Did Jesus really die on the cross or was he just fainted? What happened to his body after it was buried in a tomb? Did the disciples steal the body or did he recover from the unconscious state and walked out of the tomb? Is there plausible reason to trust the testimony of the earliest followers of Jesus Christ who said he is risen?
Crucifixion under the Roman authority was not unusual. The criminals were usually scourged first so much so that there could be so much of blood loss due to cut from the leather whip that has pieces of balls or bones attached. The Roman soldiers were expert in executing criminals; and escape of any crucified criminal is a death penalty for the soldiers. Expertise plus the penalty for the escape made crucifixion a very certain form of execution.
We read that Jesus was arrested at night. He was then led to the courtyard of the high priest where there was an attempt to charge him of various crimes, after which “the guards received him with blows” ( Mark 14.65). In the morning Jesus was delivered to the Governor Pontius Pilate. At the order of Pilate, Jesus was scourged and then delivered to be crucified ( Mark 15.15. The soldiers also plaited a crown of thorn and put it on his head, and there on the head they would strike. Jesus was then led out of the city and put up on the cross, with his hands and feet nailed to the wooden cross. Later on to check whether he was really death, a soldier pierced the side of Jesus with his spear and “at once there came out blood and water”.
After he was certified death, Joseph and Nicodemus were granted the body of Jesus to be buried. The body was then laid in a guarded tomb, which was then sealed so that none might roll away the stone without prior permission. This was Friday evening probably around 4- 5 pm. Sunday early morning, the tomb was found empty. What happened to Jesus' body: resurrected or resuscitated and gone?
( 'Resurrection' was a term employed only for those who came back to life with special physical properties. Till then 'resurrection' exists only in word; no one has really seen it nor did they expect it to happen then. The ancient people were clear about the difference between resuscitation and resurrection. They were not so foolish to confuse the two. They knew as much as we now know that dead people don't come to back life.)
How plausible it is for scourged and bleeding Jesus to survive the cross for 3-6 hours? And how plausible it is to suppose that the Roman soldiers mistook Jesus to be dead for having fainted when such mistake would invite death sentence for the soldiers? And how plausible it is to suggest that scourged and speared Jesus on his own would be able to roll away the stone that sealed the tomb? And how plausible it is for wounded and frail Jesus to claim that he has conquered death and his disciples are now to tell the whole world including the Roman soldiers and religious leaders who crucified him that he is now the king of kings and lord of lords?
The disciples did indeed preach to the Roman world that Jesus is risen and every knee, including the emperor's, is summoned to bow before Jesus. For preaching this “Gospel”, they were jailed, beaten, thrown to the lions, burnt to death and so on for approximately 300 years. Only in 313 AD through the Edict of Milan did Christianity become one of the religions that could be practised without inviting persecution. Why did the disciples who run away when Jesus was arrested began to worship and adore him in spite of death haunting them? What gain would they receive for telling a lie that Jesus is resurrected when what they actually was witnessed was only the resuscitated Jesus and who now have fled to Kashmir? In the face of hunger, imprisonment, head being chopped or being thrown into lion's den which is more plausible: To say that the disciples had such boldness to proclaim to the Roman world that Jesus is resurrected and he is Lord because they actually witnessed the crucified and risen Jesus or to suppose that they they witnessed the battered Jesus surviving the tomb and later escaped to India. Well, I choose the former explanation: that Jesus was truly resurrected from the dead and he is who he claimed to be.
With my limited knowledge and unending curiosity, a couple of things that come to my mind are as follows:
ReplyDelete1). There were only 13 disciples who witnessed the resurrection... and those disciples were extremely close and devout to Jesus Christ. Is it possible they might have altered the truth a little so it could be seen as a divine miracle? For that matter, is it possible that neither resurrection nor resuscitation happened?
2). The Bible, as we know today, is only a set of very limited amount of stories and writings that had been selected from the vast amount of stories written several years after Jesus's Crucifixion. [Since I am not a Christian, I am looking at those stories from a different perspective, considering the authors normal people, who want to spread the goodness of Jesus's teachings in their own special way]. Is there a scale to measure the credibility of those stories (similar to the stories/myths of Mahabharat, Ramayan, etc.)?
3). Jesus was considered blasphemous in his era, yet the majority of the world considers him God today. Is it possible that many people, Christians of non-Christians, who are considered blasphemous today could actually be proven right in the long run?
Having said everything above, and more, in my heart I believe that every religion and every God is only as powerful, divine and true as the belief of their follower(s). There are many things beyond our understanding and imagination that happen in the world on daily basis.
ReplyDeleteI would like to clarify that I am not questioning the religion itself. I was only trying to understand the plausibility of the story behind it, taking it in a more human terms.
Just a quick blurb for Sudhu, The New Testament claims that many saw the resurrected Jesus, even more than 500 and not just the 13 close followers.
ReplyDeleteThe reliability of the New Testament has come under heavy scrutiny overt recent centuries. And some scholars seriously question it as valid. I'm not so sure it isn't.
if you are interested, I recommend two sources that could be of great insight for you.
The Resurrection of the Son of God, by NT Wright for a disciplined historical investigation.
and Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels for a review the discussion on the reliability of the NT.
Thanks,
Paul
Let me try to give answers and see if they arouse your curiosity even more :-)
ReplyDelete2. The Bible is a collection of many books, and is made of up of different literary genres. It's written by around 40 authors. It has fiction, poetry, history, discourse etc. That way it's different from Ramayana/Mahabharat. The records of Jesus' life were written as a kind of biography... And these writers were reporting that they witnessed the risen Jesus. In one instance one apostle said that the resurrected Jesus appeared to more than 500 people. The apostles did not feel the need to put it in writing immediately after they witnessed the resurrection. The writings by the eye-witnesses of the resurrection were only very few materials which is now part of the Bible. The later writings that came 100 years later, and not by eye-witnesses are not part of the Bible.
1. No doubt the disciples were close to Jesus. But when Jesus was crucified they were all terribly frightened. So the plausible question to ask is: What gain will they get by intentionally altering the story? They gain neither power nor riches. What they got was death sentence. The likes of Stephen and James were killed very soon. Others like Peter, Paul and others were later killed. And they knew that this was actually coming. Had they altered/manipulated the story, at least few of them would crack under torture and confessed that they made it up. They won't receive heaven also because they knew that they were lying, if actually they had altered the story.
3. In our country it's not rare to find people who claim to be divine. But when Jesus was considered God, he was also considered to be the one through whom the universe came into existence. I am not sure if our god-man would be willing to go that far. Jesus had said he would be raised to life after three days. The disciples could not fully grasp it until it really happened because it was just too incredible. When people claim to be God, normally they made God very small. I think God should be holy, good, powerful, living etc. A dead God is no way better than a dead human being. I think what made Jesus different is that he died, and yet he rose again. Christianity stands or falls on this event which is considered to be an historical event. If one would enter the religious context when Jesus walked on earth, and follows the event sincerely, carefully and critically, using appropriate historical method to investigate, I would say the story is compelling.
It's little long though :-)... Good day!
so, the bibles of today tells us that ''GOD'' DEVISED A PLAN ; will send a person ''JESUS'', to be crucified for all of humanity, namely, those alive, those already dead, and those not yet born. It follows that the maker of such a plan would know in advance, all the'' players'' to be selected for such a plan. Now! , it appears to some that since ''JESUS'' died for their wrong doings even before they born, no other human being should be able to accuse any miscreant before the courts of law of being guilty of any crime that may have been committed.
DeleteNope, it does not work that way. Appropriation of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ by a person is required; a person is not acquitted from his crime just like that. But what is being talked about here is the pronouncement by God himself in his court. Here in on this earth, if we commit a crime, the legal system has every right to give what we deserve.
ReplyDelete