‘Is Jesus God 02: The Synoptic Picture’ a reply to Nabeel Qureshi
An open letter to Nabeel concerning his recent video ‘Is Jesus God 02: The Synoptic Picture’ on Creed 2:6
Hi Nabeel
I’ve just listened to your video lecture on Jesus’ alleged deity in the synoptic gospels. I wonder if you have considered the following points:
1) Concerning your citation of Mark 1:1 ‘…the Son of God’. Did you know that some scholars consider that this phrase was added to the original gospel of Mark as the words are lacking in several important early manuscripts (see for example the oldest complete NT manuscript the Codex Sinaiticus)? Scholarly debate continues but clearly it is not certain that Mark included these words in his original gospel.
2) ‘The holy one of God’ might not be a divine title as the ‘holy one’ is ‘of’ God, therefore distinct from God. Aaron was called the same: ‘When men in the camp were jealous of Moses and Aaron, the holy one of the LORD’ (Psalm 106:16). That type of language is also used for angels and Moses in Jewish apocryphal literature.
3) Concerning Jesus as ‘the Son of God’. Did you know that this title is not unique to Jesus in the NT?
The genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3 states: ‘…the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.’ (On the significance of ‘the son of God’ title see my article Mind the Gap! Some recent reflections on Christology)
4) Concerning Jesus forgiving sins in the synoptic gospels. Were you aware of the reaction of the pious crowds?
‘But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.’ (Matthew 9)
And other men besides Jesus were given such authority, see John 20:23 ‘If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’. Finally, the Aramaic Prayer of Nabonidus in the Dead Sea scrolls attests to another Jewish healer/exorcist who forgave sins (4Q242).
5) Jesus did extraordinary nature miracles, but does this mean he was God? Did not Moses part the Red Sea for the people of Israel to pass through? Did not various OT prophets raise the dead, multiply food and heal miraculously?
According to Acts 2:22, Peter declared “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.’
This accords perfectly with the Quran which teaches that Jesus, a man, did these things only by the permission of God.
***
One last point. The dominant trend in the synoptic gospels is the reluctance of Jesus to claim to be God. In fact Jesus seems to avoid making claims of even lower status than that.
And he asked them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’
Peter answered him, ‘You are the Christ’. And he charged them to tell no one about him
(Mark 8.29-30).
This fits with Jesus’ acceptance of Jewish monotheism. The confession that the Lord is one (the central affirmation of Judaism) is correctly stated to be the ‘first commandment’ by Jesus (Mark 12:29) and Jesus explicitly denies that he is ‘good’ since that is an attribute that belongs to God alone:
… a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
(Mark 10: 17-18)
This only makes sense if Jesus is not ’claiming to be God’.
Jesus, according to Mark, did not possess a morally perfect character. For not only did Jesus ask ‘Why do you call me good?’ but also did things that would be counted as far from perfect if done by anyone else:
i) he treated his family with disdain (Mark 3:31-5)
ii) and said ‘If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters…he cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:26)
iii) he used violence in the Jerusalem temple (Matt 21:12)
iv) he evinced what would today be regarded as a racist attitude to a Gentile woman who begged him to cure her daughter, saying ‘Let the children [ie the Israelites] first be fed, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs’ (Mark 7:27)
v) he cursed a fig tree and made it wither simply because it had no fruit when he was hungry.
There are other points I could make in response to your other arguments, but that is enough for now
regards
Paul Williams
bloggingtheology.wordpress.com
“Did not Moses part the Red Sea for the people of Israel to pass through? Did not various OT prophets raise the dead, multiply food and heal miraculously?”
Are you serious? How can anyone claim this to be true?
Yes its all true, read the Old Testament!
Whose power performed the miracles then?
Hi Paul,
Christians admit that Codex Siniaticus does not contain “the Son of God” ( υιου θεου ). It appears that the first corrector of the manuscript wrote inserted it back in, because he realized the copyist made a mistake. Do you know why? Because of the similar endings of ou of several words in a row and the issue of writing the nomina sacra (the sacred name) the way they did in abbreviated form with a line over the top of it. They abbreviated the sacred names with first and last letters with a line over it. Since Evangeliou – ευαγγελιου (Gospel) also ended in ou, the copyist made an eye mistake of thinking he wrote it all down. Someone later came back and corrected it, according to Philip Comfort, “before it left the Scriptorium.” ( p. 92, The New Testament Text and Translation Commentary.) The copyist wrote in capital Greek letters (Uncials) and they were all crammed together with no spaces between them.
_________
Ιυχρυυυθυ
Ιυ = Ιησου = Jesus
Xpu = χριστου = Christou / Christ
Uu = υιου = Son
Θυ = θεου = God
However, the teaching that Jesus is the Son of God is all through the Gospel according to Mark:
Mark 1:11
Mark 1:24
Mark 3:11
Mark 5:7
Mark 9:7
Mark 14:61-64
Mark 15:39
So, it is more likely that originally it had the “Son of God” in verse 1, based on this evidence. So, your point one is very weak.
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
(Mark 10: 17-18)
This only makes sense if Jesus is not ’claiming to be God’.
No. Jesus is actually claiming to be God, because He says that only God is good and by the man calling Him “good”, the man recognizes Jesus as truly good. And if He is truly good; then He is also God, God in the flesh; the eternal Son of God; God the Son; the Word of God; the Kalimat’allah.
Jesus, according to Mark, did not possess a morally perfect character. For not only did Jesus ask ‘Why do you call me good?’ but also did things that would be counted as far from perfect if done by anyone else:
i) he treated his family with disdain (Mark 3:31-5)
No, it is just that spiritual brotherhood is higher than physical brotherhood and family relations. Islam says some similar things.
iii) he used violence in the Jerusalem temple (Matt 21:12)
Sometimes violence is righteous; even Islam and the Qur’an admits that. Judgment on sin is holy and righteous violence. The violence of executing a murderer is a righteous violence.
iv) he evinced what would today be regarded as a racist attitude to a Gentile woman who begged him to cure her daughter, saying ‘Let the children [ie the Israelites] first be fed, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs’ (Mark 7:27)
No. Jesus is testing the disciples to see it if they had learned the lesson of true internal cleansing. See Mark 7:20-23. Racial hatred comes from pride – Jesus lists that as an internal sin that defiles someone. Acts chapters 10-11 teaches the same thing. Food and culture go together. Part of loving another culture is eating a meal with them. Jesus declared all foods clean. Mark 11:19; see details in Acts chapters 10-11 also.
v) he cursed a fig tree and made it wither simply because it had no fruit when he was hungry.
It is sad that you don’t read the surrounding context and see the meaning of this object lesson; a tree that had only outward green leaves but no fruit means it has no real repentance. It was a symbol of the Pharisees and hypocritical leaders of Israel who had no fruit, no repentance. (Matthew 3:1-8; Matthew 21:43-45; Mark chapter 11 all the way to 12:1-12. You have to read all of Mark chapter 11 and 12 and Matthew 21 to see it and the quote of Mark 11:17 from Isaiah 56:7 and see Isaiah 56:1-7 also.
madmanna said, on November 10, 2011 at 1:58 pm (Edit)
Whose power performed the miracles then?
God’s.
read: Acts 2:22, Peter declared “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.’
apologeticsandagape
you misunderstand my point. Nabeel in his video (have you watched it yet?) asserted that Mark 1:1 states that Jesus was ‘the son of God’. As a matter of fact it is far from certain that the original gospel (which is not extant) contains these words. The New American Bible puts the words in brackets thus: [the Son of God] and comments ‘some important manuscripts here omit the Son of God’.
I am encouraging Nabeel to move beyond the simplicities of a fundamentalist understanding of scripture and to adopt a scholarly approach. Surely you cannot be objecting to that?
btw if you are going to copy another persons work it is traditional to give them the credit. In this case you have evidently copied and pasted from
James Swan
apologeticsandagape don’t forget that this is an open letter to Nabeel, first and formost.
You jump to too many conclusions. Firstly, Jesus as a humble Jew recognizes that true perfection is an attribute of God – not of any mortal. The man gets the point too and stops calling Jesus ‘good’ (see verse 20). If jesus wanted the man to acknowledge him as God he could simply have said so: ‘you call me good and you are right to say so for I am God’. Jesus said no such thing of course.
—————————————-
Read whole story about his family in Mark 3. His family thought he was out of his mind (verse 21), and they went out to restrain him. When they arrived to restrain him they stood outside and sent someone in to get him out. Jesus refused to move and declared that his real family were those who do the will of God (verse 25). Not a great way to treat one’s family.
It is thus not unreasonable to see this as an example of imperfect behaviour in light of the commandment to honour one’s father and mother.
—————————————
The point here is that Jesus did commit an act of violence which many would see exhibiting an imperfect character: violence against the people in the temple and overthrowing their tables.
—————————————–
I’m afraid you can’t let Mark’s portrayal of Jesus off the hook so easily. By todays standards Jesus’ behaviour was quite unacceptable, in fact racist.
To recap the story: Jesus just ignored the gentile woman’s plea at first (see Matt 15:23) then he turned to her and said ‘I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel’ i.e. he has no business helping non-Jews, but she begged him to help her (verse 25). Jesus then called her a ‘dog‘ the common abusive term used of non-Jews by Jews in that day. But Jesus eventually relented when she gave a witty reply and quite exceptionally healed her daughter.
Hi Paul,
No; I understood your point about Mark 1:1 and yes, I have watched Nabeel’s video twice now. I answered your objection with scholarly rigor.
You are wrong on the other issues. Jesus has the right to judge the wickedness in the temple by making and whip and driving them out and turning the tables over. Amazing that you don’t see that, especially since Sharia law has many violent punishments and executions and cutting people’s hands off and lashes for certain sins/crimes. God has the right to do just violence in judgment against sin.
Jesus was indeed claiming to be God, because He is good and sinless and even the Qur’an admits He is sinless – Surah 19:21. Only God is good, meant Jesus was claiming to be God, because He is truly good.
The encounter with the Canaanite women is only understandable if you read the whole context of Mark chapter 7 and Matthew 15 and also Acts chapters 10-11. But it seems you don’t want to learn how Christians deal with that passage. Jesus is testing the racial prejudice of the disciples, by the harsh statements. Notice the teaching – “He declared all foods clean” – see the parallel in Acts chapters 10-11. And the sin of pride in Mark 7:20-23. You have to see the connection with racial pride, prejudice/racism, food, and true internal cleansing.
apologeticsandagape
well here we go again!
Christians, typically, read their own theology into Mark 10 thereby misunderstanding it (the academic sin of eisegesis). What is lacking in your understanding is any appreciation that Christology develops and evolves in the NT, which is why your methodology lacks any ‘scholarly rigor’ as you put it. Mark’s view of Jesus is quite different from that of John (or Acts). This is a common place of New Testament scholarship and is substantiated by a mass of academic insights and observations (see my recommended reading list for a sample).
Any unbiased person reading the following for the first time without prejudice would never come to the conclusion that Jesus claimed to be God just the opposite!
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”
So when you state ‘Only God is good, meant Jesus was claiming to be God, because He is truly good’ you contradict (and pervert) the plain meaning of Mark 10.
———————————————————
‘even the Qur’an admits He is sinless – Surah 19:21′
No, it doesn’t – no where does the Quran say Jesus is sinless. Here is Abdel Haleem’s excellent translation of that verse:
——————————————————–
regarding the encounter with the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15 you have repeatedly failed to address my point which is Jesus’ use of a racial slur (typical of Jews at the time) of a gentile and the reasons for his great reluctance to help her (he was only sent to Jews). Is it too much for me to hope you will ever address the problem?
Sorry, the reference to Jesus being sinless should have been Surah Maryam 19:19 – “a faultless son”. (Not 19:21)
So the Qur’an does teach that Jesus was sinless.
Islamic theology also teaches that all the prophets were sinless. But Jesus is the one who is most clearly called “faultless” or “sinless”.
Regarding the Canaanite woman of Mark 7 and Matthew 15 -
Don’t you know anything about context? Paragraph and sentence connections? What sentences and paragraphs came before this? You seem to be ignorant of looking at something in its own literary context. Regarding the Canaanite woman you repeatedly fail to look at the context of what came before and you fail to interpret what Jesus said in the context, in the light of His lesson about internal cleansing vs. external cleansing and His rebuke of pride, (Mark 7:20-23), which is the root of racial hatred or racism or ethnic superiority, etc. – His cleansing of all foods (Mark 7:19) is a clue; and if you took the time to read all of Acts chapter 10-11, the issue of unclean and clean foods with the Roman Centurion and Peter’s reluctance to go and be with him and talk to him; it is clear that Jesus is testing the disciples to see if they learned the lesson of internal cleansing of the heart of pride and racial prejudice. He uses the common sentiments of the Jews of His day to draw out a lesson; and rewards her since she didn’t play “victim mentality”.
Mark and John and Matthew and Luke and Acts and Paul and Hebrews and Peter are all in perfect agreement with one another.
One of the big problems with the theory that Jesus evolves and develops is that Islam came some 500 years later and affirmed the gospel (Injeel) ( Surah 5:44-48; 68; 10:95), so your affinity for liberal scholarship is a desperate attempt to try to rescue the Qur’an from obvious affirmation of Scriptures written about 500 years earlier. NT written from 48 – 70 AD. Qur’an comes from 610-632 AD. By using the liberal scholarship of Jesus developed and evolved, etc., you also undermine the Qur’an.
Nabeel is right; and he showed many other points from the Gospel according to Mark, that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and that He will send angels and that He is the “son of Man” who ascends up to the ancient of Days and is worthy of worship and is given a kingdom of all nations (Jesus quoting from Daniel 7:13-14) and the Jews understood Jesus’ claims to Deity in Mark 14:61-64 – “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed one?” – they understand His claim as claiming to be the Son of God, the Messiah, and this is consistent with John 19:1-7. So here is irrefutable proof that Mark and John share the same view of Jesus and there is no change or evolution of who He is from Mark to John. John is more explicit, for sure; but they do not contradict one another. John is not adding something new; He is expressing the same truths in more explicit terms, but both are inspired from the one true God, and all the Scripture is God – breathed. (2 Tim. 3:16)
‘So the Qur’an does teach that Jesus was sinless.’
sorry mate even your second quote fails to prove your point:
Abdel Haleem translates 19:19 thus:
but he said, ‘I am but a Messenger from your Lord, come to announce to you the gift of a pure son.’
Yusuf Ali has: ‘…the gift of a righteous son’
Muhammad Asad has ‘the gift of a son endowed with purity’
it does not say he is sinless.
————————–
Lets look at the context of Jesus’ teaching (instead of bringing in other texts).
I can quite understand why you find this passage difficult to handle. Jesus calls a gentile woman a “dog”, initially refuses to have anything to do with her, but ultimately relents making clear this healing is exceptional because he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel.
This is not the Jesus of christian imagination – Matthew presents him as ethnically exclusivist, racist and reluctant to heal…
—————————
‘Mark and John and Matthew and Luke and Acts and Paul and Hebrews and Peter are all in perfect agreement with one another.’
Thus speaks the unreconstructed fundamentalist. Clearly your inerrantist presuppositions prevent you from reading these texts critically. That’s your choice – its not my job to persuade you to think differently about this.
——————————
This is what the Quran teaches about its role vis a vis the earlier scriptures
surah 5:48 Asad translation
———————————-
re ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ Mark 2 reads:
Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
it is important to understand the Aramaic idiom that underlies the Greek, ‘son of man’ = mankind, human beings. You have capitalised Son of Man as if it is a title, but Aramaic specialists have long known that this is an illegitimate Hellenisation of an original Aramaic collective noun. Read Maurice Casey helpful research on this:
Casey, Maurice. An Aramaic Approach to Q : Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
———————–
you write ‘the “son of Man” who ascends up to the ancient of Days and is worthy of worship and is given a kingdom of all nations (Jesus quoting from Daniel 7:13-14)’
You might know that in the original context of Daniel 7 ‘the son of man’ refers to Israel not to an individual. Secondly, even if we accept your linking of it to Jesus it proves that Jesus was not God.
Lets read Daniel 7:13-14
Notice that the son of man was led into God’s presence. As there is only One God Jesus cannot be that god. So your proof text proves exactly the opposite of your claim! Daniel 7 proves Jesus is not God!
—————————-
“and the Jews understood Jesus’ claims to Deity in Mark 14:61-64 – “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed one?” – they understand His claim as claiming to be the Son of God, the Messiah”
You misunderstand Judaism here. To claim to be the messiah and the Son of God is not blasphemy. It was never ever believed that the messiah would be divine or God (in Judaism). Jesus committed no blasphemy by claiming these roles.
—————————–
by the way are you in contact with Nabeel about this?
Regarding the sinlessness of Jesus:
“قال (الملاك لمريم) إنما أنا رسول ربك لأهب لك غلاماً زكيا”. (سورة مريم 19)، وكلمة زكيا تعني طاهراً بطبيعته من الذنوب والعيوب.
This says the word زکیا means “clean/pure” طاهرآ (Taher an) by nature طبتعته (Tabi’at ) from sin الذنوب (Al dhunub) and without fault العیوب (al-a’yoob) We have all these words in Farsi, so I can read and confirm them – same meaning from the Arabic.
The word for “sin” is the same root word for when Muhammad asked for forgiveness at least three times in the Qur’an – 47:19; 48:2; 9:43; 40:55
Do you deny the Islamic doctrine of the sinlessness of all the prophets?
Abdullah Kunde confessed that Jesus was sinless in his recent debate with Dr. White.
JW: Was Jesus sinless?
AK: Yes, because he did not sin and was protected from sin, like all Allah’s messengers.
JW: Every rasul of Allah is sinless…? We should pursue that in another debate!
AK: Yes.
See written basic summary – not word for word:
http://sentimentsassuch.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/can-god-become-a-man-a-christian-muslim-dialogue-dr-james-white-v-mr-abdullah-kunde-unsw-sydney-australia-monday-17th-oct-2011/
Listen to it by audio:
http://neutralbayanglican.org.au/?p=1508
no, I have not contacted Nabeel yet, about this. Hopefully, he will see it and if I can find contact info, I will send him a link.
You quoted Matthew 15:21-28. Fine. Now go three verses above verse 21, for verses 18-20 – this helps us understand what is going on here. The parallel is Mark 7:19-21 – Jesus declared all foods clean, and He exposes pride (including ethnic pride as one of the internal sins that defiles people).
It is necessary to bring in other texts in the science of interpretation, علم تفسیر in Christianity, just as Islam has its science of interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith and Sunna and Tarikh.
So Acts chapters 10-11 also help us see this.
Why are you afraid to read the paragraph before and larger context and the parallel passages and Acts 10-11 for a complete understanding? I am not afraid to deal fairly with the Islamic texts, but you are with ours.
Matthew 15:23 – it is the disciples who want Jesus to sent her away, but He doesn’t and He remains silent at first in order to test the disciples.
Daniel 7:13-14 shows the Messiah, son of man, would ascend to heaven, get a kingdom of all nations, and they would serve/worship God – also in Revelation chapter 5 – praise and glory and honor to the one who sits on the throne and unto the Lamb.
The Jews obviously thought that Messiah would also be Son of God – Mark 14:61-64.
Abdel Haleem translates surah 47:19 as follows:
Muslims have differing views about this subject. Muhammad’s (pbuh) sins were clearly very ‘minor’ by our standards but even he had to ask forgiveness from his Lord, by the highest of standards that he maintained. He was a human being after all.
According to the most scholarly translations of the Quran that I have consulted (Haleem, Ali, Asad) nowhere does it say Jesus was “sinless”.
In Islamic teaching all human beings are born sinless.
Jesus did not declare all foods unclean – according to Matthew. This is an excellent example of your uncritical reading of the gospels. Mark’s own declaration (in parenthesis) that Jesus declared all food unclean is deleted by Matthew who has Jesus upholding all the kosher food laws. Because you overlook each evangelist’s redaction (and creation) of the Jesus tradition you have mixed up the gospels and do not appreciate what Matthew is presenting of Jesus’ teaching and ministry.
Perhaps you should read up on Redaction criticism
—————————————–
‘Matthew 15:23 – it is the disciples who want Jesus to sent her away, but He doesn’t and He remains silent at first in order to test the disciples.’
What a load of spin!
fact: the poor desperate women pleaded to Jesus for help – he ignores her
fact: then he explains why he will not help her: he is only sent to Jews not to her race
fact: but she persists in importuning him – but he calls her a dog
fact: but finally her witty reply wins over his extreme reluctance
so dont blame the disciples as if Jesus wanted to help her!
——————————
‘Daniel 7:13-14 shows the Messiah, son of man, would ascend to heaven, get a kingdom of all nations, and they would serve/worship God’
read the passage again:
So does God (the Ancient One) have authority, honor, and sovereignty by right as part of his glory or does someone else give it to him? If God gave you authority, honor, and sovereignty, would you be the eternal God, the Ancient One? No, of course not!
An important point – in context (read the whole chapter) son of man is Israel, the people of God, not Jesus.
Let me ask you: how many gods are there? Two? three, one?
If you accept there is only one God them notice that the son of man was led into God’s presence. I repeat, just in case it didn’t sink in: He approached God and was led into his presence. As there is only One God Jesus cannot be that god. So your proof text proves exactly the opposite of your claim. Daniel 7 proves Jesus is not God!
‘The Jews obviously thought that Messiah would also be Son of God – Mark 14:61-64.’
Indeed. But don’t commit the anachronism of thinking that son of God = God. That’s a much later gentile conceptualisation. ‘son of God’ = a human being….period.
Obviously, you know Christian theology teaches that God is one – there is only one God. 1 Timothy 2:5; Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29
The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one; it is just that within the one being or substance of God; there are three divine eternal Spiritual persons.
Jesus the Messiah Himself quotes this passage about Himself – Mark 14:61-64 – from Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1 – He is saying it is about His ascension up to heaven after His death and resurrection. Matthew 28:18 also affirms this – “all authority had been given to Me” – after a time of self – humbling on earth – Philippians 2:5-11
Redaction criticism – there is some that is legitimate, but most of the way liberals and you seem to use it, you assume that it means that the author’s disagreed with each other and contradict each other or change and develop each other, etc.
Matthew and Mark agree with each other. who are you to assume that they disagree with each other?
Again, read the paragraphs in each gospel before the story of the Canaanite/ Syro-Phoenician woman in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 – about internal cleansing and pride. Don’t you see the connection there and that it is consistent with Jesus to test the disciples in a Gentile area to see if they learned the lesson about true cleanliness, which is from a heart that has to be made clean by God’s Spirit and repentance? ( see Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:1-8; Acts 16:14; 2 Timothy 2:24-26)
Your refusal to even read them and acknowledge this is indication that you are not open to the truth.
Paul W. wrote:
In Islamic teaching all human beings are born sinless.
Yes, a great contradiction to the prophets Moses (Genesis 6:5; 8:21), David (Psalm 51:4-5), and Jeremiah (17:9-10). Your religion contradicts the previous Scriptures; and because of the Hadiths below, it contradicts itself.
Muhammad asked for forgiveness, so he was a sinner.
Jesus is called a faultless son.
Even several famous Hadiths (Ahadith) say that only Jesus and Mary were not touched by evil (Satan) at their birth.
Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab:
Abu Huraira said, “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, EXCEPT MARY AND HER CHILD.” Then Abu Huraira recited: “And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan” (3.36) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 641; see also Volume 4, Book 54, Number 506)
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: No child is born but he is pricked by the satan and he begins to weep because of the pricking of the satan EXCEPT THE SON OF MARY AND HIS MOTHER. Abu Huraira then said: You may recite if you so like (the verse):” I seek Thy protection for her and her offspring against satan the accursed” (iii. 36). This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Zuhri with the same chain of transmitters (and the words are):” The newborn child is touched by the satan (when he comes in the world) and he starts crying because of the touch of satan.” In the hadith transmitted on the authority of Shu’aib there is a slight variation of wording. (Sahih Muslim, Book 030, Number 5837)
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The satan touches every son of Adam on the day when his mother gives birth to him WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MARY AND HER SON. (Sahih Muslim, Book 030, Number 5838; see also Book 033, Number 6429)
‘Matthew and Mark agree with each other. who are you to assume that they disagree with each other?’
Why do you assume dogmatically that they never can?!
now its my turn to copy and paste!
(with thanks to Bassam Zawadi)
[Shamoun] fails to realize that he is imposing his own personal interpretation onto the text of the hadith. The hadith only states that Satan has not touched Jesus or Mary during the time of their birth. This could have several meanings such as…
1) The fact that Jesus and Mary (peace be upon them both) were saved from Satan’s prick is not enough alone to tell us that they were saved from Satan’s influence and temptation later on. (See Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Qurtubi’s Tasfir al Jami’ li-ahkam al-Qur’an, Commentary on Surah 3:36, Source)
2) That it is the prick of Satan that makes babies cry once they are born, but for Jesus and Mary they did not feel the prick, thus they didn’t cry when they were born. (See Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani’s Fathul Bari, Kitab: Ahaadeeth Al Anbiyaa’, Bab: Qawl Allah Ta’aala wazhkur fil Kitaabey Maryam ezh enthabazhat min ahliha, Commentary on Hadith no. 3177, Source)
3) That Satan could have pricked other people, yet they remained unaffected. e.g. someone punches me but I feel no pain. Satan’s prick does not necessarily imply that Satan is successful in misleading the person into committing sins.(See Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Qurtubi’s Tasfir al Jami’ li-ahkam al-Qur’an, Commentary on Surah 3:36, Source)
4) That only Jesus and Mary were the only two exceptions before the time of Muhammad (peace be upon him), but now others could possibly be protected from Satan…
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 143:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
The Prophet said, “If anyone of you on having sexual relations with his wife said (and he must say it before starting) ‘In the name of Allah. O Allah! Protect us from Satan and also protect what you bestow upon us (i.e. the coming offspring) from Satan, and if it is destined that they should have a child then, Satan will never be able to harm that offspring.”
5) Taking points 3 and 4 into consideration, these people will continue to be the ones who will not be affected by Satan’s misguidance (Surah 15:40) and all of those who fit under this category will be like Jesus and Mary. (See Imam Az-Zamakhshari’s Al-Kashshaf, Commentary on Surah 33:6, Source)
Imagine, Shamoun didn’t even bother to address and refute all possible interpretations of this hadith. He takes it at face value that his intepretation is correct.
Is Jesus The Only Sinless Person According To The Bible?
by
Bassam Zawadi
(reproduced by kind permission)
Christians usually preach that Jesus was the only sinless and perfect person to have walked upon the face of this earth. They claim that he was the only blameless man. However, when we read the Old Testament we can see that there were others who were expected and even considered to be blameless:
The word tamiym could mean…
1) complete, whole, entire, sound
a) complete, whole, entire
b) whole, sound, healthful
c) complete, entire (of time)
d) sound, wholesome, unimpaired, innocent, having integrity
e) what is complete or entirely in accord with truth and fact (neuter adj/subst)
Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/8/1145210220-9425.html
We can see that there were people who were considered perfect. We can also see that this word is used to describe the perfection of God’s works…
There are more verses…
The word tam could mean…
1) perfect, complete
a) complete, perfect
1) one who lacks nothing in physical strength, beauty, etc
b) sound, wholesome
1) an ordinary, quiet sort of person
c) complete, morally innocent, having integrity
1) one who is morally and ethically pure
Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/8/1145210668-6583.html
So as we see, even according to the Bible itself Jesus was not the only sinless person and therefore he is not unique in this sense.
Some Christians might tend to argue that Job was blameless in the sight of God by believing in Christ. However, this is just a desperate response unless it is backed up through evidence. Nowhere in the Bible do we see people believing in Jesus Christ’s coming to die for our sins and therefore making them righteous and perfect before God.
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/is_jesus_the_only_sinless_person_according_to_the_bible_
you quote Matthew 28:18-20 yet this proves Jesus is not God!
Does God possess authority and power by right, as part of his innate attributes or does someone or something give these to him? God has these attributes by his very nature.
Now if some one gave Jesus ‘all authority in heaven and on earth’ would the recipient be the eternal God? No. God could still remove ‘All authority in heaven and on earth’ from the recipient if it so pleased Him.
“I am the Lord, I change not” (Mal. 3:6)
Blameless is not the same as completely without sin.
David’s sins are well known. Abraham also sinned. It is nowhere stated in scripture that he was perfect.
If Job was perfect why did he repent in dust and ashes? If he was perfect he can’t have had any sin to repent of !
Job 42 v 6 “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes”.
Psalm 14 v 2 “The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”
Paul W. wrote:
Does God possess authority and power by right, as part of his innate attributes or does someone or something give these to him? God has these attributes by his very nature.
Jesus as eternal Son of God / Word of God had all authority by nature before His incarnation. John 17:5; Philippians 2:5-11
In the incarnation, He humbled Himself and by taking on a human nature, chose not to actualize all of His divine attributes while on earth before the resurrection. But after the resurrection, His authority was restored, that is why Matthew 28:18 is written that way and this fits nicely with Daniel 7:13-14 and Mark 14:61-64.
the idea of Jesus’ incarnation (ie a god who became a man) is not found in the earliest more historically reliable synoptic gospels. John portrays Jesus as a pre-existent divine figure to be sure but for many sound historical reasons Christian scholars, both conservative and liberal (and others) cannot take John’s Jesus at face value as if it is simple historical reportage. It is not. As for Paul, well, he never met Jesus, was not interested in his life and teaching and boasts in Galatians 1 how his knowledge of Jesus did not come from anyone at all – certainly not Jesus’ disciples – so he is hardly a source for the historical Jesus either.
You say:
God knows all things. Jesus was ignorant of certain things (see Mark 13) so he was not 100% God. You state that Jesus chose not to ‘actualize all of His divine attributes’. Hmmm
So you are saying that as God Jesus knew everything, then chose not to ‘actualize’ this knowledge (whatever that means) then regained full knowledge later?! So much for the incarnation of God: a god who is ignorant, not almighty, not omnipresent and not immortal.
my friend, that is no god at all!
Luke 1:34-35
Matthew 1:18-25
Historically reliable
Matthew
Historically reliable?
Not particularly. He makes stuff up – and even leading evangelical scholars now admit this (and get punished for their honesty)
Just 2 examples:
Matthew makes up a prophesy ‘…and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: “He will be called a Nazarene.” Matt 2:23
There is no such prophesy anywhere in the Bible.
Secondly ‘Michael Licona Loses His Teaching Position Over Matthew 27‘
‘The incident casts doubt on the ability of Evangelical scholars, qua Evangelicals, to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. To his credit, Licona apparently questioned the literal historicity of Matthew 27, without letting the perceived implications of his commitment to Biblical inerrancy get in the way. At the same time, however, I can’t help but be struck by the fact that apparently many Christian scholars were unwilling to publicly defend Licona, presumably because they were afraid they might lose their jobs, too. It is precisely because of this sort of mentality that I have previously questioned whether evangelical Christians can consistently affirm the ethics of belief required by freethought.’
Also see here:
Mike Licona on Inerrancy: It’s Worse than We Originally Thought
the passage in question is this:
Matthew 51-54
Licona states correctly: “It can forthrightly be admitted that the data surrounding what happened to Jesus is fragmentary and could possibly be mixed with legend”
Licona continued, “there is somewhat of a consensus among contemporary scholars that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bios).” Then he goes on to say that “Bioi offered the ancient biographers great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches,…and they often included legend. Because bios was a flexible genre, it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins”
This top conservative evangelical scholar has studied the evidence in great detail and his conclusions are sound.
Against the historicity of Matthew 27 I would argue:
It is inconceivable that an event so sensational and of such magnitude woud not be noticed by the historians of the day. Its especially inconceivable that no other Christian source would mention it. The people who had left their tombs on Easter would have been hugely famous among Christians. A few lucky disciples could claim to have seen the risen Jesus (although even some of them doubted Jesus resurrection), but these people were even more privileged: Matthew claims they had been raised from the dead along with Jesus. Yet their story left no trace anywhere outside these 3 short verses in Matthew. Even Paul in 1 Cor 15:5 does not mention this.
But poor Michael Licona lost his livelihood because he saw this story as unhistorical – a perfectly reasonable view. So if Matthew makes up prophesies and historical events how can we trust him on other matters?
——————–
dont get me started on Luke…!
Al Mohler is correct in his critique of Mike Licona.
http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/09/14/the-devil-is-in-the-details-biblical-inerrancy-and-the-licona-controversy/
“In his treatment of this passage, Licona has handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon — the concession that some of the material reported by Matthew in the very chapter in which he reports the resurrection of Christ simply did not happen and should be understood as merely “poetic device” and “special effects.” ”
Geisler is also correct on Licona, but is wrong to defend Ergun Caner, who clearly embellished and lied about his testimony.
Licona was never the best spokesman for the resurrection, in my opinion in the first place. I found the way he debated atheists strange, he would say somethings that are really good, but then at the end of his debates, he would say things like, “I leave it up for the audience to decide if God exists or if God actually raised Jesus from the dead” or “maybe a space alien raised Jesus from the dead”, etc.
He seems to have let his desire for respectability among the atheists and skeptic scholars control the way he handles other issues, like the passage in Matthew 27:51-53.
If a Muslim scholar affirmed conservative Islam, but said that the Qur’an had some legend mixed in it (Like Muhammad’s night flight to Jerusalem on Baraq) because that story is just too fantastic and too miraculous for the modern mind, he would get in trouble also.
______
On Matthew 2:23
This is the only time Matthew uses the plural “through the prophets”, so he is thinking generally of the prophesies that the Messiah would be rejected and oppressed – since the Jews in the south did not accept that a prophet could come out of Galilee.
Isaiah 53:1-3 – the Messiah’s rejection and oppression.
Also, the Hebrew term “Nazer” נצר is a Messianic term for “branch” – see Isaiah 11:1 and Jeremiah 23:5, so those three OT passages and others about the Messiah being rejected and the city of Nazareth being rejected and sounding like the Hebrew term “Nazer” (Branch) points to the fulfillment of this verse.
So, all is vindicated and Matthew is historical, and you have not made any dent at all in the truth of the gospels.
Furthermore, if you tear down Matthew and Luke, they are the two gospels that give us the clear teaching on the virgin birth of the Messiah, Jesus. If you tear them down as historical, then you demolish Islam also, because Islam affirms the virgin birth of Christ, although it denies His deity and His sonship, etc. (Surah Maryam 19:19-21; Surah Imran 3:45-49 (along with mixtures from Gnostic gospels – clearly the early Muslims were very confused and accepted heretical texts out there where the heretical Gnostics and Collyridians and Mary worshippers flourished. Also misunderstood the Trinity ( Surah 5:116; 5:72-75; 6:101)
It is clear you have no case whatsoever.
It’s no more incredible than the story that Jesus was whisked off to paradise and replaced with a fake. Why did no historian report that? In addition I thought everybody died for his own sin. It must also have been a travesty of justice if it happened.
you wrote, ‘It’s no more incredible than the story that Jesus was whisked off to paradise and replaced with a fake. Why did no historian report that? In addition I thought everybody died for his own sin. It must also have been a travesty of justice if it happened.’
Oh dear, is that your response to the serious objections I raise? Let me remind you of them again, and perhaps you will actually engage with the issues rather commit the logical fallacy tu quoque
Against the historicity of Matthew 27 I argue:
Because of these problems (and others) the vast majority of historians believe Matthew made this up.
Your response to the problem of Matthew 2:23 entirely misses the point.
lets look at it again:
‘…and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: “He will be called a Nazarene.”
Matthew is trying to make us believe that he is quoting from the OT. Your laboured explanation fails at this simple and crucial point – you can find no quotation from the Bible that matches this statement
I don’t believe these resurrected persons stayed long on the earth. Maybe an hour or two. They testified and returned to heaven. A temporary resurrection.
Matthew knew the OT inside and out. He also knows that he is not fooling anyone. The Holy Spirit is constraining him to write these words for a purpose. Telling us to look in the prophets for the answer. There is not always one specific text but a combination of texts that taken together have the meaning of the statement.
So where is Matthews quotation from the OT to be found?
Madmanna,
you write
‘I don’t believe these resurrected persons stayed long on the earth. Maybe an hour or two. They testified and returned to heaven. A temporary resurrection.’
hmmm.
Have another read of this:
Why did an event so sensational and of such magnitude fail be noticed by the historians of the day?
Why did no other Christian source mention it?
Why does Paul in 1 Cor 15:5 does not mention this?
The story left no trace anywhere outside these 3 short verses in Matthew. Why?
There was darkness over the land for one thing. So no-one saw these people “crawling out of their tombs” as it were. Probably no-one knew them because they had died long ago. So they just appeared all of a sudden walking in to the city, a crowd of strangers. From our vantage point it is a sensational event but not to those who were there. There was thus no reason for any historian to make a big deal of it. Only Matthew had the whole picture.
madmanna, here’s my take Matthew which factors in all the story – not just bits of it like yours:
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. If that was historical then it would have been an extremely sensational event and you can be sure that historians would have reported on it. But contemporaries such as the historian Josephus are strangely silent. He for one would have made much political capital out of the temple curtain being torn if it had happened.
The earth shook and the rocks split. Next we have a mayor earthquake which would have been experienced by thousands of people.
The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. Then after the major earthquake, ‘many’ people came out of the tombs. How many, 100′s? 1000′s? Clearly a BIG number. Hard to miss hundreds/thousands of zombies walking about in public. A much more significant event than the resurrection from the dead of just one man…
They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. Next they all walked into Jerusalem. An amazing, unprecedented sight – unheard of in the history of the world! What a sensation that would cause: possibly panic, fear, maybe its the end of the world?! A BIG event by any standards!
——————
As Licona dryly comments: “there is somewhat of a consensus among contemporary scholars that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bios).” Then he goes on to say that “Bioi offered the ancient biographers great flexibility for rearranging material and inventing speeches,…and they often included legend. Because bios was a flexible genre, it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins”
Licona’s assessment of the gospel’s genre is clearly based on a thorough acquaintance with the subject. For further scholarly analysis I recommend the standard critical introduction to the gospel’s genre:
What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
by Rev Richard A. Burridge, Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Kings College, London.
Burridge would certainly agree with Licona’s conclusions.
So where is Matthews quotation from the OT to be found?
I already answered that, he is not quoting one verse, but rather summarizing what the prophets (notice the plural) said, that the Messiah would be despised, and oppressed and rejected, a NEZER, נצר a rejected branch, and He would live in Nazareth, because it was an area that was despised and rejected by the Jews in the south. It is an allusion to a combination of the verses, Isaiah 53:1-3; Isaiah 11:1 and Jeremiah 23:5.
There wouldn’t have been any zombies. They would have looked normal. Unless they had said anything no-one would have noticed anything unusual about them. A small earthquake would also fit well with the text. No one saw where these people came from because of the darkness. I wonder why Josephus should report the rending of the veil. Where was he at the time I wonder?
‘So where is Matthews quotation from the OT to be found? I already answered that, he is not quoting one verse’
That’s a bit lame because he is quoting one verse whole and entire:
‘…and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: “He will be called a Nazarene.”
Also your method of picking a word here and there to make a ‘prediction’ could be used to make up any old prophesy that takes your fancy!
you’ve lost this one I’m afraid
madmanna
I think you deserve a prize for the most imaginative spin on a highly improbable biblical text!
If you ever decide to study the bible academically you’ll discover that
therefore it is to be expected that the gospels will contain fictional elements.
Concerning Mark 10 have a look at this Islamic interpretation of the verses we have discussed…
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός. εἰ δὲ θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν, τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς.
He said to him, Why me do you ask concerning the good? One is the good. But if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.
Matthew 19:17
Why me . . . ? τι με . . . ? The emphasis is on Christ, not “how dare you ask me”; but rather why me, that is you recognize something about Me, that I am good; and only God is “the good”; Jesus is saying “if you recognize that I am good; then you should also see that I am God”; therefore Jesus is actually claiming that He is God.
Jesus said, I am the good shepherd” – John 10:11 – claims of goodness and claim of being the Shepherd Yahweh of Psalm 23.
You lost that one my friend –
As with the one in Matthew 2; I showed you clearly that Matthew is not quoting one specific text, but a general idea about the Messiah in the prophets (hint; plural, more than one, not a quote of one verse.) – that He would be despised and oppress and rejected, like a branch, a Nezer. נצר
Why did Matthew deliberately change Jesus’ words in Mark 10? Was he embarrassed?
You write, ‘Jesus is saying “if you recognize that I am good; then you should also see that I am God”; therefore Jesus is actually claiming that He is God.’
This is highly fanciful. No Jew walking around Judea in the first century would ever have imagined that the guy he bumped into would be Yahweh, the Creator of the universe – the very idea is unthinkable. What you are doing is reading your much later (post-Nicaea) christology into Mark. Christians do this all the time in their uncritical reading of the gospels.
Another example is the title ‘son of God’ which now is understood to mean a divine being, but in the 1st century Jewish context meant a righteous man (Adam is called ‘the Son of God’ in Luke).
———————————————–
you wrote ‘Jesus said, I am the good shepherd” – John 10:11 – claims of goodness and claim of being the Shepherd Yahweh of Psalm 23.’
A few pertinent comments about the gospels:
Christopher M. Tuckett (Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Oxford), Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Followers, 2001, Westminster John Knox Press, p. 203.
You cite John’s gospel as if it is presenting an accurate historical account of Jesus’ ministry which we can just read off from the gospel’s surface. You do not mention that John is a particularly controversial document, the historicity of which is widely doubted. For example, E. P. Sanders, described by John B. Meier as America’s “most distinguished scholar” in the field of historical Jesus research explained:
E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure Of Jesus, 1993, Penguin Books, pp. 70-71.
Acclaimed Evangelical scholar Richard Bauckham in his recent book on the gospels (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2006, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co) argues that the fourth gospel stems from an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, namely, the disciple John. At the same time, however, Bauckham also acknowledges
(Ibid. p. 410.)
“a much more thoroughly and extensively interpreted version of the story of Jesus”. So, if this is correct, (and leading conservative evangelical, moderate, liberal and radical scholars are all agreed on this point) then to quote John’s Jesus as you do is simply pre-critical fundamentalism.
madmanna & apologeticsandagape
have a look at this:
and this…
Very good. I highly respect Dan Wallace (he dealt Bart Ehrman a defeat recently) and I was in the seminary getting my M. Div. at the time that Paul Copan was in Bible College – the undergraduate school – at Columbia International University, Columbia South Carolina. It has been great to see him go on after that and excel as a scholar for the Evangelical faith over the years.
The thing about ALL of these good scholars, Wallace, Copan, Licona, and Geisler and Al Mohler and James White, they would agree with each other in favor of inerrancy against the typical liberal types that you bring in against the gospels – such as James Dunn and E. P. Sanders, etc. So we are unified with each other on inerrancy, even though we disagree with Licona’s take on Matthew 27. It seems that Wallace and Copan also disagree with Licona’s view; they just don’t see his view as affecting inerrancy.
I am a nobody compared to all of them; although I still do not understand Geisler’s defense of Ergun Caner.
Fundamentalist Christians have a huge vulnerability which Al Mohler rightly senses:
Dr. Al Mohler wrote
In fact Licona asked the right question and gave the correct answer. Fundamentalism is a castle built of sand. See my post below for quotations from highly respected conservative scholars on Matthew 27. If what they say is true then the resurrection narratives may contain ‘poetic devices’, in whole or in part.
We are faced with the problem of the historicity of several ‘events’ in Matthew 27. They contain a number of highly dubious claims such as:
1. The Temple curtain tearing in two;
2. The earthquake;
3. The opening of the tombs and the dead saints walking around in Jerusalem (no one appears to have seen them apart from Matthew);
4. The centurion’s confession.
Although this is not the place to have a detailed discussion on the above elements, the following citations are only meant to demonstrate how scholars generally tend to assess them:
According to the prominent conservative Christian scholar, C. F. D. Moule:
(C. F. D. Moule, The Gospel according to Mark Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the New Testament, 1965, Cambridge University Press p. 127.)
So conservative a scholar as N. T. Wright is unable to make an argument in favor of the historicity of Matthew 27:51-53. After discussing a few scholarly opinions on this passage, he concludes by leaving the issue of historicity hanging in the air, though admitting that to argue for its “probable historicity” is “difficult.” Wright concludes:
(N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003, SPCK Publishing, p. 636.)
Briefly, in response to Wright, it should be pointed out that Matthew is known to have used various passages of the Old Testament in ways “nobody had understood this way before.” In any case, clearly Wright would have liked to defend the historicity of the Matthean passage, but he realizes the difficulties that lay in that path and so cleverly chooses to leave the question of historicity unsettled.
According to Schnackenburg:
(Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel of Matthew, 2002, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 290.)
Finally, James Dunn briefly comments:
(James D. G. Dunn, Christianity In The Making Vol 1: Jesus Remembered, 2003, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Footnote No. 92, p. 781.)
A quote from Dunn:
““Whatever we can or should say about Jesus and his mission there can be little or no question that what the FIRST CHRISTIANS believed had happened to Jesus after his death transformed their appreciation of him completely. FOR THEY WERE CONVINCED THAT GOD HAD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD. This is the core affirmation of Christian faith, and it can be traced back FIRMLY TO THE EARLIEST DAYS OF THE MOVEMENT THAT STEMMED FROM JESUS, and in particular to the visionary experiences that the FIRST CHRISTIANS had of Jesus as risen from the dead and exalted to heaven. Such belief was already a confession by the time Paul was himself converted, WHICH WAS PROBABLY LESS THAN TWO YEARS AFTER JESUS’ CRUCIFIXION (1 Cor. 15.3-7). And Paul was probably converted to beliefs that he had persecuted, BELIEFS ALREADY WELL ESTABLISHED AMONG THE FIRST MEMBERS OF THE SECT OF THE NAZARENES. THEIRS WAS AN ASTONISHING BELIEF IN ITSELF. Many Jews believed that there would be a resurrection at the end of time and before the day of last judgment; that is, a general resurrection of the dead. But the thought of one person being resurrected (not simply revived to his previous life) WAS UNHEARD OF. SOMETHING OF MIND-BLOWING SIGNIFICANCE HAD HAPPENED, AND JESUS WAS AT THE CENTRE.”.
Indeed, and do you agree with James Dunn’s comments?
Jehovah knows best.
but do you not see the problem? As most scholars believe (including the top conservative ones I cited above) that some or all of the phenomena reported at Jesus’ death are poetic devices, may we not rightly ask whether Jesus’ resurrection is not more of the same?…
I don’t see how anything the disciples did after the resurrection could have made any sense unless it was true. Otherwise they would have just mourned him for a while and got on with their lives. There would have been no Christianity without the resurrection.
Christianity is not just the resurrection: its believing that Jesus is God, that he died for your sins, that God is a Trinity of persons, etc. The evidence of the earliest Jerusalem disciples suggests to me that they did not believe these things. As for the resurrection there are 4 things to say:
i) it is a well known psychological phenomenon that when people loose their loved ones they sometimes think they see them again, even touch them – see The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth by Jack A Kent
ii) according to Matthew 28, some of the disciples doubted the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead. This may account for the strange silence concerning what happened to most of the disciples. Maybe they just melted away?
iii) people see visions of significant religious figues all the time: think of the appearances of the Virgin Mary over the centuries to individuals and to large crowds. Are these necessarily objective appearances of the mother of Jesus? Catholics say yes, you would say no!
iv) As most scholars believe that some or all of the phenomena reported at Jesus’ death are poetic devices, may we not rightly ask whether Jesus’ resurrection is not more of the same? There may have been an original vision of Jesus (perhaps like Paul’s in Acts 7 – but no one else present saw anything); the vision subsequently became embellished and enhanced in the telling and retelling leading to the dramatic stories we read in the gospels. Given the nature of the gospels (see comments above) this hypothesis is not unlikely.