Before shifting our gaze to
the facts relating to Christ and his crucifixion, perhaps it would not
be out of place to mention here, in brief, the Ahmadiyya Muslim
understanding of what happened during and after the crucifixion of Jesus
Christ. This issue will be briefly touched upon here and a detailed
discussion will follow later.
We
believe that the crucifixion of Jesus was an attempt made on his life,
like any attempted murder. Crucifixion was only the weapon used in that
murderous attempt. However, the attempt to crucify him failed in
inflicting death. This is tantamount to saying that they failed to
crucify him. When we say this, we express ourselves exactly as we would
in any other case of attempted murder. If an attempt is made on
someone’s life and the attempt fails, it cannot be said that the
intended victim was murdered. For instance, if such an attempt is made
with a sword, and the attempt fails, no one can say that the intended
victim was put to the sword. So we believe, as Ahmadi Muslims, that only
an attempt to murder Jesus was made; crucifixion being the instrument
of the attempted murder. After a few hours of intense suffering upon the
cross, before death could overtake him, he was taken down from the
cross in a state of deep coma from which he was revived later on. As no
state can permit a person who is condemned to death, a legal cover and
protection to his life if he somehow escapes execution, so also under
the Roman law, no immunity could be extended to Jesus beyond the point
of the Crucifixion. That provided Jesus with enough cause to escape from
Roman territory to a land of freedom. But he also had to perform a
commission and had a prophecy to fulfil. There were those lost sheep of
Israel, who after their exodus under the Babylonian and Roman invasion,
scattered in many eastern lands, were awaiting his ministry. This was
the other very strong reason for Jesus to have immigrated from the land
of Judea to those foreign lands where the Jews had settled over a period
of many centuries. This much should suffice for the time being.
I
want to make one thing clear to those who demand from us a proof of the
natural death of Jesus Christ after he was saved from the cross. They
are shifting the burden of proof on us without justification. There are
natural phenomena known to man which are universally understood. We know
that the life span of man on earth does not extend beyond a hundred and
fifty years or so; certainly not a thousand years or more. This is a
common experience relating to the span of human life on earth. If
someone thinks that something contradictory to this rule has happened,
then the burden of proof would fall on his shoulders, not on someone who
believes in the rule rather than the exception. This should be applied
to the situation enveloping the life and death of Jesus Christ. Those
who believe that he did not die must provide the proof. But those who
claim that he must have died, only follow the laws of nature and should
not be required to prove it beyond that. Otherwise, anyone could say
that his great great great… grandfather has not died. If such a claimant
goes around challenging everyone to prove it otherwise, what would be
their reaction? How can a poor listener meet such a challenge? Yet he
can only point out that the laws of nature operate on every human being
and spare no one. So if someone is making claims against the laws of
nature, the onus of proof is on him. This is the first answer, but I
will now make another humble attempt to try to make things clearer from a
different viewpoint.
Whatever
his relationship with God, was it beyond Jesus Christ to die? The
Christians themselves believe that he died. If it was against his nature
to die, this could not have happened in the first place. Yet we all
agree that he died at least once. The remaining part of the enquiry
would be as to when did he die? Whether on the cross or afterwards.
We
prove from the Bible that God did not abandon him and saved him from
the ignoble death upon the cross. This can be studied in the light of
the facts relating to the period before the Crucifixion, as well as the
facts of the Crucifixion itself and after it, as related by the New
Testament.
Long before that incident, Jesus promised that no sign would be shown unto the people other than the sign of Jonah.
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers
of the law said to him, ‘Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.’
He answered, ‘a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign!
But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah
was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of
Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men
of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it;
for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah
is here.’ (Matt 12:38–41)
So before we determine what
happened to Jesus, we must understand what happened to Jonah, because
Jesus claimed that the same miracle would be repeated. What was the Sign
of Jonah? Did he die in the belly of the fish and was he later on
revived from death? There is unanimity among all Christian, Jewish and
Muslim scholars that Jonah did not die in the belly of the fish. He
precariously hung between life and death and was miraculously saved from
that situation; while any other person in his place would have died.
Yet some subtle laws of nature, under the Divine command, must have
conspired together to save him from death. Remember, we are not debating
the issue of that being possible or not. We are only pointing out that
Jesus, when he pointed out that the like of what happened to Jonah would
also happen to him, he could only have meant that what everyone
understood to have occurred in the case of Jonah would occur in his
case. No one in the entire world of Judaism, whether in the land of
Judea or anywhere else the Jews had dispersed and settled, would have
received a different message from this claim of Jesus. They all believed
that Jonah, miraculously or otherwise, survived for three days and
nights in the belly of the fish and did not die in that period for a
single moment. Of course we have our own reservations regarding this
view. The story of Jonah as told to us in the Quran does not mention
anywhere that it was for three days and nights that Jonah suffered his
trials in the belly of the fish. However we return to the case in point
and try to bring to light the actual similarities which were predicted
by Jesus Christ between Jonah and himself. Those similarities spoke
clearly of spending three days and nights in extremely precarious
circumstances and a miraculous revival from near death, and not of
coming back to life from the dead. The same, Jesus claimed, would happen
in his case.
Jesus’ Promise to the House of Israel
The
second important piece of evidence is that Jesus told his people that
the sheep of the house of Israel who dwelt in and around Judea were not
the only sheep, and that he was sent by God not only to them but also to
the other sheep of the same flock. Just as he had come to retrieve them
he would also go and retrieve the others as well.
I
have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them
also. They too will listen to my voice and there shall be one flock and
one shepherd. (John 10:16)
Now
according to common knowledge, between the time of his promise and
Crucifixion, he never left the land of Judea for anywhere else. The
question is, if Jesus ascended to heaven eternally, had the lost sheep
of Israel also ascended earlier? The Christian believe that after having
been taken down from the cross as dead, his soul returned to his body
after three days or so and then he was seen climbing into the clouds and
disappearing into the unknown recesses of heaven, only to reach
ultimately the throne of his Father and to sit on his right hand
eternally from then on. If this is true then we will be faced with a
very grave dilemma indeed. We shall have to choose between the two
positions. One taken by Jesus himself and the other by his followers.
The two positions are so uncompromising that accepting one would
certainly negate the other. If Jesus was right as we believe he was,
then before ascending to heaven he should have remembered his own
promise and sought some more time from ‘God the Father’ to tarry a bit
longer on earth so that he could go to the countries where many of the
Israeli tribes before him had gone and settled. He could not have
ascended to heaven without breaking his promise and trust, blemishing
and irreparably damaging his perfect God, perfect Man image. If on the
contrary, the Christian theologians are to be considered right and it is
accepted that Jesus actually forgot his commitment to the house of
Israel and left straight for the heavens, then we must conclude with a
heavy heart that the Christian theologians are right indeed but alas
Christianity turns out to be false. Because if Jesus is proved to be
false Christianity cannot be true.
We
believe that he was a true prophet of God and could not have made a
false promise. What he meant by the lost sheep were the ten tribes of
Israel, who had earlier migrated from Judea and had gone to remote
eastern lands. His promise, therefore, was that he would not be killed
on the cross but would be given a long life to pursue his mission and
that he was a prophet not just for the two Israeli tribes living around
him but for all the Israelites. Together, the above two pieces of
evidence provide the positive indication of what was to happen to Jesus
Christ after the Crucifixion.
Events of the Crucifixion
Another
point relevant to this issue relates to the fixing of the date and time
by Pilate for carrying out the Crucifixion. Even before he fixed the
date and time we read of other things, which one should not be surprised
to believe, might have played an important role regarding his final
decision. First of all we know on the authority of the New Testament
that Pilate’s wife was strongly averse to her husband passing judgement
against Jesus because of the influence of a dream she had the night
before Jesus’ trial.
She
was so terrified by the effect of the dream, which led her to believe
that Jesus was absolutely innocent, that she thought it imperative to
disturb the court proceedings to convey the message of the dream to her
husband. 1 Perhaps it was this urgent
protestation by his wife that led Pilate to make a show of absolving
himself of the responsibility of his condemnation of Jesus.
When Pilate saw that he was getting
no where, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed
his hands in front of the crowd. ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood,’ he said.
‘it is your responsibility!’ (Matt 27:15–17)
It amounted to a confession
on his part that Jesus was indeed innocent and that the harsh judgement
passed by him was under duress. It is quite clear from the New
Testament that the powerful Jewish community had colluded against Jesus
and were determined to have him punished. So any decision by Pilate
contrary to Jewish wishes could have resulted in a grave law and order
situation. This was Pilate’s compulsion which rendered him helpless and
was displayed in the act of washing his hands.
Pilate
had also made another attempt to save Jesus. He gave the enraged crowds
an option either to save Jesus’ life or that of a notorious criminal
called Barabbas. 2 This provides us with
a significant clue to the state of Pilate’s mind at that time. He was
quite obviously against the idea of sentencing Jesus. It was in this
psychological state that he fixed Friday afternoon to be the day and
time of the execution. What actually happened, leaves one to believe,
was a clear indication that he did it on purpose because the Sabbath was
not very far from Friday afternoon and he, as the custodian of law knew
better than anyone else that before the Sabbath began by sunset, Jesus’
body would have to be taken down; and that is exactly what happened.
What normally took three days and nights, approximately, to finally
inflict a torturous death upon a condemned man was subjected to Jesus
for a few hours at the most. Hardly enough, one is compelled to wonder,
to actually kill a man of Jesus’ physique whom an austere life had
toughened physically.
Could
this incident not be a key to the enigma of Jonah? As it was a common
practice for a condemned person to hang on the cross for three days and
nights, this rings a bell indeed in one’s mind about the similitude
between Jesus and Jonah as mentioned earlier. He is also supposed to
have remained within the body of the fish for three days and three
nights. Maybe he too was delivered alive by God’s design within three
hours instead of three days. So what happened in the case of Jesus
becomes a mirror reflecting and replaying the tragic drama of Jonah.
Now
turning to the events during the Crucifixion. Even at the last moment
Jesus stood firm to his protestations: ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani?,’
How deeply tragic, how painfully expressive of his disillusionment. How
subtly pointing at some earlier promise and assurance which God the
Father must have given him, otherwise, no sense whatsoever can be read
in this exclamation. It is a denial both of his wish and willingness to
carry, by volition, the load of other people’s sin and of the view that
he was looking forward to that hour of death. Why this deep cry of
anguish when the punishment was demanded by him in the first place. Why
should he reproach God, or even pray for deliverance? It should be read
in the context of what happened before. He was praying to God throughout
to take the bitter cup from him.
We
as Ahmadi Muslims believe that the pious and holy person that Jesus
was, it is impossible that God did not accept that prayer. He must have
been told that the prayer had been accepted. I do not believe that he
gave up the ghost on the cross. With me there is no contradiction and
everything is consistent. His death was only the impression of an
observer who was neither a physician nor had he any opportunity to
medically examine him. An onlooker, watching with such anxiety and
concern lest death should overtake his beloved master, merely observed
the dropping of the tired head with chin resting against the chest of
Jesus. And ‘Lo,’ he exclaimed, ‘He gave up the ghost.’ But as we
explained earlier, this is not a treatise to discuss the merits and
authenticities of the Biblical account from the point of view of
genuineness or otherwise, or to dispute any interpretations attributed
to them. We are here only to critically examine the very logic and
commonsense of Christian philosophy and dogma.
The
point which is roundly established therefore is that whether he swooned
or died, his painful surprise at what was about to happen strongly
proves that he expected otherwise. If death it was that he sought then
the surprise that he showed had no justification at all. Our
interpretation as Ahmadi Muslims is that Jesus was only surprised
because he was given a promise of deliverance from cross by God during
his supplications the night before. But God had other plans, He caused
Jesus to merely swoon so that the sentries on guard could be misled to
believe that he had died and as such to release his body to Joseph of
Arimathea, to be delivered to his kith and kin. The surprise which we
notice in the last words of Jesus Christ was also shared by Pilate
himself: ‘Already dead,’ is what he exclaimed when the incident of death
was reported to him. 3 He must have had
a long experience of crucifixion during his tenure as Governor of Judea
and could not have expressed his surprise unless he was convinced that
it is unusual for death to overtake a crucified person, within the short
period of only a few hours. Yet he had to accept the plea to release
the body under mysterious circumstances. That is why he is forever
accused of conspiracy. It is alleged that under the influence of his
wife he saw to it that the execution of Jesus took place at an hour very
close to the hour of Sabbath. Secondly, he conceded to the request to
release the body despite doubtful reports of Jesus’ death. This decision
of Pilate caused grave concern among the Jews who petitioned to him and
expressed their doubts and suspicions regarding the death of Jesus. 4
We
also observe from the Bible that when his body was taken down his legs
were not broken. Whereas the legs of the two thieves, hanging along with
him, were broken to make sure that they died. 5
This act of sparing Jesus would certainly have helped his revival from
the coma. It cannot be ruled out altogether that the sentries had been
instructed by some emissaries of Pilate, not to break the legs of Jesus
Christ. Perhaps as a mark of respect for him and the innocent Christian
community.
Again according to the Bible, when his side was pierced blood and water gushed out.
But
when they came to Jesus and found him already dead, they did not break
his legs. Instead one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear
bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. (John 19:33,34)
If
he was dead and his heart had stopped beating, such active bleeding as
causing the blood to rush out or gush out would be impossible. At most
coagulated blood and plasma could have passively seeped out. But that is
not the picture which the New Testament presents, it says that blood
and water rushed out. As far as the mention of water is concerned it
should not be surprising for Jesus to have developed pleurisy during the
extremely exacting and punishing hours of trial that he spent upon the
cross. Also, the stress of the Crucifixion could have resulted in
exudates from the pleura to collect likes bags of water, which is
medically termed as wet pleurisy. This condition, which is otherwise
dangerous and painful, seems to have turned into an advantage for Jesus
because when his side was pierced the swollen pleura could easily have
played the role of a cushion protecting the chest organs from being
directly penetrated by the spear. Water mixed with blood rushed out
because of an active heart.
Another
piece of evidence is as follows. According to the Biblical account,
after the body was handed over to Joseph of Arimathea, it was
immediately removed to a secret place of burial, a sepulchre with enough
room not only for Jesus but also for two of his attendants to sit and
take care of him.
Then the disciples went back to
their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent
down over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’
body had been. (John 20:10–12)
That is not all, we are
informed in the New Testament that an ointment, which had been prepared
in advance was applied to Jesus’ wounds. 6
This ointment, prepared by the disciples of Jesus, contained
ingredients which have properties of healing wounds and subduing pain
etc. Why was there all this fuss about going through the laborious
exercise of collecting twelve rare ingredients to prepare an ointment at
all? The prescription used is recorded in many classical books such as
the famous medical textbook Al-Qanun by Bu
Ali Sina (see appendix for a list of such books). So what was the need
of applying ointment to a dead body? This could only make sense if the
disciples had strong reasons to believe that Jesus would be delivered
alive from the cross and not dead. St. John is the only apostle who has
ventured to offer an explanation justifying the act of preparing and
applying an ointment to Jesus’ body. This further supports the fact that
the act of applying ointment to a dead body was considered extremely
odd behaviour, inexplicable to those who believed that Jesus was dead
when ointment was applied. It is for this reason why St. John had to
offer an explanation. He suggests that it was done so merely because it
was a Jewish practice to apply some sort of balm or ointment to the
bodies of their dead. Now it is a very important fact to note that all
modern scholars who have researched into this, are in agreement that St.
John was not of Jewish origin, and he proved it by this statement of
his. It is known for certain that Jews or the Children of Israel have
never applied any ointments whatsoever to the bodies of their dead. As
such the scholars contend that St. John must have been of non-Jewish
origin otherwise he could not have been so ignorant of Jewish customs.
So there has to be another reason for this.
The
ointment was applied to save Jesus from near death. The only
explanation lies in the fact that Jesus was neither expected to die by
his disciples nor did he actually die upon the cross. The body which was
taken down must have shown positive signs of life before the
application of the ointment, otherwise, it turns out to be an extremely
stupid, unwarranted and futile exercise on the part of those who
indulged in it. It is unlikely that those who had prepared this ointment
in advance had done so without a very strong indication that Jesus
would not die upon the cross but would be taken down alive seriously
wounded, very much in need of a powerful healing agent.
It
should be borne in mind that the location of the sepulchre where Jesus
lay was kept a closely guarded secret, known to a few of his disciples.
Obviously for the reason that he was still alive and was yet not beyond
danger.
As for what
happened in the sepulchre, this is debatable on many counts; it cannot
stand critical examination or prove that the person who walked out had
really died and then been resurrected. The only evidence we have is the
belief of Christians that the Jesus who walked out of the sepulchre
possessed the same body which was crucified, bearing the same marks and
wounds. If he was seen walking out in the same body, then the only
logical conclusion which could be drawn would be that he had never died.
Another piece of
evidence pointing to the continuity of Jesus’ life is as follows. After
three days and three nights he is seen, not by the public, but only by
his Disciples. In other words, by people whom he trusted. He avoids the
light of day and only meets them under the cover of darkness at night.
One may safely infer from the Biblical account that he seems to be
moving away from the source of danger with a sense of urgency and
secrecy. The question is, if he had been given a new and eternal life
after his first death, and was not to suffer another, why was he hiding
from the eyes of his enemies; that is both the government agencies and
the public? He should have appeared to the Jews and the representatives
of the Roman Empire and said: ‘Here I am, with an eternal life, try and
kill me again if you may, you will never be able to.’ But he preferred
to remain hidden. Not that the idea of appearing in public was not
suggested to him, on the contrary, it was specifically suggested to him
to reveal himself to the world, but he refused and continued to distance
himself from Judea so that no one could follow him.
Then Judas said, ‘But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?’ (John 14:22)
As they approached the village to
which they were going , Jesus acted as if he were going further. But they urged
him strongly, ‘Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.’
So he went in to stay with them. (Luke 24,28–29)
This very strongly presents
the case of a mortal who is not beyond the reach of death or injury to
his person. It only signifies that Jesus had not died in the sense that
he was delivered of the human element in him but he remained exactly the
same in his nature, whatever it was, and there was no death separating
his old self from the new. This is what we call continuity of life in
human experience. A spirit or a ghost belonging to another world
certainly does not behave like Jesus behaved during his secret meetings
under the cover of night with his close friends and followers.
The
question of Jesus being a ghost is emphatically ruled out by none other
than Jesus himself. When he appeared to some of his disciples, they
could not hide their fear of him because they believed him to be not
Jesus himself, but a ghost of Jesus. Jesus Christ understanding their
difficulties dispelled their fears by denying being a ghost, asserting
himself to be the same Jesus who was crucified and invited them to
examine his wounds which were still fresh. 7
His appearance to his disciples etc, by no means established his
revival from the dead. All that it established was simply his survival
from the throes of death.
As
if to remove any misunderstanding that might still have lurked in their
minds he asked them what they were eating. When he was told that they
were eating bread and fish he asked for some of it because he was hungry
and ate some. 8 That certainly is a
proof beyond a shadow of doubt, against his revival from death, that is,
a revival of the nature of a human being having died once and brought
to life again. The problems arising out of such an understanding of
revival of Jesus Christ would be two fold.
If
Jesus was still of the god-human species, as he is previously claimed
to be, then he could not have got rid of the man inside him. This
presents a very complicated and problematic situation. What did death do
to him, or them, that is the man in Jesus and the god in him? Did the
souls of both man and god depart together and return to the same earthly
body again having visited the same hell together, or was it only the
soul of the god in Jesus which returned to the human body without the
soul of man? Where did that soul disappear to, one is left wondering.
Was his journey to hell a journey of no return? While that of the godly
soul in him was confined therein only for three days and nights. Was God
the father of the man Jesus or the Son Jesus? This question that has to
be settled for once and for all to give us a clear picture. Was the
body of Jesus, partially a body of God and partially a body of man?
The
concept of God which we have been granted by the study of both the Old
Testament and the New Testament is that of an incorporeal infinite
being, with matter having played no role in the making of His person.
Having understood this much, let us look back at Jesus as he was going
through different stages of development as an embryo in the womb of
Mary. All the matter which went into the making of Jesus has to be
contributed by the human mother with not even an iota of it being
supplied by God the Father. Of course God could have created him
miraculously. But from my point of view, creation, whether it appears to
be miraculous or natural, is still creation. We can only accept someone
to be the father of a son if the substance of the father and the
substance of the mother are both shared equally or partially so that at
least some of the substance of the body of the child is derived from the
substance of the father.
From
this it should become very clear to the reader, that God did not play
any fatherly role at all in the birth process of the human embryo and
the entire corporeal body with all its cardiac, respiratory, elementary,
portal, cellular and central nervous systems were the unaided product
of the human mother alone. Where is the element of sonship in Jesus who
was merely a receptacle for the soul of God and no more? This new
understanding of the relationship between God and Jesus can be sensibly
described as anything but a father-son relationship.
REFERENCES
- Matthew 27:19
- Matthew 27:15–17
- Mark 15:44
- Matthew 27:62–66
- John 19:31,32
- John 19:39–40
- John 20:19–27
- Ibid 24:41–42
The scenario of Jesus’
revival from the dead presents many problems. Some of them have already
been discussed in the previous chapter. Now we turn to other elements
and complexities.
What
we have in view is the nature of the ‘mind’ of Jesus, prior to the
Crucifixion and after his revival from the dead. His mind was brought to
life again, after a loss of function for three days and nights. The
question is, what actually happens to the brain at the time of death? On
one point at least there is a consensus among both the Christian and
the non-Christian medical experts: if the brain remains dead for more
than a few minutes, it is dead and gone forever. As soon as the blood
supply ceases, it begins to disintegrate.
If
Jesus died during the Crucifixion it can only mean that his heart
ceased functioning and stopped supplying blood to his brain, and that
his brain died soon after. So his entire life support system must have
stopped to operate or he could not have been declared dead. That being
so we are faced with a very intriguing problem in relation to the
understanding of the life and death of Jesus Christ.
The
death of Jesus Christ, as has been demonstrated, would mean a final
departure of his astral body, or soul as we may call it, from the
physical cage of his human body. If so, his revival would have to mean
the return of the same astral body to the same physical body that it had
left behind three days earlier. Such a return of the soul would restart
the clock of physical life and set it ticking once again. For such a
thing to happen, the disintegrated and dead brain cells would have come
to life suddenly and the chemical processes of rapid decay would have
been reversed entirely. This involves an enormous problem and will ever
remain a challenge for the Christian biochemists to resolve. Describing
the reversal of the entire chemical processes of decay within the
central nervous system is beyond the reach of the farthest stretches of
scientist’s imagination. If it ever happened it would be a miracle
indeed, defying science and making a mockery of the laws made by God
Himself, but a miracle that would still fail to solve the problem at
hand.
Such a revival
would mean not just the revival of the cells of the central nervous
system, but actually their synthesis. Even if the same cells were
reconstructed and brought to life exactly as they were before, they
would, in fact, be a new set of cells devoid of any previous memory.
They would have to be re- manufactured, complete with all the data
relevant to the life of Jesus that was wiped out of his brain after the
death of his mind.
Life,
as we know it, comprises of a consciousness that is filled with
information held by billions of neurons within the brain. That
information is then subdivided into far more complicated and
interrelated bits of computerised information received from each of the
five senses. If that data is wiped out, life itself would be wiped out.
Therefore, the revival of the brain of Jesus would mean the construction
and the manufacture of a new brain computer with a completely new set
of software. This complexity also relates to the chemistry of the rest
of the body of Jesus Christ. To revive the body, a colossal chemical
reconstruction process will have to be put into operation after
retrieving all the material lost in the process of decay. With such a
great miracle having taken place the question would arise as to who is
revived and with what effect? Is it the man in Jesus or is it the god in
him? This is why we are emphasising the importance of understanding the
person of Jesus.
Whenever
Jesus is known to have faltered and failed to exhibit his superpowers
as the Son of God, Christians take refuge in the claim that he faltered
as a man and not as a god. So we have every right to question and to
clearly define which part in him was man and which was god. The
faltering of the man in Jesus requires a human mind as a separate entity
to that of the god in him. When the brain was revived it was the human
element in Jesus which was revived because the ‘Divine’ entity of Jesus
did not require a material brain to support him. For the ‘Divine’ entity
it only worked as a receptacle during his previous sojourn on earth; as
in the case of a spiritual medium. Hence the revival of Jesus would
only implicate the revival of the man in him, without which the return
of his spirit to the same body is rendered impossible.
If
this scenario is not acceptable then we will face another grave problem
of attributing to Jesus during his earthly life two independent minds,
one of man and another that of god. The two cohabiting the same space
but otherwise unrelated and independent. If so, the revival issue will
have to be re-examined so that its true nature is clearly understood. In
this scenario, one does not have to conceive of the essential
reconstruction of the human brain to provide a seat for the human mind,
we need only to imagine Jesus revisiting a skull filled with the
decaying remains of the brain of his former human host.
The
deeper we look into this problem more problems raise their heads at
every newly probed level. Man’s mind requires a brain as a tool of his
thought process. As far as the functions of the physical body are
concerned, if we believe that the mind is a separate entity which lives
by itself, then it would imply that the mind and the soul are the same
thing. By whatever name we refer to it, whether we call it mind or soul,
it may be considered as capable of living separately even when its
relationship with the human brain is severed. But if they are required
to govern the human body or to be influenced by what goes on in their
physical realms then there has to be a profound bondage between the mind
and the brain, or the soul and the brain, otherwise they simply cannot
influence, motivate or control physical, mental or sentimental processes
in man. Perhaps this is not debatable.
From
this we are led to another serious problem; does the so-called Divine
Son need to control a body through a brain? and does he depend on a
physical brain for his thought processes? If he transcends all human
limitations and if he has an independent system of thought processes,
unique to him, with no parallel in the entire universe of his creation,
then the return of the soul of God to the human body along with that of
the mind of man reconstructs a bizarre situation of a dual personality
with two conflicting thought processes, because it is impossible for the
human mind and the human soul to be completely at one with the mind of
God and His being. There would be a constant variation between the two
thought processes with very irritating clashes of brain waves. Such a
case would be fit to be treated by a superhuman psychiatrist. A new type
of spiritual schizophrenia perhaps.
Having
said that, let us reconstruct the entire scenario from a different
angle. After studying Christianity at some depth I have come to the
conclusion that there is confusion prevailing in the understanding of
some terms and their application, without fully understanding their
implications, to situations where they do not actually apply. Christian
ideology is densely befogged with such confusion and misapplied
terminology. ‘Revival’ is one term and ‘Resurrection’ is another, and
both have different meanings. So far, we have intentionally used the
term ‘revival’ when discussing the possibility of Jesus coming to life
again. As we have clearly seen from the previous discussion ‘revival’
means the return of all vital functions of the human body after death.
But ‘resurrection’ is a completely different phenomenon.
Unfortunately,
the Christian church, all over the world, has been responsible for
creating confusion in Christian minds by misusing these terms by
swapping one with the other; or at least by attributing the meaning of
one to the other. Most Christians understand the resurrection of Jesus
Christ as the springing to life once again of his human body which he
had abandoned at the moment of his so-called death. Of course we
disagree with this and retain our right to describe it as a state of
deep coma and not death.
If
correctly understood and applied, the resurrection of Jesus cannot mean
the return of his soul to the same human body which it had deserted at
the moment of death. The term ‘resurrection’ only means the creation of a
new astral body. Such a body is spiritual in nature and works as a sort
of crucible for a rarefied soul within. It is created for the eternal
continuation of life after death. Some call it a sidereal body or astral
body and some call it athma. Whatever name
you give it the essential meaning remains the same; resurrection
applies to the creation of a new body for the soul which is ethereal in
nature and not, we repeat, not, the return of the soul to the same
disintegrated human body which it left previously.
St.
Paul has spoken at length in exactly these terms about the resurrection
of Jesus Christ. He believed in the resurrection of not only Jesus but
the resurrection in general of all those who die and are deemed fit by
God to be given a new existence and a new form of life. The personality
of the soul remains the same but its abode is changed. According to St.
Paul, this is a general phenomenon which has to be accepted, otherwise
there would be no meaning left in Christianity or religion.
St.
Paul’s letters to the Corinthians must be studied in depth because they
are central to the issue. They leave no room for doubt in my mind at
least, that whenever he spoke of Jesus having been seen alive after the
Crucifixion he spoke clearly and without ambiguity of his resurrection
and resurrection alone, and it never crossed his mind that the soul of
Jesus had returned to his mortal body and that he was resuscitated from
death in ordinary physical terms. If my understanding of St. Paul is not
acceptable to some Christian theologians they will have to admit that
St. Paul glaringly contradicted himself because at least in some of his
accounts of Jesus’ new life he leaves no shadow of doubt that he
understood Jesus’ new life to be the resurrection and not revival of the
human body in which his soul is said to have been caged.
Following are some of the relevant passages which speak for themselves:
By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. (Corinthians 1,6:14)
So will it be with the resurrection
of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised un-perishable;
it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it
is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (Ibid 15:42–44)
For the trumpet will
sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For
the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal
with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the
imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is
written will come true: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’ (Ibid
15:52:54)
We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (Corinthians 2,5:8)
The
problem which remains to be resolved arises out of St. Paul’s reference
to the early Christians account of how Jesus was seen alive in his body
soon after the Crucifixion. If St. Paul understood Jesus to have been
resurrected, he could be right of course and his personal ‘vision’ of
Jesus or communion with him could be explained in terms of resurrection
like the visiting soul of a dead person from the other world, acquiring
an apparition very much like its form and shape prior to death. But
there seems to be confusion over the mixing up of two types of evidence.
Firstly we need to consider the early evidence of his disciples and of
those who loved and revered him, although they might not have been
formally initiated into Christianity. That evidence must have been
misunderstood by St. Paul because it clearly speaks of Jesus in his
human form with a corporeal body that cannot be interpreted as
resurrection.
To prove this, one has only to refer to the episode of Jesus surprising some of his disciples:
They were startled and frightened,
thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why
do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and feet. It is I myself!
Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.’
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they
still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, ‘Do
you have anything here to eat?’ They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and
he took it and ate it in their presence. (Luke 24:37–43)
This episode
categorically rules out the idea of resurrection and speaks of Jesus
wanting to demonstrate clearly that he was the same person in the same
human body and not a ghost; nor someone no longer dependant on food for
survival. This further shows that the early Christians were speaking of
two different things. Whenever they spoke of Jesus’ revival from the
dead and were confronted by the sceptical regarding the sheer absurdity
of the idea, they took refuge in the notion of resurrection which could
be philosophically and logically explained. Corinthians 1 in particular,
presents an excellent opportunity to study the dilemma of putting one’s
feet in two different boats.
Finally
returning to the evidence of the early Christian’s encounters with
Jesus Christ, we are left with no option but to believe that the Jesus
who appeared soon after the Crucifixion to many of his disciples and
friends, who spoke to them, who accompanied them and moved gradually
away from the scene of the Crucifixion, mostly under the cover of night
was certainly not a resurrected person but one who could only be taken
as a person who was either physically revived from the dead or one who
never died but was miraculously recovered from a state of near death. So
near, indeed, to death, that his state could be compared to the state
of Jonah in the belly of the fish. We have no doubt in our minds that
this latter option is the only acceptable one.
To
make it easier for Christians to understand our point of view I will
present a similar hypothetical case. The same story is repeated in real
life today. An attempt is made to kill someone by crucifying him and he
is supposed to be dead as a result. Afterwards, the same person is seen
moving about by some of his close associates. They also observe that his
physical body visibly carries the marks of crucifixion. He is then
recaptured by the Law and presented to a court of justice with a demand
from the prosecution that as he had somehow escaped death in the first
attempt so to consummate the sentence passed against him, he must be
crucified once again. That man then defends himself by postulating that
he most certainly had died once; hence the purpose of law was indeed
achieved and now that he had risen from the dead by a special decree of
God so the past judgement of condemnation could not be re-executed for
the reason that he was enjoying a completely new lease of life in which
he had committed no offence against the law. If the court accepts this
plea, obviously he would not be punished again for a crime for which he
had already paid his dues.
If
such an incident were to happen in a court of law in a Christian
country with a Christian judge and a Christian jury, what verdict would
the reader suggest they would or should pass? If the plea of the person
under trial is to be rejected and he is condemned to be hanged again, on
what grounds would it be justified?
Evidently,
any sane judge, Christian or non-Christian, and any jury made up of
sane people would not even remotely entertain the plea that having died
once the accused had come to life again. Such a verdict has no
parochial, religious, racial or ethnic bias. It is universal in nature
and no man in command of his sanity can think of a verdict other than
this. Hence the universal consensus of human intellect would reject the
plea of ‘revival’, and will only pass a verdict of ‘survival’ from
death. That is exactly what happened in the case Jesus Christ. It was
neither a case of revival, nor of resurrection, but simply as common
sense would have it, a clear case of survival.
The
coming to life of the dead body of Jesus is so essential to
Christianity that one has to investigate the real reasons behind it.
Apparently there is no logic in the entire episode. Why should a
so-called Son of God, having been once delivered from his human cage,
ever choose to return to it? And how could it be taken as proof beyond
doubt that he had actually died and had then come to life again? This
aspect has already been considered at some length and I am not
attempting to emphasize the same point, but I wish to draw the reader’s
attention to another vital relevant question.
Why
did such an absurd idea take root in Christian theology, and gradually
in a few centuries after Jesus, grow into one of the pillars of
Christian belief, without which the whole edifice of Christian theology
would collapse? We will try to project ourselves into the minds of the
early Christians who faced an almost insoluble dilemma and begin to
reconstruct the circumstances in which Christianity was given a shape
different from its reality. This way perhaps it will be easier for us to
understand, in depth, the making and unmaking of Christianity. The hard
fact which must be brought into sharp focus is simply this: If Jesus,
peace be upon him, did actually die upon the cross then in the eyes of
the Jewish people he would clearly appear to be an imposter.
Vitriolic Language Against Holy People
As
referred to earlier, the scriptures had predicted that any false
claimant who attributed anything to God which He had not said, would
hang upon the tree. Therefore the death of Jesus upon the cross would be
tantamount to the death of Christianity. That is why authentic Jewish
religious literature is full of their gloatings about Jesus’ death upon
the cross. He was considered to have been proved false, beyond a shadow
of doubt, by his contemporary Jewish adversaries on the basis of that
particular Biblical verdict. They lost even a semblance of respect for
him and used such filthy and insulting language against him that it is
an unbearable reading for anyone who loves Jesus as we do, as a true,
beloved and holy messenger of Allah. One can well imagine the deep
suffering and intense agony of the early Christians who had known Jesus
to be a holy man and a true messenger of God, having been assigned the
special station of the Messiah. How would they defend themselves against
the onslaught of such filthy language which when read today in the
present day context, brings to mind the ugly image of Salman Rushdie’s
notorious book The Satanic Verses?
Such
total lack of respect for decency by both seems to have arisen from the
depths of human degradation. The following quotes will give the reader
some idea as to what happens to all decent human values when the rabid
antagonists of holy people choose to make them a target of their
impudent, perverted and distorted ravings.
The
Talmud, the doctrinal book which fully expounds all the knowledge and
beliefs of the Jewish people, taught that Jesus had not only an
illegitimate birth, but was doubly uncouth in view of his having been
born out of a devilish wedlock of Mary during the period of her
menstruation. It further elaborated that he had the soul of Esau; that
he was a fool, a conjurer, a seducer; that he was crucified, buried in
hell and set up as an idol ever since by his followers. The extracts
which follow have been taken from the book The Talmud Unmasked, by Rev I.B. Pranaitis.
The following is narrated in the Tract Kallah, 1b (18b):
"Once when the Elders were
seated at the Gate, two young men passed by, one of whom had his head covered.
The other with his head bare. Rabbi Eliezer remarked that the one in his
bare head was illegitimate, a mamzer. Rabbi
Jehoschua said that he was conceived during menstruation, ben
niddah. Rabbi Akibah, however, said that he was both. Whereupon the
others asked Rabbi Akibah why he dared to contradict his colleagues. He answered
that he could prove what he said. He went therefore to the boy’s mother whom
he saw sitting in the market place selling vegetables and said to her: ‘My
daughter, if you will answer truthfully what I am going to ask you, I promise
that you will be saved in the next life.’ She demanded that he would swear
to keep his promise, and Rabbi Akibah did so—but with his lips only, for
in his heart he invalidated his oath. Then he said: ‘Tell me what kind of
son is this of yours?’ To which she replied: ‘The day I was married I was
having menstruation, and because of this my husband left me. But an evil
spirit came and slept with me and from this intercourse my son was born to
me.’ Thus it was proved that this young man was not only illegitimate but
also conceived during the menstruation of his mother. And when his questioners
heard this they declared: ‘Great indeed was Rabbi Akibah when he corrected
his Elders!’ And they exclaimed: ‘Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who
revealed his secret to Rabbi Akibah the son of Joseph!’ "
That the Jews understand this
story to refer to Jesus and his mother, Mary, is clearly demonstrated in
their book Toldath Jeschu—’The Generation
of Jesus’— where the birth of our Saviour is narrated in almost the same
words. 1
All that is decent in
man revolts against the stinking filth which was heaped upon the holy
name and image of Jesus in the literature of his hostile antagonists. Of
course, Jesus was conceived by a chaste holy lady named Mary and
nothing else played a role in that conception but the limitless creative
powers of our Lord God. The idea of conception by intercourse with the
devil during the state of menstruation is far more aptly applicable to
the mind that conceived this enormity. Alas, neither the holy spouses of
holy people or even their mothers are spared by the tongues and pens of
perverts who spit venom and ugliness alike. It does not make any
difference whether such a maniac lived two thousand years ago or was
born in the contemporary world. How amazing it is that even the most
civilized societies of today can shut their eyes to this beastliness and
would rather approve of such flagrant offences in the name of liberty
of tongue and pen.
The
language used by Salman Rushdie, for instance, against the holy ladies
of the Holy Prophet of Islam is not dissimilar to the language used
against the holy mother of Christ.
It is also narrated in Sanhedrin, 67a:
‘This
is what they did to the son of Stada in Lud, and they hanged him on the
eve of the Passover. For this son of Stada was the son of Pandira. For
Rabbi Chasda tells us that Pandira was the husband of Stada, his mother,
and he lived during the time of Paphus the son of Jehuda.’
The author of The Talmud Unmasked, Rev I.B. Pranaitis makes the following comment on the verses qouted above:
‘The
meaning of this is that this Mary was called Stada, that is, a
prostitute, because, according to what was taught at Pumbadita she left
her husband and committed adultery. This is also recorded in the
Jerusalem Talmud and Maimonides.’
‘Whether those who believe such devilish lies deserve greater hatred or pity, I cannot say.’
This
indeed is a cry of anguish from the heart of a helpless victim who is
grieved by the fanatical mockery of his beloved master. The early
Christians must have suffered even greater agony and experienced hell by
the mockery of the Jews of that period. They had to suffer invectives,
directed not against someone whose memory was long buried in the past,
but against someone whose beloved memory was still fresh and alive, and
who was profoundly loved by those who had seen him and had shared some
most beautiful moments of their lives with him. They would have been
doubly tormented, because it was not only the heinous mockery which hurt
them but further insult was added to injury by the suffering of Jesus
Christ during his conviction and attempted crucifixion.
I
only wish that the Christian conscience of the free West could at least
make some effort to understand the agony and anguish of a billion
Muslims who are most certainly not tortured less when similar inhuman
language is used against their beloved Holy Master and his Companions.
The
early Christians had to suffer all this despite their personal
knowledge and despite possessing irrevocable evidence to the effect that
Jesus was alive and that he had not died upon the cross as boasted by
the Jews. They had themselves treated his wounds. They had seen him
recover miraculously from a deep state of coma in which his body was
delivered to them, and had seen him with their own eyes, not in the form
of an apparition or a ghost, but in the same frail human body which had
suffered so much for the sake of truth and had yet miraculously
survived death. They talked with him, ate with him and had seen him
moving step by step, night after night in utter secrecy away from the
scene of the Crucifixion.
The
subject of the Ascension of Jesus Christ is untouched by St. Matthew
and St. John in their Gospels. The lack of mention of such an important
event leaves one wondering as to why.
The only two synoptic Gospels which mention the Ascension are Mark 2 and Luke 3.
However, recent scientific and scholarly investigations have proved
that the accounts contained in both these Gospels are later
interpolations. These verses were non-existent in the original texts.
Codex Siniaticus dates
from the 4th century and remains the oldest near complete text of the Old
and New Testament. It stands witness to the fact that the said verses in
both Mark and Luke were not included in the authentic original versions but
were certainly added by some scribe on his own initiative much later. In
the Codex Siniaticus the Gospel of Mark ends
at chapter 16 verse 8. This fact is now acknowledged in some modern Bible
editions as well4. Also, the Gospel of Luke (24:15) in Codex
Siniaticus, does not contain the words ‘Carried up to heaven’.
According to the textual critic
C.S.C. Williams, if these omissions in the Codex Siniaticus are
correct, there is no reference at all, to the Ascension in the original text
of the Gospels5.
Even Jehovah’s Witnesses who
are some of the most vehement proponents of Jesus’ ‘Sonship’ and his ascent
to God the Father, had to admit ultimately that the verses in Mark and Luke
are additions without a foundation in the original texts6.
What Happened to Jesus’
Body?
A closer critical
examination from the point of view of common sense and logic reveals
further absurdities inherent in the episodes of the Crucifixion and
Ascension as presented by the Christians of today. As far as the
question of Jesus’ return to his human body is concerned, enough has
been said. We only want to add to the issue of what might have happened
to that body when Jesus finally ascended, if he ever did.
When
confronted by the question as to what happened to the body of Jesus
Christ, it is suggested by some Christians that as he ascended to his
heavenly Father his carnal body disintegrated and disappeared in a glow.
This raises a fundamental question. If the departure of Jesus from the
human body was to result in such an explosive event, why did it not
happen at the instant of his first reported death? The only reference we
have in the Bible to Jesus’ death, is when he was still hanging on the
cross and in the words of St. Matthew ‘he gave up the ghost’. Apparently
nothing else happened other then a smooth departure of the soul from
the body. Are we to assume that he did not die upon the cross after all,
because if he had left the body, it should have exploded in a similar
fashion even then. Why did it only happen the second time Jesus left his
body? Under the circumstances only two avenues are open to proceed
further.
- That the person of Jesus did
not remain eternally confined to the human body after his soul returned
to it and that during his ascent he cast away his human body and ascended
purely as a spirit of God.
This is neither
supported by facts nor is it concievable because that would lead into a
blind alley of believing that Jesus died twice. The first time on the
cross and the second time on Ascension.
- That he remained confined
within the human shell eternally.
This cannot be accepted because it is utterly repulsive and inconsistent with the dignity and majesty of the image of God.
On the other hand, we have a
point of view of common sence; ‘It would be a mistake to understand Jesus’
ascension as a sort of ancient space trip, and heaven as a place beyond the
sun, moon and the galaxies.’ The truth is neither here nor there 7.
The concoction of such a bizarre story, therefore, could only have been motivated
by the insoluble dilemma that the Christians faced during the nascent period
of Christianity. When Jesus disappeared from view, naturally the question
would have been raised as to what happened to him. The early Christians could
not have resolved the quandary by openly professing that as he had never
died so there was no question of a body being left behind and that his body
had in fact gone along with him during the course of his migration. In this
way the problem of the disappearance of the body could have been easily resolved.
But this confession was impossible to make. Those who would have dared to
admit that Jesus was seen alive and gradually moving away from Judea faced
the peril of being condemned by the Roman Law as an accessory to the crime
of escape from justice.
To seek refuge in the
concoction of a story like the ascent of Jesus to heaven offered a safer
option, however bizzare the idea. Yet of course it would involve
indulgence in falsehood. We must pay our tribute to the integrity of the
early disciples who despite this predicament did not seek refuge in a
false statement. All writers of the Gospels chose to remain silent on
this issue rather than take refuge behind a smoke screen of
misstatements. No doubt they must have suffered the jeering of their
adversaries but they chose to suffer in silence.
Mysterious
silence on the part of those who knew the inside story must have been
largely responsible for sowing the seeds of doubt in the minds of
Christians of later generations. They must have wondered: why, after the
soul of Jesus Christ had departed, was there no mention of his body
being left behind? Where had it gone and what had happened to it? Why
did the soul of Christ return to the same body if it ever did? These
vital but unanswered questions could have given birth to other
questions. If revival meant returning to the same body, what must have
happened to Jesus Christ after the second term of his imprisonment in
the carnal human frame? Did he eternally remain locked up in that body,
never to be released again?
On
the other hand if the soul of Jesus once again departed from the same
body then was that revival temporary or permanent? If he did not remain
locked in it then what happened to his body after his second death?
Where was it buried and is there any mention of it in any archives or
chronicles?
It seems
that these questions, even if not raised earlier, must have been raised
during the later centuries when intense philosophical exercises
concerning the mystery of Christ and all about him were witnessed widely
among Christian theologians. It appears that some unscrupulous scribe
tried to wriggle out of this by interpolating the last twelve verses in
the Gospel of St. Mark and falsely attributed to him the statement that
Jesus was last seen ascending to heaven in the same body.
The
hands of concoction did not spare the Gospel of Luke either, where the
clever insertion of the words ‘and he was carried up to heaven’ in 24:51
served the purpose of the interpolator. In this way he put to rest the
queries once and for all. At least one mystery of Christian dogma was
thus resolved. But alas, at what cost? At the cost of the noble facts
relating to the real holy image of Jesus Christ. The fact of Christ was
thus sacrificed on the altar of fiction. From then on, Christianity
continued to proceed unabated and unchecked in the journey of its
transformation from facts to fiction.
We know for certain that the
Jews were unhappy and disturbed at not finding the body of Jesus Christ 8.
They wanted to be sure of Jesus’ death and for that they needed the universally
acceptable proof of death, that is, the presence of a dead body. Their complaint,
lodged with Pilate, evidently displays their uneasiness about its potential
disappearance 9.
The real and simple
answer, however, lay in the fact that as Christ had not died in the
manner that was believed so the question of a missing body was totally
irrelevent, and in keeping with his promise he must have left Judea in
search of the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Obviously he could not
be seen again.
The Ahmadi Muslim Viewpoint
The
Ahmadiyya Muslim viewpoint of the whereabouts of Jesus’ body is very
clear, logical and factual. It presents Jesus and what happened to him
in the light of truth, haloed by its glory. The very reality of Jesus
Christ is so beautiful that there is no need to build an ornamental
mystery around him. His suffering for the sake of sinful humanity
throughout his life which culminated in the agony of the Crucifixion;
his deliverance from the cross as promised by the Merciful and
Beneficient God Almighty and his subsequent migration in persuit of the
ten lost tribes of Israel.
Hence
he delivered the message of God not only to the two tribes whom he
addressed before the Crucufixion but reached out to all the other tribes
of Israel and thus fulfilled the purpose of his commission. It was only
then that he brought the full purpose of his ministry to a final end.
These are the noble and illustrious realities of Jesus’ life.
The
founder of the Ahmadiyya Community, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian
declared about a hundred years ago that Jesus, a true prophet of God,
was delivered from the cross as was implied in his earlier discourses.
For the first time in the history of Islam, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad,
divinely guided as he was, lifted the mystical veil from the brilliant
realities of Jesus’ life. It was he who declared in the face of the
bitter resentment of the majority of the orthodox Muslims that Jesus had
neither died upon the cross, nor ascended bodily to heaven, but was
miraculously delivered alive from the cross in keeping with God’s
promise. Thereafter he migrated in search of the lost sheep of the House
of Israel as he himself had promised.
By
following the probable route of the migration of Israeli tribes one can
safely assume that he must have travelled through Afghanistan on his
way to Kashmir and other parts of India where the presence of Israeli
tribes was reported.
There
is strong historical evidence that the peoples of both Afghanistan and
Kashmir have stemmed from migrant Jewish tribes. Hazrat Mirza Ghulam
Ahmad revealed that Jesus ultimately died and was buried in Srinagar,
Kashmir.
When Ahmadis
put forward this explanation as a plausible and realistic solution to
the disappearance of Jesus’ body from the country of his birth, many a
time they are met with the rebuttal that even given that he was
delivered from the cross alive, it is extrememly far-fetched that he
should have taken the hazardous journey from Judea to Kashmir. Hearing
this rebuttal Ahmadis are left wondering as to which distance is longer,
the one from Palestine to Kashmir or the one from the Earth to the
farthest reaches of Heaven. Again Ahmadis wonder what happened to the
promise of Jesus Christ that he would go in search of the Lost Sheep of
the House of Israel. If he departed straight from Palestine to sit on
the right hand of his Father, did he forget about his commitment or was
his promise impossible for him to keep? It is either this or as we
suggested earlier, should it be expected that the Lost Sheep of the
House of Israel had earlier ascended to heaven where Jesus went in their
pursuit?
For
those who still find it difficult to believe that the scenario of Jesus
having been delivered alive from the cross is too far-fetched and
unacceptable, we draw their attention to the fact that in the light of
known and recorded history of man’s survival in extremely hazardous
situations, the case of Jesus, as we have presented it, is neither
bizarre nor impossible to accept. Many medically reported and verified
cases of near death present a host of evidence in favour of the survival
of people in almost impossible situations.
A
well documented case of a maharajah of a small state of pre-partition
India is worthy of mention. He was subjected to a similar near
impossible situation in which he had few chances of survival. The
maharajah in question was poisened by his wife and while his body was
being cremated with the fires well lit, a violent storm suddenly
appeared. Ultimately he not only escaped death but after a long legal
battle was reinstated to his throne. The story runs like this:
Ramendra
Narayan Roy, the Kumar of the Bhowal Estate with headquarters of the
Court of Wards at Joydevpur, was alleged to have been poisoned and
subsequently declared dead and placed for cremation at the burning ghat
in May, 1909. Circumstances suggested that his wife was a principal
player in the attempted murder. A heavy thunder burst before the
completion of the cremation caused the party responsible for burning the
dead-body to hurriedly return, leaving the dead body. The rain caused
the fire to extinguish. A group of sadhus (Hindu hermits) who were
passing by noticed that the man was alive. He was thus rescued. Next day
when it was discovered by the conspirators that the body had
disappeared, they had another body cremated to make Kumar’s death look
like a fact.
The sadhus
who had saved him then took him from place to place. The near death
experience had caused the Kumar to lose his memory but he regained it
gradually and visited Joydevpur twelve years later. The familiar
surroundings of his home town caused him to regain his memory entirely.
When the Kumar filed a civil suit to recover the estate from the Court
of Wards as the genuine heir and owner of Bhowal Estate, his wife and
some others contested it. A court case was then bitterly fought between
the two parties. More than one thousand people gave evidence in favour
of the Kumar and four hundred in support of his wife. The actual matter
being contested was regarding the identity of Kumar as according to
common knowledge he had died twelve years ago.
The case was won by the Kumar
after he identified some marks on the body of his wife which only a husband
could have known. His estate was then restored to him. 10
Hundreds of thousands of
similar cases might have gone completely unreported. Thanks to modern
medical facilities and media coverage, hundreds of similar cases are
being reported and recorded. If all this is plausible in cases of
ordinary people from all classes of society and from all sorts of
religious moral backgrounds, why could it not be posssible in the case
of Jesus.
If any one
has the chance of surviving in challenging and almost impossible
situations, Jesus indeed stands a greater chance because of the special
circumstance surrounding him. Strangely enough, however, the sceptics
dismiss the suggestion that Jesus did survive the attempted murder by
crucifixion. Yet they would readily believe a far more unrealistic,
bizarre and unnatural tale of his revival from absolute death. A death
which lasted full three days and nights according to them.
The field of medical research
has also taken interest in the phenomenon of near death. A study was carried
out where seventy eight reports of near death experiences were examined.
In eighty percent of the cases medical personnel were present during or immediately
after these experiences. Interestingly, Forty-one percent of the subjects
reported that they had been considered dead during the near death experience. 11
With all kinds of
gadgetry at their disposal, if medical experts can pronounce a living
person dead, how reliable would be the testimony of an anxious observer
who saw Jesus losing consciousness and from this deduced that he had
died? Furthermore after seeing him again, to draw the conclusion, that
he was revived from death is totally unjustified.
REFERENCES
- The Talmud Unmasked by Rev I.B. Pranaitis, Chap. I, p.30
- After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken
up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19)
- When he was blessing them he left them and was taken
up into heaven. (Luke 24:51)
- Pg. 1024, the Holy Bible, New International Version (1984) by International Bible Society
- The Secrets of Mount Sinai, the story of finding the
world’s oldest Bible Codex Siniaticus; by James Bently, pg 131
- New World Translation
- The Lion Handbook of Christian Belief, Lion, London
(1982) pg 120
- Matthew 28:11–15
- Matt 27:62–64
- The Bhowal Case, compiled by J.M. Mitra and R.C.
Chakravarty, published by Peer & Son, Calcutta.
- The Phenomenology of Near-Death Experiences,
by Bruce Greyson. M.D. and Ian Stevenson. M.D., A.M. Psychiatry 137:10,
October 1980
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment