Transcription
This mainly is a historical conversation with theological underpinnings, and there's something very important that we need to understand this evening.
As a trained historian, when I'm looking at anyone, I want to go to the earliest source materials to find out who that person was. For the life of Jesus, the earliest source materials—and there's no debate about this—are the 27 independently written documents that we refer to as the New Testament, specifically the four gospels: the four biographies of Jesus's life by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These were written within a 15 to 20-year period starting from the time of Jesus's life. This is not a disputed fact; these are the relevant sources.
I am not going to go to something that comes later in order to find out who Jesus is. The Quran comes 600 years after the finalization of those documents that we refer to as the New Testament, which come from the time frame of Jesus, from eyewitnesses of those events. The gospels are our earliest biographies of Jesus's life, but they're actually not our earliest source material for the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
In fact, we have earlier source material in the Epistles of Paul, and specifically the letter in the New Testament that we call the Letter of James. Early church tradition dictates that James was the half-brother of Jesus, and James writes and makes an interesting statement about who Jesus is. Specifically, in his letter, in Chapter 2, verse 1, he makes this statement: "My brothers, do not hold the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ in a spirit of favoritism."
He uses this very interesting phrase, "our glorious Lord." He uses a phrase that the Greek translation of the Old Testament reserves for Yahweh God alone. This is the half-brother of Jesus who is using a divine title for his half-brother. In fact, Paul mirrors this in his letter in First Corinthians when he says, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory." He uses the exact same phraseology.
Now, I would contend to you tonight that no mere rajul, no mere prophet, would be called the Lord of Glory. This would be blasphemy unless Jesus proclaimed this himself. If we go to the Gospel of Matthew, we see something interesting. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus, when healing a paralytic, says, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." The immediate response is, "This fellow is blaspheming." Why? Because it was commonly acknowledged that the only one who could forgive sins was God.
What is Jesus's response? "No, no, no, no, no, I'm not God." No, he doubles down. He says, "But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on Earth to forgive sins." He uses a specific phrase about himself: the Son of Man. Now, his immediate audience gets very angry at him, and there's one reason they get very angry at him. This title, the Son of Man, is a direct association with Daniel, specifically in Chapter 7, verse 14, where Daniel sees a vision. He says, "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."
Jesus, referring to Daniel Chapter 7, uses a divine title, the Son of Man, and his immediate audience understands this. In fact, in the Gospel of Mark, 14:62, when he is put on trial, the Jews ask him, "Are you the Messiah?" and he says, "Yes, and you shall see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven." The high priest rips his robe and says, "You have heard the blasphemy." Why? His original audience knew exactly what he was saying; he was claiming time and time again to be the Son of Man, a title reserved only for the divine.
We also see something else interesting because we have other very early sources, specifically in Paul's letter to the Philippians. There is a section in it, in Chapter 2, verses 6 to 11, that is acknowledged by the vast majority of scholars to be a quotation of an early church hymn. Now, Paul is coming around within a decade after Jesus; this predates Paul. This is a formulaic hymn which has been acknowledged to come before Paul that he is quoting to his original audience.
What is it saying? "Who, although speaking of Jesus, he eternally existed in the very form of God, did not regard equality with God the Father to be a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant and being made in human likeness. Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and, having entered into human existence, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, even death that one dies on a cross. Because of this, God the Father exalted him to the highest place and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of the exalted name of Jesus, everyone who is in heaven and on earth and under the earth bows the knee, and every tongue confesses Jesus Christ is Lord, all to the glory of God the Father."
This is a phrase that's been referred to within scholarship as the "Kyrie Christi," the hymn to Christ as to God. It quotes Isaiah 45:23, which declares that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess to Yahweh God. There was no confusion as to who Jesus was, either from his statements when he said things like, "I and the Father are one," when he said things like, "You shall see the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven," when he said things like, "Before Abraham was, I am," and "If you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins."
These are divine statements. He claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath, a title that is only reserved for God, specifically because everyone rests on the Sabbath except for God. Why? Because he keeps the planets spinning in orbit. His original audience got very angry at him for making these statements because he was making divine claims.
So, I would put to you tonight an acronym: Jesus is given the honors due only to God; he's given the attributes only to God; he's given the names of God; and he has attributed the deeds of God within these 27 independent written documents.
Now, this is very problematic, specifically because the Quran says in Surah 3, verse 52, and 61:4, that the immediate followers of Jesus were Muslims. If the immediate followers of Jesus were Muslims, why do all the source materials have them saying these things?
The other thing I want to address tonight is the death of Jesus. When we're talking about the crucifixion, this is very important because this is one of the main areas of disagreement within both Christianity and Islam.
Let me review some sources. Modern non-Christian scholarship has a lot to say about Jesus's death. Ger Ludman, an atheist New Testament scholar, says Jesus's death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable. Marcus Borg, a liberal New Testament scholar, says the most certain fact about the historical Jesus is his execution as a political rebel. The Jewish scholar Pinkus Leep says Jesus's death by crucifixion is historically certain. A Jewish convert, Paula Fredriksen, says the single most solid fact about Jesus's life is his death; he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate on or around Passover in the manner Rome reserved particularly for political insurrectionists, namely crucifixion.
Finally, Bart Ehrman, easily the leading critic of biblical Christianity today, says one of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on the orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. Not only do we have consensus in non-Christian scholarship, but we have consensus in modern medical scientific evaluation.
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in March 21st of 1968 did an evaluation with a number of doctors on crucifixions within the Roman period, particularly looking at what we see within the crucifixion of Jesus, as testified to in the gospels. They came up with this conclusion: "Thus, it remains unsettled whether Jesus died of cardiac rupture or of cardiovascular failure. However, the important feature may be not how he died, but rather whether he died. Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound of his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear thrust between his right ribs probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart, and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with all medical knowledge."
Philip Hughes of the University of Leicester describes crucifixion: "First, the victim would be in a state of intense trauma, which would often induce cardiac arrest prior to the crucifixion taking place. Over such a prolonged period, the victim would be dehydrated, causing hallucinations, confusions, and heat stroke. During crucifixion itself, continuous pain would have occurred due to the nailing procedure, whilst the scourged back rubbing against the rough cross would have aggravated bleeding. A large nail driven through the wrist could potentially injure the median nerve, causing significant pain. Agonizing cramps in the arms, shoulders, and legs would have been constant, with the victim devoid of the ability to alleviate suffering by movement. Concurrently, the organs would gradually fail. Multi-organ breakdown is considered by some as the main cause of death, whilst others emphasize painful expiration, whereupon respiratory muscles become gradually weakened. Surely, deliberate quick death may be hindered by the elevated state of the arms, which encourage circulation but result in intense pain with every breath."
We know a lot about Roman crucifixion. There have been lots of studies that have been done on Roman crucifixion, and they all conclude with the fact that this was engineered to kill people.
Not only do we have medical data, but we have Jesus's own words. Jesus, in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 9, says, "The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he has been killed, he will rise three days later."
In the Gospel of Matthew, 16:21, from that time on, Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders and the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Matthew also says in 27:50 that Jesus cried out in a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. That is language of death.
The Gospel of Mark says that Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. It's unambiguous; this is language of death. The Gospel of Luke, 23:46, says, "And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.' Having said this, he breathed his last."
The Gospel of John, chapter 19:30, says, "And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
Not only this, but we have post-gospel testimony. In Acts chapter 2, on the day of Pentecost, Peter, one of Jesus's immediate followers, says, "You killed the author of life, but God the Father raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this."
Now, either Peter was lying in Acts when he was speaking to the Jews, or Peter didn't know, meaning that Jesus had deceived his closest friends and followers. Because all of the unanimous evidence points to his immediate followers proclaiming his death, and similarly, the church in Christianity has proclaimed this from the beginning.
So we put the facts together. Not only do we have all non-Christian scholarship saying Jesus died on a cross, but we also have the medical data saying Jesus unanimously died on the cross. Jesus's own words say that he would die. In fact, ten times in the four gospels within his three-year ministry period, he claims that he will be handed over and killed by the Romans.
Not only that, though, our earliest possible sources outside of the New Testament all say this. In fact, Ignatius, writing at the end of the first century, says he was truly crucified and died in the sight of beings in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead.
We have the testimony of Clement, we have Polycarp, all coming from the end of the first century, the beginning of the second century. We have Greek writers, Lucian and Celsus, all proclaiming that Jesus died by crucifixion on the Roman cross.
We have the unanimous testimony of Roman historians. Tacitus, if you know anything about the Roman emperors, you know it because Tacitus wrote it down and someone taught it to you. Tacitus says that "Christ, from whom the name of the origin of the group came, suffered the extreme penalty of crucifixion during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate."
Finally, we have Jewish testimony. They all say unanimously that this itinerant Jewish preacher from the backwaters of first-century Palestine— and I mean that as a geographical location, not a political statement—was crucified and died under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. All of our testimony declares that fact.
So we have non-Christian scholarship all unanimously agreeing that if we can know anything about Jesus, we know that he died on a Roman cross. We have modern medical scientific data all saying that if we know anything, we know that crucifixion killed people. And if the gospel testimonies are reliable, which I would contend they are, then they all point to Jesus dying on the cross.
We have the scriptural witnesses themselves within those biographies: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Then we have ancient early sources—Christian sources, Jewish sources, Roman sources, Greek sources—all saying this Jesus guy was crucified.
I would contend to you that that is versus 40 Arabic words in Surah 4, verse 157, that come 600 years after the fact, on a different continent, in a different language, by an individual who shows no interaction with the actual historical narrative or sources.
Friends, as a trained historian, I need to go to the earliest source material. I would contend to you tonight, in all honesty, I say this because I love you, my Muslim friends, that if you want to say that Jesus did not claim divinity, as we see in all of the early sources, that his immediate followers did not declare him as God, and that he was not crucified on a cross and died on the cross, what that means is you have to take the historical consensus, you have to take the earliest source material, you have to take modern medical science, and you have to take the evidence of Jesus's own words and, with all due respect, throw them in the trash in order to come to that conclusion.