".but they killed him not, nor crucified him."(Qur'an 4:157)
Jesus' Crucifixion is the bedrock of mainstream Christianity. It is such an important foundation in Christianity that even sects that have departed from "Orthodoxy" such as Unitarianism and the Jehovah's Witness have retained the crucifixion. Paul says, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Cor. 15:14). Without crucifixion there is no resurrection. Because the preaching of Christianity is based on the resurrection it goes without saying that the crucifixion is equally significant and important which is why the official symbol in mainstream Christianity is the cross.
It is often claimed in Evangelical circles and by Christian missionaries that there is a consensus among scholars and historians both conservative and liberal that Jesus certainly died on the cross. This is misleading. There are scholars who argue that because there is such a paucity in early reliable historical records attesting to Jesus' existence that must mean that he is a myth, a legend, a fiction. Granted that the circle of scholars of this persuasian is small in number that does not discount the fact that they exist. Tom Harpur who was professor of New Testament and New Testament Greek at Wycliffe(The Pagan Christ), Bruno Bauer (Critique of the Gospels and History of Their Origin), Earl Doherty(The Jesus Puzzle), Prof. G.A. Wells(The Historical Evidence for Jesus), Prof. Michael Martin(The Case Against Christianity) are some of the scholars who have questioned Jesus' existence. Thus to continue claiming that all scholars both liberal and conservative agree on the crucifixion is untrue. Undoubtedly, a vast majority of scholars say the crucifixion happened, but not without serious qualification. They do not say it as a fact, but rather as a probable occurence. Historians involved in this area of study base their judgment on probabilities rather than conclusive historical data. Using the historical method scholars comb through available historical materials, assess them and thereafter produce what they think to be the most probable conclusion. Historians using the critical historical method do not recognise supernatural events because they are the least probable occurences which is why God cannot be in the equation hence discounting both resurrection and Jesus' ascent to heaven as historical(at least according to the historical method). A person living 2000 years ago would be regarded as dead because it is highly improbable(or impossible) for a man to live that long. Because Jesus lived around 2000 years ago historians conclude that he must have died. This is of course according to the critical historical method. The real question that historians are interested in is how he died. And for this they look at the historical records surrounding the person Jesus. According to their perspective based on their research the most probable explanation or cause for Jesus' death is the crucifixion. Thus many modern (non-Muslim) historians have no qualms over Jesus' death itself not because they think that Jesus was factually and definitely crucified but because a man living 2000 years ago cannot still be alive. In this article we will be looking closely at some of those major data and sources used to propose that Jesus died by crucifixion. God willing, we will illustrate by proposing nine contentions(using historical and theological arguments) that the historical material employed are insufficient in proving the crucifixion and that Jesus certainly did not die the shameful death of a crucified man.
How much do we know about Jesus? As we have mentioned before there is a paucity of material.
"However desirable it might be to have available records of Jesus' words and deeds that were made during his lifeimte, we must acknowledge that we have none."[1] (emphasis added)
"Reliable knowledge of Jesus, his life and teaching, is limited. The years of his adolescence and young manhood are shrouded in silence, and his active ministry of not over two or three years is treated only briefly in the Gospels. There are only four short accounts of Jesus' ministry, and these record what people though of his as well as what he did and taught. Beyond the narrative of his teachings and actions nothing is known of his personality, physical appearance, or bearing that might account for the remarkable charismatic power which he held over his disciples and the masses who at one time followed him." [2] (emphasis added)
Contention 1: The passion narratives are inconsistent which means they cannot be trusted.
If one were to compare the four gospels analytically one will find that there are many inconsistencies between the narratives given in the gospels. However, in fairness it should be noted that there are fewer contradictions between Matthew and Mark. Some stories are found in one or two of the gospels but not in the others for example Jesus being troubled is mentioned in Matthew and Mark, but not in Luke and John. The excuse given by apologists is that the authors simply did not mention them(or were not aware of its occurence) and this does not actually give rise to contradiction. This excuse is untenable when the Gospels and external historical evidence are studied carefully. Nevertheless, they would argue that in general there are many similarities between the passion narratives in the four Gospels. That's all fine. But what about those serious discrepencies that we do find in the Gospels? Can two conflicting stories presented in two different books be equally and simultaneously true? According to Christian apologists they can. What they will do is try to harmonise the conflicting stories by building a new story where both are included into one story with some modifications here and there. Is this a legitimate recourse? The eminent Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman, the prodige of one of the greatest New Testament scholars of America Bruce Metzger in Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted says that such a course of action does injustice to the gospels. Harmonising the conflicting gospel accounts does violence to what the authors and their work intend and convey. Each author wrote with a specific intention in mind and a specific audience in sight hence mixing and mashing one author's narrative with the other is unjustified. By doing such a thing they are in reality reconstructing a gospel that none of the gospel writers had in mind. By doing such a thing they have in reality introduced a new gospel. Let us now consider some of those contradictions.
1. When was Jesus arrested? Was it on the Passover or before it?
The four Gospels place the crucifixion on a Friday (Mark 15:42, Matthew 27:62, Luke 23:54 and John 19:31), however John departs from the synoptics(Matthew, Mark and Luke) in that the incident occured on the day of rest of the Passover, that is one day earlier. The Synoptics on the other hand asserts that the Friday on which the crucifixion happened was the first day of the Passover. Jewish law stipulates that the lamb of the Passover should be slaughtered in the evening of the 14th of the first month of the Jewish calender, Nisan. The lamb is then eaten on the same night as mentioned in Exodus 12:1-. Based on Genesis 1:5 the Jews measure a day as that from sunset to sunset. So that means the night of the Passover is the start of the 15th of Nisan. According to the synoptics Jesus was arrested after having the Passover meal with his disciples which was the first night of the first day of the Passover (Mark 14:12-46, Matthew 26:19-50 and Luke 22:7-54). He was then crucified in the morning of the 15th of Nisan.
John on the other hand has it that Jesus was arrested and taken to Pilate early in the morning of the day of rest of the Passover which means that he was arrested the night before (john 18:28). The crucifixion then according to John's timeline should be placed on the 14th of Nisan some hours after the arrest. Thus according to John the day of the crucifixion was the Friday during the day of the rest of the Passover as opposed to the synoptics that place it on the first day of the feast. In conclusion, John's arrest and crucifixion is a day earlier than the synoptics version. There is a reason why John has made the crucifixion coincide with the time of the slaughter of Passover lambs. John's account is theologically motivated. He presents Jesus in the first chapter of his book as the "Lamb of God" (John 1:29 and 1:36). John wishes to pass Jesus off as the true Passover lamb. He makes Jesus fulfill a prophecy (John 19:36) with a description that the Old Testament uses for the Passover lamb. Because John's timeline corresponds intimately with his Crucifixion theology some scholars have been led to dismiss his narrative as fiction. [3]
2. How many Passovers were there? Was it one or three?
Whilst the synoptics mention only one Passover that is the one during which Jesus was crucified John deviates as mentions two extra Passovers (John 2:13, 2:23 and 6:4).
3. When was Jesus' trial? Was it at night or in the morning?
Both Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus was arrested and put on trial before the Jewish council at night (Matthew 26:31-57 and Mark 14:30-53. John asserts the same in John 18:28. Luke on the other hand departs from them and says that the trial was in the morning in Luke 22:66.
4. Who questioned Jesus? Was it the Sanhedrin or the high priest?
According to Mark 14:53-55 and Matthew 26:57-59 it was the Sanhedrin who tried Jesus in the house of the high priest, Caiaphas. Who were the Sanhedrin? The Sanhedrin was a Jewish council that dealt with religious and Jewish legal matters consisting of 71 members. How is it that 71 people fitted in Caiaphas' house 2000 years ago is a mystery to me. Perhaps he lived in a palatial palace? Luke 22:66 says, "At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them." One can understand from this that Luke may very well be referring to the Sanhedrin as Matthew and Mark does. But John departing from the synoptics claims that Jesus was first brought to the house of Annas, "Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year."(John 18:12-13) Only after he had been interrogated by Annas that he was then taken to Caiaphas(John 18:24). There are mutiple problems with these narratives. Firstly, the Sanhedrin is totally missing in John's account even though he says earlier in John 11:47-53 that Caiaphas led the Sanhedrin in planning to kill Jesus. If John saw it fit to mention the Sanhedrin's plan to kill him why not mention it also when Jesus was interrogated? The question then is was Jesus ever tried by the Sanhedrin as claimed by the synoptics? Who's telling the truth? The second problem that we find is that two high priests(kohen gadol) are mentioned together namely, Annas and Caiaphas. Annas is addressed as the high priest repeatedly in John 18:15-22 amd in the same passage in verse 24 Caiaphas is described as the high priest. This cannot be true because the Old Testament , Josephus, Philo and Rabbinic material all agree that the position of high priest can be occupied by one person only at any one time. Further more, the eminent authority in Jewish studies, Geza Vermes says that John's claim in John 11:49,51 and John 18:13 that the high priesthood went through annual rotations is unhistorical.[4] Geza Vermes. The Changing Faces of Jesus(2000). London, England: Penguin Books. pp. 43
5. Who sentenced Jesus to capital punishment?
Matthew 26:66, Mark 14:64, Luke 24:20 and Acts 13:27 says that the Sanhedrin passed the death penalty on Jesus implying that they have the capacity to sentence someone to die. John departs from that and makes it clear that the Sanhedrin and the Jews in general have no legal power at all to put someone to death, "Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.' The Jews said to him, ?It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.'"(John 18:31) Looking at that verse carefully another problem arises. How is it that Pilate the Roman prefect who had been ruling the Jews for around four years and responsible for legal affairs did not even know that the Jews are not permitted to sentence anyone to death?
6. How many people tried Jesus?
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all agree that Jesus was brought before Pilate to be sentenced, but Luke deviating from the other three gospels adds something extra in that Jesus was also tried by Herod in Luke 23:6-12). In this episode Jesus gets mocked and ridiculed by Herod. Why is this event completely omitted in all the other three gospels? Could it be that it did not happen and was simply Luke's invention to add more drama to the narrative?
7. How did Judas the traitor die?
This is quite relevant to the passion narratives because it happened during the same time and that he is charged with the responsibility of deserting and betraying Jesus to the Jewish leaders for some money(Mark 14:43-46, Matthew 26:47-50, Luke 22:47-54 and John 18:2-12). According to Matthew the following is what happened to Judas Iscariot,
"Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
"Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me. " (Matthew 27:3-10)
The passage cites a prophecy that is attributed to the prophet Jeremiah. No such prophecy exists in Jeremiah. Christian apologists have tried to reconcile the problem by mixing together Jeremiah 18:2-3 and Zechariah 11:12-13. This is utterly disingenuous because anyone can see that the author cited Jeremiah, not Jeremiah and Zechariah. Prof. Raymond E. Brown in his volume 1 or his 2 volume work on the crucifixion says about this confusion, "That conglomeration of words cited by Matt exists nowhere in the standard OT." [5] In the passage Judas' manner of death is mentioned, that is, he hanged himself. Acts 1:18-20 relates the same incident, but the details differ heavily,
"(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) "For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms," ?May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,'[d] and, " ?May another take his place of leadership." (Acts 1:18-20)
As we can see the above passage presents a totally different picture of Judas' death. Whilst Matthew says he hanged himself, Acts on the other hand says he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. If the latter is true why did Matthew not include it? Isn't such a dramatic and gruesome death of a traitor to one's Lord and Master worth mentioning? We can also see that a totally different prophecy is cited for the incident if it ever happened. One would think that the same prophecy would be applied for the same incident like the incident of Jesus going into Jerusalem on a donkey whereby the same prophecy from Zechariah 9:9 is quoted. This means that the two authors are retelling different stories. The only similitude is the person involved.
8. False promise by Jesus?
In Luke 23:43 we have Jesus making a promise to his fellow crucified victim,
"Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.""
This was during the crucifixion. According to the Creed of the Apostles which may well have been based on 1 Peter 3:18-20 Jesus went down to hell after the crucifixion, "Jesus who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, buried and descended into hell." (Apostles' Creed) Further more, in John 20:17 Jesus says, "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ?I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " Where is the father? The Father is in heaven according to Matthew 6:9-13 and Matthew 23:9. What was the promise again? The promise was that he would see Jesus in heaven today i.e. on Friday. Apostles' Creed says Jesus went to hell after he died and John 20:17 says Jesus did not yet ascend to the Father(in heaven) on Sunday. It is clearly a contradiction.
9. Who and where were the women at the crucifixion?
Matthew 27:56 claims that Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James, Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee were watching at the scene. Mark 15:40 claims that Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses and Salome were watching. Luke 23:49 says, "And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things." If Luke is correct then all the witnesses including the women were standing at a distance watching the incident. John goes against the rest and claims that Jesus' mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdelene were standing close to the cross. It was so clase that Jesus was able to speak to mother. (John 19:25-26) Did you also notice that the women were all MARYS? Were there no other name among Jewish women other than Mary? How very coincidental that all the women mentioned are Marys. Is it easier to say it's a coincidence or that they are inventions of the authors?
10. Who did Jesus appear to?
According to Paul, Jesus appeared to the 12:
"that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. " (1 Corinthians 15:4-
From the Gospels we know that there were no 12 disciples soon after the crucifixion because Judas had gone. Some apologists might suggest that the 12 is merely an "appellation" and di not designate the actual number of disciples who were around. This is inconsistent with the fact that the Gospels treat the disciples as 11 when Judas was no longer around. Had it been an appellation i.e. a special designation for the disciples despite their actual number the gospel authors would have retained the 12, but they did not. There were 11 left so they were called the eleven and not the twelve (e.g. Mark 16:14).
Luke 24:33- 43 tells us that Jesus appeared to the 11 and ate honeycomb and broiled fish in their midst in the upper room. However, John 20:24 tells us that Thomas was not around when Jesus appeared i.e. as related in Luke 24:33-43. That means that the number of disciples that were present should have been TEN at the most and not eleven as Luke 24:33 claims! Paul says 12, Luke says 11 and John asserts 10. Which one is true? Scholars like Dr. William Lane Craig have tried to reconcile this conundrum by proposing a sequence of events where Jesus is suggested to have first appeared in Jerusalem then the disciples went back to Galilee and after that they return to Jerusalem for Pentecost. Is this harmonising attempt coherent? One of the most eminent Bible scholars and praised as such by Dr. William Lane Craig, Prof. Raymond E. Brown disagrees. Such a sequential harmonising according to Prof. Raymond E. Brown, "does violence to the Gospel evidence". [6] Raymond E. Brown in the same book postulates that the several appearances recorded in the gospels are actually fictitious inventions stemming from one single appearance.
11. Jesus' trial could not have taken place at night and concluded in the same night.
The Mishnah says about capital punishment,
"Civil suits are tried by day, and concluded at night. But capital charges must be tried by day and concluded by day. Civil suits can be concluded on the same day, whether for acquittal or condemnation; capital charges may be concluded on the same day with a favourable verdict; but only on the morrow with an unfavourable verdict. Therefore trials are not held on the eve of a sabbath or festival. In civil suits, and in cases of cleanness and uncleanness, we begin with [the opinion of] the most eminent [of the judges]; whereas in capital charges, we commence with [the opinion of] those on the side [benches]. (Sanh. 32a)
Matthew 26:31-57, Mark 14:30-53 and John 18:28 claim that Jesus' trial took place at night. According to the Jewish law as we have read above this cannot be true unless the Jewish leaders and the high priest were altogether ignorant or perhaps they were involved in an evil conspiracy where they bent their own law? If that is true why isn't the error of their actions exposed and rebuked in the gospels? Why did Jesus not himself question the manner in which he was tried being himself a learned Jewish teacher? As Prof. Craig A. Evans tells us in his Context, Family and Formation in the Cambridge Companion to the Bible p. 19, "Jesus is frequently called ?Rabbi' or ?Rabboni', or its Greek equivalents ?master' (epistata) or ?teacher' (didaskalos)." So, Jesus was no doubt a Rabbi(Mark 12:29). Being a Rabbi and learned in the Jewish law he would have questioned the Jewish leaders concerning the unconstsitutional nocturnal trial. But, no such disagreement is found either from Jesus or from anyone else in the entire New Testament. Earlier we argued against the location of Jesus trial which took place at the house of the high priest. This is very unusual in Jewish tradition since the place of assembly was the hall of cut stone located within the temple as Geza Vermes notes in his The Passion and Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz mentions their The Historical Jesus.
There are many more discrepencies, contradictions and difficulties in the Gospels concerning the crucifixion and other things besides. However, the ten inconsistencies that we have contended are sufficient in proving our point. The anonymous gospels are far from consistent in their narratives. If we can't establish which incident actually happened how can we be certain that any of them happened at all? In order to have a reasonable commentary on the events one should be able to know what truly happened first. The inconsistencies give proof to the Qur'anic declaration concerning the crucifixion that, ".those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but they only follow conjecture." (Qur'an 4:157)
Christian apologists tend to argue that the crucifixion is true based on the multitude of independent multiple attestations. This brings us to our second contention.
Contention 2: There are no reliable multiple independent attestions
The following are some of the historical sources appealed to by Christians that are considered independent historical attestations.
1. Flavius Josephus.
Flavius Josephus is popularly quoted by Christians to substantiate the crucifixion tale. They quote the very famous passage that is attributed to him known as the Testimonium Flavianum.
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3) [7]
Scholars have long suspected the above to be spurious. Questions regarding the authenticity of this particular passage have been raised since the 16th century as Raymond Brown notes in his volume one of The Death of the Messiah on page 374. Today it is widely rejected as a forgery attributed to Josephus. Raymond E. Brown on the same page of his work cites a number of authorities who rejected the text as outright inauthentic which includes Battifol, Birdsall, Burkitt, Conzelmann, Hahn, L. Hermann, Lagrange, Norden and Zeitlin. It is historically known that Josephus was a Jew and died as one. He did not convert to Christianity at any point in time. It goes without saying that being a Jew he would have hardly attested Jesus' Christhood and his rising again fulfilling the prophecies of the prophets of old. Had he believed in such Christian doctrines he would have been a Christian. The early church father Origen explicitly states in Against Celcus, 1.47 and in his Commentary on Matthew, 10.17 that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Had the passage been authentically written by Josephus surely the early church fathers of the second and third centuries quoted him especially when they cite him regarding Old Testament interpretations. The earliest citation of the text is from the fourth century by Eusebius of Caesaria in Demonstratio Evangelica or The Proof of the Gospel. That's over 400 years of a gap which is more than enough time to fake a document. Impossible to be traced back to Josephus it is indeed a fake. It is noteworthy that Raymond E. Brown prefers the position of partial-interpolation where Josephus is thought to have written the basic text and the special references to Jesus e.g. as Messiah are later Christian interpolations. In discussing this however, Brown does not offer any definite substantiation for this position. In fact, he merely describes it as "plausible". The Testimonium is found in all the mss. of Ant. [8] and none omits the special references to Christ which leads us to contend that the whole text must have been forged.
2. Cornelius Tacitus.
The work involved in Tacitus' Annals. This work was written in approximately 117 CE. In it Jesus' death is mentioned.
"Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus." (Annals, 15.44) [9]
Several scholars have questioned the authenticity of this passage. It is claimed that Tacitus made use of Roman documents in reporting the above. If that is true surely he would not have made the error with Pilate. Pilate is identified as a procurator rather than a prefect. This is a historical problem that has been noted by scholars. Those two positions are not one and the same. A procurator is a financial administrator(civilian) whilst a prefect is a military position. Historically Judea was ruled by a prefect appointed by Rome from 6 CE to around 44 CE. It was after that period that the governor was procurator. In fact, an inscription that was found at Caesarea Maritima, ludaea there is an inscription dedicated to Pilate which reads, "praefectus iudaeae" which means "prefect of Judea". Raymond E. Brown notes, "In calling Pilate a procurator Tacitus was reflecting the later terminology of the 1st cent., still in vogue at the time of his writing." [10]Secondly, official Roman documents could not possibly have referred to Jesus as "Christus" as G.A. Wells points out in The Historical Evidence for Jesus.[11] So where did Tacitus get his information from? Well, isn't it obvious? Christians were already quite known then. He could have easily gotten his information from the Christians as R.T France, E.P. Sanders, G.A. Wells and others have pointed out. This means that even if Tacitus authentically wrote the information it is almost 100 years after the happenings and does not rely on independent sources.
Other historical sources that Christians appeal to include Lucian of Samosata's The Passing of Peregrinus, Mara Bar Serapion, Thallus and Jewish Rabbinic literature. All these historical sources are late second to third century cources that can hardly be described as independent. And many of them suffer from historical inaccuracies as we have seen inTacitus' Annals.
Contention 3: There are no prophecies that truly predict the crucifixion
An often quoted passage in support of the crucifixion is Isaiah 53 which we have discussed in another article. Please click on A Critical Study of Isaiah 53 to read it.
We will later show that there are clear prophecies and promises in the Old Testament that should ensure Jesus' safety from any harm that his enemies could have wished to inflict upon him.
Contention 4: Jesus could not have been crucified outside of Jerusalem.
We will prove from Jesus' own words that he could not have possibly suffered at the hands of his enemies. Let us begin with the proof text for our premise namely Luke 13:33.
The context of Luke 13:33 starts at verse 31. It says that the Pharisees came to Jesus and warns him of an impending threat from Herod who supposedly wants him dead. In response to this warning Jesus responds,
12. Go tell that fox, ?I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.
13. In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day - for surely no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem!
The last part in verse 13 is a clear negation by Jesus regarding the impossibility of a Prophet to die outside of Jerusalem. The prophet that is mentioned is a reference to his own person. The verse itself and the context does not allow a different interpretation unless the Christians wish to tell us that Moses died in Jerusalem which he obviously did not. There may be Christians out there who think that Jesus was not a prophet(and I have met quite a few myself). Let us assure them that Jesus was indeed a prophet according to their own books,
"And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee."(Matthew 21:11)
"But Jesus said to them, "A PROPHET is not without honour except in his own country and his own house."(Matthew 13:57)
"But Jesus said to them, "A PROPHET is not without honour except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house."(Mark 6:4)
"Then he said, "Assuredly, I say to you, no PROPHET is accepted in his own country."(Luke 4:24)
"And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:"(Luke 24:19)
"And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us"(Luke 7:16)
"Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet."(John 7:40)
Some of you may raise the question, "If Jesus was speaking about himself in Luke 13:33 surely he would have said something like , ?I cannot die outside of Jerusalem' instead of ?a prophet cannot die outside of Jeruslame' which is in the third person." That is a legitimate question. And the answer to that is given in the verses you just read i.e. Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4 and Luke 4:24. They are all relating about the same incident and Jesus is clearly addressing himself as a prophet in the third person. Thus the question raised has secured our premise further, alhamdulillah.
Clutching at straws some Christians(of whom I have met) may try to insist that the verse does not totally negate the possibility of Jesus dying outside of Jerusalem and that it just says that he cannot like in the KJV, NASB and other translations of the verse. First of all, granted that the KJV and the NASB have translated the verses correctly what does the word ?cannot' mean? If I said, "I cannot go to the USA" does it mean I can? It's a silly question I know, but the question raised by the Christians in this regard is also silly. The word cannot is a negation which means not able to or not possible. In fact, that is what the Greek says. The verse reads,
πλὴν δεῖ με σήμερον καὶ αὔριον καὶ τῇ ἐχομένῃ πορεύεσθαι, ὅτι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται προφήτην ἀπολέσθαι ἔξω Ἱερουσαλήμ
The words in question are the ones highlighted which transliterates into ou endechetai. The particle ou is a negative and it can mean no, not or even never. The verb enedechetai means possible. Joined together it means not possible. Therefore, Young's Literal Translation correctly translates the verse thus,
"but it behoveth me to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following, to go on, because it is not possible for a prophet to perish out of Jerusalem."
God's Word Translation also translates it in the following manner,
"But I must be on my way today, tomorrow, and the next day. It's not possible for a prophet to die outside Jerusalem."
So "cannot" as found in the KJV, NASB etc. or "no prophet can" as found in the NIV translation for the verse really means NOT POSSIBLE.
Before we move on let us reiterate it one more time lest we forget, that is, the prophet mentioned in verse 13 is no other than Jesus himself.
By now, you must be wondering what the point is. In fact, some of you may be sitting in your chair saying to the screen, "Okay, so what if Jesus said he cannot die outside of Jerusalem? What does that prove?" Well, the point will be unveiled very shortly.
Where did Jesus allegedly die?
According to the records that we have in the gospels he supposedly died at a place called Golgotha in Aramaic, Calvary in Latin and Kranious Topos in Greek(Matthew 27:23, Mark 15:22, Luke 23:33 and John 19:17). Let's just take one of the four.
"And when they came to a place called Gol'gotha (which means the place of a skull),"
So, according to the verse Jesus was taken to Golgotha to be crucified.
Where was Golgotha?
According to an article by Keith W. Stump published on two Christian websites http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/golgotha.htm and http://www.towards-success.com/dejnarde_files/golgotha.htm Golgotha was outside of Jerusalem.
"What does the Bible tell us about the location? The Gospel writers call the place where Jesus was crucified Golgotha?an Aramaic word meaning "the skull." Calvary is the Latin form of the word. Scripture does not reveal the precise location of Golgotha. It simply states that Jesus' crucifixion took place outside the city of Jerusalem, though near it (John 19:20; Hebrews 13:12). Jewish law did not permit executions and burials inside the city." (emphasis added)
HarperCollins' Bible Dictionary informs,
"John 19:20 and Jewish and Roman execution customs indicate that it was located outside of Jerusalem's city walls". [12]
Mercer Dictionary of the Bible tells us,
"Jewish and Roman law would likely have required capital punishment to take place outside the city walls (John 19:20; Heb 13:12)." [13]
According to Encyclopedia Brittanica Golgotha was outside Jerusalem,
"The hill of execution was outside the city walls of Jerusalem, apparently near a road and not far from the sepulchre where Jesus was buried." (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/238060/Golgotha) (emphasis added)
According to Online Etymology Dictionary it was near Jerusalem,
"hill near Jerusalem," via L. and Gk., from Aramaic gulgulta, lit. "place of the skull," from Heb. gulgoleth "skull." So called in reference to its shape (see Calvary)" (GOLGOTHA." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 23 Apr. 2009. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/GOLGOTHA>.) (emphasis added)
In John 19:20 which is cited by Keith W. Stump in his article we read that the place was NEAR the city(Jerusalem),
"Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek."
The word is eggus which literally means near. What does it mean to be near? Near indicates being outside! If you said, "I am near my house." What does it mean? Does it mean you're inside your house? NO. It means you're in close proximity to your house, but it is outside. If you said that you are near New York, you are not inside it but rather outside. So according to John Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha which was near(outside) of Jerusalem. If that is true then it is in clear opposition to Jesus' own testimony in Luke 13:33 which we read and analysed earlier. There are really only two options for reconciliation.
1. Jesus lied in Luke 13:33
2. Jesus did not lie in Luke 13:33.
In Matthew 7:24 Jesus says,"Everyone, them, who listens to this sayings of Mine and puts them into practice will be like a thoughtful man who built his house on the rock." Who is your master? Is he Jesus or the anonymous author of John? My master is Jesus and I would like to follow and believe in what he says. What about you? Luke 13:33 clearly denies what is told about his alleged crucifixion. Unless he died in Jerusalem the whole incident was no incident at all. In fact, it was a lie. Jesus was never crucified nor killed as the Qur'an clearly declares in Chapter 4.
Contention 5: People were forgiven before Jesus so his sacrifice was not necessary for atonement. If his sacrifice was not necessary then there was no point behind the crucifixion.
In Jonah 3 an entire community is forgiven by God when they repented of their sins.
"Then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. " (2 Chronicles 7:14)
The above verse clearly shows that what enables forgiveness is sincere repentence. This is further affirmed in Jeremiah 36:3, ""Perhaps the people of Judah will repent when they hear again all the terrible things I have planned for them. Then I will be able to forgive their sins and wrongdoings."
A Jesus is not required for atonement.
"Unfailing love and faithfulness make atonement for sin. By fearing the Lord people avoid evil." (Proverbs 16:6)
"For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6)
Because it was not necessary for Jesus to sacrifice himself to enable atonement of sins God would have saved him. More on this later.
Related to this is the matter concerning Jesus' sinlessness and perfection. Christians contend that Jesus is the only one who can die for mankind because of his uniqueness as the sinless and perfect man.
How can such a claim be true when Job is clearly described as PERFECT in Job 2:3?
"Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
Most Bible translators render the highlighted part in like manner. However, the KJV has retained the meaning of perfectness,
"And the LORD said to Satan, Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that fears God, and eschews evil? and still he holds fast his integrity, although you moved me against him, to destroy him without cause." (KJV)
The same is retained in the following versions.
"And Jehovah said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? for there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and turneth away from evil: and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause." (American Standard Version)
"And Jehovah said to Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God and abstaineth from evil? and still he remaineth firm in his integrity, though thou movedst me against him, to swallow him up without cause."(Darby Bible Translation)
"And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? for there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and art upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil: and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause."(English Revised Version)
"And the LORD said to Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause."(Webster's Bible Translation)
In fact the Bible in Basic English renders it in the following manner,
"And the Lord said to the Satan, Have you taken note of my servant Job, for there is no one like him on the earth, a man without sin and upright, fearing God and keeping himself far from evil? and he still keeps his righteousness, though you have been moving me to send destruction on him without cause."
The Arabic Bible uses the word كامل KAMIL which means PERFECT. The original Hebrew word is tam which does mean perfect, sinless and blameless.
A similar word is found in Deuteronomy 32:4, "He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he." The word used here is tamiym which means the same thing as tam.
So if God had required a perfect man to die in order to save mankind he could have used Job or even Zecharias and Elizabeth both of whom are described as righteous and blameless(sinless) in Luke 1:6. Jesus' candidacy and the crucifixion are both absolutely unnecessary.
Contention 6: Jesus was a very righteous man and a great prophet so it would have been in God's interest to save him especially if he had asked.
Jesus prayed earnestly to God to save him!
"And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."(Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36 and Luke 22:42)
Jesus was asking to be removed from being harmed by his enemies. Make no mistake about it! Even Christian commentaries admit that the cup in the verse symbolises the impending hardships. The People's New Testament commentary says, "This cup is the betrayal, the trial, the mocking, the scourging, the cross, and all besides which our thoughts cannot reach."
Was Jesus' prayer answered? If he was a righteous servant it should have been answered according to the Old Testament.
The following are verses and prophecies assuring Jesus' safety:
"If you would earnestly seek God and make your supplication to the Almighty, if you were pure and upright, surely now He would awake for you, and propser your rightful habitation." (Job 8:5-6)
"But I call upon God, and the Lord will save me." (Psalms 55:16)
", what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you do care for him?(Psalms 8:4)
Who is the son of man if not Jesus who is described as just that 83 times in the New Testament!
" The Lord answer you in the day of trouble." (Psalms 20:1)
"When the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears, and deliver them out of all their troubles."((Psalms 34:17)
"Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all." (Psalms 34:19)
"The Lord delivers him in the day of troubles." (Psalms 41:1)
"The lord protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land, you do not give him up to the will of his enemies." (Psalms 41:2)
"For he stands at the right hand of the needy, to save him from those who condemn him to death." (Psalms 109:31)
"He will fulfill the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them." (Psalms 145:19)
Jesus himself taught that if a righteous person prayed the Father would answer in Matthew 6:6, Matthew 7:7-8 and Matthew 18:19. Jesus said explicitly,
"if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." (Matthew 21:22)
God hears the worshipper as John 9:31.
Was Jesus' prayer answered? Amazingly, the Bible says yes and in the book of Hebrews at that!
"During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered." (Hebrews 5:7-
The above is clear indication that Jesus' fervent prayer was answered. The following Bible commentary by Dr. Paul Ellingworth on Hebrews 5:7 explains the meaning of the verse in detail concluding with the Orthodox Christian position, but at the same time admits that the verse likely means Jesus was asking to be saved from death/being killed:
"σωζω here has the literal meaning of preservation or rescue from physical death (cf. Σωτηρία in 11:7), not the extended meaning of preservation from eternal death, as in 7:25. σῴζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου may mean either "prevent him from being killed" (cf. Pr. 15:24; Jas. 5:20; 2 Clem. 16:4) or "rescue him by raising him out of death" (cf. Wis. 14:4; Jn. 12:27; absolutely, Lk. 8:50; more generally, of rescue from the threat of death, Ps. 107:20 [LXX 106:19]; Ho. 13:14; Sir. 51:12). If the reference is specifically to Gethsemane, the first alternative is more likely."[14] (emphasis added)
Contention 7: The crucifixion is unjustified.
According to Christian apologists Jesus' death was in accordance with Roman law which stipulated that rebels should be executed. Jesus according to the same apologists was a rebel since he called himself the King of the Jews thus usurping Roman authority. The following is an explanation concerning the Crucifixion method by Joel B. Green who is professor of New Testament interpretation at Fuller Theological Seminary:
"In the context of any discussion of the material aspects of crucifixion it is crucial to remember that Rome did not embrace crucifixion as its method of choice for execution on account of the excruciating pain it caused. The acts of the crucifixion resulted in little blood loss and death came slowly, as the body succumbed to shock. This form of capital punishment was savage and heinous, but for other reasons. Executed publicly, situated at a major crossroads or on a well-trafficked artery, devoid of clothing, left to be eaten by birds and beasts, victims of crucifixion were subject to optimal, unmitigated, vicious ridicule.
Rome did not expose its own citizens to this form of heinous punishment, but reserved crucifixion above all for those who resisted imperial rule." [15]
Generally, modern scholars argue that Pilate's active part in Jesus' punishment was justified due to a political threat that he posed by claiming that he 's the King of the Jews. There is no explicit verse anywhere in the Bible where Jesus unequivocally claimed to be a king of anyone, let alone a king of an entire nation. Jesus was not the military messiah that the Jews were anticipating. He was the spiritual messiah that was generally passive in his mission. In the gospel records there is no indication that Jesus intended to usurp the Roman empire. He gave them no justified reason to have him executed as a rebel. In fact, when asked about the accusation thrown against him concerning his alleged worldly kingship he denied it.
"Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"
"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." "You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." "What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him." (John 18:33-38)
In the above passage we see Jesus clearly denying a worldly kingship and instead affirmed a spiritual one(Matthew 18:3, Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17). As a result of this Jesus was found innocent by Pilate. His verdict was, "I FIND NO BASIS FOR A CHARGE AGAINST HIM." The same verdict is found in Luke 23 repeated twice in the same passage(verses 14-22)!
In John 6:14-15 we are told that when Jesus thought that people wanted to make him King he withdrew into seclusion to the mountain.
The following passage is very telling,
"When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?" He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?" When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are exempt. However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me." (Matthew 17:24-27)
Jesus obeyed the regulations of Rome and taught his followers to pay taxes. In fact, we have the famous statement from Jesus,
"Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him." (Mark 12:17)
How can such an obedient subject of the Roman empire be condemned to a rebel's death? G. Vermes says, "contrary to the claim of some contemporary New Testament interpreters, the general context of the portrait of Jesus in the Synoptics and in the rest of the New Testament shows that he was not a pretender to the throne of David, or a would-be leader of a revolt against Rome." [16]
Christian apologists may offer a counterargument by arguing that it did not really matter what Jesus himself personally believed or practiced, but what the Jews told Pilate. However, if Pilate had believed the Jews in that Jesus was a threat to Rome surely his followers would have been persecuted too. But nothing like that happened in the years that ensued. People were allowed to convert to Christianity and followed Jesus' teachings as Bart D. Ehrman mentions in Misquoting Jesus. The earliest official Christian persecution by Rome was during Emperor Nero's rule around 54 to 68 CE. However, this was not because of the charges levelled against Jesus by the Jewish leaders. The idea that a very powerful Roman prefect could be pressured into believing tall tales after he himself found the person innocent is fantastically absurd. As a matter of fact, John says that he did not fall for theaccusations and continued to affirm Jesus' innocence, "Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him."(John 19:6) Were Roman prefects so callous and unjust? This is akin to a modern judge in a court of law declaring a person innocent, but sending him to the gallows regardless. Does that make sense? It is absolutely absurd!
As we have seen there is no sufficient or satisfactory reason for Jesus' crucifixion, which must lead us to the conclusion that many of the tales surrounding his trials have been fabricated. What else have been fabricated?
Contention 8: The earliest Gospel has no passion narrative in it!
You might be saying that I've gone bonkers for claiming that the earliest Gospel has no passion narrative. You might think I'm talking about Mark which is considered by scholars to be the first of the four canonical Gospels to be written. No, I am not talking about Mark. Rather, I am talking about a Gospel that predates even the Gospel of Mark. I'm talking about the lost Gospel "Q". To understand what the Gospel Q is one needs to understand some background concerning the first three Gospels. The first three Gospels are labelled as Synoptics which means "seen together" the reason of which is due to the fact that the passages and pericopes in the three bear numerous stark similarities. Biblical scholars considered this as the "Synoptic Problem". The conclusion that they arrived at was that both Matthew and Luke relied heavily on a common source namely, the Gospel according to Mark. However, Mark cannot account for a considerable number of verses that are found in Matthew and Luke. These are verses that Matthew and Luke share in common, but are missing in Mark. To solve this issue German Biblical scholars postulated another source that Matthew and Luke relied upon which they have simply dubbed "Q" which is short for the German word Quelle meaning source. Though there are scholars who contest the existence of "Q", the majority accept it as the most tenable explanation for the parallels found between Matthew and Luke that are not accounted for in Mark. Most scholars have dated the "Q" Gospel to approximately 50 CE predating the Canonical Gospels.[17]
By comparing Matthew and Luke closely the scholars have reconstructed this "Q" Gospel. What does it contain? A lot of things, but most importantly is that it has no passion or resurrection narrative at all. One of the foremost scholars on the "Q" Gospel notes, ".the Sayings Gospel has no passion narrative or resurrection stories."[18]. Bart D. Ehrman also notes, "Most striking was the circumstance that in none of the Q materials (that is, in none of the passages found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark) is there an account of Jesus' death and resurrection." [19]
Gospel "Q" came about around the same time Paul was writing his letters and teaching the theology of the crucifixion and resurrection as essential to the Christian faith. If the crucifixion truly happened and indeed necessary for salvation and that Jesus definitely raised from the dead why is it not mentioned in this gospel that was made used by Matthew and Luke? We contend that the reason why it does not contain either passion or resurrection narrative is because neither really took place and are indeed unessential to the faith that Jesus brought.
Contention 9: Even if (for the sake of argument) Jesus was put on the cross he could not have died so fast!
The Roman method of crucifixion was not to cause instant or immediate death of the victim. Historically, the Roman method was to fix someone upon the cross either by tying or nailing and to allow him to die a shameful and above all a slow painful and agonising death. The Gospel narratives give conflicting timelines for Jesus' crucifixion and time of expiration/death, but none exceed 6 hours. What exactly was the blow that caused his death if indeed he was put on the cross? In discuissing this issue Prof. Raymond E. Brown says clearly, "Crucifixion pierces no vital organ, and so inevitably one must wonder what physical or organic factor caused Jesus to die. The extremely brief Gospel descriptions of the death of Jesus are of little help in answering this question." [19] Christian apologists are fond of citing medical professionals who have delved into this matter to argue for the impossibility of surviving the cross and affirm Jesus' death on it. Regarding this Raymond E. Brown says, "In my judgment the major defect of most of the studies I have reported on thus far is that they were written by doctors who did not stick to their trade and let a literalist understanding of the Gospel accounts influence their judgments on the physical cause of death of Jesus. There is no evidence that the evangelists personally knew anything about that matter." [20]
The conclusion:
The crucifixion of Jesus is a tale that is indeed fascinating and quite fitting for a bedtime story and can be safely placed in the fiction section in any library or bookstore. We are satisfied with concluding that the cumulative 9 contentions proposed in this critique soundly and sufficiently disprove the tale of Jesus' crucifixion as historical fact and it should instead be called the CRUCIFICTION(coined by the late Ahmed Deedat). We submit that the Qur'an is absolutely right when it says,
"And their saying: "We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, messenger of God." They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him. " (4:157).
----------------
This is the word that describes a military cohort—the group of 300 to 600 soldiers mentioned above. These extremely well-trained soldiers were equipped with the finest weaponry of the day.
The detachment of soldiers (speira) refers to a cohort, a group of 600 soldiers under a military tribune (chiliarchos, vv. 3, 12; NIV, commander). The entire cohort would not have been deployed on this mission, but there would have been a significant force. The festivals in Jerusalem were always politically volatile, and after the welcome Jesus had received there was good reason to expect trouble--or so it would have seemed to the Roman and Jewish authorities who understood Jesus so poorly. They bring torches and lanterns to search for the Light of the World; they bring weapons against the Prince of Peace (Hendriksen 1953:378). (Bible gateway commentary)
The Mishnah says about capital punishment,
"Civil suits are tried by day, and concluded at night. But capital charges must be tried by day and concluded by day. Civil suits can be concluded on the same day, whether for acquittal or condemnation; capital charges may be concluded on the same day with a favourable verdict; but only on the morrow with an unfavourable verdict. Therefore, trials are not held on the eve of a sabbath or festival. In civil suits, and in cases of cleanness and uncleanness, we begin with [the opinion of] the most eminent [of the judges]; whereas in capital charges, we commence with [the opinion of] those on the side [benches]. (Sanh. 32a)
Matthew 26:31-57, Mark 14:30-53 and John 18:28 claim that Jesus' trial took place at night. According to the Jewish law as we have read above this cannot be true unless the Jewish leaders and the high priest were altogether ignorant or perhaps they were involved in an evil conspiracy where they bent their own law? If that is true why isn't the error of their actions exposed and rebuked in the gospels? Why did Jesus not himself question the manner in which he was tried being himself a learned Jewish teacher? As Prof. Craig A. Evans tells us in his Context, Family and Formation in the Cambridge Companion to the Bible p. 19, "Jesus is frequently called?Rabbi' or ?Rabboni', or its Greek equivalents ?master' (epistata) or ?teacher' (didaskalos)." So, Jesus was no doubt a Rabbi(Mark 12:29). Being a Rabbi and learned in the Jewish law he would have questioned the Jewish leaders concerning the unconstitutional nocturnal trial. But, no such disagreement is found either from Jesus or from anyone else in the entire New Testament. There are many more discrepancies, contradictions and difficulties in the Gospels concerning the crucifixion and other things besides.
Once
more when I was sent by Titus Caesar...to a village called Tekoa to prospect
whether it was a suitable camp, and, on my return, saw many prisoners who had
been crucified, and recognized three of my acquaintances among them, I was
cut to the heart, and came and told Titus with tears what I have seen. He
gave orders immediately that they should be taken down and receive the most
careful treatment. Two of them died in the physician's hands, the third
survived. quoted in Yerby, Judas, My Brother: p508
|
asked for the cup of suffering to be passed if possible yet John (John 18:11) reports that Jesus hastened for the crucifixion saying shall I not drink the cup the Father hath given me?
Almighty show a dream to Pilate's wife which would cause her to try and persuade her husband to release Jesus? Would not that appear to counter God's own plan? (Henry Melvill has a very wonderful discourse upon this topic, in which he tries to show that probably if Pilate had dreamed this dream himself, it would not have been so operative upon him as when his wife dreamed it. He takes it as a supposition, which nobody can deny, that Pilate had an affectionate and tender wife, who was very dear to him.)
If Jesus knew all along that he was destined to be crucified to death (indeed if that was his purpose
in life), why did he exclaim on the cross Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani meaning my God my God why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)
Matthew 27:45, Luke 23:44)
inability to respire property as a result of being in an upright position or attacks by wild animals.
Why did Jesus, who was a fit and healthy man used to walking the countryside for long distances, die so quickly in only a matter of a few hours? Can you tell us what caused Jesus to give up the ghost?
The debate is not about what the Quran, Muslims, or
commentators say :
It is often claimed by Christian
missionaries that there is a consensus among scholars and historians both
conservative and liberal that Jesus certainly died on the cross. This is
misleading. There are scholars who argue that because there is such a paucity
(that is something in only small
or insufficient quantities) in early reliable historical
records attesting to Jesus' existence that must mean that he is a myth, a
legend, a fiction. Granted that the circle of scholars of this persuasian is
small in number that does not discount the fact that they exist. Tom Harpur who
was professor of New Testament and New Testament Greek at Wycliffe(The Pagan
Christ), Bruno Bauer (Critique of the Gospels and History of Their Origin),
Earl Doherty(The Jesus Puzzle), Prof. G.A. Wells(The Historical Evidence for
Jesus), Prof. Michael Martin(The Case Against Christianity) are some of the
scholars who have questioned Jesus' existence. Thus to continue claiming that
all scholars both liberal and conservative agree on the crucifixion is untrue.
Undoubtedly, a vast majority of scholars say the crucifixion happened, but not
without serious qualification. They do not say it as a fact, but rather as a
probable occurence. Historians involved in this area of study base their
judgment on probabilities rather than conclusive historical data. Using the
historical method scholars comb through available historical materials, assess
them and thereafter produce what they think to be the most probable conclusion.
Historians using the critical historical method do not recognise supernatural
events because they are the least probable occurences which is why God cannot
be in the equation hence discounting both resurrection and Jesus' ascent to
heaven as historical(at least according to the historical method). A person
living 2000 years ago would be regarded as dead because it is highly
improbable(or impossible) for a man to live that long. Because Jesus lived
around 2000 years ago historians conclude that he must have died. This is of
course according to the critical historical method. The real question that
historians are interested in is how he died. And for this they look at the
historical records surrounding the person Jesus. According to their perspective
based on their research the most probable explanation or cause for Jesus' death
is the crucifixion. Thus many modern (non-Muslim) historians have no qualms
over Jesus' death itself not because they think that Jesus was factually and
definitely crucified but because a man living 2000 years ago cannot still be
alive.
How much do we know about Jesus? As we have mentioned before there is a paucity
of material.
"However desirable it might be to have available records of Jesus' words
and deeds that were made during his lifeimte, we must acknowledge that we have
none."[1] (emphasis added) Howard Clark Kee, Eric M. Meyers, John Rogerson,
Anthony J. Saldarini. The Cambridge Companion to the Bible(1997). Cambridge,
U.K. : Cambridge University Press. pp. 447
So lets sum this up before we move on
Now to deal with the historicity of the crucifixion
of Jesus Christ. I would like to express, that we have no 1st century historians who witnessed
the crucifixion. That is not to say, that even if historians wrote about the
crucifixion of Jesus. This wouldn’t change anything since, Crucifixion was a
common method of punishment. At the time of Jesus. It was common for Jews to be
crucified, to a historian they use a naturalist position. That position
assumes, Jesus was just a man and like every other rebels to the state it would
have been likely that he was killed. That likelihood is based on the
probability verses possibility argument. There is no surviving evidence, from
Jesus time that he was crucified. Everything we have postdates him. Now the
probability verses possibility argument means that he could have had a one in
10.000 chance of being killed. Even though the probability is low it is still
possible, because a possibility means anything could have happened, that the
chance can always exist.
They would write the obvious the norm of those
time. Revolutionary time, many messiahs were popping up no historians testifies
that a god was on the cross. 9th josephus and tacitus 11th and 13th manuscripts.
The point to be noted is, historians using the
naturalist point of view, shows the lack of support how someone crucified on
the cross could actually atone for the sins of mankind. Since Christians have
no other way to turn, to prove historically that Jesus’s crucifixion opened the
doors to their salvation. It is best to dismiss any ambiguous understanding of
the crucifixion, which only has one meaning and that is a historical method of capital punishment. So quoting
historians will not support your belief, which is a fundamental factor to your
theology.
There is no first
century eye witness who witnessed the crucifixion. The historians would of also
relied upon the biblical sources.
If Christians think basing evidence on historical
information, supports the truth about Jesus. Then what do they have to say
about another 1st century historical figure by the
name of Apollonius. Who is Apollonius of tyana? Apollonius was a mirror image
of Jesus of Nazareth Philostratus.
who lived between 170 to 247, an early 2nd
century historian. authored a biography about him, called Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Apollonious has striking similarity like Jesus.
Dr Bart Ehrman in his book, how Jesus became God, on page 10 has this to say:
the ancient world knew of more than one mortal who
was thought to be the Son of God, such as the pagan philosopher Apollonius of
Tyana, said to have performed miracles and to have ascended to heaven at his
death. How could ancient people believe that a human could be a god or a god
could be a human? To answer this question, we need to know more about religion
in the Greco-Roman world. Apollonius of Tyana x About 2,000 years ago, a
remarkable man was born in a remote part of the Roman Empire. His mother was
told that he would not be a mortal but, in fact, would be divine. She gave
birth to him in a miraculous way. x As an adult, this man collected disciples
around him who came to believe that he was the Son of God. And he did miracles
to prove dead. At the end of his life, he ascended to heaven. x This man was
Apollonius of Tyana, a pagan philosopher active some 50 years after Jesus and
widely known in his own day. x We know about the life of Apollonius from the
writings of his later follower Philostratus, who based his account, he tells
us, on earlier eyewitness reports. x Later, there were debates between the
followers of Jesus and the followers of Apollonius, concerning which was the
Son of God and which was a fraud. We see these debates in a battle of words
between the pagan Hierocles and the Christian Eusebius. x But it is important
to note that these were not the only two miracle working Sons of God in the
ancient world. There were, in fact, a 12 Lecture 2: Greco-Roman Gods Who Became
Human was widely known throughout antiquity. x To understand how ancient people
could believe that a human could be a god or a god could be a human, we need to
know more about religion in the Greco-Roman world.
I would like to ask Mr. steven Atkins, if he
would also accept apolonious as a divine figure, if not why?
Now lets carry out more historical evidence.
An early 2nd century group, the Basilides believed the following, whom
they relate through the disciple Matthew:
“This second mimologue mounts another
dramatic piece for us in his account of the cross of Christ; for he claims that
not Jesus, but Simon of Cyrene, has suffered. For when the Lord was marched out
of Jerusalem, as the Gospel passage says, one Simon of Cyrene was compelled to
bear the cross. From this he finds his trickery <opportunity> for
composing his dramatic piece and says: Jesus changed Simon into his own form
while he was bearing the cross, and changed himself unto Simon, and delivered
Simon to crucifixion in his place. During Simon’s crucifixion Jesus stood
opposite him unseen, laughing at the persons who were crucifying Simon. But he
himself flew off to the heavenly realms after delivering Simon to crucifixion,
and returned to heaven without suffering.”
The above was quoted from the Panarion of
Epiphanius of Salamis, Anacephalacosis II, Against Basilides, page 78 (Brill,
2008).
Basilides
We also read from the Nag Hammadi Library, from the Second Treatise of Seth, Chapter 9, he says:
“For Adonaios knows me because of
hope. And I was in the mouths of lions. And the plan which they devised about
me to release their Error and their senselessness – I did not succumb to them
as they had planned. But I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there
punished me. And I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put to
shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me and I
did not become fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands.
I was about to succumb to fear, and I <suffered> according to their sight
and thought, in order that they may never find any word to speak about them.
For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and
blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. For their Ennoias did
not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they
condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their
father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with
the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was
another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the
height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of
their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.”
If besilides got his from a disciple, and john says
an unknown, why accept john and not bisilides.
Intellectual dishonest,
In his letter (2.1) to the Christians of Smyrna
(today’s Izmir in Turkey), Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, Syria, spoke of
“unbelievers” who claimed that Jesus “only seemed to suffer.” The exact date of
this letter is unknown, but Eusebius states that Ignatius was martyred
during the reign of the Roman emperor Trajan (98-117 CE).
Ignatius’ statement targeted the Docetists who believed that Jesus did not
have a physical body, so his sufferings and death were apparent, not real.
According to Irenaeus, the 2nd century Egyptian gnostic Christian
Basilides taught that the Jews crucified a Simon of Cyrene instead of
Jesus and that Jesus ascended to God. Writing around 185 CE, the orthodox
bishop of Lyon has the following to report about Basilides’ heretical
beliefs about the alleged crucifixion of Jesus: …he did not himself suffer
death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene,
‘Historically it is very difficult
to dispute the qur’anic verse since presumably it would not be possible for
observers at the time to tell the difference between Jesus being crucified and
his only appearing to be crucified – unless what is suggested is that someone
else was crucified in his place.’
Rev Professor John Hick, Religious Pluralism and Islam,
lecture delivered to the Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought, Tehran,
February 2005.
Here's a quote from The Apocalypse of Peter : 2nd century naghamadi
The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the
tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into
whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is
the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his
likeness. But look at him and me."
And I saw someone about to approach us resembling
him, even him who was laughing on the tree. (The
Apocalypse of Peter 81)
So ive given good reason why basing evidence on
history could backfire.
Now coming to the crucifixion of Jesus
Christ, as ive mentioned before a man being crucified was nothing new to the
roman world. However for Christians Jesus being crucified meant something
unique. they believe not only was Jesus crucified, but he also atoned for the
sins of mankind, the original sin which stemmed through Adam and Eve. Now this
is all based on the teachings of the New Testament. The entire salvation
of Christians, is centred around the New Testament. The question is how
reliable are the books of the New testament, in which Christians depend their
salvation upon? Could it be a blind belief, which has been leading them astray?
Why not put the gospels to the test, and see how reliable they really are.
The story leading to the crucifixion, carries many
discrepancies, which is undisputable. Take for example, during the arrest of
Jesus which is mentioned in all four gospels, did Judas kiss Jesus or
not? According to synoptic gospels, Judas Iscariot kissed Jesus. However when
we read the same event in the gospel of John there is no mention of Judas kissing
Jesus, he was standing beside him? Read john 18:3-5. Its obvious john
didn’t want Jesus to be touched by Judas, so he changed the story. Leading up
to the crucifixion. As well as discrepancies, we also have absurdities. Take
for example during the arrest of Jesus john tells us 600 soldiers came to
arrest Jesus, seriously!. It would not have been common for 600 soldiers to
come arrest one man.
for what charge was Jesus even crucified?
MISHNAH. THE BLASPHEMER IS PUNISHED ONLY IF HE UTTERS [THE DIVINE] NAME.
(I.e., the Tetragrammaton YAHWEH) R. JOSHUA B. KARHA SAID: (Talmud Sanhedrin
55b)
----------------------------------
Here's the problem, nowhere in the
entire New Testament did Jesus ever utter the word Yahweh, nor was the name
Yahweh used by any of his disciples. So how could Jesus have been condemned as
a blasphemer, when he never uttered the name.
Rabbinic Judaism rejects any
connection with the trial of Jesus with or without a "sanhedrin".
Modern Judaism is called Rabbinic Judaism and claims descent from the
Pharisees, a group at odds with the Sadducees. It is possible that the trial
was as a Sadducean illegal court, or perhaps the details as we know them today
are incomplete or inaccurate.
The
New Testament, according to gospel accounts, says that Jesus was brought at
night before the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, presided over by high priest Joseph
Caiaphas (a Sadducee). There is no record of such a trial in the Talmud and it
is unknown in contemporary Rabbinic Literature
That goes to say it was uncommon for a trial to take place at night The Jewish Mishna states,
“Let a capital offense be tried during the day, but suspend at night.” Matthew 26:31-57, Mark 14:30-53 and John 18:28
claim that Jesus' trial took place at night. Everything happened to fast ?
. How
many people tried Jesus?
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all agree that Jesus was brought before Pilate to
be sentenced, but Luke deviating from the other three gospels adds something
extra in that Jesus was also tried by Herod in Luke 23:6-12). In this episode
Jesus gets mocked and ridiculed by Herod. Why is this event completely omitted
in all the other three gospels? Could it be that it did not happen and was
simply Luke's invention to add more drama to the narrative?
How could Jesus have died on the cross within
6 hours,. There was also two robbers with Jesus, who were side by side even
they had their legs broken to speed up the process, but not Jesus how comes?.
What’s worse we read, from each gospels different saying before Jesus giving up
the ghost. Its fascinating how pilate was marvelled when he heard Jesus gave up
the ghost? A man who must of carried out hundreds of crucifixion, was marvelled
how Jesus gave up his ghost? In reality there was nothing to show, that Jesus
could have died on the cross without any physical damage, so john introduced
the spear thrust. This has been dismissed by Prof Raymond E Brown
Prof. Brown says,
“Crucifixion pierces no vital organ, and so inevitably one must wonder what
physical or organic factor caused Jesus to die. The extremely brief Gospel
descriptions of the death of Jesus are of little help in answering this
question.” Brown, R. E. (1994). The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2. New
York: Bantam Doubleday DellPublishing Group, Inc. p. 1088
historian and New Testament scholar Dr. L Michael White:
“Sometimes the criminal was nailed both hand and foot; other times, the
hands were merely tied with ropes. The earliest representation of the
crucifixion of Jesus show the practice of using ropes alone for the arms; only
much later did the traditional portrayals emerge in Christian art.” White, L. M. (2010). Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in
Rewrite. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. p. 133
In fact,
the earliest depictions of Jesus' crucifixion show him tied to the cross and
not even nailed as furnished by Dr. L. Michael White, which means that there
was very minimal injury sustained by Jesus, if any at all and this compounds
the difficulty in claiming that he died even further.
False promise by Jesus?
In Luke 23:43 we have Jesus making a promise to his fellow crucified victim,
"Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me
in paradise.""
This was during the crucifixion. According to the Creed of the Apostles which
may well have been based on 1 Peter 3:18-20 Jesus went down to hell after the
crucifixion, "Jesus who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the
Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, buried and
descended into hell." (Apostles' Creed) Further more, in John 20:17 Jesus
says, "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned
to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ?I am returning to my
Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " Where is the father?
The Father is in heaven according to Matthew 6:9-13 and Matthew 23:9. What was
the promise again? The promise was that he would see Jesus in heaven today i.e.
on Friday. Apostles' Creed says Jesus went to hell after he died and John 20:17
says Jesus did not yet ascend to the Father(in heaven) on Sunday. It is clearly
a contradiction.
What
about the temple veil being torn in half, the earthquake, rising of saints. First, there is no explicit
mention of this occurrence in the Talmud, contrary to popular belief. Second,
the accompanying earthquake and rising of the dead that supposedly took place
are also undocumented by eyewitnesses and Hebrew writings.
Alfred
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. In this
work, Edersheim states
The Veils before
the Most Holy Place were 40 cubits (60 feet) long, and 20 (30 feet) wide, of
the thickness of the palm of the hand, and wrought in 72 squares, which were
joined together; and these Veils were so heavy, that, in the exaggerated
language of the time, it needed 300 priests to manipulate each. If the
Veil was at all such as is described in the Talmud, it could not have been rent
in twain by a mere earthquake or the fall of the lintel
Henry
Harris, Hebraic Literature: Translations from the Talmud,
Midrashim and Kabbala (M. Walter Dunne, 1901). In this work,
we find:
Three hundred
priests were told off [sic; the idea is that they were designated] to draw the
veil (of the Temple) aside; for it is taught that Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel
declared in the name of Rabbi Shimon the Sagan (or high priest’s substitute),
that the thickness of the veil was a handbreadth. It was woven of seventy-two
cords, and each cord consisted of twenty-four strands. It was forty cubits long
and twenty wide. Eighty-two myriads of damsels worked at it, and two such veils
were made every year. When it became soiled, it took three hundred priests to
immerse and cleanse it. Chullin (Harris, pp. 195-96)
not surprisingly there exists, outside
of the New Testament, no evidence whatever, in book,
inscription, or monument, that Jesus of Nazareth was either scourged or
crucified under Pontius Pilate. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Philo, nor
any of their contemporaries, ever refer to the fact of this crucifixion, or
express any belief thereon. (T.W. Doane, Bible Myths and their
Parallels in other Religions, p. 516)
In the nineteenth century an eminent
scholar, Rabbi Wise, searched the records of Pilate’s court, still extant, for
evidence of this trial. He found nothing. (Lloyd Graham,
Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 343)
Who confirmed the body of Jesus ? no centurion confirmed Jesus had given
up the ghost rather it was one of his disciples who took down the body, known
as joseph of Arimathea, historically there was no such place called
arimathea, the empty tomb also is not historical, a condemned man on the cross
would not be allowed to be taken down, so he can have a honourable burial.
Usually the condemned would hand on the stalk for days until their bodies where
thown in a pit for the beats to consume
The different
accounts of the resurrection are full of contradictions like this. They can’t
even agree on whether Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover (John) or
the day after (the other three).
- What were the last words of Jesus? Three
gospels give three different versions.
- Who buried Jesus? Matthew says that it was
Joseph of Arimathea. Matthew 27:57-60 No, apparently it was the Jews and their
rulers, all strangers to Jesus (Acts
13:28-31)
- How many women came to the tomb Easter
morning? Was it one, as told in (John 20:1)? Two as told in (Matthew
28:1)? Three as told in (Mark 16:1)? Or more as found in (Luke 24:1)?
- Did an angel cause a great earthquake that
rolled back the stone in front of the tomb? Yes, according to Matthew
28:2. The other gospels are silent on this extraordinary detail.
- Who did the women see at the tomb? One person
(Matthew 28:1-8 and Mark 16:1-8) or two Luke 24:1-10
- Was the tomb already open when they got there?
Matthew says no; the other three say yes.
- Did the women tell the disciples? Matthew 28:8
and Luke 24:9 make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says,
“Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They
said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” (Mark 16:8) And that’s
where the book ends, which makes it a mystery how Mark thinks that the
resurrection story ever got out.
- Did Mary Magdalene cry at the tomb? the tomb
was empty and Jesus’s body was gone. At least, that’s the story according
to John 20. But wait a minute—in Matthew’s account, the women were “filled
with joy.”
- Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus? Of course!
She’d known him for years. At least, Matthew 28:8 says that she did. But
John on the other hand makes it clear that she didn’t. John 20:14
- Could Jesus’s followers touch him? John 20:17
says no; Luke 24:39say yes.
- Where did Jesus tell the disciples to meet
him? In Galilee (Matthew 28:7 and Mark 16:7) or Jerusalem (Luke 24:33-43)?
- Who saw Jesus resurrected? Paul says that a
group of over 500 people saw him (1 Cor. 15:6). Sounds like crucial evidence,
but why don’t any of the gospels record it?
What killed him on the cross?
Barabbas the mythical rebel
The story of the release of Barabbas in conjunction with the Passover is
related by all four gospels. The alleged event is known as the
Paschal privilege where the Roman governor supposedly has the right to offer a
criminal amnesty. The incident is related in Matthew 15:6-11, Matthew 27:15-20,
Luke 23:17-19 and John 39-40. There are serious problems to this story.
Firstly, the narratives themselves differ in detail, that is, in the manner the
offer is conveyed. Secondly, in Mark and Matthew the people persuaded by the chief
priests present shouted and clamoured for the death and crucifixion of Jesus.
The story line is simply absurd. How is it that this popular religious figure,
Jesus whose image was widespread as a miracle worker, a compassionate teacher,
and a Prophet loved by many even by those in Jerusalem(the chief priests were
afraid of the people revolting if they apprehended Jesus because of his
popularity Mark 14:1-2, Matthew 26:3-5 and Luke 22:2) became the outcast and
hated criminal in a matter of minutes in the eyes of the same Jewish population
before Pilate? Geza Vermes remarks, “It is hard, indeed almost impossible, to
imagine a nationalist Jewish crowd encouraging the Romans to kill one of their
own countrymen.” [12]
Thirdly, if Barabbas was a real person then he was in prison for
insurrection according to the gospels. That means he was already found and
declared guilty. Why would such a troublemaker be freed by Pilate whose job was
exactly to keep and maintain Roman sovereignty in his jurisdiction? The problem
is compounded further when we take into consideration that Jesus was found
faultless and innocent by Pilate. How is it that someone found guilty is given
the opportunity to freedom and not someone who is found innocent? It is
senseless.
Last but not least, there is no indication outside of the Gospels that
there was such a person as Barabbas or even such a thing as a special Passover
amnesty afforded by the Prefect. Geza Vermes states clearly, ” such an amnesty
is nowhere mentioned outside the Gospels, not even in Josephus, who was so well
informed about first-century AD matters, and the evangelists themselves fail to
agree on its precise nature… Hence the historicity of the amnesty is
questionable.” [13]
Geza Vermes. The Passion(2005). Op.Cit. pp. (12)61-
(13)95
[9] Ibid. pp. 49
Sent from Windows Mail
As a Muslim, I will be speaking against the
Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I’ll be focusing on 3 points, for
my opening statement. These points will be, the historicity of the crucifixion,
reliability of scriptures speaking of the crucifixion, and the post
resurrection event.
Now to deal with the historicity of the crucifixion
of Jesus Christ. I would like to express, that we have no 1st century historians who witnessed
the crucifixion. That is not to say, that even if historians wrote about the
crucifixion of Jesus. This wouldn’t change anything since, Crucifixion was a
common method of punishment. Historians accept crucifixion was common practice,
taking a naturalist point of view. Whereas Christians will dismiss the
naturalist point of view, and instead take it as a supernatural view adding
theology to it. Again, historians have no problem with a crucified Jesus. Its
not hard to believe that during the first century, a man opposing the roman
government, and Jewish leaders, getting caught and then crucified something
astonishing to the historians. They would write the obvious the norm of those
time. Revolutionary time, many messiahs were popping up no historians
testifies that a god was on the cross. 9th josephus and tacitus 11th and 13th manuscripts.
The point to be noted is, historians using the
naturalist point of view, shows the lack of support how someone crucified on
the cross could actually atone for the sins of mankind. Since Christians have
no other way to turn, to prove historically that Jesus’s crucifixion opened the
doors to their salvation. It is best to dismiss any ambiguous understanding of
the crucifixion, which only has one meaning and that is a historical method of capital punishment. So quoting
historians will not support your belief, which is a fundamental factor to your
theology.
There is no first
century eye witness who witnessed the crucifixion. The historians would of also
relied upon the biblical sources.
If Christians think basing evidence on historical
information, supports the truth about Jesus. Then what do they have to say
about another 1st century historical figure by the
name of Apollonius. Who is Apollonius of tyana? Apollonius was a mirror image
of Jesus of Nazareth Philostratus.
who lived between 170 to 247, an early 2nd
century historian. authored a biography about him, called Life of Apollonius of
Tyana. Apollonious has striking
similarity like Jesus. Dr Bart Ehrman in his book, how Jesus became God, on
page 10 has this to say:
the ancient world knew of more than one mortal who
was thought to be the Son of God, such as the pagan philosopher Apollonius of
Tyana, said to have performed miracles and to have ascended to heaven at his
death. How could ancient people believe that a human could be a god or a god
could be a human? To answer this question, we need to know more about religion
in the Greco-Roman world. Apollonius of Tyana x About 2,000 years ago, a remarkable
man was born in a remote part of the Roman Empire. His mother was told that he
would not be a mortal but, in fact, would be divine. She gave birth to him in a
miraculous way. x As an adult, this man collected disciples around him who came
to believe that he was the Son of God. And he did miracles to prove dead. At
the end of his life, he ascended to heaven. x This man was Apollonius of Tyana,
a pagan philosopher active some 50 years after Jesus and widely known in his
own day. x We know about the life of Apollonius from the writings of his later
follower Philostratus, who based his account, he tells us, on earlier
eyewitness reports. x Later, there were debates between the followers of Jesus
and the followers of Apollonius, concerning which was the Son of God and which
was a fraud. We see these debates in a battle of words between the pagan
Hierocles and the Christian Eusebius. x But it is important to note that these
were not the only two miracle working Sons of God in the ancient world. There
were, in fact, a 12 Lecture 2: Greco-Roman Gods Who Became Human was widely
known throughout antiquity. x To understand how ancient people could believe
that a human could be a god or a god could be a human, we need to know more
about religion in the Greco-Roman world.
If they thought he resurrected, why didn’t they
mentioned it.
I would like to ask Mr. steven Atkins, if he
would also accept apolonious as a divine figure, if not why?
Now coming to the crucifixion of Jesus
Christ, as ive mentioned before a man being crucified was nothing new to the
roman world. However for Christians Jesus being crucified meant something
unique. they believe not only was Jesus crucified, but he also atoned for the
sins of mankind, the original sin which stemmed through Adam and Eve. Now this
is all based on the teachings of the New Testament. The entire salvation
of Christians, is centred around the New Testament. The question is how
reliable are the books of the New testament, in which Christians depend their
salvation upon? Could it be a blind belief, which has been leading them astray?
Why not put the gospels to the test, and see how reliable they really are.
Here is the paragraph that currently
appears in The Antiquities of the Jews, written by Josephus around 95 C.E.:
"Now, there was about this time,
Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of
wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He
drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the]
Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had
condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake
him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets
had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and
the tribe of Christians, so named for him are not extinct to this day."
If this is the strongest and earliest extra-biblical evidence for the
historical Jesus, then the scholarship is on the shakiest grounds. That passage
from Josephus has been shown conclusively to be a forgery, and even
conservative scholars admit it has been tampered with. But even were it
historical, it dates from more than six decades after the supposed death of Jesus.
The Associated Press chose to omit
the fact that scholars have largely discounted the Josephus paragaph as a later
interpolation. The passage, although widely quoted by believers today, did not
show up in the writings of Josephus until centuries after his death, at the
beginning of the fourth century. Thoroughly dishonest church historian Eusebius
is credited as the real author. The passage is grossly out of context, a clear
hint that it was inserted at a later time.
All scholars agree that Josephus, a
Jew who never converted to Christianity, would not have called Jesus "the
Christ" or "the truth," so the passage must have been doctored
by a later Christian--evidence, by the way, that some early believers were in
the habit of altering texts to the advantage of their theological agenda. The
phrase "to this day" reveals it was written at a later time. Everyone
agrees there was no "tribe of Christians" during the time of
Josephus--Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.
If Jesus were truly important to
history, then Josephus should have told us something about him. Yet he is
completely silent about the supposed miracles and deeds of Jesus. He nowhere
quotes Jesus. He adds nothing to the Gospel narratives and tells us nothing
that would not have been known by Christians in either the first or fourth
centuries. In all of Josephus' voluminous writings, there is nothing about
Jesus or Christianity anywhere outside the tiny paragraph cited so blithely by
the Associated Press.
This paragraph mentions that Jesus
was foretold by the divine prophets, but Josephus does not tell us who those
prophets were or what they said. This is religious propaganda, not history. If
Jesus had truly been the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, then Josephus would
have been the exact person to confirm it.
And this is the "most
important" historical evidence for Jesus!
The other phrase from Josephus that
Righi and AP cite concerns James, the so-called "brother of Jesus,"
and is likewise flimsy. It says that a man named James was stoned to death,
which is not mentioned in the bible. Many scholars believe the "brother of
Jesus" phrase is a later interpolation, and that Josephus was referring to
a different James, possibly the same James that Paul mentions in Acts, who led
a sect in Jerusalem. Contradicting Josephus, Hegesippus wrote a history of
Christianity in 170 C.E. saying that James, the brother of Jesus, was killed in
a riot, not by sentence of a court.
Righi also cited Pliny the Younger,
who, in the early second century (112), reported that "Christians were
singing a hymn to Christ as to a god." Notice how late this reference is;
and notice the absence of the name "Jesus." The passage, if accurate,
could have referred to any of the other self-proclaimed "Christs"
(messiahs) followed by Jews who thought they had found their anointed one.
Pliny's account is not history, since he is only relaying what other people
believed. No one doubts that Christianity was in existence by this time.
Offering this as proof would be the equivalent of quoting modern Mormons about
their beliefs in the historical existence of the Angel Moroni or the miracles
of Joseph Smith--doubtless useful for documenting the religious beliefs, but
not the actual facts.
Tacitus, another second-century Roman
writer who alleged that Christ had been executed by sentence of Pontius Pilate,
is likewise cited by Righi. Written some time after 117 C.E., Tacitus' claim is
more of the same late, second-hand "history." There is no mention of
"Jesus," only "the sect known as Christians" living in Rome
being persecuted, and "their founder, one Christus." Tacitus claims
no first-hand knowledge of Christianity. No historical evidence exists that
Nero persecuted Christians--Nero did persecute Jews, so perhaps Tacitus was
confused. There was certainly not a "great crowd" of Christians in
Rome around 60 C.E., as Tacitus put it, and, most damning, the term
"Christian" was not even in use in the first century. No one in the
second century ever quoted this passage of Tacitus. In fact, it appears almost
word-for-word in the fourth-century writings of Sulpicius Severus, where it is
mixed with other obvious myths. Citing Tacitus, therefore, is highly suspect
and adds virtually nothing to the evidence for a historical Jesus.
Such are the straws believers must
grasp in order to prop up their myth.
Historians have no evidence of a
historic Jesus dating from the early first century, even though many
contemporary writers documented the era in great detail. Philo of Alexandria,
for example, wrote in depth about early first-century Palestine, naming other
self-proclaimed messiahs, yet never once mentioning a man named Jesus. Many
other contemporary writers covered that era, yet there is not a single mention
of any existence, deeds, or words of a man named Jesus.
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, in
their book The Jesus Mysteries, explain how the myth and legend of Jesus could
easily have arisen without a historical founder. The Jesus story was pressed
from the same template as other mythical savior-gods who were killed and
resurrected, such as Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, and Attis.
An early 2nd century group, the Basilides believed the following, whom
they relate through the disciple Matthew:
“This second mimologue mounts another dramatic
piece for us in his account of the cross of Christ; for he claims that not
Jesus, but Simon of Cyrene, has suffered. For when the Lord was marched out of
Jerusalem, as the Gospel passage says, one Simon of Cyrene was compelled to
bear the cross. From this he finds his trickery <opportunity> for
composing his dramatic piece and says: Jesus changed Simon into his own form
while he was bearing the cross, and changed himself unto Simon, and delivered
Simon to crucifixion in his place. During Simon’s crucifixion Jesus stood
opposite him unseen, laughing at the persons who were crucifying Simon. But he
himself flew off to the heavenly realms after delivering Simon to crucifixion,
and returned to heaven without suffering.”
The above was quoted from the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis,
Anacephalacosis II, Against Basilides, page 78 (Brill, 2008).
Basilides
We also read from the Nag Hammadi Library, from the Second Treatise of Seth, Chapter 9, he
says:
“For Adonaios knows me because of hope. And I was
in the mouths of lions. And the plan which they devised about me to release
their Error and their senselessness – I did not succumb to them as they had
planned. But I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there punished me. And
I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put to shame by them
because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me and I did not become
fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands. I was about to
succumb to fear, and I <suffered> according to their sight and thought,
in order that they may never find any word to speak about them. For my death,
which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness,
since they nailed their man unto their death. For their Ennoias did not see me,
for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn
themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father,
who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed;
it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon
Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over
all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty
glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.”
If besilides got his from a disciple, and john says
an unknown, why accept john and not bisilides.
Intellectual dishonest,
‘Historically
it is very difficult to dispute the qur’anic verse since presumably it would
not be possible for observers at the time to tell the difference between Jesus
being crucified and his only appearing to be crucified – unless what is
suggested is that someone else was crucified in his place.’
Rev Professor John Hick, Religious
Pluralism and Islam, lecture delivered to the Institute for Islamic Culture
and Thought, Tehran, February 2005.
This is connected with john 19:35 The man who saw it has given
testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth,
and he testifies so that you also may believe.
(The disputed historical question of
the crucifixion of Jesus is really a very minor issue for Muslims as Jesus did
not go around Galilee preaching that forgiveness of sins was made possible
through his death but instead through simple repentance to God – without a
mediator – which is what Islam teaches too, see Matthew 5-7 and passim).
I do I have to cite conservative
scholars. Hes just
Here's a
quote from The Apocalypse of Peter : 2nd
century naghamadi
The Savior
said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the
living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive
the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to
shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."
And I saw
someone about to approach us resembling him, even him who was laughing on the tree. (The Apocalypse of Peter 81)
Luke was speaking of many gospels, question what
will you do if you discover a new gospel, where Jesus was not crucified.
What will you do then
Hands were tied not nailed.
Gnosticism existed before Christianity, John
1:1-14,
The debate is not about what the Quran, Muslims, or
commentators say :
I am not convinced with the conclusion of the
crucifixion by historians, they all have a different opinion.
question
Is god immutable or impassable. Can god suffer?
What killed him on the cross?
Who is the second person in the trinity did Jesus
suffer on the cross did they both suffer the nature? Can both nature suffer.
Arianism is heretic
Bart erhman doesn’t mention the resurrection, nor
does he believe the new testament.
question
If all historians beloved that the crucifixion was
a fact then why do u disagree with there conclusion.
Premise 1 Why do they consider it as fact
Premise 2 I am not interested there conclusion,
rather I am interested in evidences that lead to there conclusion
Conclusion : in logic the premises which are the
evidences arguments lead to the conclusion, according to the rules of logic if
any of the premises are false then the conclusion is false. If you have 100
premises and one is false the conclusion is still false, that is because we use
sequential reasoning. When You go from premise1 to premise 2 and so until you
reach your conclusion. You are validating each and every premises (evidence)
If x then y
X evidence
Y conclusion
I am not interested in the conclusion, I’m a
rational and reasonable person, give me evidence.
2 question
If a man today was executed by electrocution, and
people said they believed he was god. That was make him true. The story’s
cannot be true just because they said it.
At the time of Jesus. It was common for jews to be
crucified, to a historian they use a naturalist position. That position
assumes, Jesus was just a man and like every other rebels to the state it would
have been likely that he was killed. That likelihood is based on the
probability verses possibility argument. There is no surviving evidence, from
Jesuss time that he was crucified. Everything we have postdates him. Now the
probability verses possibility argument means that he could have had a one in
10.000 chance of being killed. Even though the probability is low it is still
possible, because a possibility means anything could have happened, that the
chance can always exist.
Ill give an example: on my right hand there is a
very low probability, that I have six fingers, but because that probability
exist, it means that it may be possible.
What you need is evidences that don’t just prove
his crucifixion is possible but are highly probable. Because anything is
possible.
According to historians
(St. Justin Martyr) Chapter 21. Analogies to the history of Christ
And when we say also that
the Word, who is the first-birth of God,
was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ,
our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again,
and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from
what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of
Jupiter. For you know how
many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting
word and teacher of all;
Morna d hooker (Jesus and the servant pp.5 )
"Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent--both are detestable to the LORD." (Proverbs 17:15)
The First Person to ever mention this is ‘Eusebiusʼ, from the 4th century. There were 8 Christian writers before Eusebius, who referenced from Josephus, without mentioning the Testimonium, Infact Origen cited 5 passages from the same chapter, without mentioning this passage.
Secondly, Tacitus didnʼt even mention the “Crucifixion”, All he did was mocked Christians worshiping a god, who got the “ultimate punishment”. Scholars mention it can be interpreted in many different ways.
Thirdly, the Extant Manuscript of Tacitus comes from the Ninth and Eleventh century.
Renowned New Testament scholar, Dale C. Allison, argued against theese criterias and called them subjective, troublesome, misleading and unsatisfactory. “Jesus of Nazareth: A Millenerian Prophet”
Having said that, another argument is, “we know Church Fathers believed in the Crucifixion, and they have an Apostolic chain going back to Jesus”. Well do you know, the Basilides? They didnʼt believe in Jesusʼ crucifixion, and they also have an Apostolic chain going back.
The NIV study Bible admits, that the Apostles rejected the Crucifixion of Jesus. Many proofs from Paul writing himself, that Christians of his time rejected it (Gal 3:1, 1 Cor 1:23; 2 Cor 11:4 etc.)
Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said, “If it is said that the disciples, or some of them, or most of the people of the Book, used to believe that the Messiah himself was crucified, they were mistaken in that, but this mistake was not something that would undermine their belief
in the Messiah, if they believed in what he brought, and they are not inevitably doomed to Hell, because the Gospels that are in the hands of the People of the Book mentioned the crucifixion of the Messiah.”
The Oxford Bible Commentary, says theese predictions are less likely to be genuine.
Rudolf Bultman, likewise said theese supposed predictions were added later.
Mark D. Bakr and Joel B. Green said, we have no direct access to Jesusʼ thoughts about the supposed crucifixion.
The Gospel Q, makes no mention of Jesusʼ Crucifixion and resurrection.
Interestingly the Gospel of Luke nowhere has the doctrine of atonement by Jesusʼ crucifixion How does it make sense, that an entire gospel makes no mention of your most crucial doctrine?
In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus actually predicts someone other than him being crucified in his place.
Jesus in the Gospel of Luke in an immediate context referring to himself says “… for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!” (Luke 13:33) Yet the person who died on the cross died outside Jerusalem (John 19:20) Gospels make it clear Calvary is outside Jerusalem.
-----------------------
Letʼs look at the misquotions of the NT Evangelists of the OT on the supposed Passion predictions. i. Striken Shepherd. Mt 26:31 cites a prophecy that the disciples will scatter after his Crucifixion Cited passage is Zech 13:7 which is talking about False prophets
ii. Thirty Silver Coins. Mathew states a prophecy in Jeremiah where Judas regretted handing Jesus and returned Thirty Silver Coins he was paid for treason. No such passage found in Jeremiah, which led scribes to omit it. Closest passage is in Zech 11, which is not about him.
iii. The one shared my food. John 13:18 cites a passage from Psalm 41:9 about the crucifixion, In context, itʼs talking about someone who SINNED against God. Wasn't Jesus supposed to be God? استغفرالله
iv. Heʼll be raised from death on the Third day. No where does the Old Testament says that.
V. Counted with the Transgressors. “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.” (Luke 22:37) Quoted passage here is Isaiah 53:12. We have zero historical evidence of Jews interpreting it about crucifixion.
Christians Theologian, Justin Martyr, admits nowhere in the Old Testament, Jesusʼ Crucifixion is explicitly foretold.
In conclusion: 1. Jesus never Foretold heʼll be crucified. They were added later. 2. The NT misquoting the Old Testament, is enough proof Jesus wasnʼt crucified. Whyʼd they need to lie about the OT?
Paul is not a historian, he never met Jesus. We know from his own writings he was preaching a different message from the super Apostles. Also early Christians, like the Ebionites, rejected Paul as an Apostate and enemy of Christ. I'd recommend you to read the Thread once again.
