in the hereafter, at God's court of justice.
What is very revealing and that most Christians are oblivious of, is that after the councils of Hippo and Cartage in the end of the 4th century where 27 books were finally canonized as NT scriptures, one would expect the Church to want its adherents to get to know the official books of the Church.
Especially when there were many non-canonical books in circulation, competing sects and heresies. And yet this is absolutely not what happened. Not only were the people discouraged from reading the Bible on their own, but translations into native languages were prohibited (Council of Toulouse 1229, Tarragona 1234, Constance 1415), forcing translation efforts to go underground. Some were burned for doing so (Tyndale 1536).
With the proliferation of unreliable versions, the church authorities had no choice but to begin an effort of official translations, especially done in the monasteries. Two main reasons motivated this concealment by the Church. First to maintain their own aura of elitism. Among the reasons Martin Luther was persecuted in the 1500s was because of his translation, giving the lowly folk access to the "lofty" Bible.
Compare this to the early efforts of the Quran compilers just 10 years following the prophet Muhammad's death, to spread copies of the book in scripts that would unlock the primitive consonantal structure of the text. The second and most important reason for the Church's reluctance to make its canon accessible to the commoner, was to prevent Christians from finding out about Jesus' purely Jewish environment, teachings, legacy, as well as the Jewishness of his followers, prior to Paul's appearance on the scene.
Despite all of Paul's missionary activities, early Jewish converts to Christianity still worshiped in synagogues until the late 4th century (Homilies against Jews by Chrysostom). The dominant Pauline Church wanted and needed to break with Jesus and his early followers' Jewish heritage. Something that would have been impossible to do as early on in the history of Christianity where the traditions transmitted by the original cluster of Jewish sects claiming descendency from Jesus and his followers, were still known. Instead the church presented limited editions to the people, they could not show the full version because the Gospel writers didnt and couldnt erase Judaism from Jesus' ministry. They couldnt do it, because it would have made Jesus contextually irrelevant, as if appearing in a vacuum.
Through a concise statement, the Quran explains the mutual relationship between the Torah and the Gospel; they complete one another by centering the attention on the wisdom and spirit of every aspect of God's Laws so that they do not end up as something lifeless and burdensome for the people
3:48-50"And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tawrat and the Injeel..And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me".
By the beginning of the 1st century Judaism was a sterile, lifeless organism, waiting to be infused with a spirituality that only Jesus could provide.
Jesus repeatedly condemned those traditions in the NT, denounced the Jews and their leaders as "hypocrites" and told the people to beware of these "teachers of law" for their soulless traditions, and "children of the Devil" because of their claim of inherited righteousness through their affiliation to Abraham Jn8:37-44.
Not in one single instance within the whole NT is it reported that Jesus said that the law of Moses needs to be abandoned, contrary to Paul who besides stating it was a curse Gal3:13 given not by God but by angels Gal3:19-25,Heb2:2 declared it obsolete Rom3:20,7:4,10:4,Heb8:13,Gal2:21,3:23-25,4:21-31,5:1,Eph2:15 even describing his former Jewish beliefs as worthless, rejecting his former Jewishness by warning of Jewish dogs saying in the original Greek
Phil3:2-8"I consider them excrement".
He told people he was seeking to convert that they were now under the vague 'law of Christ'. Jesus himself never alludes to such law, hence it being unknown to any of those who met and followed him and respected all Jewish laws to the letter as per his actual instructions.
That law of christ, tailored so as to apeal to Paul's mainly pagan audience, has removed the old burden from mankind 1Corin9:21,Gal6:2. He sometimes paid lip service to the Law if the situation or audience required a show of obedience to the law Acts21:20-26 but immediately denounced the likes of James and Peter for telling the Gentiles to follow the law Gal2, evidently because it attracted less converts.
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
The non-Christian sources Christians reference for Jesus' crucifixion arent by contemporary historians aside from a disputed Roman passage which will be discussed shortly, or the few forged lines awkwardly inserted in between 2 flowing sections in Josephus' voluminous works.
These writings have pages and chapters devoted to petty personalities such as robbers or simple kings, yet Josephus, this devout and zealous orthodox Jew, and who remained so until his death, ie the last person to accept Jesus as a god or as the Jewish King-messiah is said to have given a short comment in the middle of an account on another character (Pilate) about how Jesus was indeed the wonderful, divine, and prophecied Jewish King-Messiah. Just a short passage about the long awaited Jewish King and yet he reports in much more details about John the Baptist and other self-proclaimed messiahs like Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, the "Egyptian Jew" messiah? The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian.
There is a reason why none of the early Church fathers up to the 3rd century never quoted this most-appropriate passage in their controversies with the Jews and other works despite their familiarity with Josephus' writings; it is a late forgery.
No contemporary writing or immidiately following his time mention a thing about the extraordinary events surrounding his life or alleged crucifixion. Yet we have archeological and historical proof for the existance of Bar Kochba, another messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus, performed no spectacular wonders. In short, none of the sources Christians bring up, religious or else, amount to more than circular reasoning in regards to determining the historical Jesus. The earliest sources are Christian, meaning the NT itself, written 30-70 years after the supposed events, by non eye witnesses. Up to 70 years is a huge time gap where legends, conjectures and deliberate lies could have been grafted into a historical core. The NT itself has no currently existing 1st century witnesses, either as manuscripts or as writings of Christians. We do not have an unbroken chain linking the Apostolic Fathers to the gospel writers to Jesus. So yes, relying on the NT is circular reasoning, besides the fact we are talking of grandiose events that could not have been missed by independent witnesses who were active and writing in that time and place. What secular historians will attest to, is not that a miracle worker named Jesus did and said what is narrated about him in the NT, but that an early 1st century community existed that believed what is said in the NT about someone called Jesus. Historians will then conclude that the existence of such community attests to a true core regarding a historical person named Jesus who could have said some of what was attributed to him. Each historian will then work out what that true core was, based on textual criticism, archaeology, independent sources and conjecture.
Muslims got their answer to this through revelation
"That is Jesus, the son of Mary - the word of truth about which they are in dispute".
Of course, this description of what every prophet and slave of God was, doesnt line up well with those that raised a particular prophet to divine status.
Tacitus was a Roman historian born a good 20 years after Jesus' death. He started writing some 60 years later, meaning 80 years after Jesus. He was by no means a historical witness and only relied on hearsay if we were to accept the passage attributed to him as authentic. That passage talks of the persecutions of early Christians, mentions how the founder of this religion
"was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished, as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate".
None of the Church fathers nor any Christian writer prior to the 15th century mention that passage, despite their familiarity with Tacitus' works and their need for such weighty evidence by a renouned historian. Not even Eusebius who in the 4th century cites all sources available from Jewish and pagan sources. What is even more troubling is that the note on Jesus is part of a passage relating the mass persecution and killing of Christians under Nero. Yet for 3 centuries, in discussions of the Christian history of martyrdom, no appeal is ever made to Tacitus’ account of the dramatic and horrifying Neronian persecution. Only 1 surviving copy of this writing exists, supposedly "copied" in the 8th century CE (700 years after it was supposedly written) by Christian hands. As is the case with the Josephus passage which is universally recognized as interpolated, if not entirely forged, interpolation at least, cannot be ruled out in Tacitus' case. Although mainstream scholarship accepts the passage as authentic, even James Rives, prominent scholars of the Roman world, recognizes there are plenty of disputes over Tacitus’ precise meaning, the source of his information, and the nature of the historical events that lie behind his report.
There exist no Roman records of Jesus' execution by Pontius Pilate . The opposite would have been extraordinary anyway, as such executions occurred by the 100s and the authorities did not bother archiving each case. But here we have the most renowned of Roman historians citing the alleged event, and yet he is ignored by Christian apologists up to the 15th century. In fact the reference to Jesus is absent from a 5th century Christian writer Sulpicius Severus who quotes the passage attributed to Tacitus in nearly the same words.
Concerning the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata (125-180 CE), what Christian apologists assume as a reference to Jesus, since he never names Jesus, keeping in mind that crucifixions occured by the 100s sometimes daily around Jesus' time, these references of Lucian were written near the end of the 2nd century. Even if one were to assume that the reference is to Jesus it does nothing to establish the historicity of the crucifixion as neither Lucian (nor Tacitus as is explained above) quote their sources. Of course that by their time the Jesus legend had already spread among early Christians. Lucian, like Tacitus, is simply repeating Christian beliefs mockingly. The Quran exposes those who started the rumors of the crucifixion. The same claim which Christians proudly laud as their pillar of belief, is one which the rest of the world sees as the epitome of ridicule. Paul alludes to these mockeries when he says "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles". This verse further belies the idea that the spread and acceptance of a claim proves its truthfulness somehow. Christians were the ones busy propagating the false news of Jesus' crucifixion, once his Jewish enemies succesfully initiated and passed on the rumor. It is thus expected for any external observer of the Christian movement, to simply reiterate what they claim about themselves, especially if such a claim undermines them in the eyes of that observer.
It was thus certainly appropriate for both Tacitus and Lucian to allude to the execution of the leader of Christianity. Not as a way to validate their claim or to represent historical reality, but rather to further deride the movement. Finally, having a narrative account about someone doesn't make the person historical. That is a basic premise of historical research. The work of a historian is to determine whether the account is relating myths or facts. The sources of these 2 non-Christian authors are unknown, neither are they witnesses to the events. This makes it impossible to discern myths from facts from their writings about Jesus, especially considering their bias against Christians, leading them to repeat the denigrating information being circulated about their leading figure.
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
The Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest known manuscript of the NT and in the gospel of Mark, it doesnt mention anything about the resurrection. In that manuscript, the gospel of Mark stops at verse 16:8.
Nothing, whether in the wording used or the context indicates that this ending was unintended. The author simply knew nothing of the resurrection tale. The story ends right after the discovery of the empty tomb and after the 3 women leave the tomb. These women, according to Mark, feared telling anyone of what the angel reported, despite the angel's instructions to tell the disciples. And yet, if the women told no one, how could Mark be telling his story?
The last 12 verses describing Jesus' resurrection and his appearance to the disciples were added later, as part of the overall retrospective re-write of Jesus' story. Mark is regarded as the earliest Gospel and the other Gospels, namely Luke and Matthew seem to be an effort to develop upon Mark's account.
Eusebius and Jerome explicitly state that almost all the Greek MSS available to them end at verse 8:
Eusebius Ad Marinum 1 - "How is it that in Matthew the Savior, after having been raised, appears 'late on the Sabbath' but in Mark 'Early on the first day of the week'? The Solution to this might be twofold. For, on the one hand, the one who rejects the passage itself, namely the pericope which says this, might say that it does not appear in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark. At any rate, the accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark with the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said to them, 'Do not fear. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene' and the words that follow. In addition to these it says, 'And having heard this they fled and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid.' For in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies."
Also, Eusebius, in his Church History (3.39.) notes the role that a presbyter named Aristion had in the transmission of Mark's gospel. We also read in Peake's Commentary, p818 that
"A 10th century Armenian MS ascribes the passage to Aristion, the presbyter mentioned by Papias."
Jerome 120 to Hedybia Concerning Twelve Questions 3 -
"The solution to the question [of why the endings of Mark and Matthew contradict one another] is twofold. Either we do not receive the testimony of Mark, which appears scarsely in copies of the gospel, while almost all books in Greek do not have this pericope at the end..."
These 2 men are writing in the 4-5th century and testifying that even by their time, the longer ending is absent from the vast, if not all original Greek manuscripts available to them. The most revealing admission is that Mark, the disciple to whom the Gospel is ascribed, might not have been the one testifying to the events and whose words were canonized in their days. In the 2nd century, Church figures such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Tatian paraphrase or thematicaly allude to the contents of this omitted passage. This simply shows the evolving nature of Christianity's 2Tim3:16"God-breathed" scriptures, the progressive inclusion of oral legends into the text. Besides the lack of physical evidence, there are also obvious stylistic and thematic differences between that passage and the rest of Mark's Gospel.
In Contra Celsus, Origen's famous work addressing the objections of the pagan thinker Celsus, Origen tries (unsuccessfully) to defend the assertions of Christianity, including the most important, that Jesus resurrected. He quotes detail citations from Matthew, Luke and John to support the resurrection as he was specifically challenged to produce post-resurrection evidence yet he doesnt mention anything beyond Mark16:8. This despite ORigen being the most outstanding Christian manuscript expert of his time, using all scriptural means at his disposal to support the post-resurrection story against the charges of the sceptics.
Modern scholars contend that
"At least nine versions of the ending of Mark can be found among the 1,700 surviving ancient Greek manuscripts and early translations of the gospel".
The NIV bible also comments
"The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"
Roman Catholics are not required to believe that Mark wrote this longer ending. The NAB translation includes the footnote:
"[9-20] This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20."
The Codex Sinaiticus, besides exposing the fact that the resurrection was an unknown story in the earliest Gospel, also contains two New Testament books that arent part of the current canon: the Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century and the Epistle of Barnabas, which is more blatant than the current Gospels on explicitly blaming Jesus' alleged murder on the Jews.
The Didache, composed anywhere between the mid 1st century and the 3rd century, by an early Christian sect which focused on Torah observance while leaving the door open to gentile converts, makes no mention of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and its Eucharist celebration makes no connection of the meal with the body and blood of Christ, nor does it speak of some of the most basic tenets of Pauline thought such as original sin or faith without works
"Since the writings which now constitute the New Testament were for long not agreed to be sacred, they were repeatedly edited revised and elaborated. The story of Jesus and his sayings was changed according to the context and interests of successive believers. So different sets of believers read and transmitted variant texts… Some additions, revisions and deletions to early Christian writings were on a much grander scale. The intrusion of seven spurious letters into the Pauline corpus, the helpfully compression of two of Paul’s letters to make 2 Corinthians, and the clumsy addition of revised endings to the gospels of Mark (16:9-20) and John (21) – both destined to include extra post-resurrectional appearances of Jesus to the disciples – all illustrate the fluidity and porosity of these texts before they became canonical… The easy alterability of the earliest writings about Jesus, by addition, omission or redaction, indicate that for all the sacredness of their subject, the gospels themselves were not regarded as sacrosanct. Or put another way, for a century or more after Jesus’ death, Christian groups existed, and flourished, without the New Testament. The existence of the gospel of Mark, probably the earliest of the canonical gospels, did not present Matthew and Luke from changing what Mark had written , or from writing their own gospels…"(Keith Hopkins – Professor Cambridge).
Similarly, the Q Gospel, believed to be the source out of which the 4 canonic Gospels expand upon, knows nothing of Jesus’ death and his resurrection. It is inconceivable that its compilers knew of such things, particularly the resurrection, and neglected or chose not to mention them.
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
When challenged by the Pharisees to display a miracle, Jesus promised them his resurrection after being dead for 3 days Matt12:39. Once he is supposedly resurrected, he doesnt appear to those who specifically asked him for the sign and to whom he said he will reappear. Instead, Jesus' followers come to the Pharisees, claiming that the sign had occured. Neither is there any claim that the risen Jesus ever appeared to anyone but believers.
There is only the word of a mere handful of "witnesses" whose stories vary from person to person, and we dont even know who transmitted those biased accounts until they were eventually put to writing by scribes whom nobody knows.
The conflicting testimonies of the evangelists in Matt28:1-10,Mk16:1-20,Lk24:1-12,Jn20:1-18 are so unreliable, they would not stand up to critical cross-examination in any court of law.
"One of the first exercises students of the Gospels do is to consult a parallel version of them, allowing an examination in four columns of the ways in which they relate to each other… As one notices the parallels and differences, a host of questions flood in and one thing above all becomes clear: no single, agreed picture of Jesus is likely to be possible on this evidence." (David F. Ford – Professor Cambridge).
Matthew and Luke's unknown authors dont claim being eye witnesses. John's unknown author vaguely refers to John in the 3rd person during the resurection account, and doesnt claim to be a witness to the event. Paul's 500 witnesses to the risen Jesus 1Cor15 isnt reported by the gospels, the Jewish historian Josephus, Roman historians, and early Christian writers. In his account, 25 years after the alleged event, Paul doesnt give a geographic location where these
"upwards of five hundred brethren"
had simultaneously seen the resurrected Jesus, neither does he say whether he was among them, or whether he had heard of it through "inspiration" or from other Christians. None of those 500 witnesses ever came forward to give testimony to what they saw. Paul further says Jesus apeared to the 12 while Judas had comitted suicide before the event. In fact, there is virtually not one detail of the crucifixion and resurrection narratives upon which all four Gospel authors agree. Yet, it is upon this story that the entire Christian religion stands or falls?
Even the date of the crucifixion is an issue of contention among the four Gospels.
We could go on in details and show how these discrepencies play out throughout the NT, suffice it to say, in 1Cor15, the most celebrated creed of the resurrection, Paul states that among the disciples, Peter (aka Cephas, Simon) saw the risen Jesus first while Lk24:33 states he was with "the eleven" gathered in Jerusalem. That is why in Matthew and John's accounts he appears to the disciples together. Paul does not speak of Jesus' appearance to the women, in fact he dismisses their testimony entirely as if it never happenned. The Gospels on the other hand, despite disagreeing which of the women saw Jesus first, all agree the first testimony was that of a female. Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary Matt28:9 or to Mary Magdalene alone Mk16:9,Jn20:18. In his missionary zeal, Paul needed weighty arguments (the words of women certainly werent!) and the reference to Jesus' inner circle of disciples was more appropriate.
The apologetic argument that these and many other differences are due to eyewitnesses recounting the same story through different angles doesnt hold. Besides these differences being so blatant that no objective enquirer can accept this defence, we have the very basic fact that those after whom the Gospels are named were not even eyewitnesses. They didnt even write their accounts of the story until at least 40 to 70 years after it allegedly took place, as they heard it from unidentified sources. How did these authors interview their sources of information? What criteria did they use to determine the reliability of the people that told them the details of the stories that they wrote? There is a reason why the resurrected Jesus only appeared to his already devoted followers, who are our only source of the story, instead of his opponents to whom he allegedly pledged will show them proof of his resurrection Matt12:39.
Despite these facts, and basing themselves on the assumption that the resurrection story, or rather stories, are actually true, Christians ask why did the Roman and Jewish opponents of Jesus not dig up the body of Jesus in order to disprove the claims made exclusively by his devoted followers? The true question should be, still assuming the story to be true, how could we know that his opponents did NOT dig up his body in order to disprove the resurrection story? And if they succesfully did, how would we hear about it today considering the centuries of Catholic censorship and fabrications that started very early on in Christian history? Also the decayed body displayed by the authorities could have easily been dismissed as not Jesus' by his devoted followers.
Although today's apologists love to suggest a "tradition" of early visitors to the tomb of Jesus (without a shred of evidence), nothing can disguise the fact that until the 4th century Christians got along just fine without a Jesus tomb and had no special reverence for the place of his supposed execution. The Christians' difficulty in finding all the hallmarks sites of the NT, sometimes even having the same hallmark in different locations where different sects reside, is often blamed on a conspiracy by Emperor Hadrian who had supposedly deliberately built his pagan sanctuaries over their sacred sites.
The same excuse is used for the confusion on the location of Jesus' tomb (the current one is unmarked and without a shred of evidence to connect it to Jesus). Far from being concerned with early Christianity, at that time just a cluster of cults among many others, and virtually unknown in the Roman world, in reality, the emperor Hadrian sited his temple and forum complex precisely where it would be found in most other Roman cities – at the intersection of the major east-west and north-south roads.
An interesting question to ask is, where was Jesus between his crucifixion and resurrection? Was he in heaven, in accordance with his promise to the crucified thief that Lk23:43"today you shall be with me in paradise? If so, how can we account for his post-resurrection statement to Mary Magdalene
Jn20:17"touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father"?
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
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, purposefuly 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.
When Jesus was apprehended and judged by the Romans, with the complicity of the Jewish leaders who wanted to get rid of him for his denouncing their sins as past prophets did, he did not claim to be the king messiah, neither to the Jews who were seeking a pretext to make him arrested, pressing the question to have him confess Matt26:63-64,Mk14:62,Lk22:70 nor in front of the authorities, who eventually sent him to be crucified. By doing so, and acceding to the request of the Jews, the romans validated the Jewish charge against him of messianic kingship which is punishable by death under state laws.
Now that Jesus and his band became official outlaws wanted by the state, his close apostles are reported to have fled with Peter even denying he knew Jesus 3 times. The Romans, lobbied by their Jewish stooges, deemed the allegation against him enough for him to be crucified. This punishment was most often reserved to those who threatened the political status quo, regardless of their background motives (religious or else). Jesus was a typical person the Romans would go after in those days, a charismatic leader who proclaimed a kingdom "with God" not "with Caesar" at its head was seen as an immediate threat. The person didnt even have to present a violent danger to be inflicted with such punishment, nor tangible evidence, especially a non-Roman citizen or a slave. Simple suspicion, in this case instigated by their Jewish minions, or even non-violent anti-government talk such as the promised rule of God's kingdom, was enough to trigger the authorities.
As to Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the decision to execute a political agitator, a man known for his brutality against his subjects, is obviously a scribal corruption with an agenda. The Greeks were writing the Gospels after the Roman legions had returned to crush the Jewish rebellion of 66CE and did not want to antagonize Roman power and attract their hostility at that point in time. What is insteresting to add is that, contrary to similar cases where accomplices would be tracked down and killed to crush a potential rebellion, the Romans left Jesus' disciples to freely preach their gospel.
This shows that, as said above, Jesus was seen as inconsequential in terms of posing a violent threat, that the savage Roman police would easily be triggered on simple basis of suspicion and that they would readily accomodate their local puppets to safeguard their own dominion in the distant regions of the empire.
As Paul candidly admits,
1Corin15:17"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins".
In essence, the validity of Christianity stands or falls on this claim. Yet the admittedly crucial nature of that event is contrasted by the scarcity of material related to it within the Gospels. Barely 5 people witnessed the risen Jesus, and when analyzed critically, these testimonies are contradictory and inconsistent. In Mark, Matthew and Luke, Jesus' message is centred not on the resurrection, but on the establishment of God's kingdom on earth, a metonym in those days for God's rule of justice and restauration of JEwish glory among the nations, with the defeat of the Romans. It is only with the development of Christology with John's Gospel and Paul's writings, as well as the Greek Church fathers, their rich Hellenistic background of mythologies and legends of deified leaders, that supplied the fertile ground for the short story of Jesus' resurrection, his interpolated deification.
This Hellenistic perspective however isnt on par with the Jewish background which the writers and early Christian scholars claim provide proof for their beliefs on Jesus. In Jewish understanding, the resurrection of the dead is a common theme that has already occured in the past and that shall happen again in the messianic era, without any divine connotation or connection with atonement for sins.
These men were formulating their ideas, interpreting inherited traditions while still infused with stories of demigods, Achilles, Dionysus or Heracles to name but a few. By the time they expressed their thoughts and the Gospels were put to writing, the Jerusalem Temple had been destroyed in 70CE, and the centers of Christian thought were spread around the Mediterranean. This opened the way for non-Jews and foreigners to Jesus' socio/cultural/religious background to take the reigns of power in the early church.
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
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' questionning 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 mentionned by John's Gospel's writer (mentionned 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' ascencion 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 necessarly 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.
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
The Quran isnt trying to escape the truth, nor is embarrassed from it, but is simply making several important observations that have far more ground to stand on than the Christian proposition, in regards to Jesus' end in this world.
Firstly, It does not say that it was made to appear that Jesus died on the cross, in a purposeful divine plan to confuse his contemporaries. It answers in 4:157-8 the Jews' mockeries about having succeeded in killing a supposed prophet of God. It refutes their arrogance and reiterates Allah's unchanging way concerning the prevailing of His messengers/rusul.
According to this divine pattern, certain messengers sent with clear proofs for their arguments and warnings of destruction leads God to implement these threats upon the rejecters once the deadline is reached 58:20-21,48:22-23,36:26-32,40:51,77,43:42. The Messenger, along with those that are with the Messenger are saved, and those that are not perish or are forcefully subjugated. Among these messengers are Nuh, Hud, Ibrahim, Salih, Shuayb, Musa, Jesus and Muhammad.
The verses 4:157-8 declare that contrary to those Jews' boastful claims, Jesus was not crucified NOR KILLED. This rebellious attitude towards Jesus and assumed hatred of him to the point that they even sarcastically call him a prophet in their mocking self-conviction can easily be understood if one considers the depiction that is made of them in the NT. In their vehement rejection of him, they lobbied the Romans to crucify him without evidence. So sure were they of being justified in having Jesus killed that they willingly took upon themselves and their children the responsibility of his harsh penalty, all the while mockingly and sarcastically referring to his kingship to the Jews Matt27. There are several passages where the Quran reflects this cynicism, such as their sarcastic declaration of being hard-hearted to divine guidance 2:88,4:155.
Some have attempted saying that the Quran merely denies that the Jews killed Jesus, not that the crucifixion didnt happen at all, and that the purpose is to show that his death occurred by God's will. However, the verse would not deny both killing and crucifixion had the purpose been to show who was "really" behind Jesus' death. Neither does it at any point present Allah as the real "culprit". The wording denies the idea of Jesus dying in anyway shape or form, whoever makes the claim. If the verse wants to give "credit" to God instead of the Jews, then it still doesnt deny the physical reality of the matter, had Jesus truly been crucified; it doesn't present his execution as a reality at any point. The rabbis, as described in the NT instigated the Romans to have him crucified. Meaning the Jews quoted in the Quran are correct outwardly in their sarcastic self-conviction. The Quran would have been incorrect had it been shifting the blame from them, unto God. Besides, the Jews, being monotheists understand the deeper reality of God being the ultimate cause of all things. While making the statement, they understood that God is in control of causality at all moments and allowed them doing what they think they achieved in regards to Jesus.
The verses in the Quran however clearly dismiss whatever way the disbelievers attempted at Jesus' life, including their desire to crucify him as was common in those days, and they did attempt many ways 5:110 including stoning him.
The object of the verses therefore isnt to deny the crucifixion specifically, nor to delve into the Christian, unbiblical dogmas surrounding it, such as it being the necessary atonement for mankind's supposed sins and inherited depravity from Adam. These strange concepts are indirectly addressed and refuted in verses establishing the principles of non-transmission of sins and individual accountability. The object of these verses is rather to negate the idea that Jesus' opponents succeeded in murdering him by any means, just like they were now attempting with the Ishmaelite prophet. Should they have succeeded it would have defeated God's word and promise concerning the truthfulness of His prophets and their warnings. Jesus, the messenger sent with an undeniable manifestation of the Truth as well as clear warnings of destruction to befall his rejecters, was protected by Allah like others before him.
God would console his messenger, just as was done with his predecessors, those sent with an undeniable manifestation of the Truth, that they will be protected. Just as Jesus and Ibrahim were preserved from any harm and humiliation when seized by their opponents 5:110,21:68-71,29:24,37:97-8, Muhammad was rescued from the harm and the constant plotting of his enemies 5:67,8:30,33:37 like Salih before him 27:47-53. Allah promised Moses and his brother Aaron, reassuring them prior to their encounter with the greatest tyrant of the earth
40:45,28:35"We will strengthen your arm through your brother and grant you both supremacy so they will not reach you. [It will be] through Our signs; you and those who follow you will be the predominant".
All of them were raised and honoured, and their opponents brought low when the promised divine chastisement came to fruition. See similar passages in the HB Isa49:2,Jer11:18-23,15:20-21,20:11. An important thing to note is that truth ultimately prevails and the will of God established. Believers are eventually made to prevail over the oppressors and disbelievers. This might happen in their lifetime or in the hereafter, in or outside the time of a prophet. The Quran has enshrined this principle in sura Buruj, as it begins by relating the story of those martyred for their faith in God in a pit of fire, and then follows with the destroyed nations to whom prophets were sent. Allah assures us that He does what He intends, and that what matters is the grand scheme of things in which His will reigns supreme
85:1-16"Indeed, the vengeance of your Lord is severe".
Something worthy to note at this point is that the prophet Muhammad, had he been the Quran's author, had nothing to gain and everything to lose in terms of credibility and hope of acceptance among the Christians by making such a claim. Every Christian around him and beyond believed he was crucified, and every Jew, as is depicted from their self-convicting sarcasm, were more than ready to take upon themselves the guilt of his execution. It was to them a kind of cynical slap in the face of their Christian age-long oppressors. The Quran here, in a matter of paramount significance to its audience, as it does in other places, does not seek to accommodate any group of people at the expense of the Truth.
But the whole matter appeared as if they had succeeded in their evil, murdering plots because, among other reasons, Jesus was missing, or as the Quran says God "tawaffa" him, purified him and made him ascend to Heaven. This instead prevented the humiliation that wouldve happened if his enemies got to the body. If they presented it to the people in a humiliated state, leading to a psychological victory for the Israelites
4:158"Allah took him up to Himself".
They couldnt even kill him, nor could they damage his body and God states He would raise him up to himself, meaning that not only his body wouldnt be humiliated but it would be honored by God instead.
God thus lifted Jesus up and did not leave a trace of him with them yet even without proof for their claims, the Israelites that wanted him dead managed to start a rumor that quickly spread and was believed. The resulting confusion was similar to that of the rumor of the prophet Muhammad's death during the battle of Uhud 3:144. Roman crucifixions occured daily and by the hundreds, of any agitators to the point that they would sometimes run out of wood for the crosses. The accusing Jews could easily pass off their boastful claims as fact in those circumstances, regardless of whether they truly believed their own claim or not. This rumor spread among both friends and foes. It is entirely possible at this point that not only the Jews were unaware of Jesus' true whereabouts, but neither were his followers. The confusing absence of a prophet has been a means of testing the followers left behind, whether they would remain on the clear path outlined by the prophet when he was in their midst, maintain his directives, or start innovating in the religion and go back to their sinful ways. This occurred with Moses, as he retreated away from his people to receive revelation, just as it did with Muhammad when many fell into despair during the battle of Uhud, and later when he died
3:144"And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels?"
The Nazarenes, like the calf-worshiping Jews thus failed the test of steadfastness in the absence of their prophet. As the rumours of Jesus' death started by his enemies became widespread, his disillusioned followers retrospectively painted the whole thing as a divine masterplan, with all the Christologies that ensued. Those among them that maintained Jewish law were sidelined by Paul's movement very early on, and within just 2 generations the little remnant of Judaism within the Jesus sect was erased. It was supplanted by a wave of converts from the greco-roman world who found in this transformed and readapted original Jewish sect, a favorable echo for their own beliefs, naming this new religion, Christianity.
It is thus meaningless to argue that because the corruptions the Quran denounces were introduced early on, then it follows that these were original teachings of Jesus. Had Moses and Aaron not quickly and violently corrected the corruptions to their teachings, executing the guilty by the thousands, nothing would have prevented the same kind of falsehood to be passed off as "genuine teachings" of Moses, as was done with Jesus
5:117"I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness".
Jesus did not have the occasion to do as Moses and Aaron did very early on so as to prevent the lies attributed to them from becoming "orthodoxy". However, if they escaped Jesus condemnation, it does not mean God was unaware of their evil doings.
Isnt it surprising that the Lord's prayer taught by Jesus himself (as opposed to every other prayer that others taught to say in Jesus’ name), never mentioned Jesus, nor vicarious atonement, nor him as messiah, nor him as intermediary, nor any trinity, among anything else Christological? This foundational prayer is more anti-christian than any passage one may find in the entire Bible.
We're not talking about the lack of Christological references in terms of labels, but in terms of concepts. The prayer is far removed from the ideas established by the Pauline movement, the creeds of the Church Fathers and later councils. Not only are those concepts absent but every sentence of the prayer clashes with mainstream Christian tenets. For example vicarious atonement, not only isnt it mentioned by name or implicitly as a concept, but in addition we have Jesus, who is supposed to be the embodiment of that notion, refuting it
"forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us".
No need for Jesus, forgiveness is attained through one's own efforts. The same is conveyed in the parable of the prodigal son Lk15. The unrighteous son is forgiven by his father simply for turning to God in sincere repentance. Not only is he forgiven but he is welcomed with a warm celebration. It is his state of contriteness that brought him back to life, not the blood on the cross "he was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found".
The idea of vicarious atonement stems from the notion of human depravity; none may claim righteousness on his own due to a sinful nature that pollutes every deed and thought. Yet Jesus undermines that notion too; temptation isnt the product of inherent human depravity and satanic influence. Rather it is God, who is perfectly righteous, whom the worshiper asks
"not to lead us into temptation".
Jesus teaches his followers to begin the prayer by calling upon "our" Father who is in heaven, not to the divine son who is on earth. Nothing distinguishes Jesus from a regular believer in terms of sonship to the Father. The same fatherhood that applies to him applies to the others. It is the Father's name only that is to be hallowed, His will is to be done, and He is the Sustainer of the devotees, including Jesus
"Give us today our daily bread".
These innovations might have initiated among Jesus' close circle, through re-interpretations of his teachings, or among the wave of new converts that supplanted them. To this new, outer circle, the claim that he was captured and killed resonated as closer to the truth and a more honest assessment of his disappearance.
His gruesome death became an attractive narrative of heroism and martyrdom not only for the sake of his followers but for the entire human race.
Jesus is portrayed as fearing death and wanting to avoid it Jn7:1,11:54,Luke 22:42. He begged God (himself) 3 times, putting his forehead to the ground, to take his soul before experiencing suffering and death in Matt26:38. He does not want to experience what he was about to go through but nevertheless submits his will to that of the father, whether he decides to make him bear the cup of suffering or not
"Yet not My will, but Yours be done".
Clearly, had he been given the choice, he would have refused "dying for the sins of mankind" despite having supposed foreknowledge of the divine plan of salvation since the beginning of creation, a plan which he himself sketched together with his divine partners. It also shows one of the co-equal partners submitting his will to another. Yet we never see the reverse, with the Father obediently submitting his will to the Son or the Holyspirit. That "hesitation" from Jesus cannot be attributed to his human nature as he himself states that it is his soul that feared and doubted Matt26:38. Then, when on the cross Jesus grieves for God's abandoning him. Even Revelations5 which is sometimes quoted to defend the notion of a predetermined divine masterplan of salvation through Jesus, is in fact speaking in eschatological terms, just as the whole book does. It speaks of the salvation of some people after events of great tribulation, ie the end of times. Then we have Heb5:7 throwing in the ambiguous statement that Jesus' prayers were heard and accepted by God, and this includes the desperate cry to "let this cup pass from" him. The realization of his prayer, his inability to take on the full brunt of the "sins of mankind" came in the form of Simon of Cyrene who relieved Jesus from his cross and carried it half way till Golgotha Matt27:31-33.
This embarrassing change to the divine master plan of salvation forced another author in Jn19:17-18 to have Jesus carrying his own cross, the symbol of mankind's sins, all the way until he reached Golgotha where he was crucified. The cross in fact was not a Christian symbol until the 6th century. Could the whole "Simon of Cyrene" tale be orthodoxy's early response to a story popularised by certain gnostics that it was not Jesus but Simon who had been nailed to the cross?
The predictions Jesus makes as regards his impending death on the other hand are portrayed as willful self-sacrifice. In these versions, we see other inconsistencies. When he tells his disciples, several times and explicitly how he would die, they are taken by complete surprise when the events unfold Matt16,17,20,Mk8,9,10,Lk9,18. Not once are they depicted, following his supposed death, as patiently waiting his predicted resurrection after just 3 days. Neither are they depicted recalling the secret miracle once it unfolds. Even when he appeals to prophecies at the third and last prediction of his death
Lk18:34"The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about".
Clearly, there was a general atmosphere of confusion as to Jesus' disappearance, a confusion which the writers could not deny as it corresponded to the reality they knew about and witnessed. But, because they were writing from the lens that he was crucified, they had to retrospectively paint this confusion as a misunderstanding by the disciples of Jesus' clear predictions. Between Jesus' desire to avoid death, his repeated predictions as to his willful execution, the misunderstandings of the disciples, the story line lacks consistency and seems muddled. We see the same pattern with other major themes retrospectively applied to Jesus, such as his messiahship, again painted as shrouded in obscurity due to the "misunderstanding" of his closest disciples. 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.
Prior to Jesus becoming God, the pagans scoffed at the notion of a human savior dying a cursed death then resurrecting. But the later introduction and spread of the deviant notion of Jesus' divinity made the Christian religion fit more easily into their paradigm.
As the Quran says in the context of Jesus' supposed divine sonship
9:30"they immitate the saying of those who disbelieved before".
Gentiles of the region believed in Mithraism, a religion already spread all throughout Europe and Asia minor centuries prior to the birth of Christianity. Among such beliefs is the death and resurrection of Osiris. Those ritually sharing in that death and resurrection through baptism had their sins remitted. The pagan Roman authorities thus welcomed the new religion seeing it was in congruence with centuries of tradition of dying and/or mutilated savior gods.
As the early church father Justin Martyr conceded
"when we say...Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus".
Paul, who was at most a hellenezied Jew, was explaining Jesus teachings in ways that were unheard of by Jesus' disciples. Paul's letters were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until 60-90 meaning Paul's theories were already established before the unknown writers of the gospels started their works and earlier Christian thought was quickly branded heretical. The church was so weak that within the same generation of the disciples, this Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, whose distinction from mainstream Judaism was only in the belief that Jesus was the messiah, turned upon its heels, abandoned Jewish law, adopted concepts unheard of anywhere in Judaism. There is a reason why the Gospel writers including Paul do not quote the Hebrew Bible but the Greek Septuagint which was hated by the rabbis as it represented the Hellenization of many Jews of the time. The early church thus became irrelevant very early on following Jesus' departure, due to Paul's efforts at supplanting it, dismissing Jewish law as obsolete, reinterpreting core Semitic concepts of God so as to appeal to his pagan audience.
After Jesus' death, Paul's main problem was to convince his Jewish audience that the messiah's death, without accomplishing any of the messianic criteria, instead of being a failure was actually a necessity. He did so by introducing the doctrine of total depravity, making all humans de facto sinners and therefore in need of an atoning sacrifice Rom7:14-25,Rom3:10-11,5:13,8:7-8,1Cor2:14,Eph2:1-3,Titus3:3. His addressees however already believed in the resurrection of the dead, in a just God who forgave the sins of a penitent heart. Nothing was missing in their system that Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection could fix. Paul's redeeming hero was a redundancy to them, so he was obviously met with fierce resistance wherever he preached his unscriptural ideas. This led him to eventually turn to the gentiles among whom he found a much more favourable audience. All this is evident from a cursory reading of the NT and the writings of Paul. That is how Christianity was shaped, using its target audience's sensitivities all the while toning down to the maximum its Jewish heritage.
The sect that "won" and became "orthodoxy" achieved victory by political rather than epistemic means. The dominant branch was but one among many early, conflicting Christian sects, as even reflected in Paul's letters and the desperate struggles he had with them to maintain control of his own congregations. The process was not a difficult one considering Mithraism's tendency to accommodate with other rival cults, throughout its vast geographical spread, before and after Christianity. Christianity of course wasnt that accommodating, doing everything to supplant it due to the disturbing similarities. Many Church Fathers (Justin, Origen, Tertullian) attempted rationalizing Mithraism's similarities with their religion; "satanic imitations" being the standard explanation. The fine details of those similarities are now lost due to the Christian destructions of all "mithraes" they could put their hands on as well as persecute its followers. The task of reconstructing which themes Mithraism absorbed from Christianity so as to embellish its own narrative, versus what actually pre-dated Christianity, becomes a speculative task. But the presence of such vehement defenses by church authorities reveals their major embarrassment, their discomfort at their opponents' accusations of plagiarism. Instead of engaging their critics in debate, these church fathers and other Christian "orthodox" writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries slandered their opponents with exaggerated or even false charges, shunned them or socially intimidated them. This pattern of engaging their critics is in itself revealing of their own insecurities.
