The Cross and the Falsification of Islam

By Samuel Inbaraja

Sura 4:156-159 states:

 

“Allah set a seal upon them owing to their unbelief, so they shall not believe except a few. And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Marium a grievous calumny. And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa  son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and  they killed him not for sure. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. Andthere is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of  resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them.”

The Quran claims that Jesus was not killed. It denies the death of Jesus on the cross of Calvary.

The Crucifixion of Jesus attested by both biblical and extra-biblical evidences.
Cross Islam

1.Biblical Evidence:

Eye-witnesses record

  • Sleepless night of trial in three places – High Priest to Pilate to Herod and Back to Pilate.
  • After being ordered to be executed Jesus was ‘scourged’ by Romans and exhausted by being sent to various places.
  • Carries the Cross to Golgotha – Unable – helped by Simon of Cyrene.
  • Crucified between two criminals  – Crucifixion  – Difficulty to breathing – Break legs – Cannot breath
  • Submits his Spirit to God – Breathes his last
  • Centurion finds he is dead –No respiration – so does not break his bones –Spear thrust into the sides– Water and blood gush out
  • Pilate asks to check if he is dead before handing over to Joseph of Arimathea. Ref:Mark 15:45
  • Death doubly confirmed in eye witness testimony in  the Gospel narratives
  • Earliest Traditions in the New Testament contained in 1 Corinthians 15, date back to early part of the third decade of the first century.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles (1 Corinthians 15: 3- 7)

Skeptical Scholar John Dominic Crossan says that the death of Jesus “is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”

2. Scientific Proof 

crucifixion

 “Jesus of Nazareth underwent Jewish and Roman trials, was flogged, and was sentenced to death by crucifixion. The scourging produced deep stripe like lacerations and appreciable blood loss, and it probably set the stage for hypovolemic shock, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha. At the site of crucifixion, his wrists were nailed to the patibulum and, after the patibulum was lifted onto the upright post (stipes), his feet were nailed to the stipes. The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respirations. Accordingly, death resulted primarily from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. Jesus’ death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier’s spear into his side. Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross.”

—  Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA 1986;255:1455-1463)

3. Extra – biblical Evidence

“All human efforts . . . of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus , and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.” – Tacitus

“after him whom they still worship—the man who was crucified in Palestine for  introducing this new cult into the world” – Lucian of Samosata

“In the third book of his Histories, Thallus calls this darkness a solar eclipse. In my opinion, this is nonsense because Jesus died at the time of a full moon, which necessitates a “wonderful sign,” or miracle, instead.” – Julius Africanus .

“What advantage did the Jews gain by executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished” –  Mara bar Serapon

“And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;”  –  Josephus, Jewish Historian

“On (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover Jesus the Nazarene was hanged. And a herald wentforth before him 40 days (heralding): Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel (to idolatry). Whoever knows anything in his defense, may come and state it. But since they did not find anything in his defense, they hanged him on (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover.” – Babylonian Talmud

 

Conclusion

The Quran claims to be the perfect inerrant revelation of God.The Quran denies the death of Christ. History confirms the death of Christ. Therefore Quran is not inerrant; Quran is not the revelation of God. So Mohammed the messenger who delivered the message in the Quran and claimed to be a prophet from God is a False Prophet and Islam which claims to be the true way is proved to be false religion. Thus the death of Christ on the Cross falsifies the Quran and proves that Mohammed is a false prophet and disproves Islam as false cult.

Christian Apologetics Alliance BLOG Banner

Visit the Christan Apologetics Alliance Here ?


Resource for Greater Impact

Answering Islam DVD

Answering Islam (DVD)

Answering Islam (Download)


Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
45 replies
  1. Mark Chandler says:

    You cannot claim to be a Skeptic unless you use an actual skeptical stance. Therefor you cannot use one religion’s book to attack another religion’s book. Where is your history? Anything other than use one religion to attack another religion.

    Reply
  2. Andy Ryan says:

    You’ve got three sources of refutation:

    1) Biblical proof.
    This amounts to ‘he said/she said’. It’s not convincing to say that one holy book is wrong because another holy book contradicts it. One might equally say that the Koran denying the crucifixion of Jesus is proof that the Bible is wrong.

    2) Scientific proof. What’s the source of this so-called ‘scientific proof’ provided by the JAMA? Is the article just relating a medic’s expert opinion on the effect of crucifixion on a human body? What’s the ‘scientific’ evidence it provides that Jesus was crucified?

    3) Extra-Biblical proof. You provide many sources here. I’ve picked a couple at random:
    a) the Babylonian Talmud. Obviously wikipedia isn’t foolproof, but a quick look shows that this is not an uncontroversial source. Peter Schäfer states that the rabbinic literature in question are from a later Amoraic period and may have drawn on the Christian gospels, and may have been written as responses to them. That doesn’t make it a good source – it’s basically repeating and reacting to the Gospels
    b) Josephus. Wiki again: Scholarly opinion varies on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration.
    If Christians altered it after the fact then again it’s not particularly reliable as a source.

    All that aside, I noted recently this site pushing a meme along the lines of “My teacher said that science contradicts some parts of Genesis, but because he never rose from the dead I trust Jesus instead”. Now, what’s to stop a Muslim saying “Why should I trust any evidence you present me over the word of Allah, who created the whole universe?”.

    Reply
  3. Jim A K Bailey says:

    Sad, The article has much merit **BUT** it is fraut with as much PAGAN Word Smiting as is the War-Plan we know as qur’an – PLEASE re-do the article from His MOST Original Scriptures as BEST we know KNOW, confirmed via the Daed Sea Scrolls – IE BACK2Original Scripture2BOnward, Jim

    Reply
  4. Jeremy says:

    Andy

    with regards to your points

    1. you claim its mere he said/she said and you are right its two sources claiming different facts. The problem is at the end of your point your doing the same thing when stating “One might equally say that the Koran denying the crucifixion of Jesus is proof that the Bible is wrong” while that is a valid point you’ve done nothing to alleviate the problem of he said/she said and only restated what the Koran affirms. your opinion is that neither is true and you have knowledge that they are both wrong. since merely stating they are both wrong adds to the problem of he said/she said by adding what you said, you will need to defend why your speaking truth or just mere opinion. Please state why the Bible or Koran is wrong on the event recorded.

    2. There is no scientific evidence as to whether or not Jesus was crucified but historic evidence matches as to what Romans did to people in Jesus’ position. That’s not say they couldn’t have killed Him in another way just that the Bible records his death as happening a certain way and history of roman punishment matches what the Bible says happened. You would need to prove that Jesus didnt die this way by giving evidence as why He didnt die this way. Keep in mind that coming up with different ways of death is possible but need to backed up with evidence other wise its just another empty opinion. furthermore it may be one medical experts opinion as to how the death occurs from crucifixion but its also a fact that nobody lived through crucifixion if it happened as it was meant to kill the person, historically its true and even in the Jesus story He does die because of the roman practice of crucifixion. I would encourage you to research how death by crucifixion ensured the death rather than just asking for resources go look them up.

    3. fine you dont want to accept the extra biblical sources no problem. provide extra Biblical sources claiming that the event recorded is false. Im sure your going to claim I just made a fallacy but what source contradicts the claim without claiming that sources we have are made up. It may be true that all the sources are wrong just show that they are, by giving sources that explicit state on their own that the event is false not by claiming that the sources given are untrue. I understand that they may be untrue but shouldnt there be sources that state that Jesus was not crucified or didnt die outside of the Bible, only the Koran states this. you could say that He was a nobody in his time therefore there is no source contradicting this which is fine just find some other source from a later time saying its not true.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      1) “while that is a valid point you’ve done nothing to alleviate the problem of he said/she said and only restated what the Koran affirms”
      It’s not my problem to solve, Jeremy. It’s a problem with the article author’s claim, not mine.

      2) “There is no scientific evidence as to whether or not Jesus was crucified”
      Then you accept my second point.

      3) “Fine you dont want to accept the extra biblical sources no problem”
      It’s not about what I want – the evidence is either reliable or it isn’t.

      “shouldnt there be sources that state that Jesus was not crucified”
      There’s not much outside the bible to confirm that Jesus existed in the first place. I’m not saying he didn’t, but the burden of proof rests on people making claims about what Jesus did. So am I claiming that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? No, I can’t prove a negative. I can’t prove that Mohammed didn’t convert to Christianity on his death bed, but it’s up to the people making the claims to provide the supporting evidence. It’s not enough to say that others can’t prove it DIDN’T happen.

      Reply
  5. Ed Vaessen says:

    We have no independent sources that confirm the crucifixion of Jesus. Actually, they are all hearsay, a recording of what christians later told about him. Furthermore, the details in the gospels about the crucifixion are so contradictory and unbelievable that they cannot be regarded as reliable witness stories.
    But the core of the story may still be true. At least christians have always believed that.
    Mohammed (or whatever people stood at the base of the Quran because the story of its origin is full of fantasy too) obviously knew about the story and that christians believed it. But he did not accept it. In that respect he even went further then the christians in his surrounding that only differed from the mainstream christianity in that they did not accept the dogma of the Trinity, which was a heretical novelty in their eyes. Mohammed acknowledges that the crucifixion appeared as real to the jewish witnesses, whom he didn’t like very much by the way.
    Mohammed’s reasons for doing so? They are a mystery.

    Reply
  6. Jeremy says:

    Andy

    1. Your only saying its he said/she said because you dont accept that either source is reliable and both equally false. Because you dont accept either you state its he said/she said, so explain why the Koran or Bible is False on the event recorded in both. Your making a claim in the positive that its he said/she said which ought to be defended or your statement can equally be counted as he said/she said.

    2. You asked if there was scientific proof Jesus was crucified and I said no. then you conveniently accept that as my admitting your point is true. very dishonest of you. I clearly state it cant be scientifically proven Jesus was crucified which is completely acceptable from all angles. As to how one actually dies from crucifixion and what specifically caused the death at that time is again not provable because we cant examine the body, which is why I didnt say you could prove he died specifically from the crucifixion which think is also fair. what is known is that if he were crucified he surely died as crucifixion was meant to kill without exception, which can be proven medically and historically. the crucifixion could’ve caused his death in many ways but whats sure is that crucifixion killed everybody who was crucified.

    3. Really, so your saying the sources can be reliable but that doesnt matter because you dont want them to be reliable for you to accept them. Moreover you wont accept them because they dont meet the criteria of the needs you dont have. Please answer this question: Can you totally reject truth if you want to? Hitchens said he would reject God ” the truth” if he came to know he was real.

    your here on this forum to make a statement, which is theres not enough information to make a decision. As much time as you spend on here not making a decision on the issue your pressing very hard at convincing people you cant prove a negative. you also seem to want to prove there is no way for anybody to know anything about Jesus, and then say Im not saying He didnt exist. A little peculiar dont you think.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      1) “Your only saying its he said/she said because you dont accept that either source is reliable and both equally false. ”

      I didn’t say that. I said that the article is citing the claims of one holy book to debunk the claims of another, when one could equally do it the other way around. Hence: “he said/she said”.

      2) “You asked if there was scientific proof Jesus was crucified and I said no. then you conveniently accept that as my admitting your point is true. very dishonest of you.”

      That’s not very polite. I’m not being dishonest. The article had a heading of ‘Scientific proof’. I questioned whether the info the author cited counted as scientific proof. If you agree with me that it doesn’t then there’s not much more to discuss with regards to the author’s claim, which is what I am writing here to discuss.

      3) “Really, so your saying the sources can be reliable but that doesnt matter because you dont want them to be reliable for you to accept them.”

      That’s not what I said at all. Feel free to scroll up and read what I actually said.

      4) “Hitchens said he would reject God ” the truth” if he came to know he was real.”

      I’ll assume you’re referring to Christopher Hitchens rather than his brother Peter. The former said he wouldn’t worship God if he came to know he was real. Not the same thing as rejecting “the truth”.

      5) “your here on this forum to make a statement, which is theres not enough information to make a decision”

      I’m looking at the claims presented by the author of the article.

      6) “your pressing very hard at convincing people you cant prove a negative.”

      It’s a self-evident proposition, and not one that needs pressing.

      7) “whats sure is that crucifixion killed everybody who was crucified”

      Why is that sure? The wounds it inflicts are not immediately fatal. Sure you’re dead three days later but there’s no reason that someone removed from the cross before death couldn’t recover. I’m not saying that happened with Jesus, but it’s not ‘sure’ that everyone who was nailed up on the cross ended up dying.

      Reply
  7. Jeremy says:

    Andy

    1. I understand what your saying, he said/she said. you also add to the problem by stating that what others have said is he said/she said because you said. Now you have made an argument in the positive against, so it has to be defended, or just say I don’t accept them and move on. nobody learns anything by you saying its he said/she said.

    2.it was dishonest because I tried to address everything within point 2. that you put forth, but you chose to just take the part where I agreed with you and accept that was my conceding the point. Can I agree that scientifically He died on a cross, no. I also said scientifically we can prove that Crucifixion kills people if carried out as reported, which is all the writer is trying to say. So scientifically we can say that if Jesus were crucified and it was carried out as reported then it killed him. you have chosen to wave your hand at the fact that crucifixion part because you don’t believe he was crucified because you dont believe the source is reliable. That’s fine, but you cant just ignore my whole argument because if your going to pick and chose which parts seem to prove your point when im not saying that at all then its dishonest. It would be like me doing this:

    you said: Sure you’re dead three days later but there’s no reason that someone removed from the cross before death couldn’t recover

    and me doing this

    me: so you do agree that crucifixion kills

    I just took you response out of context

    3. “It’s not about what I want – the evidence is either reliable or it isn’t”
    Now please explain so that I dont put words in your mouth, because I was saying that you seem to be saying you dont want sources to be reliable because its irrelevant as to what you want, the source stands on its own without your approval.

    4. Actually that is exactly what one is doing by not worshiping God rejecting the truth that He is the only one to be worshiped. Is worship the thing you have a problem with? You seem to be after the truth therefore believe its the ultimate, is that true?

    5. So your not saying that there isn’t enough information about the claims made in the article to accept any of it as true.

    6. what Im saying is you spend a lot of time on here to only say ” I cant prove a negative”. Would you say its true you cant prove God doesnt exist.

    7. So are you saying that Crucifixion does kill though the time it takes varies? What proof do you have that not everybody that was crucified wasnt killed by crucifixion?

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      Your last response is too long to go through point by point. Just go back to my original post, which had three pretty simple points.

      In short though, you don’t get burden of proof. Eg, if you claim that, say, it’s impossible for someone to be on the cross for five minutes then be rescued and survive, that’s your claim to defend. It’s a huge stretch to say that Hitchens saying he doesn’t feel the God of the Bible is worth worshipping even if He does exist, means Hitchens is ‘rejecting the truth’. No, he just doesn’t think the God of the Bible deserves worship.

      Your point 3 is so far from what I was saying that it seems a waste of time to attempt to correct it. Suffice it to say: that’s nothing like what I was saying.

      Reply
      • toby says:

        No, he just doesn’t think the God of the Bible deserves worship.
        For me, this brings up the question: If there’s a god of any type do they need, deserve, or require worship? I don’t see how one gets from “there’s a creator that made the universe” to “I must praise this creator everyday for everything always.”

        Reply
        • Kalmaro says:

          I suppose that depends on your view on morality.

          If God established it then someone *should* want to worship him. Otherwise, it’s all just subjective on whether this diety should be worshiped or not.

          We you use a word like ‘deserve’, that is implying that there is some standard needing to be followed.

          Reply
          • Ed Vaessen says:

            “We you use a word like ‘deserve’, that is implying that there is some standard needing to be followed.”

            A subjective standard, to be precise. That is what we all do and we all differ about what is the best morality.

          • toby says:

            I don’t see how one jumps from “a god gave us right and wrong” to “we must worship this being”.

            There’s nothing intrinsic in the idea of a god or creator that necessitates that it be worshiped. The only reason people do is because their texts say that their god wants it to be so. It’s very clearly an issue of power and control. The very distressing thing about humans is that in some ways we desire tyranny. Either to wield the power ourselves or to be under it’s umbrella and shielded from having to do any of our own thinking or work.

          • Ed Vaessen says:

            “The totalitarian phenomenon is not to be understood without making an allowance for the thesis that some important part of every society consists of people who actively want tyranny: either to exercise it themselves or – much more mysteriously – to submit to it.”

            -Jean Francois Revel

  8. Ed Vaessen says:

    Who was Mohammed? We don’t know. What this quite mysterious man ever said and did is unknown, the more because his name is not so much a name as it is a title. It could have been anyone. Jesus however is a name and most likely there was one with that name who died at the cross.
    But the difference matters not. As far as we can guess, whoever Mohammed and Jesus were, the details of their life has been very much invented after they died.
    It seems that the Arabs (the Ismaelites in the eyes of Jews and Christians), the ruling class in the 7th and 8th century in Syria and Palestine, added their own ideas to the Jewish and Christian dogma’s. There were things that they could not stomach. The idea of an omnipotent God delivering himself to his enemies was preposterous in their eyes. It still is. Subscribe to any islamic discussion site and you will read a text like this.
    “Is that a God? Hahahaha. A real God would have given them a lesson! He would not have himself being humiliated at the cross!”
    The Arab mentality has no room for a God, however powerful, sacrificing himself for some greater good. They thinks in terms of winners and losers. And when you die at the cross, you are a loser.

    That, I think, is the reason why the Quran cannot accept the death of Isa at the cross.

    Reply
  9. Jeremy says:

    Andy

    Ok fine

    Sure it could be that he was on the cross for five minutes and then taken down, but you are the one suggesting that and you have to prove that. You will have to disprove with some sort of evidence that thats what happened and not just proposing that it couldve happened that way. I will accept that you dont accept the Bible as a reliable source you arent talking about the source being reliable your talking about the possiblity that he was removed from the cross in which case you will have to show that romans did this some times and why or provide a source contradicting the Bible.

    Fine Hitchens does believe the God of the Bible is worth worship therefore he rejects him, therefore he rejects God as they one being worthy of worship. Worship meaning meaning he accepts God for who he is and claims to be. Hitchens as you stated claims he will not accept God if he exists thats not to say Hitchens will believe God is not God He just wont accept him.

    thats also why I asked you to explain yourself as to why “It’s not about what I want – the evidence is either reliable or it isn’t” is coherent with your not accepting it. Doesnt one have to come to believe in something because they have some sort of need for that belief, I mena you would want to believe in something is true because its the closest you can to having the truth or are you ok with believing in untrue things.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      “but you are the one suggesting that and you have to prove that”

      I’m not suggesting that – I’m questioning the other guy’s claim that it’s impossible to survive crucifixion.

      “Worship meaning meaning he accepts God for who he is and claims to be”

      You’re using a definition of worship that I’ve never heard before. More common: “the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity”. One can accept that a deity exists and not feel reverence or adoration for said deity. If it turned out that the Islamic God was real, would you adore him? Perhaps you would, but I wouldn’t.

      “Doesnt one have to come to believe in something because they have some sort of need for that belief”
      Not me.

      “are you ok with believing in untrue things”
      No, that’s why I’m an atheist.

      Reply
  10. Jeremy says:

    Andy

    this guy made a claim supported by historical evidence and scientific evidence. You suggested that its also plausible he was removed from the cross and lived. If your going to convince others that they are wrong, the strength of your evidence is going to have to be stronger than just stating ” thats not scientific proof” and then offer none of your own. You will have to show why and how its more probable that Jesus was spared crucifixion, show scientifically why crucifixion wouldnt have killed him if it was carried out the way the Bible reports it was and also how roman history shows crucifxion was carried out and the number of people that survived or that were spared after having begun the punishment. I understand you dont accept the narrative but once you start making claims someone is presenting false information the burden of proof is on you to prove.

    Right its true you dont have to give reverence and adoration, which is why Hitchens wont worship him therefore he rejects God and the truth that he is the only one worthy of worship. He wont accept God’s claim of being worthy of worship therefore he will not worship him, which is fine with God he has to respect Hitchens’ wishes.

    this was or last:

    “Doesnt one have to come to believe in something because they have some sort of need for that belief”
    Not me.

    “are you ok with believing in untrue things”
    No, that’s why I’m an atheist.

    So you dont have a want or a need to not believe in untrue things. Please explain how this follows given that you just stated your not ok with believing untrue things. Surely you would agree that believing in true things is more desirable than false things or else why debate anything.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      “this guy made a claim supported by historical evidence and scientific evidence”

      Where? The historian Josephus reports rescuing a man he knew from crucifixion and the man surviving. Therefore it’s false to say that no-one survived crucifixion.

      “which is why Hitchens wont worship him therefore he rejects God and the truth that he is the only one worthy of worship”

      Who says that that is a ‘truth’ rather than simply your opinion? Hitchens didn’t claim that others were worthy of worship, he disagreed with the whole concept of worship. This isn’t the same as rejecting truth or facts.

      “Please explain how this follows given that you just stated your not ok with believing untrue things. ”

      I stated no such thing. You asked if someone has to believe in something because they have a need for it (rather than because it’s true) and I said not me. In other words, I don’t believe in something because I need that belief. Rather, I believe in something because I accept it’s truth hood.

      I think we’re going round in circles a bit – you’re defining words in odd ways and saying I said things that I never said.

      Reply
  11. Ed Vaessen says:

    “Right its true you dont have to give reverence and adoration, which is why Hitchens wont worship him therefore he rejects God and the truth that he is the only one worthy of worship. He wont accept God’s claim of being worthy of worship therefore he will not worship him, which is fine with God he has to respect Hitchens’ wishes. ”

    Wasn’t Hitchens simply saying that this YAHWEH of the OT has all the characteristics of a childish, celestial bully?
    If I read about this deity who, according to the Bible, kills tens of thousands of king David’s subjects only because that king wanted a census, I do not feel much reason to start a worship. If then some Christians invent excuses for that behavior, I ask myself what kind of crimes they will excuse only because the criminal is somehow per definition ‘good’.

    Reply
  12. Jeremy says:

    Andy

    Ok Josephus claims to have rescued three people form crucifixion, and Ill accept that as he gave a detailed account of the events that transpired. He gives detailed accounts of groups of people being crucified which I will accept, no problem. Now in his account of Jesus being crucified he mentions that Jesus was crucified and mentions nothing of him being saved from it by anyone. Why does he not? Since Josephus gives detailed accounts about other events and people why would he be so careless as to not mention that Jesus somehow survived the crucifixion by being removed and cared for so that he may survive?

    Reply
    • Jeremy says:

      one more thing, that people that did survive only survived because the punishment was stopped and were allowed to cared for. If the process had continued then they would have died. He doesnt mention that process was stopped in Jesus’ case.

      Reply
  13. Jeremy says:

    Andy

    So because Josephus reports that he was able to intervene and prevent the death of only 1 person thats enough evidence to debunk that Jesus was crucified and died, given that Josephus reports that Jesus was crucified? If Josephus had not intervened would those 3 men have died? Was crucifixion meant to kill or was it just a really bad punishment that if recipients lived they lived if they died they died? whats your evidence that somebody intervened on be half of Jesus? whats your evidence that after the intervention Jesus still survived? Whats your evidence that Josephus omitted that Jesus survived the crucifixion and why would he do that?

    Reply
  14. Jeremy says:

    Ill grant you that somebody could survive crucifixion if it was intervened, but that is an intervention not the punishment taken to its full extent which was death as it was capital punishment.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      If you accept that then you accept that the blog is in error in saying that it’s impossible to survive crucifixion. Whether Jesus survived is a separate question – I was addressing that particular claim. You appear to accept my point, meaning we have little else to discuss.

      Reply
  15. Jeremy says:

    Andy

    I Have to say your being very myopic about this. I’ve already conceded that one could survive if someone intervened at any point because that would stop the process, that doesn’t mean that the person still wouldn’t die from the injuries sustained and the probability of surviving is very low which you demonstrated by your reference to the 3 men that Josephus was able save from the punishment though 2 of 3 died with 1 surviving which is probably a miracle in of itself given what now crucifixion and the trauma that is placed on the body.Its historically and scientifically accurate to say that everyone that was crucified if the punishment were carried out in full died as it was capital punishment. Now no source except the Quran claims someone intervened and Jesus went on living. If your going to say that Jesus could’ve survived if someone intervened then your going to have to give evidence that thats what happened which you have not done. You originally question whether its scientifically accurate that Jesus died by crucifixion. Its accurate to say scientifically based on what we know about crucifixion that if he were he died. its accurate to say historically we have different sources confirming he was crucified and died. If the fact that someone couldve intervened which means he couldve survived is enough evidence for you not to accept the biblical account which has been your claim thats fine, but you’ve totally neglected everything else ive said in reference to this piece of evidence and once again have only taken what you want claimed victory. Again not saying that your wrong that its possible to survive crucifixion given special circumstances but at least give me the courtesy of acknowledging that based on the evidence we do have its at least likely he was crucified and died. The blog never explicitly states its impossible to survive crucifixion you did. Ive been very accommodating in addressing your claim because thats where you wanted to take it. All you have done is taken the information and ” questioned” it and then stated that its untrue because you feel its possible one could survive crucifixion. What evidence supports that Jesus was not crucified and that he died from it?

    Reply
  16. Ed Vaessen says:

    Jeremy:
    “its accurate to say historically we have different sources confirming he was crucified and died.”

    There are no independent sources. It is only the gospels and they contain details that make clear that they can hardly be considered as reliable witness reports. The rest is hearsay and/or interpolation.

    Reply
  17. Jeremy says:

    Ed

    You can read the passage without the parts that were supposedly added in or modified by Christians and you still have Josephus talking about Jesus being crucified and confirming the story in the Bible. I can grant you that maybe some Christians messed with the document in order to make it seem to fit the narrative in the Bible, though you need to prove that. But that doesnt mean that its not reporting Jesus was crucified and is the Jesus the Bible talks about. Read the passage without the things that were supposedly added in and tell me if it doesnt still confirm the Bible. One other question do you believe the rest of Josephus’ writings are reliable?

    Reply
  18. Ed Vaessen says:

    Jeremy:
    “You can read the passage without the parts that were supposedly added in or modified by Christians and you still have Josephus talking about Jesus being crucified and confirming the story in the Bible. I can grant you that maybe some Christians messed with the document in order to make it seem to fit the narrative in the Bible, though you need to prove that. But that doesnt mean that its not reporting Jesus was crucified and is the Jesus the Bible talks about. Read the passage without the things that were supposedly added in and tell me if it doesnt still confirm the Bible. One other question do you believe the rest of Josephus’ writings are reliable?”

    I regard the whole passage as a fraud. The fact that at least some things obviously have been added should already have rung all alarm bells concerning its veracity.

    According to Matthew 4:23-25, Jesus was famous:
    “23Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. 24News about Him spread all over Syria, and people brought to Him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering acute pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed — and He healed them. 25The large crowds that followed Him came from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan.…”

    On this famous man, Josephus spends no more than a few lines.
    It doesn’t make much sense.

    The crucifixion may still have happened, but the interpolated Josephus is no reliable source for it.

    Reply
  19. Jeremy says:

    ED

    you didnt answer if you thought the rest of Josephus was reliable and you didnt answer whether or not if you take out the supposed forgery part it still confirms Jesus. Ill do you one better, Josephus even mentioning Jesus is curious sense Josephus was a Jew and would hardly care about what happened to this blasphemer. But given that his does mention him Josephus does give more information than you would think a Jew would about a blasphemer, talking about his followers and Pilate who had him crucified. why specifically mention him at all? That being said, your asking a man to give credence to the claims about Jesus and his works, of which he didnt believe possible of Jesus being able to commit. The crucifixion may still have happened? What sources are you basing this on? your whole argument is that there arent any reliable sources that can confirm Jesus’ crucifixion so why make that statement.

    Reply
  20. Jeremy says:

    Ed

    In reference to these questions ” you didnt answer if you thought the rest of Josephus was reliable and you didnt answer whether or not if you take out the supposed forgery part it still confirms Jesus” you dont explain anything you just say its suspect and a fraud.

    Reply
  21. Ed Vaessen says:

    Jeremy:
    “you didnt answer if you thought the rest of Josephus was reliable and you didnt answer whether or not if you take out the supposed forgery part it still confirms Jesus. ”

    Please stop these silly debating tactics like “you didn’t answer”.

    Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *