Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 9)

In part eight, we again addressed the allegations of Deedat, who attempts to paint a violent, bloodthirsty picture of Jesus Christ. We saw that Deedat gave verses out of context, ignoring the nature of the parables given and the times they were referring to. We saw that Jesus taught his disciples that they would face martyrdom, which indeed they did. Keep in mind, Deedat has been speaking at length now on just about anything but the crucifixion itself.

Having exhausted his arguments against the New Testament, Ahmed Deedat now turns his attention to the Old Testament. Let us read what Deedat has to say.

“In view of these solemn pronouncements and his repeated vitriolic outbursts against the learned men of his time, if the sword of Peter had prevailed, we would have witnessed a massacre without compunction, equal to that of his ancestor Joshua (meaning Jehova — Saviour)2 who utterly destroyed all that was in Jericho:
"both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the SWORD." (HOLY BIBLE) Joshua 6:21”
According to Deedat, the Jihad Jesus was going to fight would have been equal to that of Joshua. In other words, Jesus and his followers would have slaughtered the whole city, with two swords? Jesus couldn’t overcome a band of men with Judas, and yet he plans to wipe out an entire city? Deedat says, “if only Peter’s sword had prevailed.” But wasn’t Jesus the one who said “Do you not think I can summon more than twelve legions of angels at my command?” The more Deedat tries to build up his fanciful story, the more it falls apart.

Deedat continues:

“And the Gospel writers would not have been slow in putting words into the mouth of Jesus, word for word, as fulfilment of prophecies VATICINIUM EX EVENTU (prophecies after the event) as recorded3 of his "father" (?) David.
1. Means to KILL. Breaking the commandment — "Thou shalt not kill. — (Exodus 20:13)

2. Joshua: a type of Christ, says C.I. Scofield, D.D. in his Bible commentary.
3. His "father's" record: 'The conquered Ammonites he treated with even greater ferocity, tearing and hewing some of them in pieces with harrows, axes, and saws; and roasting others in brick-kilns". Maitlands comment on 2 Samuels Chs. 8 to 12 in "Jewish Literature and Modern Education" - (page 21)”

Here Deedat is accusing Joshua of breaking the law. In his discussion of the gospel accounts, he is accusing Jesus of wanting to do the same. Specifically, we are talking about the commandment “Thou shalt not murder” (Exodus 20:13).

The law is forbidding the sin of murder. However, clearly the law taught that those who violated the law were to be put to death. To kill does not automatically mean to murder. In fact many countries today have an equivalent punishment for serious violation of the law, i.e. the death penalty, which is not murder. Since God as the author of life and taker of life, as well as the law giver, has every right to punish justly by death, those who commit grave sin, we cannot call God a murderer. Indeed we know that the Qur’an teaches killing:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.- Surah 9:5 (YUSUF ALI)

And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. – Surah 2:191 (YUSUF ALI)

And yet would the Muslim accept that these verses advocate murder? Well, some within the extremist sects such as Wahabi, but generally, Muslims would say that these verses do not teach that killing is equated with murder and that murder is permissible in Islam.

Is Joshua a type of Christ? Yes. Joshua defeated God’s enemies in the Old Testament by the sword. Jesus defeated Satan upon the cross. Jesus also subdued His religious opponents by the word of God. Never once in the New Testament do we see Jesus using violence of any kind let alone teach it as an acceptable practice.

As for the Ammonites in 2 Samuel chapters 8 -12, they were people who worshipped the false deity Molech, through child sacrifices with fire. Incidentally this is the same God worshipped by the Canaanites. God had every right to judge the Canaanites and Ammonites for their wicked sins, whether directly or indirectly through His people.

The next segment from Deedat is basically a recap of his previous arguments which have already been thoroughly refuted:

“FAILURE, AND TRIAL
The march on Jerusalem had fizzled out. The sabre-rattling in the Garden had proved abortive. As there is a reward for success, likewise there is a price for failure. The odds are heavy! Hence the trial, the tribulation, the turmoil and the sweat and blood.
With heavy hands, the Roman soldiers dragged Jesus (pbuh) from Gethsemane to Annas, and from Annas to Caiphas the High Priest, and on to the Sanhedrin as directed by the Jews, for trial and execution.
Whilst Jesus was being manhandled and buffeted towards his doom, where were his heroes who were beating their breasts with the war-cry: "Master, we are prepared to die for you. Master, we are prepared to go to prison for you!" ? St. Mark, the first of the Gospel writers, un-ashamedly and without any apology reveals:
"AND THEY ALL FORSOOK HIM, AND FLED." (HOLY BIBLE) Mark 14:50
The authors of the 27 books of the New Testament could not find a similar dastardly desertion in the Jewish Bible1 to fulfill prophecy. If there was, they would have been quick to exploit it.“
Deedat expresses further hatred towards Christians:

“In a debate between Islam and Christianity, on SABC T.V. one of the participants, claiming to be "reborn", gloated over the word DESERTION. He articulated the word with such relish —D-E-S-E-R-T-I-O-N — which must have left a taste of triumph in the mouth of the cultists, instead of the bitterness of shame and defeat. The Bible-thumpers have developed a new sickness of glamorising despicability and ignominy. Everyone, male or female, of these cultists, will not fail to relate their peccadillos, their adulteries and bestialities, their drinkings and druggings. It appears that one must have been part of the dregs of humanity to become a candidate for this "born again" cult. “
Notice how he associates Christians with the worst kind of evil. It reminds me of some comforting words in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 5:

11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Finally, we come to the trials of Jesus. We are now in Chapter 6, page 18 of Deedat’s work “Crucifixion or Crucifiction”. We have seen a lot of words, a lot of claims, a lot of insults, but very little substance. Deedat writes:

GONE IN HIS HOUR OF NEED
In the history of the world, there is no parallel of such a contemptible betrayal. From the beginning to the end, Jesus (pbuh) received the most shabby response from his chosen ones. Professor Momerie succinctly sums up the "Disciples" and their response to the Master:
"HIS IMMEDIATE DISCIPLES WERE ALWAYS MISUNDERSTANDING HIM AND HIS WORKS. WANTING HIM TO DECLARE HIMSELF KING OF THE JEWS: WANTING HIM TO CALL DOWN FIRE FROM HEAVEN, WANTING TO SIT ON HIS RIGHT HAND AND ON HIS LEFT HAND IN HIS KINGDOM; WANTING HIM TO SHOW THEM THE FATHER, TO MAKE GOD VISIBLE TO THEIR BODILY EYES: WANTING HIM TO DO, AND WANTING TO DO THEMSELVES, ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH HIS GREAT PLAN. THIS WAS HOW THEY TREATED HIM UNTIL THE END. AND WHEN THAT CAME, THEY ALL FORSOOK HIM. AND FLED."

I see nothing here to argue with. I would agree that the disciples indeed constantly misunderstood that ways of Jesus and went against His ways. Notice the words quoted by Deedat: “anything and everything that was incompatible with His great plan.” What was this great plan? It was to become the Saviour, providing salvation through His death upon the cross.

Wanting to add insult to injury, Deedat attempts to show how superior Mohammed was to Jesus:

If Muhummed (pbuh) was the "Most Influential Man in History" - Michael M. Hart;
If Muhummed (pbuh) was the "Most Successful of all Religious Personalties" - Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th Ed;
If Muhummed (pbuh) was the "Greatest Leader of all Times" - Jules Masserman in the "TIME" Magazine;
If Muhummed (pbuh) was the "Greatest Man that ever Lived" - Lamartine in his "History of the Turks";
THEN IT CAN BE CLAIMED WITH JUSTIFICATION THAT Jesus Christ (pbuh) was the "Most unfortunate of all of God’s Messengers".
Despite the fact that Mohammed’s success has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, we briefly address each claim:

Most influential? Jesus Christ is God. Considering He created the entire universe, came in the flesh, has 66 Divine books which speak uniquely and extensively about Him, changed the world calendar, influenced world culture, influenced world politics, and has the largest number of followers in the world today, I would say He completely unequivocally outshines Mohammed.

Most successful? Mohammed is dead in his grave awaiting judgement. Jesus is alive, enthroned in heaven with all glory, having the name which is above any name and will return to judge all men INCLUDING Mohammed.

Greatest Leader?: Mohammed spread Islam by the sword. Jesus spread His message by peace and love.

Greatest Man? Jesus Christ was Sinless. Mohammed had to repent more than 70 times a day for His sins. Jesus died for sinners to save them. Mohammed killed those who opposed Him.

There is no comparison between Jesus Christ and Mohammed.

Deedat writes:

“The disciples of Jesus always misunderstood him. His nation, the Jews, always misrepresented his utterances, AND his so-called followers are always misinterpreting his teachings, even to this day. If Jesus were a Japanese instead of being a Jew, he would most assuredly have committed honourable "HARA-KIRI" (suicide) rather than endure the fickleness and infidelity of his followers.”

It is most unusual indeed that Ahmed Deedat claims that Jesus would “most assuredly” have committed suicide rather than endure the fickleness and infidelity of His followers. I find such a statement to be quite priceless. It seems that Deedat considers suicide to be most honourable simply for being rejected, and yet cannot accept Jesus being crucified willingly for the awesome purpose of redeeming man back to God. Truly remarkable.

In the next post, we will get into the trial itself. It has taken us a long time to get there, and I appreciate everyone who is following this through with me. I hope that this series is opening your eyes to see the kind of apologist Ahmed Deedat was. With no intended disrespect for the dead, I would say that his work can be dismissed by anyone that has a reasonable level of discernment.