Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 4)

We continue examining the Swoon Theory proposed by Ahmed Deedat in his
work "Crucifixion or Crucifiction". In the previous post, we saw that
Mr. Deedat claimed that Jesus was preparing a Jihad to escape from the
cross. As we noted:

Jesus told the disciples to sell their cloaks to buy a sword. When the
Disciples said they had two swords, Jesus said that was enough. Enough
for what ? Enough to fulfill scripture that he would be counted among
the transgressors. Certainly 11 disciples and 2 swords does not sound
like a Jihad. What's more, Deedat says that Jesus' plan failed and
thus he told His disciples to put down the swords, and yet we saw that
if Jesus truly wanted to mount a Jihad, He had legions of angels at
His disposal, He could have summoned the thousands of other followers
that He had, and He would not have stopped at a meager 2 swords. The
Jihad argument fails on every level.

So now we move on to discuss Jesus' prayer to the Father in
Gethsemane. It is interesting that Deedat tries to use this very
chapter of Matthew when in it Christ teaches:

1. That He would be crucified (Matthew 26:2)
2. That His blood would be shed for the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28)
3. That He would be buried (Matthew 26:12)
4. That He would rise again (Matthew 26:32)
5. That His death and resurrection fulfills Scripture (Matthew 26:31-32)
6. The He is the Son of God, and Judge of the World (Matthew 26:63-64)
7. That the gospel was to be preached to the whole world (Matthew 26:13)

Those are seven points that totally devastate the entire case for
Islam. Ahmed Deedat may have thought he was smart by trying to twist
verses from the bible to prove his case, yet the very scripture he
attempts to utilize, completely refutes His position.

Deedat writes:

". . . and began to be sorrowful and very depressed. Then saith he
unto them, ?my soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death' . . ."
"And he went a little further, and fell on his face (Exactly as the
Muslim does in Salaat), and prayed, saying, "O my Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but
as thou wilt." (This is the quality of a good Muslim who submits his
will to the will of God). (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 26: 37-39

We briefly make note of Deedat's mention of the way Jesus prostrated
Himself "exactly as the Muslim does in Salaat". Prayer is not
restricted to the posture of prostration, but it is one of many ways
one can pray. To prove this, the reader may see Psalms 123:1, John
11:41-42, John 17:1, Mark 6:41, and Mark 11:25.

Deedat says that Jesus' prayer is the mark of a good muslim who
submits His will to the will of God. Apart from calling Jesus a
muslim, we find nothing that we need to argue with here, for we too
believe that Jesus submitted to the will of the Father (John 4:34).
The reason why Deedat brings this up is to show that Jesus didn't want
to go to the cross, hence the reason to try to escape it, e.g. through
praying this prayer.

And yet, the very verses cited by Jesus show something emphatically
clear : That He did not want to do ANYTHING outside of the Father's
will. Contrast this with Peter's statement that Jesus should by no
means go to the cross, Peter had no consideration for what the
Father's will was. Jesus continually sought the Father's will. Mr.
Deedat is expecting Jesus to joyfully welcome the cross of His own
will, joyfully welcome the flogging, the scourging, the mocking, the
humiliating death upon the cross.

The fact that Jesus did not of His own will welcome such things, shows
that He had a human nature and experienced suffering and anguish as we
do. And yet, the beauty of this is that in spite of His genuine will,
He submitted to the will of the Father. We note therefore that the
focal point of Christ's living, was not the cross, but the will of the
Father. When He saw that the cross was of the Father's will, He was
fully set on carrying it out as John 18:11 says "So Jesus said to
Peter, "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has
given Me, shall I not drink it?"

We see very clearly, as has been the consistent testimony of Jesus,
that His intent focus was upon doing the very will of the Father, and
that focus never shifted, before His prayer in Gethsemane, during His
prayer in Gethsemane, or after His prayer in Gethsemane. Again, we see
the contrast between Peter and Jesus, where Peter is intent on
rescuing Jesus, because of his own will, but Jesus is intent on
drinking the cup of wrath because it is the Father's will.

Now Deedat takes a detour, let's try to follow him:

"MESSIAH SOBS FOR HIS PEOPLE
Why all this bewailing and lamentation? Is he crying to save his skin?
It would be highly cynical on his part to do that! Did he not advise
others:
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out . . . And if thy right
hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee; for it is
profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not
that thy whole body should be cast into hell." (HOLY BIBLE) Matthew
5:29-30
We would be doing Jesus a grave injustice if we thought that he was
crying like a woman to save his body from physical harm. He was crying
for his people ? the Jews. They held a queer logic, that if they
succeeded in killing any would-be Messiah (Christ), it would be a sure
proof of his imposture. For God Almighty will never allow His truly
"anointed one" (Christ) 1 to be killed ? (Deuteronomy 18:20). Hence
the insistence of the Jews as a people, as a whole, in rejecting
Jesus, the son of Mary, as their promised Messiah ? "The eternal
rejection." "

Deedat is trying to assert that Christ's sorrow in Matthew chapter 26
is for the same reason as His sorrow in Matthew chapter 5. Instead of
actually dealing with the context of Matthew chapter 26, he has to
skip back 19 chapters to support his position! This is what Mr. Deedat
has to do, because he CANNOT allow scripture to speak for itself.
Verses 37 and 38 of Matthew 26, talking about Jesus being sorrowful
are explained by verse 39, wherein Jesus asks the Father for the cup
to pass from Him, i.e. the suffering of crucifixion. It is not because
He is weeping for Jerusalem. It would make absolutely no sense if we
were to interpret the cup now to mean the rejection of Jerusalem. Mr.
Deedat thinks that being grieved because of facing certain death is
"crying like a woman" as he puts it, and yet a more reasonable
interpretation is that Jesus is crying sweat drops of blood because
people in Jerusalem are rejecting Him as a Messiah. This is the
complete stretching and twisting of scripture upon Mr. Deedat's part.
The simple plain reading of the text shows that Jesus was experiencing
anguish in the face of certain death. We do not see Jesus in sweat
drops of blood in Matthew Chapter 5 as we do in chapter 26. Context is
king.

Now we notice that the verses plucked from Matthew 5:29-30 are again
of a completely different context. We read the verses again:

"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out . . . And if thy right
hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee; for it is
profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not
that thy whole body should be cast into hell." - Matthew 5:29-30.
These verses are talking about the Kingdom law, which expounds and
raises the bar upon the law of the Old Testament. In particular, the
reference to the eye being plucked off or the hand being cut off, it
is referring to the matter of adultery, which Jesus says can be done
simply by looking lustfully upon another woman. Of course, we are not
literally to do these things but it is a principle whereby we ought to
be very strict by not giving any occasion for the flesh to indulge its
desires. What we have here is yet another example of Ahmed Deedat
using a scattergun approach by taking a bunch of completely unrelated
verses and stringing them together in the hope that the bewildered
Christian will have no response. Fortunately, by simply reading verses
in their context we know what their application is.

In the same comments, He brought up Deuteronomy 18:20 which reads:
"20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not
commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other
gods, must be put to death." Deedat says "For God Almighty will never
allow His truly "anointed one" (Christ) 1 to be killed". Deedat is
attempting to make the verse say more than it does. The verse never
says that God will not allow a true Messiah to be killed. It is merely
saying that a false prophet ought to be put to death according to law.
If Deedat really wants to believe that God wouldn't allow true
prophets to be killed, then he would have to reject Mohammed as being
a false prophet, because he was poisoned by a Jew as we read in Bukhari:

"Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to
the Prophets as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet ordered, "Let all
the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me." The Jews were
collected and the Prophet said (to them), "I am going to ask you a
question. Will you tell the truth?" They said, "Yes." The Prophet
asked, "Who is your father?" They replied, "So-and-so." He said, "You
have told a lie; your father is so-and-so." They said, "You are
right." He said, "Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about
something?" They replied, "Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim; and if we should tell
a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father."
On that he asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They said,
"We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that
you will replace us." The Prophet said, "You may be cursed and
humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it." Then he
asked, "Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?" They
said, "Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim." He asked, "Have you poisoned this sheep?"
They said, "Yes." He asked, "What made you do so?" They said, "We
wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of
you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would NOT HARM YOU."
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 394)

And again, specifically leading to his death:

Ibn 'Abbas replied, "That indicated the death of Allah's Apostle which
Allah informed him of." 'Umar said, "I do not understand of it except
what you understand." Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in
which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by
the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is
being cut from that poison." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59,
Number 713)

In the course of presenting his case against the crucifixion of Jesus
Christ, Ahmed Deedat has demonstrated that he must use red herrings,
out of context quotations, read thoughts into the text completely
foreign to the derived meaning of the text, and apply standards to
Jesus that would disqualify his own beloved prophet Mohammed.

I shall continue Lord willing and demonstrate further why the swoon
theory is completely false and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a
true and historical event.