Jump to content
Islamic Forum
faithfulserv

The Testimony Concerning The Crucifixion By Peter And Paul

Recommended Posts

THE TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE CRUCIFIXION AFTER HIS ASCENSION

 

Peter speaking to the crowd at the Jewish Temple:

Acts 2:23 - "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."

 

Paul speaking:

Acts 13:29 - When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in the tomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

If Muslims have no evidence six centuries later to counter the evidence from the first century that Jesus went to and died on the cross, why should a person believe in Islam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus predicted His death three different times. If He didn't die as Muslim are trying to get us to believe, that means Jesus is a false prophet and we know that is not true! Muslims claim the Bible is corrupted, but they are the ones who are trying to corrupt it by saying something different happened than what is recorded in the Bible

The Bible relies on multiply corroborated writers from the first century which I agree to their testimony because they went to their deaths as martyrs for their eyewitness testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course my sister, you get no argument from me!

I'm not your sister or a sister. You're confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thirty verses proofs - No crucifixion

http://www.tellmeaboutislam.com/30-proofs-no-crucifixion.html

 

Was Jesus crucified on a tree (according to Peter), cross (according to others), or never got crucified (according to Islam)?

http://www.answering-christianity.com/was_jesus_crucified.htm

 

 

The Crucifixion Hoax

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/the_crucifixion_hoax_1.htm

 

Jesus, a Muslim, was Neither Killed, nor Crucified.

http://www.missionislam.com/comprel/jesuscrucified.htm

 

CRUCIFIXION OR CRUCI-FICTION

 

Was Jesus Hanged or Crucified?

http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/07/16/was-jesus-hanged-or-crucified/

 

The Crucifixion of Jesus: Fact or Faith?

http://www.quranicstudies.com/historical-jesus/the-crucifixion-of-jesus-fact-or-faith/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thirty verses proofs - No crucifixion

http://www.tellmeaboutislam.com/30-proofs-no-crucifixion.html

 

Was Jesus crucified on a tree (according to Peter), cross (according to others), or never got crucified (according to Islam)?

http://www.answering-christianity.com/was_jesus_crucified.htm

 

 

The Crucifixion Hoax

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/the_crucifixion_hoax_1.htm

 

Jesus, a Muslim, was Neither Killed, nor Crucified.

http://www.missionislam.com/comprel/jesuscrucified.htm

 

CRUCIFIXION OR CRUCI-FICTION

 

Was Jesus Hanged or Crucified?

http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/07/16/was-jesus-hanged-or-crucified/

 

The Crucifixion of Jesus: Fact or Faith?

http://www.quranicstudies.com/historical-jesus/the-crucifixion-of-jesus-fact-or-faith/

If you wanted to disprove the resurrection of Jesus you would need to find a viable naturalistic explanation to account the multiply corroborated eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. None of your links were able to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point

We can agree on the proof for resurrection but still people who do so many still worship a false Christ and thus are not saved. Jesus said if you are unwilling to confess who He truly is to others, He will deny you before the Father in heaven, and that is exactly what he has done. If you can repent of your god of compulsion, dragging and irresistibly imposing salvation, I can confirm you are born again that moment when you finally accept it. Not before. Up to this point in time you have never been born-again, never given your life to Christ. I pray you will do so today though when you read this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to repent from something I don't believe. My God doesn't drag people with compulsion to religion. But He does stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears His voice and opens the door He will come in. That door is to your heart. The handle only opens from the inside. When we open the door, He comes in. I opened to door and would like to see my Muslim community do the same, but I don't seem to be getting anywhere and wonder if I should still be here when all seems to be falling on deaf ears.

You said, "God draws it means to drag". Since God does not drag irresistibly imposing salvation then you are wrong. You haven't repented if you don't repent of having said this. Pretending like it never happened and changing your mind flip flopping is not true repentance because you didn't repent of formerly having said this just as you have no repented of saying "religion is death" and "religion is not a good thing." You'll just revert to what you said before when your emotions take you that way. A Muslims is not going to be impressed with this behavior of yours. What I would like to see is you repent of that false teaching you harbored and give your life to Christ so God will save you and show how a person can come to Christ to draw Muslims to the faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you see the video on religion I sent? You said I said that God drags, and for that I am sorry. As for the religion thing, I agree with the video I sent you twice. Did you see it????

What did you think of it?

Good night

So the question is when you finally repented of saying "God draws it means to drag," have you now given your life to Christ this very day?

 

You should repent of saying "religion is death" and "religion is not a good thing" for the Bible says "pure religion is undefiled before God." You don't need a video for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really I am done with this. I feel foolish for having entertained this off topic subject for so long. I really do wish you God's blessings and hope you will be able to find a body of Christian believers you can fit in with.

I would feel foolish too if I made statements such as "God draws it means to drag" as you admit you "agree with [some] of Calvinism" and reject the way to God when you said "religion is death" and "religion is not a good thing." You're a bad guy. You are not even discussing the topic of this thread but going on a rampage in defense of your Calvinism and how you hate religion. Still you refuse to repent because you are not a Christian. You're all about rationalizing your flesh and self-exalting yourself. 

 

A Christian can be confident you are not in Christ and you are not a member of the body of Christ and probably never will be, for I sincerely doubt you are going to have a change of mind. Even so, I really do hope one day you give your life to Christ for Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world ("universal atonement") something your god is unwilling to do (3rd point of Calvinism). What love is this? Check the evil in your heart when you pray by the evil spirit that I fit with some body to be found in the future as if I don't already have fellowship with the body now. Satan indwells your spirit to accuse as such.

 

Let Muslims know this guy is not a Christian and you don't have to be like him. I am as equally turned off by him as Muslims should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll respond to you in the new thread appropriate to this discussion

I hope you keep your word and not infringe on this thread anymore with your Calvinistic views  such as your claim "God draws it means to drag" as you admit you "agree with [some] of Calvinism," and your hostility towards the way towards God when you said, "religion is death" and "religion is not a good thing." The Bible says "pure religion is undefiled before God." Since you are not in Christ I can understand why this offends you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See you there

Not sure where that is you are referring to other than Hell which I won't be joining you.

 

You're not a Christian because you are unwilling to repent of having said "religion is death" and "religion is not a good thing"; but the Bible says "pure religion is undefiled before God." And nowhere in Scripture can you find God drags people to salvation when you said "God draws it means to drag" as you admit you "agree with [some] of Calvinism." No Christian would teach these heresies.

 

These 3 statements by you show that you are not a Christian, worshiping a false Christ in your dogma:

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/?p=1279688 (you said religion is not a good thing)

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741183-the-writers-of-luke-john-and-matthew-about-the-cross/?p=1279755 (you said you agree with some or all of the 5 points of Calvinism)

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/page-4?do=findComment&comment=1279802 (you said you are not sure if you believe in the God who keeps people once saved always saved)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see you there

See me where?

 

I meant to meet me at the thread I started that mentions Calvinism and true Christianity

You should give me the link if you want me to post there.

 

Remember, you're not a Christian because you think you could lose salvation as you said, "As far as once saved always saved.... I can find Scripture...to both...but I know I have it now." Realize you don't have it now because you don't accept John 10.28 those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28).        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Summary:

 

You're not a Christian because you are unwilling to repent of having said "religion is death" and "religion is not a good thing"; but the Bible says "pure religion is undefiled before God." Nowhere in Scripture can you find God drags people to salvation when you said "God draws it means to drag" as you admit you "agree with [some] of Calvinism." And you think you could lose salvation as you said, "As far as once saved always saved.... I can find Scripture...to both...but I know I have it now." Realize you don't have it now because you don't accept John 10.28 those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (John 10.28). No Christian would teach your fleshly ideas and heresies worshiping your false Christ.
 
These 3 statements by you show that you are not a Christian, worshiping a false Christ in your dogma:
http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/?p=1279688 (you said religion is not a good thing)
http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741183-the-writers-of-luke-john-and-matthew-about-the-cross/?p=1279755 (you said you agree with some or all of the 5 points of Calvinism)
http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/page-4#entry1279802 (you said you are not sure if you believe in the God who keeps people once saved always saved)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh

What an insincere sigh.

 

You finally repented of stating "religion is death" and "religion is not a good thing" for the Bible says "pure religion is undefiled before God." But you have not repented of saying God drags people into salvation when you said "God draws it means to drag" as you admit you "agree with [some] of Calvinism." But all 5 points of Calvinism are false. And you have not repented of saying "As far as once saved always saved.... I can find Scripture...to both...but I know I have it now." Is God the author of confusion? Does God contradict Himself? How can you have eternal life now if can possibly be lost? You're under a false salvation then. God gives us assurance we whom are saved are once saved always saved. That's a faith you can trust in and respect. John 10 says those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (v.28). Let me know when you have given your life to this Jesus who doesn't contradict Himself and never lets any pluck His own out of His hand.

 

You said you agree with some or all of the 5 points of Calvinism

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741183-the-writers-of-luke-john-and-matthew-about-the-cross/?p=1279755

 

You said you are not sure if you believe in the God who keeps people once saved always saved

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/page-4?do=findComment&comment=1279802

 

You said religion is not a good thing (which you have since repented of)

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/?p=1279688

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accept John 10:28

If you accepted John 10.28 then you would have repented of saying "As far as once saved always saved.... I can find Scripture...to both...but I know I have it now."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not repented of saying "religion is death" and "religion is not a good thing" for the Bible says "pure religion is undefiled before God" and your profile states you are "believer without religion". A believer without religion is a believer in a false faith. 

 

You have not repented of saying God drags people into salvation when you said "God draws it means to drag" as you admit you "agree with [some] of Calvinism." But all 5 points of Calvinism are false starting with Total depravity which you believe in.

 

And you have not repented of saying "As far as once saved always saved.... I can find Scripture...to both...but I know I have it now." Is God the author of confusion? Does God contradict Himself? How can you have eternal life now if it can possibly be lost? You're under a false salvation then. God gives us assurance we whom are saved are once saved always saved. That's a faith you can trust in and respect. John 10 says those who are born-again "they shall never perish" (v.28). Let me know when you have given your life to this Jesus who doesn't contradict Himself and never lets any pluck His own out of His hand.

 

You said you agree with some or all of the 5 points of Calvinism

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741183-the-writers-of-luke-john-and-matthew-about-the-cross/?p=1279755

You said you are not sure if you believe in the God who keeps people once saved always saved

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/page-4?do=findComment&comment=1279802

You said religion is not a good thing

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/?p=1279688

 

May Muslims come to Christ by being turned off by a false Christian and come to see the one and only true Jesus of Nazareth. Praise the Lord!

Edited by faithfulserv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus said, I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.

 

I believe this and chose to forget the other thing I said about I know I have it now implying I can lose it. I shouldn't have said that, because I know I cannot lose it.

Forgetting is not repenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not repented of saying "religion is death" and "religion is not a good thing" for the Bible says "pure religion is undefiled before God" and your profile states you are "believer without religion." A believer without religion is a believer in a false faith since religion is the way to God.

 

You have not repented of saying God drags people into salvation when you said "God draws it means to drag" as you admit you "agree with [some] of Calvinism." But all 5 points of Calvinism are false starting with Total depravity which you admit you believe in. How can a Totally depraved necessitates irresistibly imposed salvation since they are Totally depraved, but God never forces salvation onto anyone. And how evil to preterition, that is, pass over others, not giving them sufficient grace to have the free choice. What love is that?

 

And you have not repented of saying "As far as once saved always saved.... I can find Scripture...to both...but I know I have it now." Forgetting you said this is not the same as repenting of it.

 

You said you agree with some or all of the 5 points of Calvinism

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741183-the-writers-of-luke-john-and-matthew-about-the-cross/?p=1279755

You said you are not sure if you believe in the God who keeps people once saved always saved

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/page-4?do=findComment&comment=1279802

You said religion is not a good thing

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/?p=1279688

 

May Muslims come to Christ by being turned off by a false Christian and come to see the one and only true Jesus of Nazareth. Praise the Lord!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgetting those things that are behind and pressing toward the prize of the high calling in Christ. I recant of giving anyone the notion that I can lose my salvation. I always knew I cannot. I just said I can give you Scriptures that say "He that endures to the end shall be saved and that we should work out our own salvation with fear and trembling." That is not my doubting my salvation. Do you deny those Scriptures?

Phil. 3 is not saying forgetting those things you have not repented of. How silly. It's about striving for what's ahead having repented of those things in the past something you are unwilling to do because you are not a Christian. You think you are dying rather than having died on the cross with Christ. Do you deny the Scriptures?

 

You're such a double talker claiming now you always knew you could not lose salvation when for most of the last couple of days you have been saying you could lose salvation. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not repented of saying "religion is death" and "religion is not a good thing" for the Bible says "pure religion is undefiled before God" and your profile states you are "believer without religion." True repentance is followed by appropriate behavior and not saying one thing then turning around and saying the opposite. A believer without religion is a believer in a false faith since religion is the way to God. Perhaps you are one of those who claim there are different ways to God without pure religion.

 

You have not repented of saying God drags people into salvation when you said "God draws it means to drag" as you admit you "agree with [some] of Calvinism" and "the jury is still out in your mind." Evil spirits gain strongholds in your mind to hold such evil thoughts that the jury is still out for you. God never coerces His love. That would not be love at all. All 5 points of Calvinism are false starting with Total depravity. How can a Totally depraved person freely choose Christ? Total depravity necessitates irresistibly imposed salvation and preterion, that is, passing over others, not giving them sufficient grace to have the free choice. What love is that? And you are considering this faith? Surely you are not saved.

 

And you have not repented of saying "As far as once saved always saved.... I can find Scripture...to both...but I know I have it now." Forgetting you said this is not the same as repenting of it. God never said to not repent and just forget. You are greatly deceived. This false belief, therefore, will keep cropping up in your doubtful unsaved heart.

 

You said you agree with some or all of the 5 points of Calvinism

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741183-the-writers-of-luke-john-and-matthew-about-the-cross/?p=1279755

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/?p=1279688

 

You said you are not sure if you believe in the God who keeps people once saved always saved

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/page-4?do=findComment&comment=1279802

You said religion is not a good thing

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/?p=1279688

 

May Muslims come to Christ realizing there are false Christians worshiping a false Christ, and you need not become one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct about not forgetting what needs repentance, but we are to lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, (forgetting those things which are behind) looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith.

 

Heb. 12 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

When Scripture starts with Therefore, we ought to find out what it is there for!

 

Prove I said I could lose my salvation.

 

I said there are certain Scriptures that one can say alludes to one losing their salvation that I don't fully understand, but you will not find me making an explicit statement that I can lose my salvation, because deep down I believe I cannot. There is no repentance needed for not understanding Scriptures fully. Be rebuked for judging those for whom Christ died.

 

You are loved

You're missing the point. The point is you have not repented of your false beliefs of your false Christ as noted below. You seem to be having a conversation with yourself which is selfish and self-engrossed instead of being personal like Jesus was responding to others as they have points to be made such as noting you have not repented of these sins below. Don't deflect away from the problem at hand that you are so far unwilling to face.

 

You have not repented of saying "religion is death" and "religion is not a good thing" for the Bible says "pure religion is undefiled before God" and your profile states you are "believer without religion." True repentance is followed by repentant action not saying one thing then turning around and saying the opposite. A believer without religion is a believer in a false faith since religion is the way to God. Perhaps you are one of those who claim there are different ways to God without pure religion.

 

You have not repented of saying God drags people into salvation when you said "God draws it means to drag" as you admit you "agree with [some] of Calvinism" and "the jury is still out in your mind." Evil spirits gain strongholds in your mind to hold such evil thoughts that the jury is still out for you. God never coerces His love. That would not be love at all. All 5 points of Calvinism are false starting with Total depravity. How can a Totally depraved person freely choose Christ? Total depravity necessitates irresistibly imposed salvation and preterition, that is, passing over others, not giving them sufficient grace to have the free choice either. What love is that? And you are considering this faith? Surely you are not saved that you would consider such evil.

 

And you have not repented of saying "As far as once saved always saved.... I can find Scripture...to both...but I know I have it now." Forgetting you said this is not the same as repenting of it. God never said to not repent and just forget. You are greatly deceived. This false belief, therefore, will keep cropping up in your doubtful unsaved heart.

 

You said you agree with some or all of the 5 points of Calvinism

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741183-the-writers-of-luke-john-and-matthew-about-the-cross/?p=1279755

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/?p=1279688

 

You said you are not sure if you believe in the God who keeps people once saved always saved

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/page-4?do=findComment&comment=1279802

You said religion is not a good thing

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/741182-matthew-1621-says-jesus-says-he-would-be-killed/?p=1279688

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

    • By Absolute truth
      Difficulties, Contradictions and Problems in the Crucifixion tale

      by Ibn Anwar

      ".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 lifetime, 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 12:1-8). 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]

      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 15:4-8)

      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 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.
       
      Further reading:
      http://harunyahya.com/en/Articles/33216/various-contradictions-in-the-four
    • By faithfulserv
      Luke 18:31,32 - Jesus took the twelve aside and told them, 'We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles, they will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him, and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.'
       
      John 12:30-32 - This voice was for your benefit, not mine. Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself". He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
       
      JESUS WILLINGLY WENT TO THE CROSSMatthew 26:53 - "Do you not think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more that twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"
       
      Matthew 26:39 - "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
       
      John 10:18 - "No man takes it (his life) from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father".
    • By faithfulserv
      Matthew 16:21 - From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
       
      If Jesus is predicting His death then why not believe it?
    • By faithfulserv
      Why did Allah Deceive the Apostles?

      If Jesus didn't die a violent and imminent death that makes him a false prophet because he prophesied he would be killed. But the Koran says Jesus is a great prophet, and thus, the Koran would be discredited. If Jesus did die such a death then he is indeed a great prophet, but this would contradict the Koran which says he didn't die on the cross. So either way, it seems to me the Koran is disproven. I don't know any scholars who would place the Koran as a more credible source over the New Testament about Jesus. Historians value sources that are nearest to the event and by eyewitnesses.

      It is also said that Allah made Jesus appear to be dead even though he wasn't really dead then Jesus was healed. Since the disciples truly believed Jesus was killed and his corpse transferred into a mortal body, this makes Allah a deceiver of his followers. Even if Jesus never clarified what Allah did it still created a false religion on the basis of being deceitful and so Allah's followers should be deceitful like Allah which is unethical. If Allah deceived his first century followers whom the Koran refers to as Muslims then how can today's Muslims be confident that he is not deceiving them now six centuries later and beyond?

      Muslims believe Jesus never event went to the cross despite dozens of documents in the first and second century that testify that he did. My question, therefore, is what evidence does Muhammad have six centuries later that Jesus didn't go to the cross?

      Muslims also believe the Apostles were deceived by Satan in thinking Jesus died on the cross and that they saw him resurrected 3 days later and over 40 days before his ascension. Of course God would not deceive them so it must be Satan, but how could the Apostles be deceived by something like that?

      I haven't seen an explanations how they were deceived.
×