This is to
state what is controversial of the
metaphysical implications of the historical facts as V.J.M.de Silva states in his article in the Island of 24 March,2016.
I liked
reading the article, because Dr. V.J.M. de Silva writes what he believes to assure himself of his faith, without forgetting the controversial issues which an
ordinary Christian will not pay heed to
lest he would be disappointed, “ ..blessed are those who have not seen, but yet
believed.”
There is no
problem accepting a historical Jesus. Crucifixion of Jesus is not a debated
issue. But the problem is in accepting a God let alone a historical one. That
is important as it is to that God in the Holy Bible that the New Testament turns to give Jesus a paternity. Therefore more than the resurrection the
selling of Jesus for 30 pieces of silver by his beloved disciple Judas
Iscariot is more relevant as a corner of Christian faith.
If not for
that betrayal, there would not have been
a resurrection. It is to push
their own point of view as historical and correct that the Christian writers take such
painful efforts to deny other probable historical facts as
incorrect insinuations against
Christianity.
The
disciples willingness to die for the
truth of resurrection cannot be adduced
as historical proof of the appearance of Jesus after Crucifixion,
as we know that there are many who actually die
to prove their love for God. Could that
be taken as proof of the “historical” existence of a loving God ?
At least
one amoung the disciples did not believe in the truth of resurrection . Disciple Thomas was an ordinary man not naïve and easily tricked. When his
friends said that Jesus had appeared to them he refused to believe, and the
writer of the New Testament cleverly makes Jesus appear in to the room through
the locked door to face the group of disciples,
to tell Thomas that “ … blessed
are those who have not seen and yet have
believed.” That is what the writers of
the New Testament want all faithful Christians to do-to believe without
questioning what appears to be improbable.
More
than a historical Jesus, the question is
why it
was necessity for a “Jesus” to affirm Christian faith, when there was the God Almighty , unless of course there was a problem with the God of the Bible, who was only the God of the Jews the
Israelites. The rest of the Europeans could
not claim God as theirs or of everyone as
God had his chosen people and turned away from others.
Therefore,
is it not correct to assume that to correct this anomaly the rest of the
Europeans down from early Romans had to move away from the Bible as the Old Testament, and accept the
story of the New Testament giving the God of the Bible a son to create a
whole European Christian faith around
him ?
Even the
empty grave cannot be made a historical issue without making it a part of
the miracle of resurrection. Because it
is said that “Christianity would never
have got off the ground if Jesus’ corpse
was still in the tomb. All that the
Roman and Jewish authorities had to do, was to go to the tomb and view the
corpse and debunk the resurrection.” See how well the Greek writers of the New
Testament had imagined to meet every
possible arguments against casting doubt about their story.
The
Israelites do not accept that the God had a son, nor do the Muslims as a matter
of fact accept Jesus as the son of
God. There is so much to explain but my
intention is not to prove one and disprove the other but to
speak of the thoughts that arose in my mind as I read the Bible and the
New Testament in search of an existing God.
Early
Greeks and Romans had no God, Zeus was
their God. But it was the later Roman Piso family that got the New Testament written in Greek,
trying to distance the God of the Bible and accept Jesus as their
saviour to make it a spring board for a new Christian faith for non Israelite
Europeans. The New Testament was written
100 to 300 years after the death of Jesus.
That was
convenient for conquering European nations, beginning with later Romans to take
with them a new faith to replace those of the conquered people. Historical Jesus
was a man born to a man and a woman-Joseph and Mary. Those days the men lived
for a long time, and they may therefore have had strong spermatozoid. Abraham was 100 when Sarah conceived Isaac. Mary was perhaps 12 or 13 when she gave birth to Jesus, and Joseph
was 100 years.
There is
therefore good reason to believe Joseph was the father of Jesus. The Roman
writers of the New Testament had to make
Jesus the son of God and wrote passionately about an immaculate conception. The New Testaments
uses miracles - 37 of them reported to
have been performed by Jesus to make the faithful believe he was the son of God. Jesus raised his friend
Lazarus from the dead. He turned water
into wine so on and so forth. There had
to be miracles performed by Jesus to prove to the faithful he was the son of
God.
But God who
created man in his own image never showed himself to man. When Moses asked God to show himself to him,
the God said no man can see his face and live. When the Christians say they believe in God,
what they say is they believe in the Prophets, because the God of the Bible did
not speak to any one directly. He spoke
through his prophets.
There were
about 72 prophets in the Bible. And it
is only through them that God “spoke” to the faithful. The God did not appear directly to the
prophets either , but spoke to them only in visions and in dreams. Therefore the faithful have to believe the
Prophets to believe that the God appeared to them in their visions or in their
dreams. If they do not believe the
Prophets they cannot believe in a God.
Therefore what Christians believe are the Prophets.
It is to
the credit of Dr. de Silva that he mentions, “….The metaphysical implications of
these historical facts are no doubt controversial. Christians accept this as a
miracle. Once God’s existence is accepted as a possibility, miracle cannot be
dismissed out of hand; they become matters for investigation.” He writes to
the Christian faithful and not to
convert or convince others of the truth about Christianity.
But I disagree when he says that, “Ancient people
rellied on verbal transmissions for passing along what happened, until it was
written down. When there is a long interval between the occurrence of events
and their recording, distortions could
easily occur. This cannot be said of the Christian gospels.” This depends on how verbal transmissions had been organised, there is
atleast one religion which has its religious philosophies intact despite
verbal transmission.
Then there
is also the Swoon theory referred to by
Dr. de Silva, according to which, “ Jesus did not die on the cross, but
was taken for dead, and later recovered. …….It was first propounded by the
anti-Christian philosopher Celsus I the 2nd Century AD….”
But one
important fact about the New Testament and the life of Jesus have been
carefully left out by our learned writer.
It is the missing years of Jesus. The New Testament is completely silent on the 18 lost of years
of Jesus or the so called hidden years of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The ministry of Jesus lasted only for three
years, that is from his thirtieth year
to the 33rd.
What Dr. de
Silva had left out is perhaps historical
evidence of Jesus of Nazareth spending his “ lost years in the New Testament”
in a Hindu Temple Jaganath in Puri and
then in a Buddhist Monastery in
Himalayas in Ladakh, India where there is said to be
written evidence in an ancient scroll “The life of Saint Issa, the Best
of the Sons of Men”which answers the
questions on the missing years of,Jesus. This
ancient scroll some say
mysteriously disappeared later. Issa is how Jesus had been called in the Muslim
and Hindu worlds.
This
ancient scroll has even mentioned how Jesus had exhorted the Hindus to stop
worshipping idols and give up the Caste system. Has that journey of Jesus to
the East been conveniently omitted from
the New Testament ?
No comments:
Post a Comment