Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 3)

As we continue working our way through the swoon theory presented by
Ahmed Deedat, we summarize the points thus far:

1. Deedat claims that Muslims are the most hygenic, generous, and
ethical people. As I pointed out, this is questionable at best and has
nothing to do with the topic.

2. Deedat claims that there were no witnesses to the crucifixion
because everyone forsook Jesus and fled. And yet the bible shows that
people returned later, including Peter, Mary the Mother of Jesus, and
John the disciple.

3. Deedat claims that Jesus was preparing for Jihad because he didn't
want to die, citing the reference to the swords that Jesus ordered His
disciples to purchase. Yet Jesus explained that it was merely to
fulfill scripture, not for fighting.

We continue this third point further. Deedat writes:

"He had with him Peter (the Rock) and John and James (the sons of
Thunder) together with the other eight, each vying with one another to
go to prison for him; to die for him. 1 These were all Galilians. They
had a reputation of Zealotism, terrorism and repeated insurrections
against the Romans.

Armed with sticks and stones, and the swords, and fortified with the
spirit of self-sacrifice which they had avowed for their Master, he
was sure to knock hells into any Jewish rabble that dare confront him."

Notice how Deedat attempts to amplify the situation by referring to
Peter's name as Rock. Matthew 16:16-18 clearly teaches that the
purpose of this name was to signify that Peter (which actually means
stone - (Petros in the Greek)) is a building material for the church.
He repeats this sentiment in his own epistle 1 Peter 2:5 where he says
"you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house
to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to
God through Jesus Christ." So not only is Peter a stone, but so also
are we, the believers in Christ, and this is for God's building, not
fighting in a Jihad as Deedat would have us believe.

Regarding John and James as the sons of Thunder, again Deedat mentions
this in order to create some shock value, and yet if we look at Jesus'
attitude towards these brothers, we realize that he had no intention
whatsoever to use them for violent purposes. We read in Luke chapter
9:51-56 -

"51 As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus
resolutely set out for Jerusalem. 52 And he sent messengers on ahead,
who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53 but
the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for
Jerusalem. 54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked,
"Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?"
55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them, 56 and they went to another
village."

Here we see the attitude of James and John which was aggressive toward
those who did not welcome them, and what does Jesus do ? Does he
commend them for wanting to call fire from heaven ? Was Jesus'
attitude to start a Jihad with them? No. He rebuked them and they went
on to another village.

It is amazing how Deedat can take a verse out of context to make it
have the appearance of Islamic doctrine, albeit the doctrine of Jihad.
We are not amused.

We read on:

"He had proved himself a skilful strategist and planner, alert and
resourceful. This was not the time to sit and twiddle thumbs; to be a
sitting-duck, cooped up with his disciples in the upper-room! No, not
for him. He leads his platoon, in the middle of the night, to
Gethsemane-Gethsemane ? an olive press ? a courtyard built of stone
walls some 5 miles out of town."

So the people whom Jesus is leading is a platoon now according to
Deedat. Keep in mind again that James and John were rebuked by Jesus
for having an aggressive spirit, and Peter is the one who was rebuked
for telling the Lord "This shall by no means happen to you" i.e. His
crucifixion. In fact so strong was Jesus' rebuke toward Peter that He
called Him Satan, showing that it was totally of Satan that Jesus
would not go to be crucified but rather to be rescued out of that
situation. What does that say about Surah 4:157? What does that say
about Mohammed? And yet now, according to Deedat we are to believe
that Jesus is using these very people to escape crucifixion by way of
Jihad. Amazing. Simply amazing.

Deedat continues:

"On the way, he unburdens to them the seriousness of the situation.
The implications and the explosive nature of the coup that failed. Now
he must bear the wrath of the powers that be. The price of failure!

You do not have to be a military genius to appreciate that, Jesus
(pbuh) deploys his forces as a master tactician, in a manner that
would bring credit to any Officer out of "Sandhurst"1. He places eight
of the eleven disciples at the entrance to the courtyard, commanding
them:

"... Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder."
"

So now, for for some apparent reason, Jesus decides not to go ahead
with his Jihad after all. Is it because perhaps He only just figured
out that He only has 11 people and 2 swords with Him? Deedat knows
that the Jihad position fails and tries to use this as an exit
strategy to somehow save face. If Jesus had truly wanted to begin a
Jihad, He could have sent legions of angels at a simple command:

Matthew 26:53
"Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at
my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

Were Ahmed Deedat still alive I would have told him, "Sir, with all
due respect, if you were to talk to Jesus about starting a Jihad with
sword, sticks and stones as you claim, He would say this very word to
you."

I believe that the same kind of aggressiveness that we see in James
and John, who asked the Lord to call fire down from heaven upon those
who did not welcome them, is the same spirit of aggressiveness we see
in the suggestions of violence that Deedat purported.

I will continue in the next post addressing the point of Jesus praying
to the in Gethsemane to His Father, asking Him to remove the cup from
Him.