Saami assumes Jesus came to fulfill just one role, when in fact he came to fulfill many different roles. Jesus wasn't just a prophet as Muslims claim but he was King, Priest,the Son of God etc.......
And this is what Saami needs to understand.
For instance Mark's Gospel Portray's the suffering Servant role of Jesus and that's why we get a Different Picture of Jesus.
Matthews Gospel portrays a Messiah/King Jesus.
Luke's Gospel Portrays a Son of Man Jesus.
And Johns Gospel portrays a Son of God Jesus.
And that's why we get different roles of Jesus in the Gospels, however there is no doubt it is the same Jesus as all four Gospels perfectly agree with one another.
I will Respond to Saami's Article and I will post his arguments step by step and respond accordingly to make it easier for you guys to follow. I will Break down My Refutation into Parts or Sections. And the Section That I highlight RED from Saami's Article,will be the section I'll be refuting.
AND ONCE AGAIN SAAMI CONDEMNS HIS PROPHET
Here is his Article:
The Evolution on the character of Jesus in the New Testament Gospels
By Sami Zaatari
As we read the first 4 Gospels of the NT, it becomes apparently clear that character of Jesus keeps on changing from one Gospel to another. Bassam Zawadi has already written one article on this issue which can be located here:
In this article I will simply show some more verses from the NT showing this evolution taking place on the character of Jesus.
To begin with, let us first give the order in which the Gospels were written:
Mark
Matthew
Luke
John
The Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel to be written, and as we read on the later Gospels, we find that the other authors are modifying the story and trying to make Jesus look different, something more than he is.
So let us now go and see these modifications:
The Baptism of Jesus:
Mark 1:9-13
9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth Galilee , and was baptized of John in Jordan
Matthew 3:13-17
13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan
Note the difference between the two accounts. In the earlier account of Mark, Jesus simply comes to get baptized and does it. In Matthew's version we see Jesus coming to get baptized only this time John protests against it, because he thinks that Jesus does not need to be baptized, and that Jesus does not need to be baptized by John but it is John who needs to be baptized by Jesus.
This is an obvious modification to the story, Matthew modified the story to simply make it look better, and to make Jesus look better.
The one to come after John
In each Gospel account we first see the apostle John speaking about Jesus, the one to come after him, but when we read each account, each one is different and each one is changing to make Jesus look more special.
Mark 1:5-8
5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea , and they of Jerusalem river of Jordan
Let us now read what John's Gospel says:
John 1:15-35
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites fromJerusalem Jordan Israel
Note the major differences in both accounts now. The Gospel of John which is the last Gospel to have been written adds many more things. It calls Jesus a lamb of God, the man to take the sin of the world, that he was preferred before John etc. In Mark all we see is that John says a man will come after than him, who is mightier and greater than himself.
19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from
Note the major differences in both accounts now. The Gospel of John which is the last Gospel to have been written adds many more things. It calls Jesus a lamb of God, the man to take the sin of the world, that he was preferred before John etc. In Mark all we see is that John says a man will come after than him, who is mightier and greater than himself.
Jesus' death on the cross
Mark 15:33-41
33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lamasabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias. 36 And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down. 37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. 38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. 39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; 41 (Who also, when he was inGalilee , followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem
So basically Jesus dies, cries out to God, and the people who watched said truly he is the son of God. Let us now read Matthew's version:
So basically Jesus dies, cries out to God, and the people who watched said truly he is the son of God. Let us now read Matthew's version:
Matthew 27:45-56
45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? thatis to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. 48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. 49 The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. 54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying,Truly this was the Son of God. 55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee , ministering unto him: 56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
Note the major difference. Now in Matthew's version we see that after Jesus dies a major earthquake happens, and that the saints rise from the dead and start walking throughJerusalem
The criminals beside Jesus on the Cross
When we read the crucifixion story, we read that there were two other men to be crucified along Jesus as well, they were crooks and were being punished for their crimes. However this is one of the best examples of how this simple fact was modified into something very special and lovely.
Mark 15:25-32
25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. 26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. 28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. 29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, 30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross. 31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
Matthew 27:33-44
33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, 34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. 35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. 36 And sitting down they watched him there; 37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. 39 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, 40 And saying, Thou thatdestroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. 41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. 44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth
So basically Mark and Matthew are in basic agreement. We do not see anything special happening with the thieves who were to also be crucified, in fact Matthew shows that they too also disbelieved In Jesus.
However let us now read Luke's version:
Luke 23:32-43
32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death. 33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary , there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. 34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. 35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. 36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, 37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself. 38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shaltthou be with me in paradise.
So now in Luke's version we see that one of the criminals began to believe in Jesus and that he asked Jesus to remember him when he got to heaven, something Jesus said he would do. Wow if that's not an evolution in the text then I don't know what is.
Luke obviously modified the story from the two earlier accounts of Mark and Matthew, and wanted to make it seem as a great lovely moment to bring tears to the eyes of the reader who believed this.
The lady who touched Jesus
Mark 5:28-34
28 For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. 29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. 30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes? 31 And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me? 32 And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing. 33 But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. 34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.
Matthew slightly modified this story which becomes obvious:
Matthew 9:20-22
20 And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment: 21 For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. 22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole.
Notice the difference between both accounts. In Matthews's version he leaves the part about Jesus asking who touched him out. Matthew seems to have a problem with Jesus asking the people who had touched him; it obviously doesn't look good for Matthew and later scribes who would want to make Jesus look divine. So Matthew or some scribe purposely left it out.
Let us Begin:
Here is the First section of Saami's Article and he says" As we read the first 4 Gospels of the NT, it becomes apparently clear that character of Jesus keeps on changing from one Gospel to another. Bassam Zawadi has already written one article on this issue which can be located here:
In this article I will simply show some more verses from the NT showing this evolution taking place on the character of Jesus.
To begin with, let us first give the order in which the Gospels were written:
Mark
Matthew
Luke
John
The Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel to be written, and as we read on the later Gospels, we find that the other authors are modifying the story and trying to make Jesus look different, something more than he is.
He starts off again saying that the Character of Jesus IS supposedly changing through out the Gospels, when number one, The authors are writing different roles of Jesus's life that he came to fulfill Saami once again assumes Jesus came to fill one role which is strictly FALSE. Mark wrote about the suffering Jesus,Matthew wrote about the Messiah Jesus, Luke wrote about the Son of Man Jesus and John wrote about the Son of God Jesus. And Jesus fulfilled all these roles and titles. That's why we get different pictures in the Gospel.
NO PROBLEM HERE WHATSOEVER
He then refers everyone to Bassam's Article on the same Subject namely the evolution of Jesus and thinks this some how proves his point. When number one Bassam's arguments are pathetic and I have refuted some of them in my Past Articles and number two the answering Islam team has refuted his arguments as well as Textual Scholars.
So what's Saami's Point?
He then makes the claim that he will show us how the Gospels have changed and upgrade the status of Jesus in the same events. He proceeds to list in order when the Gospels were written with Mark being the First,Matthew the second,Luke the third and Finally John.
To answer this question is YES the majority of Scholars take Mark's Gospel to be written First. However there are others who disagree that Mark was actually the First Gospel. So it's all mere conjecture and guesses as far as dating goes, however it is a Majority ruling from the scholars.
Let's go on, here's Saami next section of his Article and he says "The Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel to be written, and as we read on the later Gospels, we find that the other authors are modifying the story and trying to make Jesus look different, something more than he is.
So let us now go and see these modifications:
The Baptism of Jesus:
Mark 1:9-13
9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth Galilee , and was baptized of John in Jordan
Matthew 3:13-17
13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan
Note the difference between the two accounts. In the earlier account of Mark, Jesus simply comes to get baptized and does it. In Matthew's version we see Jesus coming to get baptized only this time John protests against it, because he thinks that Jesus does not need to be baptized, and that Jesus does not need to be baptized by John but it is John who needs to be baptized by Jesus.
This is an obvious modification to the story, Matthew modified the story to simply make it look better, and to make Jesus look better.
So he again jumps right into how the Gospel Writers try to supposedly improve the character of Jesus when Number one they are writing different portraits or roles of Jesus's life. And that needs to be taken into account First.
He then proposes the supposed Modification and quotes Mark 1:9-13 about the Baptism of Jesus, He then contrast this with Matthew 3:13-17 and explains the supposed evolution From Mark's Gospel to Matthew's Gospel.
I will post both verses:
Mark 1:9-13 9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth Galilee , and was baptized of John in Jordan
And Matthew 3:13-17 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan
Saami then makes the supposed evolution In Matthew's Gospel about Jesus's Baptism and says that In Marks Gospel Jesus just get;s Baptized however in Matthew's Gospel Jesus comes to Get Baptized and John protest against it and suggest Jesus Baptize Him.
To answer this Question is EASY Saami needs to read the Context.
Because when we read Mark's Version you can see Mark just summarizes the Baptism of Jesus, Mark get's right to the point of how Jesus come's to Jordan and Get's Baptized by John, while Matthew explains the event in further detail mentioning John conversation with Jesus.
And Note: After John protest with Jesus-Jesus was then Baptized and then we see the Dove descending and the Father testifying of Jesus. Same goes for Mark's Gospel After Mark mentions the Baptism of Jesus, the Dove descends and the Father testify s of Jesus.
IT IS THE SAME EVENT!!!!!!!!
Mark does not include the conversation John had with Jesus, he get's right to the point and just says that Jesus was Baptized which perfectly agrees with Matthews Gospel.
Let Put Both Stories together
Matthew 3:13-16 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan
So Jesus comes from Galilee to Jordan to be Baptized by John. However John forbids him to allow him to be baptized and then Jesus responds to him and then John Baptizes Him.
Now let's read Marks version
Mark 1:9 9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth Galilee , and was baptized of John in Jordan
So Jesus comes from Galilee which perfectly agrees with Matthew's Gospel and is Baptized by him in Jordan which perfectly agrees with Matthew's gospel again. The only difference here is that Mark doesn't mention this event in Detail he just summarizes it, Saami assumes that just because Mark doesn't mention every detail in Matthew's Gospel then somehow this is False, which is ridiculous as News Papers do this all the time. Mark is telescoping the Baptism of Jesus. The proof is on Saami to show that Mark denied that John and Jesus spoke, which he obviously can't.
SO HOW IS THIS AN EVOLUTION???
I will continue My refutation to Saami's Article.
Stay tuned for Part 2
God Bless You All
No comments:
Post a Comment