Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 2)

Let us continue examining the matter of the crucifixion of Jesus
Christ in light of the theories perpetuated by Muslim according to
Surah 4:157 which reads:

"And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of
Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they
crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ
therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge
respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not
for sure."

Firstly, we shall turn to the swoon theory, as it was popularized by
Ahmed Deedat and see if it fits as a plausible alternative. There are
a lot of points to cover here so please bear with me as I attempt to
address them one by one. I want to cover this theory first because it
has gained increasing popularity among muslims, especially among those
such as Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally, and Zakir Naik. These are big names
and have a large loyal following among Muslims.

I quote from Deedat's popular work, "Crucifixion or Crucifiction" :

"In a nutshell. No CrucifixionI ? No Christianity! This is the
experience of us Muslims, in this ocean of Christianity, which is
South Africa. A thousand sects and denominations of Christianity are
vying with one another to redeem the "heathen" (as they say) from
hell-fire. However, in this battle no Christian priest, parson or
predikant, or hot-gospeller, local or imported, will ever endeavour to
teach the Muslim something about hygiene; for we Muslims can claim to be the most hygienic people (I am talking about personal hygiene). Nor do they endeavour to teach us about hospitality; for we are the most hospitable of people. Nor about
ethics or morality; for we are the most moral people (as a whole) i.e.
we don't drink, we don't gamble, we don?t date, court or dance; we
pray 5 times a day, we fast for one whole month during the Muslim Holy
month of Ramadaan; and we take pleasure in being a charitable people.
Despite any of our shortcomings, we venture to suggest that there is
not another group of people that can "show a candle" to us in
brotherhood, in piety or in sobriety. "

From the outset, Deedat attempts to throw a red herring by bringing
up Hygene. What relevance does this have to the topic at hand ? We are
not told. But we can be sure that he is mentioning this in order to
somehow discredit the Christian position by attacking his character,
implicitly as being dirty. Add to this the other moral issues he
brings up such as fasting, charity, alcohol, etc.

One could be tempted to address each of these points in great detail
one by one, such as the claim from Mohammed that water is clean, even
if the dead corpse of a donkey or menstrual clothes are found there
(Sunan Abu Dawud) would cast great doubt on the notion that Muslims
are the most hygenic, but let us leave that for another discussion.
Back to Deedat's claims on the crucifixion:

"I dare humbly claim that such unattested documents would be thrown
out of hand, in any Court-of-Law, in any civilised country, in just
two minutes. Furthermore, one of the alleged witnesses, St. Mark,
tells us that at the most critical juncture in the life of Jesus ?
"All his disciples forsook him and fled"- (Mark 14:50). Please ask your Christian friend, "Does "all" mean all in your language, you Englishman?" (This applies
to the North American as well) And he will no doubt say ? "Yes!";
"Does "almal" mean almal in your language, you Afrikaner?" And no
doubt he will say ? "ja!" (pronounced Yaa); "And does "bonke" mean
bonke in your language, you Zulu?" And he will say ? "Ahe!" This is
true of every language. Why not memorise this verse from the Bible in
your own dialect? Even in some additional languages?"

The point Deedat is trying to make is that Jesus' disciples ran away
from Jesus and therefore there were no eye-witnesses.

Yet this same book shows that there WERE witnesses:

- Simon from Cyrene (Mark 15:21)
- The crowd (Mark 15:29)
- Chief Priests and Elders (Mark 15:30)
- Women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and
Salome (Mark 15:40)

Most importantly, PETER actually returned:

"Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the
high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the
fire." - Mark 14:54

These verses are all from the Gospel of Mark, the very same book that
Deedat quotes from to try to prove that there were no eye-witnesses.
He cannot pick and choose which verses he will allow.

Let us read from John 19:24-27 - "24 So this is what the soldiers did.
25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary
the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing
nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son,"
27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this
disciple took her into his home."

Here we see that Mary, her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary
Magdalene were there. Also the disciple whom Jesus loved, which is a
reference to John. Were there witnesses to the crucifixion ? Deedat
says no. The Bible says yes.

From the outset, the Muslim position is very much in question. You
have multiple witnesses and multiple attestation to the fact that
there were many witnesses to the crucifixion. On this basis alone,
Mohammed's testimony is thrown out, as he appears some 600 years later
with historical basis for Surah 4:157. However, we have barely begun
to touch upon the swoon theory itself, so let us press on and attempt
to interact with more meaningful arguments.

After wading past numerous out of context quotations and
misappropriations of the gospel accounts, I finally came to a point of
significance. That is, that Jesus Christ was not willing to die. We
read:

"Jesus will not be a sitting-duck for a clandestine arrest by the
Jews. He prepares his disciples for the impending showdown.

Discreetly, so as not to frighten his disciples, he introduces the
subject of defence. Gently he begins:

"When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye
anything?" And they said, "Nothing" Then said he unto them, "But now,
he that hath no purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag; and he
that hath no SWORD, let him sell his garment and buy one!" - Luke
22:35-36

Here Deedat attempts to prove that Jesus is trying to avoid being
captured and killed by telling his disciples to buy swords. Does this
verse prove that Jesus was unwilling to be crucified? If we read the
very next verse (38), we shall see Jesus Himself explain the purpose
of the swords: (22:37) "For I tell you that this which is written must
be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS '; for
that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." Was the purpose so that
Jesus would attack the authorities? No. Was it even to defend himself?
No. The purpose was simply to fulfill the scripture which said that He
would be numbered with transgressors. In fact, if Jesus' reason was to
attack or even to defend against his opposers, then the verse after
that would not make sense. It reads:

22:38 They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to
them, "It is enough." Would two swords enough to defend against Jesus'
opposers ? Surely not! Nor would it be enough to even begin to launch
a meaningful attack. Were Jesus so concerned about His safety, he
would have told them, "Get more. Get as many as you can." The Muslim
interpretation, while entertaining and controversial on a superficial
level, does no justice to the plain reading of the verses in context.

Deedat continues:

"This is a preparation for Jihaad, a Holy War ? Jews against Jews!
Why! Why this somersault? Did he not advise them to "turn the other
cheek"; "to forgive seventy times seven" (70 x 7 = 490)? Did he not
send his chosen Twelve with the advice:

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye,
therefore, as wise as serpents, (?) and as harmless as doves." -
Matthew 10:16"

Unfortunately for Deedat, he can't seem to get out of the Islamic mode
of Jihad. Notice how he now brings a verse from a different book, and
completely different context again. He tries to use this verse as if
it is a continuation of Luke 22:38.

Despite the lack of scholarly methodology in his use of scripture, we
shall address the use of this verse as well in its context.

Let us go to the beginning of this chapter (Matthew 10) and follow the
verses one by one leading up to verse 16 which Mr Deedat quoted, and
see if it is talking about Jihad:

1 - Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over
unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease
and every kind of sickness.

2 - Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon,
who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of
Zebedee, and John his brother;

3 - Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector;
James the son of Alphaeus , and Thaddaeus ;

4 - Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him.

5 - These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in
the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans;

6 - but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7 - "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

8 - "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out
demons. Freely you received, freely give.

9 - "Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts,

10 - or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a
staff; for the worker is worthy of his support.

11 - "And whatever * city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy
in it, and stay at his house until you leave that city.

12 - "As you enter the house, give it your greeting.

13 - "If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if
it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace.

14 - "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out
of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.

15 - "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of
Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

16 - "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be
shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.

Does anything here sound like Jesus is preparing his disciples for
Jihad? Absolutely not. He is simply teaching them how to carry out
their service of PREACHING,HEALING, CLEANSING, CASTING OUT DEMONS, AND
BLESSING people.

Interestingly, we note from the very first verse of this chapter, that
this is the point at which the disciples were appointed, the parallel
chapter in Luke is also chapter 10, which is 12 chapters before the
verses about the swords. If Jesus was really preparing for a Jihad,
and only manages to come up with 2
swords after 12 chapters, then he's not doing a very good job. Perhaps
if Mr. Deedat showed respect for the text of scripture, he would
concede that such a notion is absurd. The purpose of the swords was
for the fulfillment of scripture as being counted among the
transgressors. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The fact that Jesus warned his disciples that they would be sent as
sheep among wolves, does not mean that they would be preparing for a
Jihad, as Mr. Deedat suggests, but that they would simply meet
opposition in their preaching and service. In fact, verse 16, the very
verse that Mr. Deedat quotes from tells them to be innocent as doves.
Some translations render it as "gentle" as doves.

Let us see what the verses following verse 16 say:

17 "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local
councils and flog you in their synagogues.

18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as
witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.

19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to
say it. At that time you will be given what to say,

20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father
speaking through you.

21 "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child;
children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.

22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the
end will be saved.

These verses certainly seem to speak of violence, especially verse 17
and 21, however, are the disciples commanded to fight in these verses?
The closest possible thing to such a command are the first few words
in verse 17 "Be on your guard against men" That's it. That's all there
is. And yet they are not told to fight, just simply to be on guard. We
note further that they are told that they will be arrested and
flogged. Jesus doesn't tell them to fight back, but rather that this
is what is going to happen. It is a certainty. Yet in the midst of
this He comforts them saying in verse 19 and 20 not to worry for they
will be given the right words by the Spirit of the Father.

Now the Muslim may interject and say, but look at verse 21 - it says
that Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child.
Yes. And children will rebel against their parents and have them put
to death. Yes. But it says nothing about the followers of Jesus doing
the killing. Obviously it will be those who oppose Jesus and His
followers who will carry this out, those same ones mentioned in verse
17. Thus, it is abundantly clear that there is no Jihad being spoken
of here. We see no battle plan from Jesus. We see no command to fight
from Jesus. On the contrary He comforts them concerning the Spirit of
the Father who will be with them in the midst of their suffering.

I will continue in the next post to examine the swoon theory further
and expose why it has no credibility whatsoever.

May the Lord have all the Glory.

God bless you all,
Oliver (aka Royal Son)