Mar
31
Mari kita mulai dengan pertanyaan yang lebih fundamental: apa yang membedakan mitos dengan realitas atau kenyataan? Bagaimana caranya kita tahu, contohnya, apakah Alexander Agung benar-benar ada? Andaikata, tahun 336 SM, Alexander Agung jadi raja Makedonia pada usia 20 tahun. Seorang jenius militer, pemimpin tampan dan sombong ini melakukan pembantaian dari desa ke desa, kota ke kota, dan diseluruh kerajaan-kerajaan Yunani – Persia sehingga dia menguasai semuanya. Dalam waktu singkat, hanya delapan tahun, pasukan Alexander menempuh perjalanan penaklukan sejauh 22.000 mil.
Dikabarkan, Alexander menangis ketika tidak ada lagi wilayah yang akan ditaklukkannya. (Saya merasa, inilah orang yang saya tidak ingin mengajaknya main monopoli.)
Sebelum dia meninggal diusia 32, dikabarkan Alexander pencapaian militernya lebih besar dari penaklukan militer siapapun sepanjang sejarah, bukan hanya para raja yang hidup sebelumnya, tapi juga mereka yang lahir sesudahnya, sepanjang sejarah kita. Tapi hari ini, selain beberapa kota yang diberi nama Alexandria, film membosankan yang dibuat Oliver Stone, dan beberapa buku, warisannya sudah lama dilupakan. Pada kenyataannya, nama Colin Farrell lebih mampu membuat film sangat laku (box office) daripada nama Alexander. Meski film itu gagal, para sejarahwan percaya Alexander ada karena tiga alasan utama:
dokumentasi tertulis dari sejarahwan terdahulu
dampak sejarah
bukti-bukti sejarah lainnya dan bukti arkeologi
Dokumen Sejarah Tentang Yesus
Sejarah Alexander Agung dan penaklukan militernya diperoleh dari lima sumber kuno, yang semuanya bukan saksi mata. Kendati ditulis 400 tahun setelah Alexander, tulisan Plutarch berjudul Kehidupan Alexander merupakan catatan utama kehidupannya.
Karena Plutarch dan para penulis lain terpisah beberapa ratus tahun dari saat kehidupan Alexander, maka mereka mendasarkan informasinya dari informasi-informasi yang sudah ada sebelumnya. Dari dua puluh catatan sejarah Alexander, tidak satupun ada sampai sekarang (sudah musnah). Catatan yang lebih kemudian memang ada, tapi tiap kisah memperlihatkan “Alexander” yang berbeda, yang kebanyakan bergantung pada imajinasi kita. Namun meski dengan perbedaan waktu beberapa ratus tahun, para sejarahwan yakin bahwa Alexander merupakan manusia nyata dan detil-detil utamanya, seperti yang kita baca mengenai kehidupannya benar.
Melihat Alexander sebagai titik referensi, kita catat apa yang dikatakan sejarahwan religius dan sekuler mengenai Yesus. Tapi kita harus bertanya, apakah sejarah yang mereka tuliskan itu bisa diandalkan dan obyektif? Mari kita lihat sekilas.
Perjanjian Baru
Ke 27 buku Perjanjian Baru diklaim ditulis oleh penulis yang tahu secara langsung denga Yesus atau menerima informasi dari mereka, yang kenal langsung. Empat Injil menceritakan kehidupan dan pengajaran Yesus dari perspektif berbeda. Tulisan-tulisan ini diteliti dengan sangat ketat oleh para ahli dari dalam KeKristenan dan dari luar.
Pakar John Dominic Crossan percaya hanya kurang dari 20 persen dari apa yang kita baca di Injil secara orsinil berasal dari perkataan Yesus. Kendati ini pandangan skeptis, tidak dipersoalkan mengenai Yesus benar-benar pernah hidup. Kendati ada pandangan Crossan, dan beberapa ahli lain sepertinya, konsensus sebagian besar sejarahwan adalah catatan Injil memberi kita gambaran jelas mengenai Yesus Kristus.
Kita akan melihat sumber-sumber non-Kristen untuk menjawab pertanyaan kita mengenai apakah Yesus itu ada (eksis).
Catatan Awal Non-Kristen
Jadi, sejarahwan abad pertama mana yang menulis mengenai Yesus tapi tidak punya agenda KeKristenan? Pertama-tama, mari kita lihat musuh-musuh Yesus.
Orang Yahudi, yang memusuhiNya, punya keuntungan terbesar dengan cara meniadakan keberadaan Yesus. Tapi bukti memperlihatkan arah sebaliknya. “Beberapa tulisan Yahudi menceritakan kehidupan nyata manusia Yesus. Dua buku Gemara dari Talmud Yahudi mencatat Yesus. Kendati hanya disinggung sedikit, beberapa kalimat yand dimaksudkan untuk menentang KeTuhanan Yesus, tulisan sangat awal Yahudi ini tidak memulai argumennya dengan pernyataan bahwa Dia bukan orang yang pernah hidup (bukan tokoh sejarah).
Flavius Josephus adalah sejarahwan terkemuka Yahudi yang mulai menulis pada jaman Romawi di tahun 67. Josephus, yang lahir hanya beberapa tahun setelah Yesus meninggal, tentu sangat tahu reputasi Yesus dimata orang Yahudi dan Romawi. Dalam tulisan terkenalnya, Jaman Kuno Yahudi (a.d. 93), Josephus menulis Yesus sebagai manusia nyata. ” Pada masa kehidupan Yesus, seorang yang suci, mungkin seperti itu Dia dipanggil, karena Dia melakukan hal-hal luar biasa, dan mengajar orang-orang, dan dengan gembira menerima kebenaran“. Dan Dia dipercayai oleh banyak orang Yahudi dan Yunani. Dia adalah Mesias.” Kendati ada perdebatan mengenai beberapa kata dari catatannya, terutama berkaitan dengan Yesus sebagai Mesias (para ahli yang skeptis berpikir bahwa orang Kristen menyidipkan kalimat ini), bisa dipastikan Josephus mengkonfirmasikan keberadaan (eksistensi) dari Yesus.
Bagaimana dengan sejarahwan sekuler — mereka yang hidup di jaman itu tapi tidak punya motivasi relegius? Saat ini, ada konfirmasi sedikitnya 19 penulis sekuler yang mencatat Yesus sebagai manusia nyata.
Salah satu sejarahwan terkemuka , Cornelius Tacitus, menegaskan bahwa Yesus telah menderita dibawah (pemerintahan Pontius) Pilatus. Tacitus lahir 25 tahun setelah Yesus wafat, dan dia melihat bagaimana penyebaran KeKristenan mulai memberi dampak terhadap Roma. Sejarahwan Romawi menulis secara negatif mengenai Yesus dan orang Kristen, mengidentifikasi mereka, ditahun 115, sebagai ” ras manusia yang tidak disukai karena perilaku jahatnya, dan secara umum disebut Kristiani”. Nama itu diambil dari Kristus, yang pada pemerintahan Tiberius, menderita dibawah Pontius Pilatus, Penguasa Yudea.”
Feb
04
Banyak orang ateis berpikir bahwa Kekristenan adalah bagi orang-orang yang tidak mau berpikir. Kristen sering diidentikkan sebagai orang yang percaya apa pun yang dikatakan oleh gereja. Iman dianggap sebagai sesuatu yang dipercaya dengan tidak ada bukti yang mendukung. Namun, pandangan ini tidak mewakili iman Kristen yang Alkitabiah. Sebaliknya, Alkitab menantang pembaca untuk menguji dan datang ke sebuah kesimpulan yang masuk akal.
Apa yang Alkitab ajarkan?
Berlawanan dengan apa yang banyak orang percaya non-pikir, Alkitab tidak mengajarkan iman yang buta. Bahkan, Alkitab benar-benar menyarankan orang-orang percaya untuk menguji segala sesuatu. Tidak ada “kitab suci” lain yang mendesak pembacanya untuk benar-benar menempatkan apa yang dikatakannya untuk menguji. Alkitab membuat pernyataan seperti itu karena melewati uji kebenaran bahwa Allah sendiri dalam wahyu-Nya kepada Yesaya menyatakan, “Ayo sekarang, dan mari kita beralasan bersama-sama …” Allah, Pencipta manusia dan kemampuan penalaran manusia menginginkan kita untuk menggunakan kemampuan untuk menentukan rencana keselamatan-Nya. Bagaimana kita menentukan apakah Alkitab itu benar? Kami menguji dan melihat jika itu adalah wajar. Mazmur 19 mengatakan kepada kita bahwa alam semesta “menyatakan kemuliaan Allah” dan bahwa “suara keluar ke seluruh bumi.” Bahkan, Alkitab mengatakan bahwa bukti-bukti untuk desain Tuhan alam semesta begitu kuat bahwa orang-orang “tanpa alasan” dalam menolak Tuhan dan rencana keselamatan-Nya.
Alkitab mendorong orang untuk memperoleh pengetahuan
Kitab Amsal dalam Perjanjian Lama memberikan nasihat praktis untuk hidup, membesarkan anak-anak, dan membuat pilihan yang baik versus pilihan buruk. Banyak ayat-ayat membahas pentingnya memperoleh pengetahuan dan kebijaksanaan, bahkan tingkat pengetahuan lebih memilih kekayaan. Iman adalah yang paling penting bagi orang Kristen. Tetapi Alkitab tidak mengatakan untuk membatasi keyakinan Anda untuk iman saja. Bahkan, memerintahkan kita untuk menambah keunggulan moral yang pertama lalu pengetahuan kedua. Daniel, salah satu contoh terbesar dari iman, yang memiliki kehidupan doa yang menakjubkan, juga orang yang banyak ilmu dan kecerdasan, dan menggunakan kemampuan untuk menjadi saksi Nebukadnezar, raja Babel. Salomo, dalam doa kepada Tuhan, meminta hikmat dan pengetahuan, baik yang diberikan Allah kepadanya.
Iman Alkitab berdasarkan doktrin pengetahuan dan suara
Tuhan ingin orang percaya menjadi berpengetahuan luas, terutama tentang iman mereka. Kurangnya pengetahuan menyebabkan kemurtadan dan kehancuran, sebagaimana Tuhan sendiri berkata kepada Hosea, “Umat-Ku binasa karena kurangnya pengetahuan.” Sebuah semangat untuk Tuhan tidak cukup untuk menyenangkan-Nya, karena banyak orang Yahudi semangat, meskipun tidak pada tempatnya karena “tidak sesuai dengan pengetahuan.” Alkitab mendorong orang percaya untuk memiliki iman berbasis pengetahuan, dibangun di atas doktrin Alkitab yang sehat. Ketika Paulus memberitakan Injil, dia melakukannya melalui penalaran dari tulisan suci dan bukan banding dengan iman buta. Paulus, dalam surat-suratnya mengatakan orang percaya untuk membunuh pemikiran dan penalaran kekanak-kanakan. Orang Kristen disarankan untuk memberi contoh bagi orang lain dalam mengajar dengan pemodelan “integritas, keseriusan, dan kesehatan berbicara.” Dokter Lukas, dalam prolog untuk injil ini mengungkapkan bahwa ia menentukan kebenaran melalui pemeriksaan cermat:
… Sepertinya pas untuk saya juga, setelah diteliti dengan hati-hati semua dari awal, untuk menuliskannya untuk Anda dalam rangka berturut-turut, paling Theophilus baik, sehingga Anda mungkin tahu persis kebenaran tentang hal-hal yang telah diajarkan. (Lukas 1:3-4)
Yesus menjawab: “Kasihilah Tuhan Allahmu dengan segenap hatimu dan dengan segenap jiwamu dan dengan segenap akal budimu. ‘” (Matius 22:37)
Alkitab mengajarkan iman yang rasional, berdasarkan pengetahuan dan disempurnakan melalui pengujian. Kristen didorong untuk menggunakan pikiran mereka dalam semua aspek kehidupan, termasuk kehidupan rohani kita – doa dan penyembahan. Allah nilai-nilai kebenaran ke tingkat yang tinggi dan ingin kita untuk mengetahui kebenaran tentang ciptaan-Nya, sifat sedang dan Nya-Nya suci. Pada akhirnya, Allah ingin semua orang untuk datang ke pengetahuan tentang kebenaran keselamatan-Nya melalui Yesus Kristus, sehingga mereka dapat menghabiskan kekekalan bersama dengan Dia dalam ciptaan baru.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html
Oct
27
Konteks kehidupan suku batak sebelum injil masuk
Suku Batak adalah salah satu suku di Indonesia yang mempertahankan kebudayaanya, memegang teguh tradisi dan adat. Pada masa lampau orang batak tidak suka terhadap orang luar (Barat/’’sibontar mata’’) kerena mereka dianggap sebagai penjajah. Selain itu, ada paham bagi mereka bahwa orang yang berada di luar suku mereka adalah musuh, sebab masa itu sering terjadi perang antar suku. Sebelum Injil masuk, suku Batak adalah suku penyembah berhala. Kehidupan agamanya bercampur, antara menganut kepercayaan animisme, dinamisme dan magi. Ada banyak nama dewa atau begu (setan) yang disembah, seperti ‘’begu djau’’ (dewa yang tidak dikenal orang ), begu antuk (dewa yang memukul kepala seseorang sebelum ia mati), begu siherut(dewa yang membuat orang kurus tinggal kulit),dll.
Suku Batak hidup dengan bercocok tanam, berternak hewan dan berladang. Hasil dari perternakan dan cocok tanam mereka jual ke pasar pada hari tertentu. Di pasar mereka melakukan transaksi untuk keperluan sehari-hari seperti membeli beras, garam, tembakau dll. Keadaan yang dinamis ini sering terusik oleh permusuhan antara satu kampung dengan kampung lainya. Tidak jarang permusuhan berakibat pembunuhan dan terjadi saling balas dendam turun-temurun. Jika di kampung terjadi wabah, seperti pes dan kolera, mereka akan meminta pertolongan Raja Sisingamangaraja yang berada di Bakkara. Raja Si Singamangaraja pun datang dan melakukan upacara untuk menolak bala dan kehancuran. Hampir semua roda kehidupan orang Suku Batak dikuasai oleh aturan-aturan adat yang kuat. Mulai lahirnya seorang anak, beranjak dewasa, kemudian menikah, memiliki anak hingga meninggal harus mengikuti ritual-ritual adat.
Masuknya penginjil ke tanah batak utusan pekabaran injil baptis Inggris
Pada tahun 1820 tiga utusan Pekabaran Injil Baptis Inggris yaitu Nathan Ward, Evans dan Richard Burton dikirim ke Bengkulu untuk menjumpai Raffles. Kemudian Raffles menyarankan supaya mereka pergi ke Utara, ke daerah tempat tinggal suku Batak yang masih kafir. Burton dan Ward menuruti petunjuk Raffles. Mereka pergi ke Utara, awalnnya mereka bekerja di pesisir, kemudian tahun 1824 masuk ke daerah lebih dalam lagi, yakni Silindung-wilayah suku Batak Toba. Saat mereka tiba di Silindung, mereka diterima dengan baik oleh raja setempat, namun perjalanan penginjilan mereka terhenti ketika terjadi salah paham dengan penduduk. Penduduk salah menafsir khotbah penginjil tersebut yang mengatakan kerajaan mereka harus menjadi lebih kecil, seperti anak kecil. Penduduk tidak suka hal ini maka para penginjil tersebut diusir pada tahun itu juga.
Penginjil utusan American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission
Kemudian tahun 1834 dua orang Amerika, yaitu Munson dan Lyman yang merupakan utusan gereja Kongregationalis Amerika yang diutus oleh The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mission (ABCFM) di Boston masuk ke Sumatera. Pada 17 Juni 1834 mereka tiba di Sibolga dan menetap beberapa hari di sana. Kemudian 23 Juni 1834 mereka berangkat menuju pegunungan Silindung. Dalam perjalanan, ketika tiba di pinggir Lembah Silindung, malam hari 28 Juni 1834 mereka dihadang, ditangkap dan dibunuh di dekat Lobu Pining. Pembunuh penginjil tersebut adalah Raja Panggalamei (Raja di Pintubosi yang tinggal di Singkak) bersama dengan rakyatnya.
Penginjil utusan Rheinische Missions Geselschaf
Tahun 1840 seorang ilmuan berkebangsaan Jerman F. Junghuhn melakukan perjalanan ke daerah Batak dan kemudian menerbitkan karangan tentang suku Batak. Karangan tersebut sampai ke tangan tokoh-tokoh Lembaga Alkitab di Belanda, hingga mereka mengirim seorang ahli bahasa bernama H. Neubronner van der Tuuk (tuan yang berkecukupan). Van der Tuuk adalah orang Barat pertama yang melakukan penelitian ilmiah tentang bahasa Batak, Lampung, Kawi, Bali. Ia juga orang Eropa pertama yang menatap Danau Toba dan bertemu dengan Si Singamangaraja. Ia merasa senang berkomunikasi dan menyambut orang Batak di rumahnya. Van der tuuk memberi saran supaya lembaga zending mengutus para penginjil ke Tapanuli, langsung ke daerah pedalamannya. Untuk menunjang masukannya tersebut, ia menyusun sebuah kamus, mengumpulkan cerita, pribahasa, dan menerjemahkan Injil dan beberapa bagian Alkitab ke dalam bahasa Batak. Tahun 1857 pekabar Injil G Van Asselt utusan dari jemaat kecil di Ermelo, Belanda melakukan pelayanan di Tapanuli. Ia menembus beberapa pemuda dan memberi mereka pengajaran Kristiani, pada 31 Maret 1861 dua orang Batak pertama dibaptis, yaitu: Jakobus Tampubolon dan Simon Siregar. Tahun ini juga, tepatnya 07 Oktober 1961 diadakan rapat empat pendeta di Sipirok, yaitu Pdt. Heine, Pdt. Klemmer,(pendeta Jerman) dan Pdt. Betz, dan Pdt. Ansselt(Pendeta Belanda) untuk menyerahkan misi penginjilan kepada Rheinische Missions Geselschaf. Hari ini dianggap menjadi hari berdirinya Huria Kristen Batak Protestan (HKBP). Kemudian Ludwig Ingwer Nommensen (1834-1918) tiba di Padang pada tahun 1862. Ia menetap di Barus beberapa saat untuk belajar bahasa dan adat Batak dan Melayu. Ia tiba melalui badan Misi Rheinische Missions Geselschaf. Kemudian tahun 1864 ia masuk ke dearah Silindung, mula-mula di Huta Dame, kemudian di Pearaja (kini menjadi kantor pusat HKBP).
Dalam menyampaikan Injil, Nommensen dibantu oleh Raja Pontas Lumban Tobing (Raja Batak Pertama yang dibaptis) untuk mengantarnya dari Barus ke Silindung dengan catatan tertulis bahwa ia tidak bertanggung jawab atas keselamatannya. Pada awalnya Nommensen tidak diterima baik oleh penduduk, karena mereka takut kena bala karena menerima orang lain yang tidak memelihara adat. Pada satu saat, diadakan pesta nenek moyang Siatas Barita, biasanya disembelih korban. Saat itu, Sibaso(Pengantara orang-orang halus) sesudah kerasukan roh menyuruh orang banyak untuk membunuh Nommensen sebagai korban, yang pada saat itu hadir di situ. Dalam keadaan seperti ini, Nommensen hadir ke permukaan dan berkata kepada orang banyak: Roh yang berbicara melalui orang itu sudah banyak memperdaya kalian. Itu bukan roh Siatas Barita, nenekmu, melainkan roh jahat. Masakan nenekmu menuntut darah salah satu dari keturunanya! Segera Sibaso jatuh ke tanah. Menghadapi keadaan yang menekan, Nommensen tetap ramah dan lemah lembut, hingga lama-kelamaan membuat orang merasa enggan dan malu berbuat tidak baik padanya. Pada satu malam ketika para raja berada di rumahnya hingga larut malam dan tertidur lelap, Nommensen mengambil selimut dan menutupi badan mereka, hingga pagi hari mereka terbangun dan merasa malu, melihat perbuatan baik Nommensen. Sikap penolakan raja batak ini disebabkan kekhwatiran bahwa Nommensen adalah perintisan dari pihak belanda.
Perkembangan kekristenan setelah Injil masuk
Suku Batak yang masuk Kristen mendapat tekanan dan diusir dari kampung halamanya karena tidak mau memberi sumbangan untuk upacara-upacara suku. Keadaan seperti ini mamaksa mereka berkumpul pada satu kampung tersendiri, yaitu [Huta Dame] (kampung damai). Setelah tujuh tahun Nommensen melakukan penginjilan, orang Batak yang masuk Kristen berjumlah 1.250 jiwa. Sepuluh tahun kemudian 1881 jumlahnya naik lima kali lipat, hingga jumlah orang Batak yang masuk Kristen adalah sekitar 6.250 orang. Pada tahun 1918 sudah tercatat 185.731 orang Kristen di wilayah RMG Sumatera Utara. Tahun 1881 Nommensen diangkat menjadi menjadi Ephorus oleh RMG, jabatan tersebut dipegangnya hingga ia meninggal 23 Mei 1918. Suku batak memberi gelar kepada Nommensen dengan sebutan ‘’Ompu i’’ (Nenek Kita), gelar ini memposisikan Nommensen sama dengan Si Singamangaraja atau tokoh sakti lainya.
Oct
27
Asal usul suku Batak sangat sulit untuk ditelusuri dikarenakan minimnya situs peninggalan sejarah yg menceritakan tentang suku Batak,maka sering dikatakan menelusuri asal usul suku Batak adalah orang yg kurang kerjaan.tapi bagi saya nggak jadi masalah dikatakan kurang kerjaan,siapa tau ada dari para pembaca yg bisa lebih melengkapi tulisan ini saya akan sangat berterima kasih.
dengan mengutip dari berbagai sumber termasuk tulisan diberbagai blog dan juga buku2 yg menuls tentang Batak saya mencoba untuk menyajikanya bagi para pembaca
Suku Batak adalah salah satu dari ratusan suku yg terdapat di Idonesia,suku Batak terdapat di wilayah Sumatera Utara.Menurut legenda yg dipercayai sebahagian masyarakat Batak bahwa suku batak berasal dari pusuk buhit daerah sianjur Mula Mula sebelah barat Pangururan di pinggiran danau toba.
Kalau versi ahli sejarah Batak mengatakan bahwa siRaja Batak dan rombonganya berasal dari Thailand yg menyeberang ke Sumatera melalui Semenanjung Malaysia dan akhirnya sampai ke Sianjur Mula mula dan menetap disana.
Sedangkan dari prasasti yg ditemukan di Portibi yg bertahun 1208 dan dibaca oleh Prof.Nilakantisari seorang Guru Besar ahli Kepurbakalaan yg berasal dari Madras,India menjelaskan bahwa pada tahun 1024 kerajaan Cola dari India menyerang Sriwijaya dan menguasai daerah Barus.pasukan dari kerajaan Cola kemunggkinan adalah orang2 Tamil karena ditemukan sekitar 1500 orang Tamil yg bermukim di Barus pada masa itu.Tamil adalah nama salah satu suku yg terdapat di India.
siRaja Batak diperkirakan hidup pada tahun 1200(awal abad ke13)
Raja Sisingamangaraja keXII diperkirakan keturunan siRaja Batak generasi ke19 yg wafat pada tahun 1907 dan anaknya si Raja Buntal adalah generasi ke 20.
Dari temuan diatas bisa diambil kesimpulan bahwa kemungkinan besar leluhur dari siRaja batak adalah seorang pejabat atau pejuang kerajaan Sriwijaya yg berkedudukan diBarus karena pada abad ke12 yg menguasai seluruh nusantara adalah kerajaan Sriwijaya diPalembang.
Akibat dari penyerangan kerajaan Cole ini maka diperkirakan leluhur siRaja Batak dan rombonganya terdesak hingga ke daerah Portibi sebelah selatan Danau Toba dan dari sinilah kemungkinan yg dinamakan siRaja Batak mulai memegang tampuk pemimpin perang
atau boleh jadi siRaja Batak memperluas daerah kekuasaan perangnya sampai mancakup daerah sekitar Danau Toba,Simalungun,Tanah Karo,Dairi sampai sebahagian Aceh dan memindahkan pusat kekuasaanya sidaerah Portibi disebelah selatan Danau Toba.
Pada akhir abad ke12 sekitar tahun 1275 kerajaan Majapahit menyerang kerajaan Sriwijaya sampai kedaerah Pane,Haru,Padang Lawas dan sekitarnya yg diperkirakan termasuk daerah kekuasaan siRaja Batak
Serangan dari kerajaan Majapahit inilah diperkirakan yg mengakibatkan si Raja Batak dan rombonganya terdesak hingga masuk kepedalaman disebelah barat Pangururan ditepian Danau Toba,daerah tersebut bernama Sianjur Mula Mula dikaki bukit yg bernama Pusuk Buhit,kemudian menghuni daerah tersebut bersama rombonganya.
terdesaknya siRaja Batak oleh pasukan dari kerajaan Majapahit kemungkinan erat hubunganya dengan runtuhnya kerajaan Sriwijaya dipalembang karena seperti pada perkiraan diatas siRaja Batak adalah kemungkinan seorang Penguasa perang dibawah kendali kerajaan Sriwijaya.
Sebutan Raja kepada siRaja Batak bukanlah karena beliau seorang Raja akan tetapi merupakan sebutan dari pengikutnya ataupun keturunanya sebagai penghormatan karena memang tidak ada ditemukan bukti2 yg menunjukkan adanya sebuah kerajaan yg dinamakan kerajaan Batak.
Suku Batak sangat menghormati leluhurnya sehingga hampir semua leluhur marga2 batak diberi gelar Raja sebagai gelar penghormatan,juga makam2 para leluhur orang Batak dibangun sedemikian rupa oleh keturunanya dan dibuatkan tugu yg bisa menghabiskan biaya milyartan rupiah.Tugu ini dimaksudkan selain penghormatan terhadap leluhur juga untuk mengingatkan generasi muda akan silsilah mereka.
didalam sistim kemasyarakatan suku Batak terdapat apa yg disebut dengan Marga yg dipakai secara turun temurun dengan mengikuti garis keturunan laki laki.ada sekitar 227 nama Marga pada suku Batak.
Didalam buku Tarombo Borbor Marsada dikatakan bahwa siRaja Batak memiliki 3(tiga)orang anak yaitu:
-GURU TATEA BULAN (siRaja Lontung)
-RAJA ISOMBAON (siRaja Sumba)
-TOGA LAUT.
Ketiga anak siRja Batak inilah yg diyakini meneruskan tampuk pimpinan siRaja Batak dan asal mula terbentuknya marga2 pada suku Batak.
http://sosbud.kompasiana.com/2010/04/19/asal-usul-suku-batak/
Oct
06
Oct
06
Oct
23
SEGI BAHASA
Sebelum kita bahas mengenai dalihan na tolu ni ompunta i, ada baiknya kita pelajari terlebih dahulu bhs. Batak agar dapat kita ketahui “Apa sebenarnya arti kata Somba Marhula-hula?” Sedangkan Manat Mardongan Tubu dan Elek Marboru tidak perlu di bahas disini, karena tidak ada yang kontroversial di dalamnya.
Tonga artinya Tengah. Boras artinya beras. Monang artinya menang. Jora artinya jera. Tongkar artinya tengkar. Portibi artinya pertiwi (kalo “dunia” itu bhs. Arab). Porang artinya perang. Podangartinya pedang. Jadi kalo SOMBA?
Somba artinya SEMBAHbukan hormat Jadi kalo kita katakan arti kata Somba = Hormat, berarti kita ini lagi merusak bahasa. SANGAP lah bhs. Bataknya hormat, dan level kedua tsb sangat berbeda. Dibawah Somba-lah levelnya sangap. Sebab hanya kepada Tuhanlah kita boleh menyembah, sedangkan kepada sesama tidak boleh. Sedangkan sangap: bisa kepada Tuhan, bisa juga kepada sesama. Jadi, DIBAWAH SOMBA-LAH LEVELNYA SANGAP.
Selain itu jika kita katakan Somba Marhula-hula artinya Hormat kepada
hula-hula, berarti KITA INI LAGI MERUSAK KEASLIAN ADAT ITU SENDIRI. Aslinya adalah kita harus betul-betul menyembah kepada hula-hula, tidak cukup hanya sekedar menghormati. Itulah aslina. Sebab hula-hula diyakini oleh ompunta i sebagai mual ni nasa pasupasu (sumber dari segala berkat).
SEGI IMAN
Di Kitab Kejadian 1-2 jelas kita baca bahwa: Yang menciptakan dunia ini dengan segala isinya adalah Tuhan Allah. Dia menciptakan manusia dari tanah dan setelah meninggal dunia kita akan kembali menjadi tanah. Mana ada orang yang sudah meninggal dunia kembali ke rumah hula-hulanya atau ke rumah tulangnya. Mana mau hulahula/tulang kita menerima bangkai kita yang busuk itu. Selain itu Tuhanlah yang manciptakan nasi, lauk-pauk, sayur-mayur, buah-buahan, d.n.a. Jadi Tuhan Allah-lah SUMBER DARI SEGALA BERKAT, bukan hulahula atau tulang ni batak.
SEGI MODERNITAS ORANG BATAK.
Mengenai kemajuan/modernitas suku Batak bukanlah karena kita tekun mardalihan na tolu. Datangnya para missionaris dari Eropalah yang membuat orang Batak menjadi salah satu suku bangsa yang cukup maju di Indonesia ini. Sebab disamping memberitakan Injil, mereka juga mendirikan sekolah-sekolah untuk membawa orang Batak keluar dari keterbelakangan (primitif), kegelapan, ketertutupan (terisolir) menuju kemajuan seperti yang kita lihat saat ini. Selain itu yang harus anda ketahui adalah : bahwa kedatangan para missionaris ke tanah Batak BUKANLAH KARENA ADA UNDANGAN dari ompunta sijolojolo tubu atau dari tulang ni Batak atau dari hulahula ni Batak. TUHAN YESUS-LAH YANG MENYURUH MEREKA MENINGGALKAN KAMPUNG HALAMAN MEREKA DI NEGERI YANG JAUH DI EROPA UNTUK MEMBERITAKAN FIRMAN TUHAN DI KAMPUNG KITA, BONA PASOGIT (MAT. 28:19-20).
PELAKSANAANNA
Tidak jauh berbeda dengan zaman ompunta i. HULAHULA NI BATAK MAUNYA KITA SEMBAH SEPERTI TUHAN.
KESIMPULAN
Jadi daripada kita merusak bahasa dan keaslian adat itu sendiri, mendingan KITA BUAT ADAT BATAK YANG BARU, yang berdasarkan Firman Tuhan yang tertulis di dalam Alkitab. Jangan lagi berdasarkan tona ni ompunta i. Selain itu jangan kita campuradukkan antara agama dan adat ni ompunta i, seperti yang dilakukan oleh teman-teman yang ingin menggabungkan Teologi dengan dalihan na tolu. Kan diantara kita sudah banyak yang berpendidikan S2, S3, lalu kenapa kita masih berguru kepada ompunta i? Kenapa kita tidak mampu menciptakan adat yang baru padahal jenjang pendidikan kita sudah tinggi, sementara ompunta i mampu manciptakan adat batak walaupun tidak ada ijazah SDnya?
YESUSLAH GURU, bukan ompunta sijolojolo tubu (Joh. 13:13). Jika kita telah mengimani Dia sebagai Tuhan, maka kita harus membuat Dia sebagai Guru di kehidupan sehari-hari. Jangan lagi ompunta i atau pun para missionaris yang menjadi guru kita. Tugas para missionaris cuma memperkenalkan Tuhan Yesus kepada orang-orang Batak. Siapa yang berasal dari atas, diatas segalanya (Joh. 3:31).
Oct
23
1. Menurut Alkitab di dalam Gereja terbaik hanya satu tuan, yakni Tuhan Debata. Jika ada dua tuan, yakni Tuhan Debata dan ompunta sijolojolo tubu, maka Gereja tersebut belum dapat dikategorikan sebagai Gereja terbaik. Karena jika sebuah Gereja memiliki dua tuan, maka Gereja tsb akan lebih mengasihi tuan B daripada tuan A. Buktinya: di kalangan orang Batak, adat no. 1 sedangkan Tuhan no. 3. Selain itu pembangunan tugu marak di bonapasogit dimulai tahun 1970-an, sedangkan pembangunan gedung Gereja dengan arsitektur megah dan mewah baru belakangan ini.
2. Menurut Alkitab di dalam Gereja terbaik tidak ada perselisihan di antara sesama pelayan. Demikian juga antara pelayan dan jemaat serta diantara sesama jemaat. “Kamulah garam dan terang dunia”, begitu kata Alkitab.
3. Menurut Alkitab di dalam Gereja terbaik tidak ada pelayan dan jemaat yang diperbudak oleh jabatan-jabatan rohani dan non rohani. “Janganlah kamu gila hormat”, begitu kata Alkitab.
4. Menurut Alkitab di dalam Gereja terbaik tidak ada pelayan atau jemaat yang memuliakan dirinya. Hanya TUHANlah yang patut dipermuliakan.
Nov
06
Sosok anak manusia yang memiliki keberanian, kesungguhan, ketulusan dan jiwa petualangan, ada pada diri Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen. Di besarkan di bawah budaya barat, Nommensen berani menetapkan pilihan untuk mendatangi dunia lain yang sama sekali berbeda, jauh dan penuh misteri — Tanah Batak –
Berbekal sebagai seorang theolog muda, menerima tantangan untuk mendedikasikan ilmu, iman dan pengabdiannya bagi Bangso Batak, yang hanya diketahui dari buku literatur yang terbatas dan dengar-dengaran dari sumber-sumber yang belum tentu teruji kemampuannya dalam menggambarkan sifat, sikap dan alam Batak, nun jauh di timur.
Tentu melihat ini kita diminta untuk memutar roda waktu ke tahun 1861, dengan segala keterbatasannya, tanpa kecanggihan transportasi dan alat komunikasi. Terbukti, untuk tiba di tempat yang akan ditujunya menghabiskan waktu 142 hari, yang saat ini dapat kita tempuh hanya 11 jam kurang lebih.
Perbedaan budaya, bahasa dan agama tidak menyurutkan niatnya untuk memulai “pengabdian” di tengah perlawanan dan ancaman Bangsa Batak yang belum terbiasa menerima kehadiran “orang aneh”, yang berlainan bahasa, pola hidup, warna kulit dan mata serta rambutnya.
Kesungguhan dan keteguhan Nommensen, terbukti mampu memenangkan penolakan besar Bangsa Batak yang berbuah pada dimulainya era baru bagi kehidupan sosial dan spritual, hingga berimplikasi luas pada tatanan mayoritas Batak. Pendekatan sosial religius, tidak terpungkiri mewarnai kehidupan sebagian besar di antara kita saat ini.
Nommensen, sang Peretas!
Tidak sekedar untuk dikenang, nostalgia masa lalu, tentu ada pelajaran besar dari penggalan perjalanan hidup Nommensen. Untuk kita pelajari dan ketahui.
Tahun 1834, tanggal 6 Februari
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen lahir di Nortdstrand, pulau kecil di panatai perbatasan Denmark dan Jerman. Dia anak pertama dan lelaki satu-satunya dari empat orang bersaudara. Ayahnya Peter dan ibunya Anna adalah keluarga yang sangat miskin di desanya. Sejak kecil, dia sudah tertarik dengan cerita gurunya Callisen tentang misionar yang berjuang untuk membebaskan keterbelakangan, perbudakan pada anak-anak miskin.
Tahun 1846 pada umur 12 tahun
kedua kakinya sakit parah karena kecelakaan kereta kuda pulang dari sekolah. Selama setahun lebih tidak dapat berjalan, kakinya hampir diamputasi. Dia berjanji kepada Tuhan bahwa akan menjadi misionar apabila kedua kakinya sembuh kembali. Dia akan pergi jauh untuk membebaskan anak-anak miskin yang budak karena hutang orang tuanya, dia akan memberitakan Firman Tuhan kepada pelbegu yang sangat terbelakang sebagaimana sering diceritakan gurunya Callisen yang sangat dikaguminya.
Tahun 1847
Kedua kakinya sembuh secara ajaib, dia dapat berjalan seperti sediakala. Dia kembali ke sekolah pada musin winter (musim dingin) karena pada musin summer dia akan menjadi gembala domba untuk menerima upahan karena orangtuanya sangat miskin.
Tahun 1848, tanggal 2 Mei
Ayahnya Peter Nommensen meninggal dunia. Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen sebelumnya bermimpi akan kehilangan ayahnya, maka ia tidak terkejut ketika orang membawa ayahnya ke rumah yang meninggal di tempat kerjanya.
Tahun 1849
Pada umur 15 tahun (suatu pengecualian), dia mendapat sidi. Biasanya, orang akan diijinkan mendapat sidi pada umur 17 tahun. Namun, karena Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen sudah tidak obahnya seperti ayah dari dari segi tanggung jawab kepada keluarga maka diberi pengecualian kepadanya. Dia mendapat sidi setelah setahun belajar Alkitab.
Tahun 1854
Ibu Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen merestui anaknya, satu-satunya lelaki di antara empat orang bersaudara, menjadi seorang misionar.
Tahun 1857
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen masuk sekolah pendeta di RMG Barmen setelah menunggu sekian lama.
Tahun 1858, Januari Ibunya meninggal dunia di Nordstrand.
Tahun 1859
4 orang Misionar RMG Barmen serta 3 orang isteri misionar terbunuh di Borneo, berita itu semakin menggugah hati Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen untuk pergi ke daerah pelbegu.
Tahun 1861, 7 Oktober
berdiri HKBP (Huria Kristen Batak Protestan) di Praosorat Sipirok, sebagai permulaan Misi Kongsi Barmen di Tanah Batak. Hari itu terjadi kesepakatan 4 orang Misionar Belanda dan Jerman yaitu:
H (Heine)K (Klammer)B (Betz) danP (Van Asselt) menjadi penginjil atas tanggung jawab Rheinische Missionsgeselshaft dari Barmen, Wupertal, Jerman, yang lazim diebut Kongsi Barmen.
Tahun 1861, Oktober
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen ditahbiskan sebagai pendeta dan langsung diberangkatkan oleh Missi Barmen menjadi misionar ke Tanah Batak, tetapi selama 2 bulan dia masih belajar Bahasa Batak dan Budaya Batak dari Dr. Van Der Tuuk di Belanda.
Tahun 1861, Desember
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen berangkat dari Amsterdam menuju Sumatera dengan kapal Pertinar. Pelayaran itu memakan waktu selama 142 hari.
Tahun 1862, 14 Mei
Setelah mengalami banyak cobaan di lautan, Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen mendarat di Padang. Selanjutnya dia tinggal di Barus. (Kapal Pertinar kemudian tenggelam dalam lanjutan pelayaran kea rah timur di sekitar Laut Banda dekat Irian Barat).
Tahun 1862, November
Bersama beberapa orang Batak, mengadakan perjalanan ke pedalaman Sumatera melalui Barus dan Tukka. Dari Barus, Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen pergi ke Prausorat dan kemudian tinggal dengan Van Asselt di Sarulla.
Tahun 1863, November
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen pertama kali mengunjungi Lembah Silindung. Dia berdoa di Bukit Siatas Barita, di sekitar Salib Kasih yang sekarang. “Tuhan, hidup atau mati saya akan bersama bangsa ini untuk memberitakan FirmanMu dan KerajaanMu, Amin!”
Tahun 1864, Mei
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen diijinkan memulai misinya ke Silindung, sebuah lembah yang indah dan banyak penduduknya.
Tahun 1864, Juli
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen membangun rumahnya yang sangat sederhana di Saitnihuta setelah mengalami perjuangan yang sangat berat.
Tahun 1864, 30 Juli
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen menjumpai Raja Panggalamei ke Pintubosi, Lobupining. Raja Panggalamei beserta rombongannya 80 orang membunuh Pendeta Hendry Lyman dan Samuel Munson (missionar yang diutus oleh Zending Gereja Baptis dari Amerika) di sisangkak, Lobupining pada tahun 1834, bertepatan dengan tahun lahirnya Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen di Eropa.
Tahun 1864 , 25 September
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen mau dipersembahkan ke Sombaon Siatas Barita dionan Sitahuru. Ribuan orang datang. Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen akan dibunuh menjadi kurban persembahan. Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen tegar menghadapi tantangan, dia berdoa, angin puting beliung dan hujan deras membubarkan pesta besar tersebut. Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen selamat, sejak itu terbuka jalan akan Firman Tuhan di negeri yang sangat kejam dan buas. Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen pantas dijuluki “Apostel di Tanah Batak”
Tahun 1865, 27 Agustus
Pembaptisan pertama di Silindung terhadap empat pasang suami-istri beserta 5 orang anak-anaknya. Diantara keluarga yang dibaptis pertama adalah Si Jamalayu yang diberi nama Johannes dengan istrinya yang dibawa dari Sipirok sebagai pembantu Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen diberi nama Katharina.
Tahun 1866, 16 Maret
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen diberkati menjadi suami-isteri dengan tunangannya Karoline di Sibolga. Karoline datang dari Jerman beserta rombongan Pdt. Johansen yang dikirim Kongsi Barmen untuk membantu Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen di Silindung.
Tahun 1871
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen mengalami penyakit disentri yang sangat parah, dia pasrah untuk pergi menghadap Tuhannya tetapi dia tidak rela misinya berhenti begitu saja. Dia dibawa Johansen berobat ke Sidimpuan.
Tahun 1864
Karoline melahirkan anak pertama diberi nama Benoni, namun beberapa hari kemudian meninggal dunia.
Tahun 1872
Pargodungan Saitnihuta yang disebut Huta Dame pindah ke Pearaja. Setelah Gereja baru hampir selesai dibangun, putri pertama Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen yang bernama Anna meningal dunia. Keluarga Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen telah kehilangan dua anak pertama, sungguh suatu ujian berat bagi misionar dalam memulai misinya.
Tahun 1873
Sikola Mardalan-dalan (Sekolah dengan tempat tidak tetap) diciptakan Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen agar Orang Batak bisa secepatnya menjadi guru. Siswa mendatangi Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen di Pearaja, Johansen di Pansurnapitu dan Mohri di Sipoholon dimana para misionar tersebut bertugas. Atau, misionar mendatangi siswanya ditempat tertentu.
Tahun 1875
Misionar Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen, bersama Johansen dan Simoneit bekunjung ke Toba.
Tahun 1876Telah dibaptis lebih dari 7000 orang di Silindung.
Tahun 1876
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen selesai menterjemahkan Perjanjian Baru ke dalam Bahasa Batak Toba.
Tahun 1877
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen dan Johansen mendirikan Sekolah Guru Zending di Pansurnapitu. Tempat berdirinya sekolah tersebut adalah tempat yang dulunya dikenal sebagai Pasombaonan (tempat angker), yang sekarang tempat berdirinya STM Pansurnapitu dan Gereja HKBP Pansurnapitu.
Tahun 1877
- Raja Sisingamangaraja ke-XII mengancam akan membumihanguskan kegiatan missioner, ancaman ini tidak menjadi kenyataan.
- Silindung masuk kolonisasi Belanda.
Tahun 1880
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen beserta istri dan anak-anaknya pergi ke Eropah. Mereka diantar oleh banyak orang sampai ke tengah hutan. Mereka berjalan kaki selama dua hari dari Silindung ke Sibolga, menjalani jalan setapak yang sangat sulit. Mereka menungu keberangkatan dari Sibolga ke Padang selama dua minggu.
Tahun 1881
Menjelang Natal, Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen kembali ke Pearaja. Dia kembali sendirian, isterinya tinggal di Jerman karena masih perlu perawatan. Anak-anaknya juga tinggal di sana agar bisa sekolah dengan baik.
Tahun 1881
Kongsi Barmen menetapkan Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen menjadi Ephorus pertama HKBP, dia digelari ‘Ompu i’
Tahun 1887
Karoline isteri Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen, meninggal di Jerman, sebulan kemudian baru Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen mengetahuinya.
Tahun 1890
Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen memulai misinya ke Toba, dia pindah ke Sigumpar.
Tahun 1891 bulan Mei
Christian, anak ompu Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen, mati terbunuh di Pinang Sori oleh lima orang kuli China di areal perkebunan.
Tahun 1892
Bersama Pendeta Johansen yang juga sudah menduda pergi ke Jerman untuk berlibur, menjenguk anak-anaknya, dan mencari pasangan baru untuk masing-masing misionar yang telah menduda. Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen mendapatkan jodohnya anak Tuan Harder yang bernama Christine, Johansen mendapatkan jodohnya anak Tuan Heinrich yang bernama Dora. Mereka kembali ke Tanah Batak dengan masing-masing pasangan barunya.
Tahun 1900 Permulaan Zending Batak.
Tahun 1903 Permulaan misi Zending ke Medan
Tahun 1904
Fakultas Theologi Universitas Bonn, Jerman, menganugerahkan gelar Doktor Honouris-Causa di bidang Theologi kepada Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen. Dalam pengukuhan tersebut, Ratu Wilhelmina dari Belanda ikut diundang sebagai tamu.
Tahun 1905
Berkunjung ke Eropah bersama Tuan Reitze, dia mengunjungi Misi Zending di Belanda dan berkunjung kepada Ratu Wilhelmina.
Tahun 1909
Christine Harder, isteri Ingwer Ludwig Nomensen meninggal dunia, setelah melahirkan tiga orang anak. Dia dimakamkan di Sigumpar. Dua anak perempuannya tinggal di Jerman dan belum menikah sewaktu Ompu Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen meningal pada umur 84 Tahun.
Tahun 1911
- Pesta jubileum 50 tahun HKBP. Pesta besar di onan Sitahuru dihadiri puluhan ribu orang, di tempat dimana 47 tahun sebelumnya Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen mau dibunuh dan dipersembahkan kepada Sombaon Siatas Barita.
- Ratu Wilhelmina dari belanda menganugerahkan Bintang Jasa ‘Order Of Orange Nassau’ kepada DR. Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen, sebuah bintang jasa yang hanya diberikan kepada orang yang dianggap luar biasa jasanya di bidang kemanusiaan.
Tahun 1912
Berlibur ke Eropah, kembali ke Tanah Batak bersama tuan Pilgram yang telah lama bertugas di Balige.
Tahun 1916Nathanael anak Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen, mati tertembak di arena Perang Dunia I di Perancis.
Tahun 1918, Tanggal 23 Mei
Pukul enam pagi Hari Kamis, Ompu Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen pergi menghadap Tuhannya di Sorga. Dia menutup mata untuk selama-lamanya setelah berdoa ‘Tuhan kedalam tanganMu kuserahkan rohku, Amin’.
Pada Jumat sore, 24 Mei 1918
Ompu Ingwer Ludwig Nommensen dikubur di Sigumpar. Puluhan ribu datang melayatnya untuk mengucapkan salam perpisahan. Ada orang berkata : Inilah kumpulan manusia yang paling banyak yang pernah terjadi di Tanah Batak.
Ringkasan ini diambil dari buku:DR. I.L. Nommensen – Apostel di Tanah Batak oleh Patar M. Pasaribu
Nov
13
1. HKBP ADALAH GEREJA, bukan Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia. Oleh sebab itu yang dibutuhkan oleh jemaat HKBP adalah pelayan yang takut akan Tuhan, bukan pelayan yang memiliki gelar Prof.DR, MTh, dll. Jika pelayan HKBP memiliki rasa takut akan Tuhan, maka yang namanya pendeta materialistis, gila hormat, dll. tidak ada dalam daftar pelayan HKBP. Nommensen pada saat tiba di bona pasogit serta pada saat menginjili orang Batak TIDAK MEMBAWA GELAR APA-APA dari Jerman. Setelah beliau sukses besar dalam menginjili orang Batak, ia mendapat gelar DOKTOR HONORIS CAUSA dari pemerintahan Belanda di Amsterdam.
2. HKBP ADALAH GEREJA, bukan partai politik. Oleh sebab itu HKBP harus memiliki sis tem pemilihan pimpinan tersendiri, baik di tingkat pusat, distrik maupun resort, yang berbeda dengan sistem pemilihan yang ada di dunia ini.
3. HKBP ADALAH GEREJA, bukan lembaga pelestarian budaya Batak. Tujuan dari dipeliranya adat batak oleh para missionaris dari Jerman adalah agar supaya orang Batak bisa menerima 100% Firman Tuhan yang mereka bawa. Itu adalah salah satu strategi penginjilan untuk memenangkan Kristus di hati para suku primitif. Sebab jika missi mereka dimaksudkan untuk memusnahkan adat Batak, otomatis missi mereka akan menemui kegagalan 100%. Sekarang di usianya yang hampir mendekati 150 tahun, HKBP harus mampu merumuskan adat Batak yang baru dan benar-benar Kristen. Sebab adat Batak sekarang bukanlah adat Batak Kristen yang murni, melainkan adat Batak animisme yang diubah menjadi adat Batak “Kristen”. Alhasil di wilayah jabotabed ini sudah banyak bermunculan adat Batak lomo-lomo dengan dalih agar sesuai dengan Firman Tuhan. Selain itu orang Bataklah yang mengatur adatnya sendiri, bukan orang Jerman yang bernama Lothar Schreiner. Saya tidak bermaksud mengatakan bahwa orang Batak lebih pintar dari orang Jerman. Tidak!!!. Tapi orang Batak berhak mengatur dapurnya sendiri yang bernama adat Batak. Ibarat sebuah rumah: HKBP adalah ruang tamunya orang Batak, sedangkan adat Batak adalah dapurnya. Jika HKBP sudah menjadi gereja yang mandiri sejak tahun 1940, kenapa adat Batak masih dipengaruhi oleh orang Jerman yang bernama Lothar Schreiner? Dalam menentang ajaran gereja Katolik Roma, Martin Luther dalam salah satu dalilnya mengatakan bahwa “Satu-satunya sumber ajaran Kristen yang benar hanyalah ALKITAB” (Sola Scriptura). Oleh sebab itu melalui tulisan ini saya ingin mengajak para pembaca majalah Suara HKBP untuk meninggalkan buku “Perjumpaan Adat dan Injil” yang ditulis oleh Lothar Schreiner serta kembali kepada Alkitab. Sebab buku tersebut telah membuat adat Batak menjadi nomor 1, sedangkan Tuhan Yesus menjadi nomor 2 atau 3 di hati orang Batak Kristen. Selain itu banyak tugu ni angka ompunta sijolojolo tubu bermunculan di bona pasogit serta banyak orang Batak Kristen berziarah ke makam Sisingamangaraja untuk meminta “berkat”.
4. HKBP ADALAH GEREJA, bukan panggung kehormatan orang-orang Batak. Belakangan ini banyak orang Batak yang ingin mencari nama melalui pelayanan yang mereka berikan kepada gereja HKBP. Hal ini didasari oleh ajaran ompunta sijolojolo tubu yang mengatakan “hagabeon (balita), hamoraon (harta) dan HASANGAPON (tahta)”. Padahal Alkitab dengan tegas mengatakan, “Janganlah kamu gila hormat….” (Galatia 6). Itulah dampak negatif dari adanya dualisme tuan dalam gereja HKBP, yakni Tuhan Debata dan ompunta sijolojolo tubu. Sehingga sangat sulit sekali orang Batak meninggalkan warisan dari ompunta sijolojolo tubu berupa parbadaan. Walaupun sudah Kristen dan berdomisili di Amerika, sai tong marbada halak Batak i. Selain itu tidak lakunya guru huria tamatan Sipoholon adalah karena keberadaan mereka di gereja-gereja resort maupun pagaran akan mengancam atau mempersempit kesempatan para sintua untuk menduduki jabatan guru huria alias mencari popularitas dirinya (mangalului hasangapon ni dirina). Padahal gereja mereka secara finansial mampu membiayai seorang guru huria tamatan Sipoholon, namun karena hal itu akan memperkecil kesempatan sintua untuk menduduki jabatan tersebut maka dibuatlah alasan keuangan sebagai faktor utama menolak kehadiran guru huria tamatan Sipoholon. Jika orang Batak Kristen ingin mencari popularitas, gereja HKBP bukanlah tempatnya. Di kantor, di organisasi, di instansi pemerintah, dll. kita bisa mencari popularitas asalkan dengan cara yang sesuai dengan Firman Tuhan.
Gereja terbesar bukanlah tolok ukur bagi baik/buruknya sebuah gereja. Kriteria gereja terbaik dapat anda baca di bawah ini dengan judul Gereja Terbaik.
Jan
28
Oleh: Pdt Daniel T.A. Harahap
Pendahuluan
Lagu puji-pujian adalah bagian tidak terpisahkan dari kehidupan kekristenan atau gereja. Bahkan bagi orang-orang luar, lagu atau nyanyian pujian itu sudah dianggap sebagai cap, label, atau cirri khas gereja atau orang-orang Kristen. Dimana ada gereja bahkan orang-orang Kristen di situ ada nyanyian. Dimana banyak nyanyian pasti di sana ada orang-orang Kristen. Di gereja-gereja yang berlatar kultur Batak (HKBP, GKPI, GKPS, HKI dll) lagu-lagu pujian itu bahkan semakin hebat dan semarak karena mendapatkan “bensin” kultur Batak yang gemar bernyanyi. Namun mungkin baik juga kita sesekali kita bertanya ulang: apakah sebenarnya makna lagu puji-pujian bagi gereja atau kehidupan kristen?
PERTAMA: Siapa dipuji dan siapa memuji.
Pertanyaan pertama yang harus kita ajukan adalah: sebenarnya siapakah alamat lagu puji-pujian orang Kristen. Kepada siapakah orang-orang Kristen mempersembahkan lagu-lagunya? Barangkali dengan cepat kita akan menjawab: Tuhan Allah. Jawaban itu sungguh tepat. Namun baiklah kita bertanya lagi, apakah benar memang Tuhan Allah yang sedang dipuji bila si Kristen apalagi yang sekaligus Batak ini bernyanyi? Untuk itu penulis ingin mengangkat beberapa contoh:
a) Beberapa saat terakhir gereja-gereja sangat gemar menyelenggarakan Pesta Paduan Suara, mulai dari tingkat jemaat, resort, distrik, sinodal atau bahkan nasional (Pesparawi). Jika benar memang Allah yang dipuji, pertanyaan penulis, mengapakah orang begitu berambisi untuk menang dan mendapatkan piala, dan seringkali sangat kecewa atau bahkan marah dan “mengamuk” jika kalah? Bahkan dalam beberapa kasus, mengapa ada kelompok paduan suara yang tega curang asalkan menang festival? Jujur, ketika kita melantunkan lagu pujian dalam kelompok Paduan Suara atau Vokal Group gereja, sebenarnya untuk siapakah lagu itu: untuk Tuhan atau untuk diri (kebanggaan) sendiri?
b) Ada kebiasaan di beberapa gereja, yang juga mulai masuk ke dalam kehidupan gereja-gereja Batak, selalu memberikan applaus atau tepuk tangan saban sebuah paduan suara, vokal group atau penyanyi solo bernyanyi dalam ibadah. Jika memang lagu itu diperuntukkan bagi Tuhan, bukankah seharusnya yang bertepuk tangan adalah Tuhan dan para malaikatnya di surga?
c) Kelompok-kelompok penyanyi apalagi di gereja HKBP seringkali berebut mendapat kesempatan bernyanyi di jam-jam kebaktian “utama” atau ramai pengunjung, terutama saat natal. Sebaliknya enggan bernyanyi di jam-jam sepi. Jika memang lagu pujian itu benar-benar dipersembahkan untuk Tuhan, mengapa semangat bernyanyi itu sangat terpengaruh dan tergantung ramai-sepinya gereja (baca: manusia)?
d) Gereja HKBP sebenarnya menempatkan penyanyi di barisan jemaat menghadap altar, hendak mengatakan nyanyian sebenarnya lebih merupakan doa atau suara umat kepada Tuhannya, yang disimbolkan dengan salib besar di dinding. Namun jemaat sekarang tidak puas jika bernyanyi menghadap altar atau Tuhan, dan selalu kepingin berdiri di altar menghadap jemaat. Sebenarnya lagu itu untuk siapa?
Ke empat contoh di atas menyadarkan kita dalam praktek lagu puji-pujian orang Kristen bisa menyimpang dari tujuan aslinya sebagai pujian kepada Allah. Di sinilah kita menyadari ada godaan bagi orang Kristen mengkorupsi kemuliaan Tuhannya. Alih-alih memuliakan Tuhan orang Kristen malah mencari kemuliaannya sendiri. Alih-alih melayani jemaat memusatkan dan memfokuskan perhatiannya kepada Tuhan yang disimbolkan hadir di altar, malah menjadikan dirinya sebagai pusat perhatian jemaat (dengan sikap, penampilan, busana, dan gaya dll). Inilah bahaya yang harus selalu disadari para pelayan ibadah termasuk para penyanyi dan pemusik.
Pergeseran tujuan puji-pujian dari Tuhan Allah kepada manusia, selanjutnya perubahan altar menjadi “panggung”, pelayan menjadi “bintang” dan jemaat jadi “penonton”, semakin diperparah dengan masuknya budaya entertainment dan showbiz ke dalam kehidupan gereja. Pada jaman “imantainment” seperti sekarang kita benar-benar sulit membedakan apakah jemaat sedang memuji Allahnya atau sekedar menyenangkan dirinya sendiri.
Pada awalnya lagu-lagu pujian atau mazmur adalah milik umat. Seluruh jemaat bernyanyi memuji-muji Allah. Miryam bernyanyi (Kel 15:20-21), Debora bernyanyi saat di peperangan (Hakim 5), dan Hana ibu Samuel bernyanyi. (I sam 2), Daud memuji di jalan dan pelataran Bait Allah (I Taw 15:29). Zakaria bernyanyi (Luk 1:46-55) Zakaria ayah Yohanes Pembaptis bernyanyi (Luk 1:67-79), Simeon tua bernyanyi (Luk 1:28-32) dan
Paulus di penjara (Kis 16:25). Sebelum umat Israel masuk ke Kanaan dan mendirikan Bait Allah sebenarnya belum ada profesi penyanyi dalam keagamaan Israel. Kelompok khusus penyanyi ibadah baru ada setelah jaman raja-raja. (baca kitab Tawarikh).
Hadirnya para penyanyi khusus Bait Allah membawa keuntungan dan kerugian sekaligus. Keuntungannya: lagu-lagu pujian semakin merdu dan indah, karena dinaynyikan oleh orang-orang pilihan bersuara emas. Kerugiannya: jemaat menjadi pasif. Dalam gereja HKBP terkadang kesempatan bernyanyi jemaat malah sengaja dikurangi untuk memberi kesempatan koor bernyanyi.
KEDUA: DIMANA DAN KAPAN MEMUJI TUHAN?
Jika hal itu ditanayakan maka banyak orang akan mudah mengatakan di gereja dan saban minggu. Jawaban itu tepat. Secara bersama-sama orang Kristen memuji Tuhan di tempat yang tetap dalam waktu pertemuan rutin yaitu hari Minggu. Namun itu saja tidak cukup.
Alkitab kita menyaksikan umat memuji Tuhan pagi hari (Maz 59:17, 92:3) dan malam hari (Maz 42:9), bahkan tengah malam (Maz 119:62), pada segala waktu (Maz 34:2), selama-lamanya (Wahyu 5:13, Maz 41:14). Selanjutnya Alkitab menyaksikan bahwa umat bernyanyi di segala tempat, tidak hanya di Bait Allah: Miryam bermazmur di tepi laut Merah (Kel 15:20-21), dalam peperangan (Yosua 6), di Bait Allah (I Sam 2), dan Daud bernyanyi di jalan dan pelataran Bait Allah. Semua itu menyadarkan kita lagu puji-pujian seharusnya pertama-tama dan terutama dilantunkan di kehidupan sehari-hari, yaitu rumah kita sendiri. Inilah yang hilang dalam kehidupan rumah tangga Kristen kota.
Kebiasaan bernyanyi di rumah telah digantikan oleh kaset, CD, radio dan televisi. Lagu pujian telah berpindah dari meja makan dan ruang keluarga ke gedung-gedung khusus. Lagu pujian bukan lagi milik jemaat kebanyakan tetapi penyanyi-penyanyi elit. Baiklah kita kembali menyadarkan diri kita bahwa tempat paling ideal memuji Tuhan adalah
ruang keluarga kita, meja makan kita, rumah kita sendiri. Di rumah, di tengah-tengah keluarga sendiri, kita bernyanyi memuji Tuhan dengan ikhlas tanpa mengharapkan applaus dari orang lain, piala penghargaan atau hadiah. Sebab itu seperti kata Yesus, Bapa yang berada di tempat tersembunyi juga mendengarkan lagu itu dengan sukacita.
KETIGA: BAGAIMANA MEMUJI TUHAN?
a) Memuji Allah dengan syair dan lagu. Ibrani mengatakan: “Marilah kita senantiasa mempersembahkan korban syukur kepada Allah, yaitu ucapan bibir yang memuliakan namanNya” (Ibr 13:15). Itulah sebabnya pemazmur mengatakan, “Ya Tuhan bukalah bibirku, supaya mulutku memberitakan pujian-pujian kepadaMu” (Maz 51:17). “Mulutku akan penuh dengan puji-pujian kepadaMu” (Maz 71:8, 145:21). “Lepaskanlah aku, ya Allah, maka lidahku akan bersorak-sorai memberitakan keadilanMu” (Maz 51:15).
Kita lihat kitab Mazmur penuh dengan ajakan bernyanyi memuji Tuhan (Maz 13:6, 30:5, 89:2, 96:1, 98:1, 104:33) Kita harus mensyukuri anugerah bernyanyi. Kita melatih diri kita menyanyikan dengan baik. Tuhan memberikan kita tidak hanya corak, desain, tetapi juga ritme atau irama dan jenis-jenis suara.
b) Memuji Tuhan dengan seganap hati, jiwa, akal budi dan roh. Tuhan tidak hanya melihat yang keluar dari bibir namun apa yang ada dalam hati terdalam. Umat Allah pernah dikritik Tuhan karena menyanyikan pujian dengan bibirnya namun tidak dengan hatinya. “Bangsa ini memuliakan Aku dengan bibirnya, namun hatiNya menjauh daripadaKu” (Yes 29:13, Matius 15:8, Mrk 7:6). Pujilah Tuhan, hai jiwaku, pujilah namaNya yang kudus hai segenap batinku (Maz 103:1, 104:1, 146:1). Sebab itulah Maria dalam magnifikatnya berseru: Jiwaku memuliakan Tuhan Allah, Juruslamatku (Luk 1:46). Ini sesuai dengan pesan dalam Ulangan 10:12 “beribadahlah kepada Tuhan dengan segenap jiwamu”.
Di tengah-tengah jaman showbiz dan entertainment (imantainment?) yang tidak bisa dipungkiri juga telah menjadikan nyanyian puji-pujian sebagai komoditi atau barang dagangan, kita diingatkan lagi kepada hakikat pujian sebagai nyanyian hati atau jiwa. Tanpa penghayatan dan kesungguhan mempersembahkannya kepada Allah, sebuah lagu walaupun menyebut-nyebut nama Allah tidak disebut sebagai lagu puji-pujian.
Rasul Paulus mengatakan bahwa kita akan memuji Tuhan dan dengan roh dan akal budi. Bagi manusia moderen yang melihat manusia sebagai suatu keutuhan dan tidak memisah-misahkan jiwa, roh, dan akal budi, ajakan Paulus dapat kita artikan agar kita memuji Tuhan dengan totalitas kemanusiaan kita: tubuh dan jiwa dan roh.
c) Memuji Allah dalam keterlibatan dengan kehidupan masyarakat. Namun itu saja pun belum cukup. Nabi Amos pernah menyampaikan bahwa Allah pernah menolak puji-pujian umatNya. “Jauhkanlah dari padaKu keramaian-keramaian nyanyianmu, lagu gambusmu tidak mau Aku dengar” (Amos 5:23). Mengapa? Karena puji-pujian dipisahkan dari kehidupan social. Umat Israel sangat antusias dan hebat memuji Tuhan namun pada saat yang sama juga menindas orang-orang miskin dan lemah. Agenda ibadah bertentangan dengan agenda social, politik dan ekonomi mereka. Sebab itu Tuhan mengatakan: “Biarlah keadilan bergulung2 seperti air”. (Amos 5:24). Tanpa keadilan sosial, lagu puji-pujian itu bukan saja tidak disukai, tetapi memancing kemarahan Allah!
KEEMPAT: KENAPA KITA HARUS MEMUJI TUHAN?
Jika kita perhatikan mazmur-mazmur, maka pujian umat adalah karena dan bukan supaya Tuhan baik. Sekali lagi: dalam mazmur-mazmur pujian tidak pernah dipakai kata “supaya”. Mengapa? Tuhan Allah pada dasarnya baik. Dia adalah Allah yang penuh kasih dan bahagia. Dia bukanlah mahluk yang haus pujian. Tuhan tidak perlu diangkat-angkat supaya baik. (Bahasa Batak: dipanggar). Tuhan tidak perlu disuap (Bahasa Batak: disubud) supaya berbelas kasih. Dia baik sejak mulanya, kini dan selamanya. Rahmat Allah-lah yang besar dan tak terhingga itulah yang melahirkan pujian umatNya. Bukan sebaliknya! Di sini kita menyadari hakikat lagu puji-pujian adalah respons umat terhadap kasih Allah dan sama sekali bukan syarat untuk mendapatkan kasihNya.
Selanjutnya baik juga kita sadar bahwa kita memuji-muji Tuhan bukan supaya Dia tampak besar dan mulia, tetapi karena memang Dia sungguh besar dan mulia. Kemuliaan dan kekuasaan Tuhan tidak tergantung kepada pujian kita. Kemuliaan Tuhan tidak berkurang sedikit pun jika kita seluruh jemaat HKBP berhenti memujiNya. Seperti kata pemazmur: Allah bersemayam di atas puji-pujian Israel (Maz 22:4). Bukan puji-pujian Israel yang membuat Allah bertahnta, tetapi tahta Allah itulah yang menginspirasi jemaat terus-menerus memuji-mujiNya. Ingat: tahta Allah tidak rubuh karena kita berhenti bernyanyi. Ini membuat kita (baca: pelayan gereja termasuk para pemusik dan penyanyi) rendah hati. Jika kita tidak mau bernyanyi memuji Tuhan maka Allah dapat
menggerakkan batu-batu untuk memuji namaNya.
Selanjutnya kita didorong memurnikan motivasi-motivasi menyanyikan lagu puji-pujian kita kepada Allah agar semakin bebas dari pamrih. Kita memuji bukan supaya mendapatkan sesuatu dari Tuhan, namun karena sudah mendapatkan banyak dariNya. Berkat selalu mendahului pujian. Sebab itulah penulis mazmur mengatakan “Pujilah Tuhan, hai jiwaku, dan janganlah lupakan segala kebaikanNya”. Jangan salah tafsir, kita bukan tak boleh meminta sesuatu dari Tuhan. Justru kita memerlukan Tuhan dan boleh selalu meminta padaNya. Namun Tuhan bukan seperti manusia (Batak?) yang harus dipuji-puji dan diangkat-angkat agar mau memberi. Dia baik. Jika mau meminta sesuatu, minta saja, sebab Tuhan baik. Dan kalau sudah menerimanya, jangan lupa bilang terima kasih. Catatan: jangan jadikan lagu puji-pujian sebagai “pemanasan” apalagi “selingan menunggu jemaat datang”. Kalau mau memuji Tuhan, pujilah Dia dengan tulus dan sungguh-sungguh. Seperti kata pemazmur” “Pujilah Tuhan, hai jiwaku, dan janganlah lupakan segala kebaikanNya”.
Oct
16
Part of the Luther monument in the town Wittenberg, eastern Germany
Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Luther’s life and works will be celebrated along with the Reformation anniversary
In September 1508, a 24-year-old German monk named Martin Luther (1483-1546) moved from Erfurt to Wittenberg to continue his studies.
Nine years later, according to tradition, he nailed 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg’s Castle Church (Schlosskirche), attacking the selling of indulgences by the Roman Catholic Church.
His action sparked the Protestant Reformation.
Wittenberg, a city of some 47,000 souls on the Elbe river between Berlin and Leipzig, launches the Luther Decade this weekend in the run-up to the Reformation’s 500th anniversary.
The celebrations begin
The dramatic opening is set for Saturday, Sept. 20, with a reenactment of Luther’s arrival on the banks of the Elbe.
The festivities will then move into the city, where the locals and many guests will celebrate the famous theologian.
A special church service is planned for Sunday. Lectures, exhibitions, festivals and concerts will be held at various places in the coming years up to 2017, the anniversary of Luther’s posting of his theses.
“We’re expecting a few thousand people from all over the world at the weekend,” said Johannes Winkelmann, director of the cultural society WittenbergKultur. The guests will include numerous prominent theologians.
The castle church in WittenbergBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: The castle church in Wittenberg will play a special part in Luther Decade celebrations
Mark Hanson, president of the Lutheran World Federation and a resident of Chicago, will give the sermon at Sunday’s special church service — in the Schlosskirche, naturally.
Before that, however, Wittenberg theologian Friedrich Schorlemmer and Christopf Stoelzl, previously Berlin’s top cultural official, will engage in a disputation titled “Jesus Was Revolutionary; The Church Became Conservative.”
The venue is the Lutherhaus, the house where Luther lived which is now a museum on the Reformation.
A cycling trio will help kick off the Luther Decade by retracing Luther’s path.
On Friday, Ralf Grabsch, a Tour de France participant who was born near Wittenberg, and two other cyclists plan to set off for Wittenberg from St Augustine’s Monastery in Erfurt.
Luther joined the Augustinian monastery in 1505 after having been nearly struck dead by lightning.
He took his monastic vows in 1506 and began studying theology in Erfurt in 1507.
Plenty of wine and music will also help mark the passing of half a millennium since Luther’s arrival in Wittenberg.
A “monastery fete” is scheduled Saturday in the courtyard of the Lutherhaus. Visitors can have guided tours of the house and seminary.
Luther town
Wittenberg market placeBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: The Wittenberg market place will be abuzz with visitors come Luther Decade
The Lutherhaus is on UNESCO’s World Heritage List, along with the local church, the Schlosskirche, and the house of Philipp Melanchthon, Luther’s friend and fellow Protestant reformer.
Wittenberg’s chief industry is Luther-oriented tourism — the city draws about 400,000 visitors each year — which it aims to boost during the Luther Decade.
Among the special events planned for next year is a conference on a commemoration of the Reformation in East and West Germany, a play called Luther/Chess, and regular orations in the local church on the theme of the seven days of Creation.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3655222,00.html
Oct
21
The name “Anglican” means “of England”, but the Anglican church exists worldwide. It began in the sixth century in England, when Pope Gregory the Great sent St. Augustine to Britain to bring a more disciplined Apostolic succession to the Celtic Christians. The Anglican Church evolved as part of the Roman church, but the Celtic influence was folded back into the Roman portion of the church in many ways, perhaps most notably by Charlemagne’s tutor Aidan. The Anglican church was spread worldwide first by English colonization and then by English-speaking missionaries.
The Anglican church, although it has apostolic succession, is separate from the Roman church. The history of Christianity has produced numerous notable separations. In 1054 came the first major split from Roman administration of the church, when the Eastern Orthodox church and the Roman split apart.
The conflict of authority in England between church and state certainly dates back to the arrival of Augustine, and has simmered for many centuries. The murder of Thomas a Becket was one of the more famous episodes of this conflict. The Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215, contains 63 points; the very first point is a declaration that the English church is independent of its government..
Discontent with Roman administration of the church.
The beginning of the sixteenth century showed significant discontent with the Roman church. Martin Luther’s famous 95 Theses were nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg in 1517, and news of this challenge had certainly reached England when, 20 years later, the Anglican branch of the church formally challenged the authority of Rome.
Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries and abbeys in 1536.
There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope’s refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before.
Defining the new church
The newly-separated Anglican church was given some formal structure in 1562 during the reign of Elizabeth I. That structure is not a management process or governing organization. What binds us together is not common administration but shared tradition and shared belief. Our belief is written down in the Holy Bible and the Articles of Religion; our tradition is in part embodied in our Book of Common Prayer. The first Book of Common Prayer was produced in 1549. In it the Latin liturgy was radically simplified and translated into English, and for the first time a single ‘use’ was enforced throughout England. It has been revised numerous times since then, the most significant revision being the first, in 1552. All revisions since then, before the modern era, were very conservative revisions. The 1662 English Book of Common Prayer forms the historical basis for most Anglican liturgy around the world. While several countries have their own prayer books, all borrow heavily from the English tradition rooted in Cranmer’s original work.
Further Information
Church history has been an important part of the cultural history of every nation, and through the centuries thousands of books have been written about it. Every library and every encyclopedia will cover it to some degree. An informative online starting point for learning more about the history of the Anglican Church is The Anglican Timeline, produced by the American physician Ed Friedlander, MD. It lists several hundred notable events in the history of the Anglican church, with large numbers of links to reference materials and primary sources.
Oct
23
The long-standing theory has been that the higher educated someone is the less religious he will be. But new research in 60 countries proves otherwise. It is economic security that leaves churches empty.
By Dirk Vlasblom
Atheist scientists have been shouting it from the rooftops: anyone who has enjoyed a higher education has no business being in a church. Many European sociologists have offered a rising level of education as the explanation for dwindling church attendance. Now two Dutch sociologists are countering this theory.
Stijn Ruiter, senior researcher at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, and Frank van Tubergen, a professor of sociology in Utrecht, compared ‘religious participation’ in 60 countries. They found no effect of education, but instead came to the conclusion that social insecurity and the environment people grow up in have a significant impact. Results of their research will be published in the American Journal of Sociology next month.
Resilience of religious America
There are two sides in the religion debate. Most European sociologists say modernisation leads to secularisation. But Peter Berger, the American who came up with that theory, later recanted it after the US proved how an economically developed society with a high level of education can indeed remain very religious.
Share/Save/Bookmark
US scientists subsequently came up with the religious market theory. They say minimal regulation of religion and maximum competition between congregations make for more appealing ‘products’. The cacophony of evangelists and the radical separation of church and state would explain the resilience of religious America.
Ruiter and Van Tubergen do not choose sides in this debate. They tested elements of both theories for 60 countries listed in the World Values Survey. From the market theory they examined the idea that more state regulation of religion leads to lower church attendance. Modernisation, the central concept from the other theory, they dissected into three elements: modernisation through higher education, economic security and changes in social relationships by urbanisation and individualisation. They used church attendance as a measure of religiosity.
Socio-economic inequality
Regulation of religion by the state over the entire sample appears to lead to less church attendance. The scientists also see the results of their research as a partial confirmation of the modernisation theory. Partial, because supporters of secularisation attribute this to a scientific worldview, and that, surprisingly enough, proved to be a farce.
“Higher educated people rely more on facts and less on beliefs that can’t be validated or are clearly false. Or at least that’s the theory,” Van Tubergen says. “But that’s not what we’ve seen.”
Why not, he can’t say. “That’s not what we investigated, but we have a hunch. Other research has shown that highly educated people are indeed less religious. But at the same time they tend to be more actively involved in political parties, associations and thus also in churches. Less educated people are more religious, but less active about it. There is a higher rate of churchgoers amongst educated believers than low-skilled believers.”
The two other elements of modernisation can be explained: economic (in)security and the nature of social relationships. “Economic uncertainty has enormous impact on church attendance. In countries with large socio-economic inequality, the rich often go to church because they too could lose everything tomorrow, as was clear from the dramatic collapse of Enron and Lehman Brothers.”
Close-knit religious communities
Religiosity is also strongly influenced by the social environment, says Van Tubergen. “There have to be parents, neighbours or fellow villagers who say ‘let’s go’ or ‘why have I not seen you in church on Sunday?’ Whether your friends are practising, what your teachers tell you and how your future partner feels about it are major influences. People who grow up in a religious environment often remain very religious.”
But changes in life can change that pattern, such as moving to a city and decreasing social control as a result of that. People who do so are more likely to become detached from their religion. On the other hand, religious communities tend to be very close-knit and children often remain in the community,” Ruiter says.
The study explains at least two examples of increased or persistent religiosity under conditions of modernisation: Eastern Europe and the United States. In Eastern Europe after the fall of communism the state restrictions on religion disappeared while at the same time the transition to a capitalist system boosted economic uncertainty. So churches have filled up over the past 20 years.
Welfare state empties out churches
The US is no exception to the rule. “The US has long been regarded as a special case: a developed country and scientific vanguard that is exceptionally religious. But past researchers did not take uncertainties resulting from the high socio-economic inequality into account. In the US you can quickly climb the social ladder, but you can fall off very hard,” Ruiter explains.
Van Tubergen: “Conversely, the link between religiosity and uncertainty explains why the churches in the Netherlands have emptied out. As a result of the welfare state great security can be found outside the walls of the church. It would be interesting to examine the impact of the current economic crisis on church attendance.”
http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2394314.ece/Insecurity_not_education_determines_church_attendance
Oct
29
Germany’s Protestant Church on Wednesday elected Margot Kaessmann as its first female leader. She has said she wants to head a contemporary church that draws more people to the faith.
Germany’s Protestant Church council elected Margot Kaessmann as its chairperson on Wednesday. She is the first woman to lead Germany’s 25 million Protestants.
Kaessmann, 51, steps into the position previously held by 67-year-old Wolfgang Huber, who is going into retirement. She comes to the top job from Hanover, where she has been bishop for more than 10 years.
Kaessmann, who received 132 out of 142 votes, said she wants to work toward drawing more people to the faith with a contemporary church.
The charismatic church leader, who is popular with the media, made headlines in 2007 when she filed for divorce from her husband of 26 years. However, her marital difficulties did not appear to play a role in the vote.
During voting in the southern German city of Ulm, which took some 16 hours and 12 rounds, the church synod elected 13 of the 14 church council members.
The final council seat will remain open until a further meeting of the synod in 2010, as the required two-thirds majority for the final position could not be reached. It is the first time in the history of the German Protestant Church that all 14 council positions have not been filled.
mz/jam/AP/dpa
Editor: Nancy Isenson
Nov
04
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in favor of a mother who objected to the presence of crosses in her children’s classroom. The Italian education ministry says the cross is just a cultural symbol.
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled Tuesday that the presence of crucifixes in Italian public school classrooms conflicts with the rights of non-Christians.
The case was brought by Finnish-born Italian citizen Soile Lautsi, who asked the school authorities in the Italian town of Abano Terme to remove the crosses from the classrooms which her 11- and 13-year-old daughters attended. She justified her request with a decision by an Italian appeal court, which found that the presence of crosses in polling stations ran counter to the Italian state’s religious neutrality.
However, the Italian courts agreed with the state authorities that the cross was not a religious symbol but a symbol of the identity and history of the country.
Freedom not to belong
Now, the European Court has said that a child may well see the crucifix as a religious symbol. The freedom not to belong to a religion was also part of religious freedom and required special protection, said the judges. They awarded the plaintiff 5,000 euros ($7,338) in damages.
The decision has caused a storm of protest in Italy across party lines. The foreign minister, Franco Frattini, said the court had dealt a “mortal blow to a Europe of values and rights.”
Paola Binetti of the opposition Democratic Party – formerly communists – said, “In Italy, the crucifix is a specific sign of our tradition.”
The government said it would appeal.
Vatican: “wrong and myopic”
The Italian Catholic bishops’ conference also attacked the ruling, saying that the judges’ decision was “partisan and ideological.”
After initial caution, the Vatican joined the critics. “The ruling of the European court was received in the Vatican with shock and sadness,” said Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi. “It is wrong and myopic to try to exclude [the crucifix] from the world of education.”
The case is similar to one brought in 1995 by a parent in the German state of Bavaria, in which the German constitutional court decided that it was against religious freedom for the Bavarian state to impose crucifixes in public school classrooms. The state parliament responded with a law requiring the removal of crucifixes, but only if a parent insisted.
The Bavarian minister responsible for religious affairs, Ludwig Spaerle, said that Bavarian practice was in accordance with the new decision.
mll/epd/KNA/Reuters/AFP/AP
Editor: Nancy Isenson
Source: http://www.dw-world.com/dw/article/0,,4854074,00.html
Nov
28
Introduction
The year 2012 is supposed to result in a slew of natural disasters culminating in the end of the world (as we know it, or think we know it, as the case may be). We know this prediction is true because a bunch of savage, child sacrificing, jungle-dwelling Mayans2 prophesied it hundreds of years ago through their amazingly accurate calendar. Never mind that the date for Armageddon was originally set as December 24, 2011. We now know that these events will occur at exactly 11:11 GMT on December 21 2012. Those Mayans really knew everything about astronomy, since their calendar consisted of 260-day periods, which we now know represents the true length of the solar year! According to the Mayan calendar, the “Great Cycle” equates with 5,125.36 years, which began on August 11, 3114 B.C. and ends in 2012. Unfortunately for the Maya (but maybe fortunately for us), they ended before their calendar.
Other prophesiers
The Maya were not the only people to predict the end of the world. Incan and Egyptian calendars, as well as with the prophecies of Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce (famous for predicting from 1958-1998 that a tilting of the Earth’s axis would result in “The earth will be broken up in the western portion of America. The greater portion of Japan must go into the sea.”), and the I Ching, Hopi Indians, along with a slew of wackos have indicated that the apocalypse will occur in December 2012. Nostradamus predicted a great comet, Nibiru, would impact the Mediterranean on December 21, 2012 (or was it the year 1999? – close enough!).
Natural disasters
Not content with just one disaster at a time, 2012 will unleash the ultimate disaster movie – earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tsunamis, floods, and droughts (at the same time and place!). These events are thought to be caused by a polar shift, enormous asteroids, violent solar activity (never mind that the Sun is now at its most quiet phase in recorded history), the emergence of Planet X or Nibiru, and the planetary alignment of Venus. Never mind that the next Venetian alignment is actually, on June 5-6, 2012, and that the alignment will produce a gravitational interaction on the order of your neighbor’s Toaster Strudel. This is real science, man! The other probable causes of these disasters relate to the earth’s precession, a 26,000 year cycle that just happens to coincide with the 12/21/2012 date (how it coincides we aren’t sure, but we want to throw it in so that nothing is left out). In addition, our Solar System crosses in and out of the galactic plane every 33 million years. Coincidentally, the Sun will be at the exact center of the galactic plane on December 21, 2012 (or maybe it already happened 3 million years ago – but who’s counting). At the same time, there will be a massive pole shift caused by the galactic alignment between the center of the galaxy and the Sun that will cause massive earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis. What fun!
Government conspiracy
The really bad thing about 2012 is that the government knows everything about what is going to happen and they are keeping it from you. When Barack Obama talked about change, he wasn’t kidding! In fact, they have set up a secret organization, including a secret website, the Institute for Human Continuity, to promote the continued survival of the human species after December 21, 2012. Among other things, the Institute is conducting a lottery to determine which humans will be selected to inhabit the subterranean cities in their “Operation Safe Haven.” Surprisingly, the Institute has been operating since 1978, when they held their first Summit in in Timaru, New Zealand. You best get aboard while you can. Don’t wait until 2012!
The real 2012 prophecy
Since everybody else is making 2012 predictions, I thought I would throw mine into the mix. And here it is… The 2012 disasters are such good violence and mayhem that they would make the ultimate disaster movie. Hey, somebody needs to make a lot of money by taking from the ignorant interested people. Authors will write books and studios will make movies and the con artists will make lots of money – just like the good old days of Y2K.
Conclusion
Yes, there will be earthquakes, volcanoes, floods and droughts in 2012, just as there are in every year. My 2012 prediction is that scammers will make a lot of money off gullible astute people. If you need to waste your money find more information on 2012, please click the junk resources below. Now, if I could only figure out how to use that Parmesan Chicken with Pasta Rags recipe from my GE newsletter in my new GE Dishwasher.
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/2012_prophecy_review.html#0hdt2iPF0zJy
Dec
16
Everyone knows the melody to Ludwig van Beethoven’s piano piece “Fuer Elise,” but Elise’s true identity has remained a mystery. Now a German musicologist says he’s discovered who she really was.
From hard rock and jazz to cabaret and ring tones, “Fuer Elise” is the quintessential example of the popularization of classical music. If Beethoven got royalties, he’d be a wealthy man.
While everyone knows the melody to the short piano piece in A Minor, few stop to wonder what was behind the intimate dedication.
Berlin musicologist Klaus Martin Kopitz believes he has uncovered Elise’s true identity – while he wasn’t even looking for it.
“For years, I’ve been working on a publication called ‘Beethoven in the eyes of his contemporaries,’ which includes all the reports from people who knew Beethoven personally: journals, letters, poems, memoires,” said Kopitz. “Certain women are mentioned, and one of them was Elisabeth Roeckel.”
A close friendship
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Roeckel was an accomplished pianist Elisabeth Roeckel, born in 1793, was the younger sister of singer Joseph Roeckel, who sang the role of Florestan in Beethoven’s opera “Fidelio,” and became a good friend of the composer’s. Elise was also musically inclined – she played the piano and later became a singer.
In her circle of friends, she was affectionately referred to as “Elise.” In the spring of 1810, she went to Bamberg to work in theater, with the hope of impressing none other than ETA Hoffman, who was the theater manager there at the time.
According to Kopitz, Beethoven dedicated the A-Minor piano piece “in the memory of” Elise because they were separated when she relocated to Bamberg. Since Elisabeth Roeckel was referred to in the dedication as “Elise” and not the more formal “Fraeulein Roeckel,” she must have known Beethoven well, said Kopitz.
Indeed, their relationship was documented, as Elise herself had written about it.
Beethoven the flirt
“According to what she wrote, (their relationship) must have been close,” said Kopitz. In a letter, Elise wrote about an evening with the composer, the famous guitarist Mauro Giuliani, and composer Johann Nepomuk Hummel, who would later become her husband.
“She wrote that Beethoven, true to his frisky Rhenish disposition, wouldn’t stop teasing her and she didn’t know what to do,” said the musicologist. “He had pinched her arm out of sheer affection,” added Kopitz.
That Elise chose Hummel instead apparently did not mean the end of their friendship with Beethoven. Several days before the composer’s death in March 1827, Elise visited him. To remember her former admirer, she cut off a lock of his hair and accepted one of his quills as a present.
How, then, could Elisabeth Roeckel have remained a mystery to musicologists over all the years? And why has the piece so often been attributed to Therese Malfatti, who Beethoven proposed to in 1810?
Bildunterschrift: The Beethoven Archive and the composer’s birth house are located in Bonn
Original manuscript has disappeared
The Beethoven scholar Ludwig Nohl (1831-1885) may be to blame. When he discovered a draft of the work, he published it in 1865 with a dedication to Therese. Nohl claimed to have seen the original manuscript, saying it had been discovered in Therese’s estate, but it has never been found since.
All that exists is an incomplete draft of the work, sketched on a sheet of paper Beethoven had apparently used for brainstorming other works. This has been dated to 1810, around the time of Beethoven’s engagement to Therese Malfatti.
If, however, the A-Minor melody was indeed composed for Elise and not Therese, it is not immediately apparent how and why the original manuscript could have made it into Therese’s hands.
Kopitz admitted that his theory on this point is not particularly scientific: “Therese Malfatti comes to Beethoven’s house and sees the “Fuer Elise” manuscript lying on top of his piano, so she asks ‘Who is this Elise? Do you still want to marry me?’ At that point he was embarrassed that he had written the piece for Elise when he really wanted to marry Therese.”
What does it matter?
The musicologist’s theory is currently in the process of being published and has not yet garnered widespread acceptance in the field.
The director of the Beethoven Archive at the Beethoven House in Bonn, Bernhard Appel, said he was skeptical of Kopitz’ hypothesis, though he emphasized that he could not make a conclusion until the report was available for detailed review.
“Elise was a very common name in Vienna at the time,” said Appel, so the dedication could have referred to any number of women. He added that, to prove who Elise really was, it would be essential to clarify what path the manuscript took before it disappeared.
“Would the music change if we knew who it was dedicated to?” questioned Appel. For those who use it as their mobile phone ring tone, probably not.
Author: Anastassia Boutsko (cn)
Editor: Kate Bowen
Feb
23
JERUSALEM – An Israeli archaeologist said Monday that ancient fortifications recently excavated in Jerusalem date back 3,000 years to the time of King Solomon and support the biblical narrative about the era.
If the age of the wall is correct, the finding would be an indication that Jerusalem was home to a strong central government that had the resources and manpower needed to build massive fortifications in the 10th century B.C.
That’s a key point of dispute among scholars, because it would match the Bible’s account that the Hebrew kings David and Solomon ruled from Jerusalem around that time.
While some Holy Land archaeologists support that version of history — including the archaeologist behind the dig, Eilat Mazar — others posit that David’s monarchy was largely mythical and that there was no strong government to speak of in that era.
Speaking to reporters at the site Monday, Mazar, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, called her find “the most significant construction we have from First Temple days in Israel.”
“It means that at that time, the 10th century, in Jerusalem there was a regime capable of carrying out such construction,” she said.
Based on what she believes to be the age of the fortifications and their location, she suggested it was built by Solomon, David’s son, and mentioned in the Book of Kings.
The fortifications, including a monumental gatehouse and a 77-yard (70-meter) long section of an ancient wall, are located just outside the present-day walls of Jerusalem’s Old City, next to the holy compound known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary. According to the Old Testament, it was Solomon who built the first Jewish Temple on the site.
That temple was destroyed by Babylonians, rebuilt, renovated by King Herod 2,000 years ago and then destroyed again by Roman legions in 70 A.D. The compound now houses two important Islamic buildings, the golden-capped Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque.
Archaeologists have excavated the fortifications in the past, first in the 1860s and most recently in the 1980s. But Mazar claimed her dig was the first complete excavation and the first to turn up strong evidence for the wall’s age: a large number of pottery shards, which archaeologists often use to figure out the age of findings.
Aren Maeir, an archaeology professor at Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv, said he has yet to see evidence that the fortifications are as old as Mazar claims. There are remains from the 10th century in Jerusalem, he said, but proof of a strong, centralized kingdom at that time remains “tenuous.”
While some see the biblical account of the kingdom of David and Solomon as accurate and others reject it entirely, Maeir said the truth was likely somewhere in the middle.
“There’s a kernel of historicity in the story of the kingdom of David,” he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_israel_ancient_wall
Feb
24
Margot Kaessmann, head of the Protestant Church in Germany, was stopped by police over the weekend for drunk driving. She is likely to face criminal charges including a fine and loss of driving priveleges for a year.
Lutheran Bishop Margot Kaessmann, 51, is facing charges for drunk driving after police in Hannover on Saturday night and found her blood alcohol content to be well over the legal limit.
Police originally stopped Kaessmann for running a red light. On suspicion of being intoxicated, police breathalyzed her and gave her a blood test, showing her blood alcohol content to be 0.15 percent, three times the legal limit for driving in Germany, prosecutors said.
Speaking to German daily newspaper Bild, Kaessmann admitted her error.
“I am shocked at myself for committing such a grievous error,” she said. “I am aware how dangerous and irresponsible it is to drink and drive. I will accept the legal consequences.”
Prosecutors say she must now face criminal proceedings for drunk driving, and could be punished with a fine of one month’s salary and loss of driving privileges for up to a year.
It was not yet clear whether the charges would affect her position as head of the Protestant Church in Germany (EKD), an umbrella organization that unites Germany’s 25 million Protestant Christians.
Historic election
Kaessmann was elected in October 2009 to be the first woman to head the EKD. She was seen as controversial because she is divorced, but also had a reputation as a modernizer and a supporter of improving ties with Catholics.
She gained attention last year by calling for a pullout of German troops from Afghanistan, saying there is no such thing as a just war.
acb/epd/dpa/AFP/AP
Editor: Andreas Illmer
Mar
18
VOA News – Upacara penobatan tahunan Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame, berlangsung Senin malam di Hotel Waldorf Astoria , Manhattan, New York.
Upacara penobatan tahunan Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame, berlangsung Senin malam di Hotel Waldorf Astoria , Manhattan, New York meresmikan masuknya kelompok musik Genesis, The Hollies, The Stooges ,ABBA, Jimmy Cliff serta sejumlah penulis lagu dalam deretan penyanyi dan musisi berkualitas yang sudah dinobatkan sebelumnya.
Penobatan Senin malam adalah ajang tahunan Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame yang ke 25.
Rock& Roll Hall of Fame tidak lagi terbatas pada musik Rock&Roll namun kini meluas pada berbagai jenis musik lain, musik yang melakukan terobosan serta punya ciri khas.
Kelompok dan tokoh-tokoh musik baru berhak dicalonkan masuk kedalam legenda Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame, 25 tahun setelah peluncuran rekaman lagu atau album mereka yang pertama.
Genesis kelompok asal Inggris dengan anggota terakhirnya Phill Collins, Tony Banks dan Mike Rutherford dalam acara ini hadir tanpa Peter Gabriel yang merintis awal karir kelompok Genesis.
Genesis memang sudah jarang tampil bersama Phill Collins mengatakan meskipun mereka tidak lagi merekam album bersama, namun masing-masing tetap mengusung nuansa Genesis pada rekaman album solo mereka.
ABBA kelompok asal Swedia yang terkenal dengan lagu Mama Mia, Dancing Queen dalam acara penobatan diwakili oleh Benny Anderson dan Anni Frid (Frida) Lyngstad, dua anggota lainnya Bjorn Ulvaeus dan Agnetha Faltskog absen karena kesibukan mereka di Eropa.
ABBA sebenarnya telah dinominasikan untuk masuk dalam jajaran Rock &Roll Hall of Fame sejak tahun 1999, 25 tahun setelah mereka merilis albumnya di Amerika, Waterloo.
Benny Anderson mengatakan ia sangat senang dengan kehormatan yang mereka terima.
Anni Frid Frida mengatakan kebanggaannya masuk dalam Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame lebih pada prestasinya sebagai wanita yang masuk dalam jajaran legenda, mengingat tokoh musik wanita hanya sekitar 15 % dalam Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame.
The Hollies juga kelompok musik asal Inggris, mewakili kelompok 1960-an. Pendiri kelompok ini Graham Nash, Allan Clarke, Vic Steele, EricHaydock dan Dan Rathbone.
Anggota kelompok The Hollies silih berganti setelah Graham Nash meninggalkan kelompok ini, termasuk Bernie Calvert yang hadir dalam acara penobatan .
Jimmy Cliff penyanyi reggae asal Jamaica dikenal luas dengan lagu I Can See You Clearly Now ketika menerima penobatan Senin malam mengatakan ia besar mendengarkan musik Rock & Roll dan mendapat inspirasi dalam karya-karyanya pada jalur musik reggae.
Mar
18
Catholic officials deny a direct connection between child sexual abuse by priests and the Church’s strict celibacy policy. But the recent wave of abuse claims across Germany has revived the discussion.
Few, if any, Catholic priests or bishops are likely to say their church’s vow of celibacy for priests is a direct cause of child sexual abuse. Yet the most recent wave of abuse allegations across Germany and Europe has reignited an ongoing debate in the Church over whether priests should be allowed to marry.
Hamburg Bishop Hans-Jochen Jaschke told the daily newspaper Hamburger Abendblatt on Saturday that coexistence between celibate and married priests should be possible. He added that while he saw no direct connection between the large number of abuse cases and priest celibacy, “the celibate lifestyle can attract people who have an abnormal sexuality.”
The president of the Central Committee of German Catholics, Alois Glueck, also spoke out for dialogue on reforming the celibacy requirement.
“In other areas of society where celibacy plays no role, the problems [of sexual abuse] are ultimately not any less,” Glueck told the regional daily Passauer Neue Presse. “But the issue of celibacy will come up in our debate for other reasons. We have to think of solutions to the lack of priests.”
Jaschke says priests should be able to choose between celibacy or marriage
Ursula Enders, founder and head of the sexual abuse victims outreach center Zartbitter, was more inclined to draw a link, however small, between celibacy and sexual abuse.
“Celibacy is not the cause of sexual abuse in the church,” she said in an interview with public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk. “It’s something that makes the church more vulnerable.”
Movement for reform
The debate among German Catholics over celibacy is certainly not a new one. Shortly after taking office as the head of the German Catholic Church, Robert Zollitsch made controversial public statements calling celibacy a “gift” but not “theologically necessary.”
Controversy also arose in the case of Michael Sell, a former priest in the Bavarian town of Hammelburg who was dismissed from his job late last year after he revealed that he planned to marry his partner, with whom he had recently fathered a baby.
Sell’s removal led to the founding of the action committee “Church in Movement” to support him. Early last month the group submitted more than 7,000 signatures to Sell’s diocese urging his reinstatement and that priests be allowed to choose between marriage and celibacy.
Indeed, about 80 percent of German Catholics say they are in favor of allowing priests to marry, according to Christian Weisner, head of the reform-oriented Catholic group Wir Sind Kirche (We Are Church).
Pope Benedict XVI strongly supports the vow of celibacy
“If the pope would like to change the law of celibacy, he could do that with one signature,” he told Deutsche Welle. “And I still hope that the Holy Spirit would bring the idea to the next pope.”
Long road to change
Pope Benedict XVI has long supported mandatory celibacy for priests and shows no signs of changing his mind. Still, Weisner says the church must make sweeping reforms if it hopes to address the growing shortage of priests across the world.
“Only to discuss celibacy – that’s not enough,” he said. “We really need a new approach to sexuality, a new relationship between man and woman in our Church.”
Weisner denied that there was Biblical justification for mandatory celibacy, and said the Catholic Church did not even have the policy during its first millennium of existence.
“The Roman Catholic Church is only arguing with the tradition of the last 800 or 900 years,” he said. “But we have to remember – traditions can be changed.”
Author: Andrew Bowen
Editor: Nancy Isenson
http://www.dw-world.com/dw/article/0,,5356391,00.html
Apr
03
We received a question about the Crucifixion of Jesus, asking us to prove:
(1)
that anyone saw Jesus dead, and
(2)
that anyone removed the dead body of Jesus from the cross, and
(3)
that anyone put His dead body in a tomb.
These three questions involve the “chain-of-custody” of Jesus and his body. They seem to be best broken down into the following five parts:
(A)
Proof of Jesus being arrested, tortured, and hung on cross.
(B)
Proof of Jesus remaining on the cross till death.
(C)
Proof of the death of Jesus on the cross.
(D)
Proof of the removal of the same dead body from the cross.
(E)
Proof of the placement of that same dead body in a tomb.
This study is from the documentation provided in the Bible by Matthew Levi, the son of Alphaeus, a servant of God and a companion and disciple of Jesus.
The Roman government, the Jewish rulers and the disciples of Jesus were confirming witnesses of these events. If the Jewish people were deceived into thinking that they had killed Jesus, that would have still made it necessary also to deceive the Roman government and the very followers of Jesus; even his mother and closest friends and disciples. All of these would have had to believe a complete falsehood.
(A)
Proof of Jesus being arrested, tortured, and hung on the cross.
The “chain-of-custody” begins with the identification of Jesus by all twelve disciples (apostles) during the eating of the Last Supper at the Feast of Unleavened Bread on the night before the start of the full Passover commemoration. Afterwards, Judas left them (Mt 26:17-20).
Then the group proceeded under a full moon with plenty of moonlight (the 14th day of the lunar month of Nisan) (Exodus 12:18) from the place of the Last Supper going east across the Brook Kidron and to the Garden of Gethsemane at the Mount of Olives (Mt 26:30 & 36).
Judas Iscariot came and identified Jesus for the soldiers. Jesus also identified himself. Jesus healed the ear of the servant of the High Priest (Mt 26:47-56). Later Judas confirmed that he had betrayed an innocent man (Mt 27:3-8). Also, the temple chief priests confirmed that the money given by them to Judas by them was “blood money” (Mt 27:6).
Jesus went in the custody of the temple soldiers, to the house of Caiaphas. Many leaders were present including the whole great Sanhedrin (the 70 ruling men in the Council). Jesus confirmed that he is the Messiah and the Son of the God. Because of this statement of his, they said Jesus had committed blasphemy and was deserving of death (Mt 26:57-68).
Jesus was transferred into the Roman custody of Governor Pontius Pilate in the morning (Mt 27:1-2).
The wife of Pilate stated that she had a dream in the previous night hours that Pilate should have nothing to do with that “righteous man” (Mt 27:19).
The Roman governor, Pilate, delivered Jesus into the custody of his own professional Roman soldiers (Mt 27:26).
The Roman soldiers beat Jesus and put a crown of thorns on his head. This distinctively marked his body and the top of his head (Mt 27:27-30). These wounds, caused by the Roman soldiers, would help identify the body of Jesus all the way to the cross, on the cross, and in post-resurrection appearances.
Jesus remained in the custody of Roman soldiers and was taken to the place of crucifixion (Mt 27:31-33).
Matthew, who was one of the twelve disciples, records that the Roman soldiers crucified Jesus, which means putting a live person on a cross (Mt 27:35).
(B)
Proof of Jesus remaining on the cross till death
Jesus remained on the cross under guard by the Roman centurion (Mt 27:54) and soldiers. Some sat down to watch him die (Mt 27:36-37).
While hanging on the cross he was identified by:
The Roman centurion (officer over about 100 men) (Mt 27:54).
The Roman soldiers watching and who knew the wounds he had previously suffered (Mt 27:35-36).
The passersby who had heard him preach (Mt 27:39-40).
The chief priests (Mt 27:41).
The scribes (Mt 27:41).
The elders (Mt 27:41).
The two robbers who were also being executed (Mt 27:44).
The many women who had seen Jesus before (Mt 27:55-56).
John, His disciple (John 19:26)
Mary, his mother (John 19:26).
(C)
Proof of the death of Jesus on the cross
Matthew, a disciple, records that Jesus gave up his spirit, died (Mt 27:50).
The Roman centurion (Mt 27:54) who was in charge of keeping guard over Jesus, refers to Jesus’ life in the past tense after Jesus had died (Mt 27:54).
The dead body of Jesus was later ordered by the Roman governor to be given to Joseph of Arimathea who wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and who laid the body of Jesus in his own tomb (Mt 27:59-60).
The chief priests and Pharisees confirmed to the Roman governor that Jesus was dead (Mt 27:63-64).
Also the chief priests and Pharisees confirmed to the Roman governor that Jesus’ body was actually in a grave (Mt 27:64).
Pilate, the Roman governor appointed a guard for the grave of Jesus’ dead body (Mt 27:65-66).
An angel of the Lord from Heaven confirmed that Jesus had been crucified, and had been dead (Mt 28:2-7). The women to whom this message was given told it to Matthew and the other disciples (Mt 28:7-10).
(D)
Proof of the removal of the same dead body of Jesus from the cross
The Roman soldiers had custody of the dead body of Jesus (Mt 27:54).
Notice that not just anyone could remove the dead body Jesus, the executed prisoner, from the custody of the Romans. Permission had to be obtained from the proper authority who had ordered the execution. In this case, it was the Roman governor, Pilate (Mt 27:58).
A wealthy Jewish man, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple and who would recognize Jesus, asked the Roman governor, Pilate, that he, Joseph, be allowed to take custody the dead body of Jesus for the purpose of burial (Mt 27:57-58). More than 700 years before the time of Jesus, the holy Prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz, wrote about this death and the burial in the grave of a rich man (Isaiah 53:9). At the time of Jesus, the holy Prophet John, the Baptizer, son of the Priest Zacharias, told that Jesus was the sacrificial “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29 and Isaiah 53).
Pilate gave the order that the dead body of Jesus be given to Joseph (Mt 27:58).
Joseph of Arimathea took away the dead body of Jesus which had been ordered to be given to him by the governor, Pilate, and which was identified to him as such by the soldiers who guarded the body and also from his own identification of Jesus, because he was a disciple of Jesus (Mt 27:57 & 59).
The chief priests, elders and the soldiers confirmed that the body in the tomb was that of Jesus. It was the same dead body of Jesus that the governor, Pilate, had ordered the soldiers to guard (Mt 28:11-15).
(E)
Proof of the placement of that same dead body of Jesus in a tomb
Pilate gave the order that the body be given to Joseph (Mt 27:58). There is no evidence that any other body was given to Joseph.
Joseph took custody of Jesus’ dead body which had been ordered to be given to him by the governor Pilate and which was identified to him as such by the soldiers who guarded the dead body and which Joseph must have been able to identify himself, because he was a disciple of Jesus (Mt 27:59).
Joseph kept custody of the body of Jesus and wrapped the body of Jesus in a clean linen cloth for burial (Mt 27:59).
Joseph laid the wrapped dead body of Jesus in his own new tomb (Mt 27:60).
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary who had been at the crucifixion came to that very grave (Mt 27:56 and 28:1).
An angel of the Lord from Heaven confirmed that Jesus had been dead and buried at that very grave. The angel said, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was laying. And go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead …” (Mt 28:5-7)
The body of Jesus was wounded and marked by the beating and the crown of thorns before the crucifixion and it was further marked by the wounds in the hands, the feet and the side while on the cross. Identifiable marks in his hands and side, made by the Roman soldiers, were still visible on Jesus’ body after his resurrection.
He appeared to the apostles “… to whom He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, being seen by them during forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the Kingdom of God.” (Acts 1:3) The details of the miracles, teachings and prophecies made by Jesus are recorded in the Injil, the first four historical Gospels (“Good News” section) of the New Testament of the Holy Bible which are advisable to be diligently studied for great spiritual benefit.
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Dawud/custody.htm
Apr
03
Allah (allegedly) says in Chapter 4 verse 157 of the Qur’an referring to Jews and Christians:
And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,” – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‘Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)] 4:157 Hilal-Khan
I have decided to check whether Allah is consistent and has made sure his own Muslim Ummah(nation, community) has no doubts or uncertain knowledge regarding what really happened at the Crucifixion. After all, if Allah can’t keep his latest Ummah absolutely certain and without doubt on this subject, why would he level criticism at the Jews and Christians for the very same thing?
So let us take a look at a few of the Islamic Conceptions regarding what exactly did happen back in the 1st Century.
The Substitution Theory
This theory is advocated by a number of exegetes. We will look at three classical commentaries.
Abu Al-Fida, ‘Imad Ad-Din Isma’il bin ‘Umar bin Kathir Al-Qurashi Al-Busrawi (1301-1373), a famous commentator of the Qur’an gave his explanation of 4:157:
The Jews also said,
(“We killed Al-Masih, `Isa, son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah,”) meaning, we killed the person who claimed to be the Messenger of Allah. The Jews only uttered these words in jest and mockery, just as the polytheists said,
(O you to whom the Dhikr (the Qur’an) has been sent down! Verily, you are a mad man!) When Allah sent `Isa with proofs and guidance, the Jews, may Allah’s curses, anger, torment and punishment be upon them, envied him because of his prophethood and obvious miracles; curing the blind and leprous and bringing the dead back to life, by Allah’s leave. He also used to make the shape of a bird from clay and blow in it, and it became a bird by Allah’s leave and flew. `Isa performed other miracles that Allah honored him with, yet the Jews defied and bellied him and tried their best to harm him. Allah’s Prophet `Isa could not live in any one city for long and he had to travel often with his mother, peace be upon them. Even so, the Jews were not satisfied, and they went to the king of Damascus at that time, a Greek polytheist who worshipped the stars. They told him that there was a man in Bayt Al-Maqdis misguiding and dividing the people in Jerusalem and stirring unrest among the king’s subjects. The king became angry and wrote to his deputy in Jerusalem to arrest the rebel leader, stop him from causing unrest, crucify him and make him wear a crown of thorns. When the king’s deputy in Jerusalem received these orders, he went with some Jews to the house that `Isa was residing in, and he was then with twelve, thirteen or seventeen of his companions. That day was a Friday, in the evening. They surrounded `Isa in the house, and when he felt that they would soon enter the house or that he would sooner or later have to leave it, he said to his companions, “Who volunteers to be made to look like me, for which he will be my companion in Paradise” A young man volunteered, but `Isa thought that he was too young. He asked the question a second and third time, each time the young man volunteering, prompting `Isa to say, “Well then, you will be that man.” Allah made the young man look exactly like `Isa, while a hole opened in the roof of the house, and `Isa was made to sleep and ascended to heaven while asleep. Allah said,
(And (remember) when Allah said: “O `Isa! I will take you and raise you to Myself.”) When `Isa ascended, those who were in the house came out. When those surrounding the house saw the man who looked like `Isa, they thought that he was `Isa. So they took him at night, crucified him and placed a crown of thorns on his head. The Jews then boasted that they killed `Isa and some Christians accepted their false claim, due to their ignorance and lack of reason. As for those who were in the house with `Isa, they witnessed his ascension to heaven, while the rest thought that the Jews killed `Isa by crucifixion. They even said that Maryam sat under the corpse of the crucified man and cried, and they say that the dead man spoke to her. All this was a test from Allah for His servants out of His wisdom. Allah explained this matter in the Glorious Qur’an which He sent to His honorable Messenger, whom He supported with miracles and clear, unequivocal evidence. Allah is the Most Truthful, and He is the Lord of the worlds Who knows the secrets, what the hearts conceal, the hidden matters in heaven and earth, what has occurred, what will occur, and what would occur if it was decreed. He said,
(but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared as that to them,) referring to the person whom the Jews thought was `Isa. This is why Allah said afterwards,
(and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture.) referring to the Jews who claimed to kill `Isa and the ignorant Christians who believed them. Indeed they are all in confusion, misguidance and bewilderment. This is why Allah said,
(For surely; they killed him not.) meaning they are not sure that `Isa was the one whom they killed. Rather, they are in doubt and confusion over this matter.
(But Allah raised him up unto Himself. And Allah is Ever All-Powerful,) meaning, He is the Almighty, and He is never weak, nor will those who seek refuge in Him ever be subjected to disgrace,
(All-Wise.) in all that He decides and ordains for His creatures. Indeed, Allah’s is the clearest wisdom, unequivocal proof and the most glorious authority. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, “Just before Allah raised `Isa to the heavens, `Isa went to his companions, who were twelve inside the house. When he arrived, his hair was dripping water and he said, `There are those among you who will disbelieve in me twelve times after he had believed in me.’ He then asked, `Who volunteers that his image appear as mine, and be killed in my place. He will be with me (in Paradise)’ One of the youngest ones among them volunteered and `Isa asked him to sit down. `Isa again asked for a volunteer, and the young man kept volunteering and `Isa asking him to sit down. Then the young man volunteered again and `Isa said, `You will be that man,’ and the resemblance of `Isa was cast over that man while `Isa ascended to heaven from a hole in the house. When the Jews came looking for `Isa, they found that young man and crucified him. Some of `Isa’s followers disbelieved in him twelve times after they had believed in him. They then divided into three groups. One group, Al-Ya`qubiyyah (Jacobites), said, `Allah remained with us as long as He willed and then ascended to heaven.’ Another group, An-Nasturiyyah (Nestorians), said, `The son of Allah was with us as long as he willed and Allah took him to heaven.’ Another group, Muslims, said, `The servant and Messenger of Allah remained with us as long as Allah willed, and Allah then took him to Him.’ The two disbelieving groups cooperated against the Muslim group and they killed them. Ever since that happened, Islam was then veiled until Allah sent Muhammad .” This statement has an authentic chain of narration leading to Ibn `Abbas, and An-Nasa’i narrated it through Abu Kurayb who reported it from Abu Mu`awiyah. Many among the Salaf stated that `Isa asked if someone would volunteer for his appearance to be cast over him, and that he will be killed instead of `Isa, for which he would be his companion in Paradise. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on 4:157)
Tafsir al-Jalalayn is one of the most significant tafsirs for the study of the Qur’an. Composed by the two “Jalals” — Jalal al-Din al-Mahalli (d. 864 ah / 1459 ce) and his pupil Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 ah / 1505 ce), Tafsir al-Jalalayn is generally regarded as one of the most easily accessible works of Qur’anic exegesis because of its simple style and one volume length. For the first time ever Tafsir al-Jalalayn is competently translated into an unabridged highly accurate and readable annotated English translation by Dr. Feras Hamza.
Al-Jalalayn on 4:157
And for their saying, boastfully, ‘We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God’, as they claim: in other words, for all of these [reasons] We have punished them. God, exalted be He, says, in repudiating their claim to have killed him: And yet they did not slay him nor did they crucify him, but he, the one slain and crucified, who was an associate of theirs [the Jews], was given the resemblance, of Jesus. In other words, God cast his [Jesus's] likeness to him and so they thought it was him [Jesus]. And those who disagree concerning him, that is, concerning Jesus, are surely in doubt regarding, the slaying of him, for some of them said, when they saw the slain man: the face is that of Jesus, but the body is not his, and so it is not he; and others said: no, it is he. They do not have any knowledge of, the slaying of, him, only the pursuit of conjecture (illa ittiba’a l-zann, is a discontinuous exception) in other words: ‘instead, they follow conjecture regarding him, that which they imagined [they saw]‘; and they did not slay him for certain (yaqinan, a circumstantial qualifier emphasising the denial of the slaying). (Tafsir Al Jalalayn on 4:157)
Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas Attributed variously to the Companion Abdullah Ibn Abbas (d. 68/687) and to Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub al-Firuzabadi (d. 817/1414), Tanwîr al-Miqbâs is one of the most pivotal works for understanding the environment which influenced the development of Qur’anic exegesis. Despite its uncertain authorship and its reliance on the controversial Isrâ’îliyyat or Israelite stories, Tanwîr al-Miqbâs nevertheless offers readers valuable insight into the circulation and exchange of popular ideas between Islam, Judaism and Christianity during the formative phase of Islamic exegesis.
Ibn ‘Abbas on 4:157
(And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger) Allah destroyed their man Tatianos. (They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them) Allah made Tatianos look like Jesus and so they killed him instead of him; (and lo! those who disagree concerning it) concerning his killing (are in doubt thereof) in doubt about his killing; (they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture) not even conjecture; (they slew him not for certain) i.e. certainly they did not kill him. (Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas on 4:157)
As pointed out elsewhere on Answering-Islam (*), there is disagreement on who substituted Christ:
“1. God made someone look like Jesus who was then crucified in the place of Christ. This is known as the substitution theory, but this interpretation is beset with many problems. First, who in fact was made to look like Christ? Muslims were not unanimous:
A. Some say that it was Judas.
B. Others say it was one of Jesus’ disciples.
C. Still others say that it was a Roman soldier named Titawus.”
The Swoon Theory
2. Jesus was crucified but did not die. He swooned on the cross and later recovered.
Although the swoon theory is held mainly by the Ahmaddiyas and the Nation of Islam, groups that are considered heretical, there are also orthodox Sunni Muslims who have adopted this theory as well. The most famous Sunni to adopt and embrace this view for polemical purposes is Ahmed Deedat.
Akbarally Meherally is another one who has decided to embrace this theory (Article 1, Article 2). Meherally even goes so far as to deny the substitution theory.
Muslim apologist Shabir Ally tried to defend this theory (quite unsuccessfully I might add) in his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig, “Did Jesus of Nazareth Physically Rise from the Dead?”, held on Monday, March 4, 2003 at the University of Toronto. When confronted in the Question and Answer period by Christian Apologist Tony Costa jr. as to why Mr. Ally was promoting the Ahmaddiya position of the swoon theory, seeing that this view is considered heretical by orthodox Muslims, the latter responded:
… So whereas Sunni Muslims believe that Jesus will be coming again a second time on the authority of many authentic reports back to the prophet Muhammad, reported in authentic collections like Bukhari and Muslims and so on, the Ahmaddiya group believes that Jesus will not come again because he has actually already returned in the person of the founder of that group. I believe that Jesus will come again.
Now our position seem to intersect on the point of Jesus surviving death on the cross. I have looked at the reports that are generally followed by Sunni Muslims, understanding that someone else was substituted for Jesus on the cross, and I have seen that although there are a variety of reports, the commentators cannot agree precisely on what has happened here and how exactly a substitute was given. And it appears that they are following reports which originated in Iraq, according to an excellent analysis done by Neal Robinson, who’s a Muslim now, in his book Christ in Islam and Christianity. And looking at the quranic text itself, which is the best interpretation of itself, we see that the quranic text ends with a summary which says wama qataloohu yaqeenan, “they did not kill him definitely”, Bal rafaAAahu Allahu ilayhi, “but God raised him to himself.” I take this to be a summary of the whole discussion on what has happened to Jesus. There was a plot to kill him but they neither killed him nor crucified him, crucified him in the sense of killing him by crucifixion. That is a definition that has been given in Tafsir-Ul-Qur’an by Abdul Majid Daryabadi, which is a Sunni Tafsir on the Quran. So I am well within my ranks and I haven’t changed positions on that, but perhaps interpretations.
The Legend Theory
3. The crucifixion didn’t even happen but was a later invention/legend. The late Muhammad Asad held this view:
Thus, the Qur’an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. There exist, among Muslims, many FANCIFUL LEGENDS telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these LEGENDS finds the slightest support in the Qur’an or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at “harmonizing” the Qur’anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion. The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur’anic phrase wa-sakin shubbiha lahum, which I render as “but it only appeared to them as if it had been so” – implying that in the course of time, long after the time of Jesus, a legend had somehow grown up (possibly under the then-powerful influence of Mithraistic beliefs) to the effect that he had died on the cross in order to atone for the “original sin” with which mankind is allegedly burdened; and this legend became so firmly established among the latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to believe it – albeit in a derogatory sense (for crucifixion was, in those times, a heinous form of death-penalty reserved for the lowest of criminals). This, to my mind, is the only satisfactory explanation of the phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, the more so as the expression shubbiha li is idiomatically synonymous with khuyyila li, “[a thing] became a fancied image to me”, i.e., “in my mind” – in other words, “[it] seemed to me” (see Qamas, art. khayala, as well as Lane II, 833, and IV, 1500). (p. 134, fn. 171, online source; capital and underlined emphasis ours)
The Natural Death Theory
Moiz Amjad of Understanding-Islam.com defends his theory that the Qur’an teaches Jesus died naturally here.
9th Century Muslim Historian Al Tabari:
“In fact, early Muslim scholarship was greatly confused and divided over the exact nature of Jesus’ final days. Early Muslim scholarly opinion did not hold to a uniform view regarding Jesus’ final moments, with some scholars believing that Christ actually did die and some others claiming that God took him straight into heaven without dying. An example of an early Muslim scholar holding to a different view from that commonly promoted by Muslims today is Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari (839-923).” This article establishes the view of Al-Tabari and his position that Jesus was crucified and raised into heaven.
Hadith Collection:
Lastly it may come as a surprise to some that many of the major hadith volumes including the two major authentic ones, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, are completely silent on the issue of the Crucifixion.
A Summary of the Problems:
Muslims who accept the substitution theory cannot agree on “who” was substituted. Some Muslim exegetes who accept the substitution theory are silent on who substituted Jesus (reminds me of “no certain knowledge”)
The substitution stories are not all unanimous; there details have variations there appears to be no consensus of the exact facts of these stories among the exegetes.
The early centuries of Islam seem to be more silent on the issue, even the Hadith collections of Imam Burkhari and Imam Muslim are silent on the issue of the Crucifixion.
Some Muslims believe Jesus was crucified but he survived the crucifixion and was raised into heaven by Allah i.e. the Swoon Theory.
Some Muslims believe Jesus was not crucified at all but died a natural death, someone else however died in his place.
Some Muslims believe there was no specific individual crucified, either Jesus or his alleged clone, they believe this story was later invented by the Jews.
Islamic Scholarship in the past and present has been divided on this issue. To this day there is no unanimous view held by Allah’s Ummah.
The Conclusion
It seems rather hypocritical to accuse Jews & Christians of having nothing but conjecture, no actual knowledge especially when no counter evidence is offered. It seems unreasonable to not provide an explicit account of what actually did happen and then leave it up to later generations of Muslims to invent there own ideas and interpretations of what happened. Most of all it is inconsistent to criticise a group of people of conjecture when your own Ummah does exactly the same!
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/adams/crucifixion_confusion.html”>
Apr
03
Easter is the most important celebration for any follower of Jesus Christ as described in the Bible. At the heart of the festival is the remembrance of the events surrounding the cross on which Jesus the Messiah died. They are absolutely central according to 1 Corinthians 15:1-20:
… this Message on which you took your stand and by which your life has been saved … that the Messiah died for our sins, exactly as Scripture tells it; that he was buried; that he was raised from death on the third day, again exactly as Scripture says; that he presented himself alive to Peter, then to his closest followers, and later to more than five hundred of his followers all at the same time, most of them still around … if there’s no resurrection for Christ, everything we’ve told you is smoke … if Christ weren’t raised, then all you’re doing is wandering about in the dark, as lost as ever … But the truth is that Christ has been raised up, …’ [all Bible quotes are taken from the translation The Message]
That passage is taken from the Injīl, a book of God. The Prophet of Islām confirmed it to be present along with the Tawrāt in the 6th Century AD.1 He encouraged people to follow those Scriptures that were known at that time to consist of the same books found in today’s Old and New Testament of the Bible.2. Therefore, they must have been uncorrupted. Those who assume that changes were made after the prophet’s time can simply compare a 21st century copy with one that was written at or before the 6th century. This means that all the teaching remained the same! Muslims who say that the message of the Bible is corrupted actually contradict the Qur’ān itself.
The main thing is to see that Christ’s death and resurrection are central issues, and also to see why Muslims suffer a great, unbearable loss if they deny these.
The Main Thing
Someone once said, “the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing!” In order to understand the significance of the cross of Jesus the Messiah, it is essential to summarize the main Bible message.
God created the world to bring Him honour and joy. He made human beings to have a relationship with Him. Adam and Eve disobeyed and as the result of one sin had to leave Eden. The rest of the Bible describes God’s plan to bring mankind back into fellowship with Him again. So we see that sin increased to the point where the creator of the world sent a flood in order to destroy everyone but Noah, his family and one pair of each kind of animal. Soon the world became corrupted again because humans kept on rebelling against their Maker. God chose Abraham and promised that He would bless all nations of the world through Abraham’s offspring. Later He selected the Jewish people. Through His dealings with the nation of Israel the world learnt who God is, what He does, and how He works. God has a relationship with His people based on His promises. At the heart lies an elaborate system of regular sacrifices centred in the temple of Jerusalem.3. Through them God promised to cleanse the people of their impurities and sins. All this was presented as a symbol of the perfect sacrifice to come.
The Jews of ancient Israel were not able to fulfil their part and be obedient to God. Consequently, the Injīl gives an account of how God’s promises were fulfilled in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. He is the final, perfect sacrifice to take away the punishment due for our sins by dying on the cross. When he returns Jesus will establish God’s kingdom forever. Until that time it is invisible to people, unless God’s Spirit opens their eyes to its existence. In the present phase, the only people in God’s Kingdom are those who believe in Jesus as the sacrifice for their sins. Out of thankfulness they will be doing God’s will in His strength (as described in the Injīl). Jesus himself confirmed that he plays the leading role in God’s plan by these words spoken to two of his followers after he rose from the dead:
Then he said to them, “So thick-headed! So slow-hearted! Why can’t you simply believe all that the prophets said? Don’t you see that these things had to happen, that the Messiah had to suffer and only then enter into his glory?” Then he started at the beginning, with the books of Moses, and went on through all the Prophets, pointing out everything in the Scriptures that referred to him. (Luke 24:25-27)
Catastrophic Consequences of Cross Denial
Muslims are told that Jesus did not die on the cross. However, Surāt Ãl-‘Imrān(3)55, (quoted at the head of this article), uses the Arabic word ‘mutawaffīka’ to describe what happened to Jesus the Messiah. It is still used today by Arabic speakers to express a person’s physical death! The same word and its derivation are found over 25 times in the Qur’ān. In all but two places they imply death or are associated with death. In the two exceptions (al-An‘ām(6)60; az-Zumar(39)42) the context reveals that ‘mutawaffīka’ figuratively means slumber. But the verse that speaks about the death of Jesus Christ is clearly literal and not figurative. Therefore it refers not to sleep, but to death.
Muslims who deny the cross and the above mentioned events surrounding it have to answer the following questions: How is it that the Qur’ān, which supposedly confirms previous Scriptures, rejects the central message of those previous Scriptures? Since there is no certainty of forgiveness of sins outside God’s promises given in the Bible, how can you live with the constant threat of the possibility of going to hell? Why do you not accept the invitation Jesus the Messiah gives below?
“Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out on religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you’ll recover your life. I’ll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me—watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won’t lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you. Keep company with me and you’ll learn to live freely and lightly.” (Matthew 11:28-30)
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/oskar/missing_cross.html
Apr
08
The cases of sexual abuse in Germany have been wide-spread and date back decades. As a result, the image of priests in Germany has suffered, and fewer young men are pursuing a life devoted to God as a priest.
The rash of sexual abuse cases to emerge in the Catholic Church recently has seriously damaged the church’s reputation. In Germany, hundreds of people have come forward with their stories of abuse by members of the church, often from their time as children in private monastery schools.
As a result, fewer people are choosing to devote their lives to God as priests. According to statistics published on the German Conference of Bishops’ website, the number of new priest candidates (in West and East Germany combined) was on the rise in the late 1970s and early 80s, peaking in 1983 with 829 candidates.
Just before German reunification in 1990, the numbers started to fall, and the trend has continued. In 2008, the last year in which data is available, just 243 candidates for priesthood were recorded in Germany. 2004 was the lowest year on record, with just 210.
The exceptions to the rule
Men like Florian Regner, a 34 year old from Munich are the exception. Regner is in the fifth of seven years at the Saint Nikolaus Parish seminary school.
Like many students, Regner’s day is a bustling mix of lectures, seminars, and presentations, with meals mixed in when there’s time. He also has regular prayer sessions, the first of which is at 6:30 in the morning.
People who know Regner weren’t surprised at his decision to become a priest. As a child, he was an alter boy and a member of a Catholic youth group. Before he made the decision to devote his life to God, Regner worked as a nurse in a Christian hospital in Munich, in addition to pursuing a theology degree.
“I like the clerical structure of the day, the spiritual life and of course living together with the other students,” Regner said. “Seeing other people going through joy and pain, highs and lows… it shows that you’re not on this path towards priesthood by yourself. You go with other people, and you can strengthen and inspire each other.”
The issue of celibacy
Some say it’s the outdated traditions of the church that are driving people away from the priesthood, including the vow of celibacy Catholic priests are required to make.
Calls for reform in the Catholic Church, including the abolishment of the celibacy vow, are becoming louder. However, that’s taking things too far for Franz Josef Baur, head of the Saint Nikolaus seminary. To him, the education of priests in Germany is right on track.
“It’s not like things have been at a stand still in recent years,” he said. “The cases that are now getting lots of attention were already known, and are already pretty old. In the past 20 or 30 years, priest training has been further developed.”
Celibacy a ‘part of the priesthood’
Seminary candidate Florian Regner doesn’t have a solution for early recognition of paedophilic behaviour, but he doesn’t think there’s connection between the abuse cases and the celibate life of a priest.
“To automatically make a binding connection between the two is something I don’t consider to be very fair,” he said. “It’s a little far-fetched, actually, because no one can say that [a priest's] lifestyle positively leads to that kind of behaviour. I don’t consider that conclusive and comprehensive. For me, a celibate life is just part of the priesthood.”
Pope Benedict XVI has yet to take a position regarding the sexual abuse cases in his home-country of Germany. But until then, not much will change for candidates of seminary schools in Munich, and Florian Regner will still want to become a priest.
Author: Anja Seiler (mz)
Editor: Rob Turner
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5440776,00.html?maca=en-newsletter_en_highlights_mi-2087-html-nl
Apr
09
To Christians the meaning of the word Father does not mean an actual physical father. First, it has a metaphorical meaning. God is the source and the creator of all creatures. So He is called the Father of all creatures, especially the intelligent ones. As the prophet Moses said, “Is He not your father and your possessor” He made you and brought you up.” (Deuteronomy 32:6), or as Isaiah the prophet said, “O Lord, Thou art our Father.” (Isaiah 64:8) In the New Testament the apostle Paul declared, “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him.” (I Corinthians 8:6) The word father in this context is stated in much the same way as used in the Arabic “Father of blessing” (Abu al-Khair Abdu al-Barakat) and “Father of God” (Abu al-Fadi), and others. These should not be understood in terms of a procreator or actual parentage but rather metaphorically.
Secondly, there is the legal meaning. In the case of adoption, the word father does not mean that he gave birth to the adopted son; rather he accepted him as a son and granted him all legal rights. He considers himself responsible and obligated to him as a real father. The apostle Paul speaks about this, “You have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!” (Romans 8:15) and in Galatians 4:4, he uses the term “to obtain adoption.” So God’s fatherhood in our adoption is based on divine legal rights.
Thirdly, there is the essential meaning. This is the meaning which can only be applied to God’s Trinity. May He be exalted! As a word bursts from the mouth, the son emanated from the Father before all ages. Jesus who is the Son became flesh through the blessed Mary because He was from the very beginning a spirit from God the Spirit. It is stated in John’s Gospel, “And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14) Jesus viewed God as His Father, in this unique, essential meaning which cannot be applied to any one else. “Neither does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” (Matthew 11:27)
Lastly, there is the spiritual meaning. After God had poured His Holy Spirit into the hearts of all believers through His Son, they were born again, a spiritual birth. They were converted by this friendly, divine Spirit. These believers “were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God.” (John 1:13) Jesus Christ taught us to say, “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.” It is not the right of any man to call himself a son of God and call God his Father unless he obtains legal adoption. The anointing of the Holy Spirit reveals to us the secret of the name of God the Father. We do not believe in the fatherhood of God in a physical sense; but in purity of holiness, we believe in the birth of Christ and the descent and indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers.
Apr
16
Ditulis oleh: Poltak Simanjuntak
MUNGKINKAH BAHASA BATAK Toba punah? Jawabnya mungkin sekali, kawan. Itu hanya masalah waktu.
Bahasa Batak Toba suatu saat dapat punah, yang membuat punah ya orang Batak Toba sendiri. Karena Orang Batak Toba lah yang enggan melestarikan Bahasa daerahnya. Kenapa hanya Bahasa Batak Toba?
Saudara-saudara kita suku Batak Karo, Simalungun sangat membanggakan bahasa daerahnya dan tetap eksis hingga sekarang dimanapun mereka berada. Walaupun itu di kota kota besar dan saudara kita yang lain, orang Bali tetap ngomong pake bahasa Bali, orang Sunda. Orang Jawa, di Istana Negara juga mereka bisa ngomong Jawa.
Kapan itu Bahasa Batak Toba berangsur punah dan apa indikatornya kawan? Banyak sekali, saya coba buat listnya, bila anda mau menambahi silahkan…
1. Karena orangtua (Ayah/Ibu) sudah tidak bisa berbahasa Batak lagi.
2. Bila bahasa Batak bukan lagi bahasa yang dominan di rumah. (Kepunahan suatu bahasa daerah, dimulai dari rumah pemilik bahasa daerah itu)
3. Bila orangtua tidak mengajarkan anak anaknya bahasa Batak. Orang tua tidak menyampaikan kepada si anak bila mereka berbahasa Batak, dijawablah dalam bahasa Batak, bila mereka berbahasa asing dijawablah dalam bahasa asing tersebut.
4. Bila Ompung Naburjui berkomunikasi dengan pahompunya harus menggunakan Bahasa Sileban (Bahasa Indonesia atau Bahasa Inggris) biar cucu cucu yang manis manis ini mengerti.
5. Bila si anak mengatakan: “Saya sudah lahir, besar di (Medan, Jakarta, Bandung, Jogja, dll) sudah tidak bisa berbahasa Batak lagi.” Dan mereka sangat bangga mengatakan itu. Orang Belanda ratusan tahun tinggal di Batavia, tetap saja berbahasa Belanda. Orang China, India, dll begitu juga. Orang Jawa direlokasi ke Sumatra, malah tetangganya yang Batak jadi berbahasa Jawa.
6. Bila si anak ditanya, Aha Margam? Ise Goarmu? Langsung error tidak nyambung. Tapi bila ditanya: “Kamu orang apa?” dia akan menjawab dengan mantap “Orang Batak”.
7. Bila anak anak di rumah lebih fasih berbahasa asing (Inggris, Mandarin atau bahasa daerah yang lain) dibanding berbahasa Batak. Padahal menguasai banyak bahasa tidak ada ruginya, termasuk bahasa Batak itu sendiri.
8. Jika semua ponakan; bere, paraman, maen, anak kakak/adik sudah tidak bisa berbahasa Batak.
9. Bila si anak, naposo (anak anak muda) mengatakan: Ngerti seh … tapi nggak bisa ngomongnya.
10. Ketika orang orang muda ini berkata “Proud to be Batak” tapi tidak bisa ngomong Batak.
11. Bila kita beranggapan, kalau libur sekolah, anak anak mau dikirim ke kampung untuk belajar bahasa Batak. (Kenyataan: Dikampung, anak anak sekarang sudah tidak berbahasa Batak)
12. Bila orangtua menganggap: “Hare gini … … anak anak diajari Bahasa Batak”
13. Bila kita mandok hata (berbicara) dalam suatu acara keluarga/pesta, ada yang teriak: “Pake bahasa Indonesia saja, biar anak-anak pada ngerti.”
14. Bila anak anaknya Raja Parhata, yang rajin ke Pesta dan perduli dengan urusan adat, tapi anak anaknya tidak bisa berbahasa Batak.
15. Saat kita berkomunikasi dengan lawan bicara kita halak hita (orang kita Batak), dia reply dalam bahasa lain yang lebih dominan
16. Ketika orang Batak merasa malu berbicara dalam bahasa Batak di keramaian, tempat umum saat bertemu dengan halak hita.
17. Kesulitan membaca tulisan dan banyak tidak dimengerti tulisan yang ditulis dalam bahasa Batak seperti yang ditulis disini: [http://tanobatak.wordpress.com/]. Sekarang kita sulit mengucapkan hata Batak yang halus, bahkan cara menuliskannya, apalagi aksaranya, sudah duluan hilang, dihilangkan. Pergi entah kemana, mago (punah)
18. Bila anda menganggap ngomong pake bahasa Batak itu sesuatu yang kampungan (Parhutahuta)
19. Bila Lae, Ito mentertawakan teman yang belajar berbahasa Batak alai marpasir pasir (janggal)
20. Bila di daerah Sumatra Utara anak anak Batak sudah menggunakan bahasa yang dominan untuk berkomunikasi sesama mereka, apakah itu bahasa Jawa atau bahasa Indonesia (Medan, Tebing Tinggi, Kisaran, Siantar, Pardagangan, Balige, Samosir, Tarutung, Sibolga, dll). Karena tidak ada satu lembaga Batak yang resmi, bertanggungjawab tentang ini, termasuk gereja, itu bukan urusan mereka. (Di gereja kami, warganya 98% Batak Toba, tak sekalipun liturginya dalam bahasa Batak). Di gereja tetangga dibuat dua sesi, sesi bahasa Indonesia untuk Naposo (ABG dan Pemuda) agar mereka mengerti.
21. Bila kita tidak sadar, bahwa bahasa daerah itu dapat punah, seperti yang ditulis disini: “10 Bahasa Daerah Punah, 700 Lainnya Terancam” http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/nusa/jawamadura/2007/09/04/brk,20070904-106846,id.html
22. Bila anak Batak suka menyanyikan lagu Batak, tapi tidak mengerti artinya. Bapaknya juga sudah tidak mengerti artinya 
23. Bila kita mengirim email atau SMS ke halak hita dan dia TIDAK MENGERTI artinya. Dia malah reply: Jangan pake bahasanya leluhur dong … Atau bila di SMS, dia balik SMS, Ini bahasa Apa? Atau kita enggan mengirim email/SMS dalam Bahasa Batak, khawatir Batak yang dituju tidak mengerti artinya, nanti malah tidak nyambung.
24. Bila tiba waktunya, tidak ada orang yang bisa mengajari Bahasa Batak lagi atau anak anak tidak punya kesempatan lagi untuk mempelajarinya.
25. Dan yang terakhir, bila anda tidak perduli. Mau punah kek, bukan urusan gua, sabodo teing…
26. Bila … … … Bila ada yang mau menambahi, silahkan … (Hataki hata tambaan)
Bila kita menginginkan bahasa Batak Toba itu tidak segera punah, belajarlah berbahasa Batak Toba, ajarilah saudara saudara kita, terutama anak anak dirumah agar terbiasa mendengar dan berbicara dalam bahasa Batak. Mulailah dari rumah kita masing masing.
Beta hita marhata Batak.
May
03
In the Salzburg Cathedral we meet the man who in his position of Cathedral Organist had a very eminent predecessor over 200 years ago – Mozart.
Mozart, a former organist at the Salzburg Cathedral, once described the organ as “the queen of all instruments” 
Aug
13
Critic’s Claim #1
The idea of a virgin birth is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Really? Where have you been for the past 21 years? Ever since in vitro fertilization and embryonic transfer came on the scene in 1978 (not to mention artificial insemination), it is quite possible for a woman who has never experienced sexual intercourse to give birth.
Of course, the Bible makes it clear that it was Almighty God, not some high-paid gynecologist, who worked the details of Jesus’ Divine-Human conception, i.e. “And the angel answered and said unto [Mary], The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
—Luke 1:35, KJV.
Sound miraculous? Of course. But these days, who would deny that miracles occur? And such a ‘small’ one for the God who created the entire universe!
Critic’s Claim #2
The idea of a virgin birth is MYTHOLOGICALLY DERIVED.
Author Patrick Campbell (The Mythical Jesus) and Episcopal Bishop J.S. Spong are two of a number of individuals who have suggested that “…the virgin birth account [is a]…clearly recognized mythological element in our faith tradition whose purpose was not to describe a literal event but to capture the transcendent dimensions of God in the earthbound words and concepts of first-century human beings.”
Both men, however, overlook a simple fact: No respectable Jew would have ever condescended to buy into a Greek/Babylonian mythological base for an account dealing with the birth of his/her Messiah.
Critic’s Claim #3
The idea of a virgin birth is HISTORICALLY UNSUPPORTED
The Apostles’ Creed, written in the 4th century; the Nicene Creed, adopted at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.; the Athanasian Creed, written about 450 A.D.; the Chalcedon Definition, adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.; and the Small Catechism of Martin Luther of 1529 A.D. are only a few of the historic creeds that recognize the veracity of the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Only in more modern times have Bible critics begun to try to cast doubt on a doctrinal truth that the Church has long since historically endorsed.
Critic’s Claim #4
The idea of a virgin birth is BIBLICALLY UNCONVINCING
Some critics cite the fact that the Apostle Paul is silent on the subject of the Virgin Birth, and the fact that Mary’s virginity is never mentioned in the Gospel According to John, as evidence that Jesus was never born of a virgin.
But the argument from silence, always a rather weak tactic in making a case, is particularly weak here due to the fact that both Paul and John were alive and quite familiar with the Gospel accounts written by Matthew and Dr. Luke (a physician!)—and yet never either questioned or refuted it.
Critic’s Claim #5
The idea of a virgin birth is STATISTICALLY UNWARRANTED
If you really want to put truth up for a vote (and who does?), let’s get all of the statistics out in the open. While it is true that one very famous poll taken in 1965 (and still being frequently cited today) of 7,441 Protestant clergy showed that many mainline denominational ministers were not convinced of the truthfulness of the Virgin Birth, a more recent Harris poll of a randomly selected group of 1,011 adults found that 91% of U.S. Christians do believe in the Virgin Birth. All of which goes to show that when it comes to determining spiritual truth, our authority ought to be the Bible (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:25), not men—including clergy!
Sep
24
Most children and adults easily recognize the name of Jesus Christ. Many even can recount the story of His life. Also easily recognizable are the names of Peter Pan and Rumpelstiltskin. And most people can relate the “facts” of these fairy tales as well. Is Jesus of Nazareth a fictional character who deserves to be included in a list containing mystifying magicians, daring dragon slayers, and flying boy heroes? The world-famous medical doctor and lifelong critic of Christianity, Albert Schweitzer, answered with a resounding “yes” when he wrote:
The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb (1964, p. 398).
In more modern times, former-preacher-turned-atheist Dan Barker has suggested that “the New Testament Jesus is a myth” (1992, p. 378). Are such views based upon historical evidence and therefore worthy of serious consideration? Or do they represent merely wishful thinking on the part of those who prefer to believe—for whatever reason—that Christ never lived? Was Jesus Christ a man whose feet got dirty and whose body grew tired just like the rest of humanity? Fortunately, such questions can be answered by an honest appeal to the available historical evidence.
What is a “historical” person? Martin Kahler suggested: “Is it not the person who originates and bequeaths a permanent influence? He is one of those dynamic individuals who intervene in the course of events” (1896, p. 63). Do any records exist to document the claim that Jesus Christ “intervened in the course of events” known as world history? Indeed they do.
HOSTILE TESTIMONY
Interestingly, the first type of records comes from what are known commonly as “hostile” sources—writers who mentioned Jesus in a negative light or derogatory fashion. Such penmen certainly were not predisposed to further the cause of Christ or otherwise to add credence to His existence. In fact, quite the opposite is true. They rejected His teachings and often reviled Him as well. Thus, one can appeal to them without the charge of built-in bias.
In his book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders stated: “Most of the first-century literature that survives was written by members of the very small elite class of the Roman Empire. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician in a small, backward part of the world” (1993, p. 49, parenthetical comment in orig.). It is now to this “small elite class of the Roman Empire” that we turn our attention for documentation of Christ’s existence.
Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-117) should be among the first of several hostile witnesses called to the stand. He was a member of the Roman provincial upper class with a formal education who held several high positions under different emperors such as Nerva and Trajan (see Tacitus, 1952, p. 7). His famous work, Annals, was a history of Rome written in approximately A.D. 115. In the Annals he told of the Great Fire of Rome, which occurred in A.D. 64. Nero, the Roman emperor in office at the time, was suspected by many of having ordered the city set on fire. Tacitus wrote:
Nero fabricated scapegoats—and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome (1952, 15.44, parenthetical comments in orig.).
Tacitus hated both Christians and their namesake, Christ. He therefore had nothing positive to say about what he referred to as a “deadly superstition.” He did, however, have something to say about it. His testimony establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the Christian religion not only was relevant historically, but that Christ, as its originator, was a verifiable historical figure of such prominence that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!
Additional hostile testimony originated from Suetonius, who wrote around A.D. 120. Robert Graves, as translator of Suetonius’ work, The Twelve Caesars, declared:
Suetonius was fortunate in having ready access to the Imperial and Senatorial archives and to a great body of contemporary memoirs and public documents, and in having himself lived nearly thirty years under the Caesars. Much of his information about Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero comes from eye-witnesses of the events described (Suetonius, 1957, p. 7).
The testimony of Suetonius is a reliable piece of historical evidence. Twice in his history, Suetonius specifically mentioned Christ or His followers. He wrote, for example: “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius—KB] expelled them from the city” (Claudius, 25:4; note that in Acts 18:2 Luke mentioned this expulsion by Claudius). Sanders noted that Chrestus is a misspelling of Christos, “the Greek word that translates the Hebrew ‘Messiah’” (1993, pp. 49-50). Suetonius further commented: “Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief” (Nero, 16:2). Again, it is evident that Suetonius and the Roman government had feelings of hatred toward Christ and His alleged mischievous band of rebels. It is equally evident that Suetonius (and, in fact, most of Rome) recognized that Christ was the noteworthy founder of a historically significant new religion.
Along with Tacitus and Suetonius, Pliny the Younger must be allowed to take a seat among hostile Roman witnesses. In approximately A.D. 110-111, Pliny was sent by the Roman emperor Trajan to govern the affairs of the region of Bithynia. From this region, Pliny corresponded with the emperor concerning a problem he viewed as quite serious. He wrote: “I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know the customary penalties or investigations and what limits are observed” (as quoted in Wilken, 1990, p. 4). He then went on to state:
This is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it, I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist, I sentence them to death (as quoted in Wilken, p. 4).
Pliny used the term “Christian” or “Christians” seven times in his letter, thereby corroborating it as a generally accepted term that was recognized by both the Roman Empire and its emperor. Pliny also used the name “Christ” three times to refer to the originator of the “sect.” It is undeniably the case that Christians, with Christ as their founder, had multiplied in such a way as to draw the attention of the emperor and his magistrates by the time of Pliny’s letter to Trajan. In light of this evidence, it is impossible to deny the fact that Jesus Christ existed and was recognized by the highest officials within the Roman government as an actual, historical person.
Celsus, a second-century pagan philosopher, produced a vehement attack upon Christianity by the title of True Discourse (c. A.D. 178). In that vile document, Celsus argued that Christ owed his existence to the result of fornication between Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera. As he matured, Jesus began to call himself God—an action, said Celsus, which caused his Jewish brethren to kill him. Yet as denigrating as his attack was, Celsus never went so far as to suggest that Christ did not exist.
Some have attempted to negate the testimony of these hostile Roman witnesses to Christ’s historicity by suggesting that the “Roman sources that mention him are all dependent on Christian reports” (Sanders, 1993, p. 49). For example, in his book, The Earliest Records of Jesus, Francis Beare lamented:
Everything that has been recorded of the Jesus of history was recorded for us by men to whom he was Christ the Lord; and we cannot expunge their faith from the records without making the records themselves virtually worthless. There is no Jesus known to history except him who is depicted by his followers as the Christ, the Son of God, the Saviour to the World (1962, p. 19).
Such a suggestion is as outlandish as it is outrageous. Not only is there no evidence to support such a claim, but all of the available evidence militates against it. Furthermore, it is an untenable position to suggest that such upper class Roman historians would submit for inclusion in the official annals of Roman history (to be preserved for posterity) facts that were related to them by a notorious tribe of “mischievous,” “depraved,” “superstitious” misfits.
Even a casual reader who glances over the testimony of the hostile Roman witnesses who bore testimony to the historicity of Christ will be struck by the fact that these ancient men depicted Christ as neither the Son of God nor the Savior of the world. They verbally stripped Him of His Sonship, denied His glory, and belittled His magnificence. They described Him to their contemporaries, and for posterity, as a mere man. Yet even though they were wide of the mark in regard to the truth of Who He was, through their caustic diatribes they nevertheless documented that He was. And for that we are indebted to them.
TESTIMONY OF JESUS AMONG THE JEWS
Even though much of the hostile testimony regarding the existence of Jesus originated from witnesses within the Roman Empire, such testimony is not the only kind of hostile historical evidence available. Anyone familiar with Jewish history will recognize immediately the Mishnah and the Talmud. The Mishnah was a book of Jewish law traditions codified by Rabbi Judah around the year A.D. 200 and known to the Jews as the “whole code of religious jurisprudence” (Bruce, 1953, p. 101). Jewish rabbis studied the Mishnah and even wrote a body of commentary based upon it known as the Gemares. The Mishnah and Gemares are known collectively as the Talmud (Bruce, 1953, p. 101). The complete Talmud surfaced around A.D. 300. If a person as influential as Jesus had existed in the land of Palestine during the first century, surely the rabbis would have had something to say about him. Undoubtedly, a man who supposedly confronted the most astute religious leaders of His day—and won—would be named among the opinions of those who shared His rabbinical title. As Bruce declared:
According to the earlier Rabbis whose opinions are recorded in these writings, Jesus of Nazareth was a transgressor in Israel, who practised magic, scorned the words of the wise, led the people astray, and said that he had not come to destroy the law but to add to it. He was hanged on Passover Eve for heresy and misleading the people. His disciples, of whom five are named, healed the sick in his name (1953, p. 102).
First-century Judaism, in large part, refused to accept Jesus Christ as the Son of the God. Yet it did not refuse to accept Him as a historical man from a literal city known as Nazareth or to record for posterity crucial facts about His life and death.
Josephus is another important Jewish witness. The son of Mattathias, he was born into a Jewish upper class priestly family around A.D. 37. His education in biblical law and history stood among the best of his day (Sanders, 1993, p. 15). At age nineteen, he became a Pharisee. When Jerusalem rebelled against the Roman authorities, he was given command of the Jewish forces in Galilee. After losing most of his men, he surrendered to the Romans. He found favor in the man who commanded the Roman army, Vespasian, by predicting that Vespasian soon would be elevated to the position of emperor. Josephus’ prediction came true in A.D. 69 at Vespasian’s inauguration. After the fall of Jerusalem, Josephus assumed the family name of the emperor (Flavius) and settled down to live a life as a government pensioner. It was during these latter years that he wrote Antiquities of the Jews between September 93 and September 94 (Bruce, 1953, pp. 103-104). Josephus himself gave the date as the thirteenth year of Domitian (Rajak, 1984, p. 237). His contemporaries viewed his career indignantly as one of traitorous rebellion to the Jewish nation (Bruce, 1953, p. 104).
Twice in Antiquities, Jesus’ name flowed from Josephus’ pen. Antiquities 18:3:3 reads as follows:
And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure. He led away many Jews, and also Greeks. This man was the Christ. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross on his impeachment by the chief men among us, those who had loved him at first did not cease; for he appeared to them on the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of other wonderful things about him: and even now the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out.
Certain historians regard the italicized segments of the section as “Christian interpolation.” There is, however, no evidence from textual criticism that would warrant such an opinion (Bruce, 1953, p. 110). In fact, every extant Greek manuscript contains the disputed portions. The passage also exists in both Hebrew and Arabic versions. And although the Arabic version is slightly different, it still exhibits knowledge of the disputed sections (see Chapman, 1981, p. 29; Habermas, 1996, pp. 193-196).
There are several reasons generally offered for rejecting the passage as genuine. First, early Christian writers like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen did not use Josephus’ statement in their defense of Christ’s deity. Habermas observed that Origen, in fact, documented the fact that Josephus (although himself a Jew) did not believe Christ to be the Messiah (1996, p. 192; cf. Origen’s Contra Celsum, 1:47). However, as Habermas also pointed out, the fourth-century writer Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (1:11), quoted Josephus’ statement about Christ, including the disputed words. And he undoubtedly had access to much more ancient sources than those now available.
Furthermore, it should not be all that surprising that such early Christian apologists did not appeal to Josephus in their writings. Wayne Jackson has suggested:
Josephus’ writings may not have been in extensive circulation at that point in time. His Antiquities was not completed until about 93 A.D. Too, in view of the fact that Josephus was not respected by the Jews, his works may not have been valued as an apologetic tool (1991, 11:29).
Such a suggestion possesses merit. Professor Bruce Metzger commented: “Because Josephus was deemed a renegade to Judaism, Jewish scribes were not interested in preserving his writings for posterity” (1965, p. 75). Thomas H. Horne, in his Critical Introduction to the Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, referred to the fact that the main source of evidence frequently used by the so-called “church fathers” was an appeal to the Old Testament rather than to human sources (1841, 1:463-464). The evidence substantiates Horne’s conclusion. For example, a survey of the index to the eight volumes of the multi-volume set, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, reveals only eleven references to Josephus in the entire set.
The second reason sometimes offered as to why the disputed passage in Josephus’ Antiquities might be due to “Christian interpolation” is the fact that it seems unlikely that a non-Christian writer would include such statements as “this man was the Christ” or “if indeed we should call him a man.” But while such might be unlikely, it certainly is not beyond the realm of possibility. Any number of reasons could explain why Josephus would write what he did. For example, Bruce allowed for the possibility that Josephus might have been speaking sarcastically (1953, p. 110). Howard Key suggested:
If we assume that in making explicit statements about Jesus as Messiah and about the resurrection Josephus is merely conveying what Jesus’ followers claimed on his behalf, then there would be no reason to deny that he wrote them [i.e., the supposed interpolated phrases—KB] (1970, p. 33).
It also should be noted that Josephus hardly qualifies as the sole author of such statements made about Christ by those who rejected His deity. Ernest Renan, for example, was a nineteenth-century French historian whose book, The Life of Jesus, was a frontal assault on Christ’s deity that received major attention throughout Europe (see Thompson, 1994, 14:5). Yet in that very volume Renan wrote: “It is allowable to call Divine this sublime person who, each day, still presides over the destinies of the world” (as quoted in Schaff and Roussel, 1868, pp. 116-117).
Or consider H.G. Wells who, in 1931, authored The Outline of History. On page 270 of that famous work, Wells referred to Jesus as “a prophet of unprecedented power.” No one who knew Wells (a man who certainly did not believe in the divinity of Christ) ever would accuse his account of being flawed by “Christian interpolation.” The famous humanist, Will Durant, was an avowed atheist, yet he wrote: “The greatest question of our time is not communism vs. individualism, not Europe vs. America, not even the East vs. the West; it is whether men can bear to live without God” (1932, p. 23). Comments like those of Renan, Wells, and Durant document the fact that, on occasion, even unbelievers have written convincingly about God and Christ.
Furthermore, even if the material containing the alleged Christian interpolation is removed, the vocabulary and grammar of the section “cohere well with Josephus’ style and language” (Meier, 1990, p. 90). In fact, almost every word (omitting for the moment the supposed interpolations) is found elsewhere in Josephus (Meier, p. 90). Were the disputed material to be expunged, the testimony of Josephus still would verify the fact that Jesus Christ actually lived. Habermas therefore concluded:
There are good indications that the majority of the text is genuine. There is no textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good manuscript evidence for this statement about Jesus, thus making it difficult to ignore. Additionally, leading scholars on the works of Josephus [Daniel-Rops, 1962, p. 21; Bruce, 1967, p. 108; Anderson, 1969, p. 20] have testified that this portion is written in the style of this Jewish historian (1996, p. 193).
In addition, Josephus did not remain mute regarding Christ in his later sections. Antiquities 20:9:1 relates that Ananus brought before the Sanhedrin “a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law, and condemned them to be stoned to death.” Bruce observed that this quote from Josephus “is chiefly important because he calls James ‘the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ,’ in such a way as to suggest that he has already made reference to Jesus. And we do find reference to him in all extant copies of Josephus” (Bruce, 1953, p. 109). Meier, in an article titled “Jesus in Josephus,” made it clear that rejecting this passage as actually having been written by Josephus defies accurate assessment of the text (1990, pp. 79-81). Meier also added another emphatic defense of the historical reliability of the text in Antiquities concerning Christ.
Practically no one is astounded or refuses to believe that in the same book 18 of The Jewish Antiquities Josephus also chose to write a longer sketch of another marginal Jew, another peculiar religious leader in Palestine, “John surnamed the Baptist” (Ant. 18.5.2). Fortunately for us, Josephus had more than a passing interest in marginal Jews (p. 99).
Regardless of what one believes about the writings of Josephus, the simple fact is that this well-educated, Jewish historian wrote about a man named Jesus Who actually existed in the first century. Yamauchi summarized quite well the findings of the secular sources regarding Christ:
Even if we did not have the New Testament or Christian writings, we would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger that: (1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher; (2) many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; (3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; (4) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; (5) despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by 64 A.D.; (6) all kinds of people from the cities and countryside—men and women, slave and free—worshiped him as God by the beginning of the second century (1995, p. 222).
RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT RECORDS
Although the above list of hostile and Jewish witnesses proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus actually lived, it is by no means the only historical evidence available to those interested in this topic. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and the other 23 books that form the New Testament, provide more information about Jesus than any other source(s) available. But may these records be viewed as historical evidence, or are they instead writings whose reliability pales in comparison to other types of historical documentation? Blomberg has explained why the historical question of the Gospels, for example, must be considered.
Many who have never studied the gospels in a scholarly context believe that biblical criticism has virtually disproved the existence [of Christ—KB]. An examination of the gospel’s historical reliability must therefore precede a credible assessment of who Jesus was (1987, p. xx).
But how well do the New Testament documents compare with additional ancient, historical documents? F.F Bruce examined much of the evidence surrounding this question in his book, The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable? As he and other writers (e.g., Metzger, 1968, p. 36; Geisler and Brooks, 1990, p. 159) have no-ted, there are 5,366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament in existence today, in whole or in part, that serve to corroborate the accuracy of the New Testament. The best manuscripts of the New Testament are dated at roughly A.D. 350, with perhaps one of the most important of these being the Codex Vaticanus, “the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome,” and the Codex Sinaiticus, which was purchased by the British from the Soviet Government in 1933 (Bruce, 1953, p. 20). Additionally, the Chester Beatty papyri, made public in 1931, contain eleven codices, three of which contain most of the New Testament (including the Gospels). Two of these codices boast of a date in the first half of the third century, while the third slides in a little later, being dated in the last half of the same century (Bruce, 1953, p. 21). The John Rylands Library boasts of even earlier evidence. A papyrus codex containing parts of John 18 dates to the time of Hadrian, who reigned from A.D. 117 to 138 (Bruce, 1953, p. 21).
Other attestation to the accuracy of the New Testament documents can be found in the writings of the so-called “apostolic fathers”—men who wrote primarily from A.D. 90 to 160 (Bruce, 1953, p. 22). Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Tatian, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius (writing before the close of the second century) all provided citations from one or more of the Gospels (Guthrie, 1990, p. 24). Other witnesses to the early authenticity of the New Testament are the Ancient Versions, which consist of the text of the New Testament translated into different languages. The Old Latin and the Old Syriac are the most ancient, being dated from the middle of the second century (Bruce, 1953, p. 23).
The available evidence makes it clear that the Gospels were accepted as authentic by the close of the second century (Guthrie, p. 24). They were complete (or substantially complete) before A.D. 100, with many of the writings circulating 20-40 years before the close of the first century (Bruce, 1953, p. 16). Linton remarked concerning the Gospels:
A fact known to all who have given any study at all to this subject is that these books were quoted, listed, catalogued, harmonized, cited as authority by different writers, Christian and Pagan, right back to the time of the apostles (1943, p. 39).
Such an assessment is absolutely correct. In fact, the New Testament enjoys far more historical documentation than any other volume ever known. There are only 643 copies of Homer’s Iliad, which is undeniably the most famous book of ancient Greece. No one doubts the text of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars, but we have only 10 copies of it, the earliest of which was made 1,000 years after it was written. To have such abundance of copies for the New Testament from within 70 years of their writing is nothing short of amazing (Geisler and Brooks, 1990, pp. 159-160).
Someone might allege that the New Testament documents cannot be trusted because the writers had an agenda. But this in itself does not render what they said untruthful, especially in the light of corroborating evidence from hostile witnesses. There are other histories that are accepted despite their authors’ agendas. An “agenda” does not nullify the possibility of accurate historical knowledge.
In his work, The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable?, Bruce offered more astounding comparisons. Livy wrote 142 books of Roman history, of which a mere 35 survive. The 35 known books are made manifest due to some 20 manuscripts, only one of which is as old as the fourth century. We have only two manuscripts of Tacitus’ Histories and Annals, one from the ninth century and one from the eleventh. The History of Thucydides, another well-known ancient work, is dependent upon only eight manuscripts, the oldest of these being dated about A.D. 900 (along with a few papyrus scraps dated at the beginning of the Christian era). The History of Herodotus finds itself in a similar situation. “Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals” (Bruce, 1953, pp. 20-21). Bruce thus declared: “It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians” (1953, p. 19). As Linton put it:
There is no room for question that the records of the words and acts of Jesus of Galilee came from the pens of the men who, with John, wrote what they had “heard” and “seen” and their hands had “handled of the Word of life” (1943, pp. 39-40).
CONCLUSION
When someone asks the question, “Is the life of Jesus Christ a historic event?,” he or she must remember that “If we maintain that the life of our Lord is not a historical event, we are landed in hopeless difficulties; in consistency, we shall have to give up all ancient history and deny that there ever was such an event as the assassination of Julius Caesar” (Monser, 1961, p. 377).
Faced with such overwhelming evidence, it is unwise to reject the position that Jesus Christ actually walked the streets of Jerusalem in the first century. As Harvey has remarked, there are certain facts about Jesus that “are attested by at least as much reliable evidence as are countless others taken for granted as historical facts known to us from the ancient world.” But lest I be accused of misquoting him, let me point out that Harvey went on to say, “It can still be argued that we can have no reliable historical knowledge about Jesus with regard to anything that really matters” (1982, p. 6).
Harvey could not deny the fact that Jesus lived on this Earth. Critics do not like having to admit it, but they cannot successfully deny the fact that Jesus had a greater impact on the world than any single life before or after. Nor can they deny the fact that Jesus died at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Harvey and others can say only that such facts “do not really matter.” I contend that the facts that establish the existence of Jesus Christ of Nazareth really do matter. As Bruce stated, “The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message” (1953, p. 122). While Paul was on trial before King Agrippa, he said to Festus: “For the king knoweth of these things, unto whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him; for this hath not been done in a corner” (Acts 26:26).
As the earliest apologists of Christianity welcomed a full examination of the credentials of the message that they preached, so do we today. These credentials have been weighed in the balance and not found wanting. The simple fact of the matter is that Jesus Christ did exist and live among men.
It is impossible to say that no one has the right to be an agnostic. But no one has the right to be an agnostic till he has thus dealt with the question, and faced this fact with an open mind. After that, he may be an agnostic—if he can (Anderson, 1985, p. 12).
Feb
01
Apakah Yesus Kristus benar-benar ada, atau apakah KeKristenan dibangun berdasarkan legenda saja. Beberapa pakar mempertanyakan keberadaan Yesus, namun cukup banyak musuh KeKristenan mencoba membuktikan Yesus tidak pernah ada.
Dalam sebuah tuntutan hukum terhadap Vatikan, Gereja dituduh menciptakan kisah keberadaan Yesus. Kasus diajukan ke pengadilan oleh Luigi Casciolli, Februari 2006, namun kasus ditolak dan ditutup oleh pengadilan. Argumen menentang keberadaan Yesus disiarkan ke publik oleh jaringan televisi CNN, ketika Ketua Ateis Amerika Ellen Johnson menyatakan,
“Kenyataannya tidak ada sedikitpun bukti dari sumber sekuler bahwa Yesus Kristus itu ada.” Yesus Kristus dan KeKristenan adalah agama modern. Dan Yesus Kristus adalah penggabungan dari tuhan-tuhan lain: Osiris, Mithras, yang punya kesamaan asal-usul, kesamaan kematian seperti mitos Yesus Kristus,” – ateis Ellen Johnson.
Johnson dan panel para pemimpin religius pita-biru mendiskusikan pertanyaan, “Apa yang terjadi setelah kita meninggal dunia”, dalam acara televisi Larry King di CNN. King yang biasanya lancar berbicara sempat terdiam, merenung, dan kemudian mengatakan, “Jadi anda tidak percaya keberadaan Yesus Kristus?” Dengan nada yakin, Johnson menjawab,”Tidak pernah ada. Ini bukan apa yang saya percaya; tidak ada bukti sekuler bahwa JC, Yesus Kristus, pernah ada (hidup).” King tidak meneruskan diskusi dan langsung masuk iklan. Setelah itu, tidak ada diskusi mengenai bukti mendukung atau menentang keberadaan Yesus. Pemirsa televisi internasional itu dibiarkan terheran-heran.
Lima puluh tahun lalu, dalam bukunya, Kenapa Saya Bukan orang Kristen, penganut ateis Bertrand Russell mengagetkan generasinya dengan mempertanyaan eksistensi Yesus. Dia menulis, “Dari sudut pandang sejarah cukup diragukan apakah Yesus Kristus benar-benar ada, dan jika dia ada kita tidak mengetahui apapun mengenaiNya, jadi saya tidak begitu mempedulikan pertanyaan historis itu, yang sangat sukar.”
Apa ada kemungkinan Yesus yang dipercaya begitu banyak orang pernah hidup ternyata tidak pernah ada? Dalam Kisah Peradaban, sejarahwan sekuler Will Durant mengungkapkan pertanyaan ini,” Apa Yesus ada (pernah hidup/eksis)?” Apakah cerita-cerita dari para pendiri KeKristenan adalah produk dari kepedihan, imajinasi, dan harapan manusia — mitor yang bisa disejajarkan dengan legenda Krishna, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, dan Mithras?” Durant memperlihatkan bagaimana kisah KeKristenan, “Dicurigai banyak kemiripan dengan legenda-legenda dewa-dewa (tuhan-tuhan pagan).” Dalam artikel ini, kita akan lihat bagaimana sejarahwan besar ini menjawab pertanyaannya sendiri mengenai eksistensi Yesus.
Jadi, bagaimana kita tahu dengan meyakinkan bahwa orang ini, yang dipuja orang dan dikutuki orang lain, nyata adanya? Apakah Johnson benar, ketika dia menegaskan bahwa Yesus Kristus adalah penggabungan dari tuhan-tuhan lain?” Dan Russell benar ketika dia menyatakan keberadaan Yesus ” cukup diragukan”?
Mitos Vs Realitas
Mari kita mulai dengan pertanyaan yang lebih fundamental: apa yang membedakan mitos dengan realitas atau kenyataan? Bagaimana caranya kita tahu, contohnya, apakah Alexander Agung benar-benar ada? Andaikata, tahun 336 SM, Alexander Agung jadi raja Makedonia pada usia 20 tahun. Seorang jenius militer, pemimpin tampan dan sombong ini melakukan pembantaian dari desa ke desa, kota ke kota, dan diseluruh kerajaan-kerajaan Yunani – Persia sehingga dia menguasai semuanya. Dalam waktu singkat, hanya delapan tahun, pasukan Alexander menempuh perjalanan penaklukan sejauh 22.000 mil. Dikabarkan, Alexander menangis ketika tidak ada lagi wilayah yang akan ditaklukkannya. (Saya merasa, inilah orang yang saya tidak ingin mengajaknya main monopoli.) Sebelum dia meninggal diusia 32, dikabarkan Alexander pencapaian militernya lebih besar dari penaklukan militer siapapun sepanjang sejarah, bukan hanya para raja yang hidup sebelumnya, tapi juga mereka yang lahir sesudahnya, sepanjang sejarah kita. Tapi hari ini, selain beberapa kota yang diberi nama Alexandria, film membosankan yang dibuat Oliver Stone, dan beberapa buku, warisannya sudah lama dilupakan. Pada kenyataannya, nama Colin Farrell lebih mampu membuat film sangat laku (box office) daripada nama Alexander. Meski film itu gagal, para sejarahwan percaya Alexander ada karena tiga alasan utama:
* dokumentasi tertulis dari sejarahwan terdahulu
* dampak sejarah
* bukti-bukti sejarah lainnya dan bukti arkeologi
Dokumen Sejarah Tentang Yesus
Sejarah Alexander Agung dan penaklukan militernya diperoleh dari lima sumber kuno, yang semuanya bukan saksi mata. Kendati ditulis 400 tahun setelah Alexander, tulisan Plutarch berjudul Kehidupan Alexander merupakan catatan utama kehidupannya.
Karena Plutarch dan para penulis lain terpisah beberapa ratus tahun dari saat kehidupan Alexander, maka mereka mendasarkan informasinya dari informasi-informasi yang sudah ada sebelumnya. Dari dua puluh catatan sejarah Alexander, tidak satupun ada sampai sekarang (sudah musnah). Catatan yang lebih kemudian memang ada, tapi tiap kisah memperlihatkan “Alexander” yang berbeda, yang kebanyakan bergantung pada imajinasi kita. Namun meski dengan perbedaan waktu beberapa ratus tahun, para sejarahwan yakin bahwa Alexander merupakan manusia nyata dan detil-detil utamanya, seperti yang kita baca mengenai kehidupannya benar.
Melihat Alexander sebagai titik referensi, kita catat apa yang dikatakan sejarahwan religius dan sekuler mengenai Yesus. Tapi kita harus bertanya, apakah sejarah yang mereka tuliskan itu bisa diandalkan dan obyektif? Mari kita lihat sekilas.
Perjanjian Baru
Ke 27 buku Perjanjian Baru diklaim ditulis oleh penulis yang tahu secara langsung denga Yesus atau menerima informasi dari mereka, yang kenal langsung. Empat Injil menceritakan kehidupan dan pengajaran Yesus dari perspektif berbeda. Tulisan-tulisan ini diteliti dengan sangat ketat oleh para ahli dari dalam KeKristenan dan dari luar.
Pakar John Dominic Crossan percaya hanya kurang dari 20 persen dari apa yang kita baca di Injil secara orsinil berasal dari perkataan Yesus. Kendati ini pandangan skeptis, tidak dipersoalkan mengenai Yesus benar-benar pernah hidup.
Kendati ada pandangan Crossan, dan beberapa ahli lain sepertinya, konsensus sebagian besar sejarahwan adalah catatan Injil memberi kita gambaran jelas mengenai Yesus Kristus. Mengenai apakah catatan Injil itu benar, ada artikel tersendiri (Lihat “Yesus.doc”), jadi, kita akan melihat sumber-sumber non-Kristen untuk menjawab pertanyaan kita mengenai apakah Yesus ada (eksis).
Catatan Awal Non-Kristen
Jadi, sejarahwan abad pertama mana yang menulis mengenai Yesus tapi tidak punya agenda KeKristenan? Pertama-tama, mari kita lihat musuh-musuh Yesus.
Orang Yahudi, yang memusuhiNya, punya keuntungan terbesar dengan cara meniadakan keberadaan Yesus. Tapi bukti memperlihatkan arah sebaliknya. “Beberapa tulisan Yahudi menceritakan kehidupan nyata manusia Yesus. Dua buku Gemara dari Talmud Yahudi mencatat Yesus. Kendati hanya disinggung sedikit, beberapa kalimat yand dimaksudkan untuk menentang KeTuhanan Yesus, tulisan sangat awal Yahudi ini tidak memulai argumennya dengan pernyataan bahwa Dia bukan orang yang pernah hidup (bukan tokoh sejarah)
Flavius Josephus adalah sejarahwan terkemuka Yahudi yang mulai menulis pada jaman Romawi di tahun 67. Josephus, yang lahir hanya beberapa tahun setelah Yesus meninggal, tentu sangat tahu reputasi Yesus dimata orang Yahudi dan Romawi. Dalam tulisan terkenalnya, Jaman Kuno Yahudi (a.d. 93), Josephus menulis Yesus sebagai manusia nyata. ” Pada masa kehidupan Yesus, seorang yang suci, mungkin seperti itu Dia dipanggil, karena Dia melakukan hal-hal luar biasa, dan mengajar orang-orang, dan dengan gembira menerima kebenaran“. Dan Dia dipercayai oleh banyak orang Yahudi dan Yunani. Dia adalah Mesias.”Kendati ada perdebatan mengenai beberapa kata dari catatannya, terutama berkaitan dengan Yesus sebagai Mesias (para ahli yang skeptis berpikir bahwa orang Kristen menyidipkan kalimat ini), bisa dipastikan Josephus mengkonfirmasikan keberadaan (eksistensi) dari Yesus.
Bagaimana dengan sejarahwan sekuler — mereka yang hidup di jaman itu tapi tidak punya motivasi relegius? Saat ini, ada konfirmasi sedikitnya 19 penulis sekuler yang mencatat Yesus sebagai manusia nyata.
Salah satu sejarahwan terkemuka , Cornelius Tacitus, menegaskan bahwa Yesus telah menderita dibawah (pemerintahan Pontius) Pilatus. Tacitus lahir 25 tahun setelah Yesus wafat, dan dia melihat bagaimana penyebaran KeKristenan mulai memberi dampak terhadap Roma. Sejarahwan Romawi menulis secara negatif mengenai Yesus dan orang Kristen, mengidentifikasi mereka, ditahun 115, sebagai ” ras manusia yang tidak disukai karena perilaku jahatnya, dan secara umum disebut Kristiani”. Nama itu diambil dari Kristus, yang pada pemerintahan Tiberius, menderita dibawah Pontius Pilatus, Penguasa Yudea.”
http://y-jesus.org/indonesian/wwrj/1-apakah-yesus-benar-benar-ada/6/
Oct
06
qartha
![Framing #2 - Drottningholms slott/Drottningholm Palace (UNESCO World Heritage) [Explore First Page, THANK YOU]](http://static.flickr.com/7102/7204258846_3843eb8ecb_t.jpg "Framing #2 - Drottningholms slott/Drottningholm Palace (UNESCO World Heritage) [Explore First Page, THANK YOU]")
