How a Jewish Prophet, Jesus of Nazareth changed into Christ, who allegedly died for the sins of the believers is the theme of this book!
This is a book by Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the previous international leader of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.
FOREWORD OF THE BOOK
The person of Christ is vitally important to the contemporary world. His importance does not remain confined to the Christian world alone but also to other major religions such as Judaism and Islam in particular. If these powerful religions were to unite in one common understanding about the nature of the person of Christ, his first and also his promised second advent, then such an understanding would lead to the resolution of many problems confronting mankind today. Unfortunately, even the very basic facts about the life of Jesus, his purpose, ideology and person are completely misunderstood. In their perception of these aspects, these religions are so strongly at odds with each other that a bitter rivalry among them becomes inevitable.
When we look at the facts of Crucifixion and consider what happened and why it happened, Redemption and its related philosophy, we find conflicting answers from various early sources. I have chosen to address this question solely from a logical point of view. I believe that this is the only platform, common to all, which can be used for a fruitful constructive dialogue. Otherwise, any discussion on the basis of what the individual scriptures present, along with their various interpretations, would lead to a tangle of controversy from which it would be difficult to wriggle out of.
Two thousand years have already come to pass, yet based on the scriptures alone, no solution, which could be equally acceptable to all, has been reached. The crux of the problem is that the very reliability of certain scriptural claims is further compounded by their various divergent explanations. Also, immense complications arise out of the gradual growth of conflicting understandings revolving around the historical person of Christ. The vision of a historic perspective generally tends to be fogged and obscured. By any standards, the passage of two millennia is no ordinary obstacle in perceiving events as distant as the time of Jesus. Human logic and reason, further aided by the dawn of scientific knowledge, has neither creed, nor colour nor religion. It is common to all peoples and religions alike. Logic and logic alone could provide us with a basis for consensus.
I will attempt to examine the problem from different vantage points. First, let me begin with Christianity and view it as the Christians see it and then critically analyse it under the magnifying glass of reason. I must emphasize however, that I do not mean to be disrespectful in any way to Christians or to the person of Jesus Christ. As a Muslim, it is a fundamental article of my faith to believe in the truth of Jesus Christ, and to accept him as a special and honoured messenger of God, holding a unique position among the prophets of Israel. But where truth demands, in all fairness to logic, common sense and human understanding, one cannot abstain from revising one’s views on Christianity. My purpose is not to drive a wedge between Christians and Christ. On the contrary, I wish to help Christians come closer to the reality of Jesus Christ and away from the myth created around him.
Time can distort reality into myths and legends. Influence of such legends only serves to distance man from the realities of life. As a result, faith becomes imaginary and unreal. Whereas true faith has its roots in the verities and facts of history, it is very real and potent enough to bring about significant changes in human society.
In the endeavour to understand the true faith and teachings of Jesus, it is essential to sift out the fact from the fiction and truth from myth. The search for truth is the ultimate purpose of this exercise. I hope that you will bear with me and understand that I mean no offence to anyone’s beliefs or sentiments.
A critical approach is essential to save the world of Christianity from unfortunate moral degradation; the course of which they are finding so hard to reverse. According to my analysis, contemporary youth is fast losing its faith in God. There was a time when scientists began moving away from God because they thought that the Judeo-Christian understanding of nature, as depicted in the Old and New Testaments, was not realistic. The understanding of the world and the heavenly bodies and of what lies beyond, as construed from a study of the Bible, appears far removed from the realities of scientific discoveries brought to light at the beginning of the Renaissance. The parallax between them continued to grow as science progressed and the human understanding of nature underwent a revolutionary change. This, besides other factors, initiated among the knowledgeable factions of society, a fatal trend towards disbelief in God. Later, as education spread far and wide, great universities and seats of learning turned out to be the breeding grounds of Atheism. The dilemma of the Judeo-Christian understanding of the Universe was that there prevailed a contradiction between the word of God and the act of God. The argument against belief in God took the following course: If God is the Creator of the universe and all that belongs to it, and if He is the Designer and Maintainer of the laws of nature, as discovered by investigative human minds, then how could He Himself have been so utterly ignorant of those realities?
When one studies the Biblical account of how heaven and earth were created and how man was fashioned out of dust and how Eve was carved out of the rib of Adam etc., (two examples out of a host of puzzling discrepancies between the word and the act of God) one is astounded and amazed at the glaring contradictions between the origin of life on earth and the Biblical account given in’.
Such inconsistencies made the Church take an oppressive stance in those times when it held an unchallenged political authority. One famous example is that of the tussle between the Church and Galileo. When Galileo (1564–1642) published his findings about the solar system, it infuriated the Church because his findings were against the perception which the Church had of the solar system. Under extreme duress he was forced to publicly renounce his scientific discoveries. Alternatively he would have suffered death by torture. Nevertheless, he was kept under house arrest for the rest of his days. It was only in 1992 that the Church decided to reverse the judgement passed against Galileo, after prolonged deliberations that lasted twelve years by a committee set up by the Pope, John Paul II.
To begin with, the impact of these contradictions did not penetrate or infiltrate the common levels of society and for some time it remained confined to a close circle of intellectuals. But with the spread of the light of secular knowledge, the so called ‘light of religious beliefs’ gradually diminished into comparative darkness. In the early period of the Renaissance (15th cent.), the activities of scientists generally remained confined within their own enlightened circles. A broad contact between them and the general public, as witnessed today, had not been established. Thus, their atheism did not much influence the society as a whole. However, when universal education was made available to the youth of advanced nations, things began to swiftly change in the wrong direction for religion. There followed an age of philosophy and rationality. Along with the sciences, new social and psychological philosophies began to proliferate rapidly, particularly in the nineteenth and the twentieth century. As the new materialistic philosophies mingled with secular development and thought, it played havoc with the very foundation of religion, i.e. the belief in God.
Morality is always governed and safeguarded by one’s belief in God. If it is weak and deficient or there is something amiss in this belief, then morality is influenced to the same degree. If, for instance, the belief in God clashes with the secular understanding of nature and the dictates of common sense, then slowly and progressively the quality of faith in God erodes with a corresponding negative effect on the morals of such people. For all practical purposes a society is then transformed into an atheistic one, however much individuals may remain believers in God. It is not difficult to determine this issue and to ascertain the quality of a society’s belief in God. The weaker the belief or the more deficient it is, the feebler its hold becomes on the moral conduct of a people. Whenever the two interests clash, the belief in God will give way to immoral urges.
By applying this criterion to any religious society anywhere in the world, we can always draw correct and reliable conclusions. Putting a so-called believing Christian society to the test, one can simply ask whether Christian values prevail in that society or not. Do they for instance, behave towards their neighbours as the Ten Commandments would require of them? Do they, at the time of national crisis in situations of war etc., apply Christian principles towards their adversaries? Do the innocent victims of aggression and assault offer the other cheek when smitten on one. The question is how far does one’s conduct in life portray the picture of ones belief? If it does not, this is exactly what we mean by suggesting that the belief in God clashes with human urges and requirements. If the belief in God stands supreme and it is the human urges and desires that are sacrificed on the altar of that belief, then one can truly say that whatever the nature of the belief, at least it is genuine, sincere and strong.
Observing the world of Christianity as it is today, and applying this test to judge the quality of belief in God, becomes a very depressing and disillusioning experience. What is generally seen is an open rebellion against the belief in God, and sometimes a passive revolt which is not translated into open negation. It is the contradiction between the belief in God and the practice, which gives one the illusion of there being a religious society of believers, while the truth is very different. The same applies, to a large degree, to all other religious societies. But in every case it is not always the same cause which produces a similar effect. The case of each society has to be dealt with on the merits of that case. That is why a genuine, detached, cool and analytical examination of the nature of the contradictions between the beliefs of people and their practices acquires such importance.
It is important to note that sometimes belief in itself is crooked and unnatural. For example, some parts of the Talmudic teachings concerning the Gentiles and the Hindu teachings of Manu Samarti regarding the Untouchables are such that it becomes a boon for those societies not to practice it. Sometimes a belief in itself is good and would be beneficial if practised, but the people become corrupt and the belief is abandoned as too difficult and demanding to be taken seriously.
Returning to the question of Christianity, we propose that the Christian beliefs in their fundamentals clash with the realities of nature and do not comply with human expectations based on rationality and common sense. With this perspective, it was only natural for Christians to gradually move away from taking their beliefs seriously and from permitting those beliefs to shape their lives.