Jesus denies the crucifixion!

Jesus himself explicitly denies the crucifixion

Crucifixion Series(Part 2)

by Ibn Anwar

In this exposition we shall witness an account from the lips of Jesus himself that clearly discards his alleged crucifixion. We will prove from Jesus’ own words that he could not have possibly suffered at the hands of his enemies. Let us begin with the proof text for our premise namely Luke 13:33.

The context of Luke 13:33 starts at verse 31. It says that the Pharisees came to Jesus and warns him of an impending threat from Herod who supposedly wants him dead. In response to this warning Jesus responds,

12. Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.

13. In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day – for surely no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem!

The last part in verse 13 is a clear negation by Jesus regarding the impossibility of a Prophet to die outside of Jerusalem. The prophet that is mentioned is a reference to his own person. The verse itself and the context does not allow a different interpretation unless the Christians wish to tell us that Moses died in Jerusalem which he obviously did not. There may be Christians out there who think that Jesus was not a prophet(and I have met quite a few myself). Let us assure them that Jesus was indeed a prophet according to their own books,

“And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.”(Matthew 21:11)

“But Jesus said to them, “A PROPHET is not without honour except in his own country and his own house.”(Matthew 13:57)

“But Jesus said to them, “A PROPHET is not without honour except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”(Mark 6:4)

“Then he said, “Assuredly, I say to you, no PROPHET is accepted in his own country.”(Luke 4:24)

“And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:”(Luke 24:19)

“And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us”(Luke 7:16)

“Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.”(John 7:40)

Some of you may raise the question, “If Jesus was speaking about himself in Luke 13:33 surely he would have said something like , ‘I cannot die outside of Jerusalem’ instead of ‘a prophet cannot die outside of Jeruslame’ which is in the third person.” That is a legitimate question. And the answer to that is given in the verses you just read i.e. Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4 and Luke 4:24. They are all relating about the same incident and Jesus is clearly addressing himself as a prophet in the third person. Thus the question raised has secured our premise further, alhamdulillah.

Clutching at straws some Christians(of whom I have met) may try to insist that the verse does not totally negate the possibility of Jesus dying outside of Jerusalem and that it just says that he cannot like in the KJV, NASB and other translations of the verse. First of all, granted that the KJV and the NASB have translated the verses correctly what does the word ‘cannot’ mean? If I said, “I cannot go to the USA” does it mean I can? It’s a silly question I know, but the question raised by the Christians in this regard is also silly. The word cannot is a negation which means not able to or not possible. In fact, that is what the Greek says. The verse reads,

πλὴν δεῖ με σήμερον καὶ αὔριον καὶ τῇ ἐχομένῃ πορεύεσθαι, ὅτι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται προφήτην ἀπολέσθαι ἔξω Ἱερουσαλήμ

The words in question are the ones highlighted which transliterates into ou endechetai. The particle ou is a negative and it can mean no, not or even never. The verb enedechetai means possible. Joined together it means not possible. Therefore, Young’s Literal Translation correctly translates the verse thus,

“but it behoveth me to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following, to go on, because it is not possible for a prophet to perish out of Jerusalem.”

God’s Word Translation also translates it in the following manner,

“But I must be on my way today, tomorrow, and the next day. It’s not possible for a prophet to die outside Jerusalem.”

So “cannot” as found in the KJV, NASB etc. or “no prophet can” as found in the NIV translation for the verse really mean NOT POSSIBLE.

Before we move on let us reiterate it one more time lest we forget, that is, the prophet mentioned in verse 13 is no other than Jesus himself.

By now, you must be wondering what the point is. In fact, some of you may be sitting in your chair saying to the screen, “Okay, so what if Jesus said he cannot die outside of Jerusalem? What does that prove?” Well, the point will be unveiled very shortly.

Where did Jesus allegedly die?

According to the records that we have in the gospels he supposedly died at a place called Golgotha in Aramaic, Calvary in Latin and Kranious Topos in Greek(Matthew 27:23, Mark 15:22, Luke 23:33 and John 19:17). Let’s just take one of the four.

“And when they came to a place called Gol’gotha (which means the place of a skull),”

So, according to the verse Jesus was taken to Golgotha to be crucified.

Where was Golgotha?

According to an article by Keith W. Stump published on two Christian websites http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/golgotha.htm and http://www.towards-success.com/dejnarde_files/golgotha.htm Golgotha was outside of Jerusalem.

“What does the Bible tell us about the location? The Gospel writers call the place where Jesus was crucified Golgotha—an Aramaic word meaning “the skull.” Calvary is the Latin form of the word. Scripture does not reveal the precise location of Golgotha. It simply states that Jesus’ crucifixion took place outside the city of Jerusalem, though near it (John 19:20; Hebrews 13:12). Jewish law did not permit executions and burials inside the city.” (emphasis added)

HarperCollins’ Bible Dictionary informs,

“John 19:20 and Jewish and Roman execution customs indicate that it was located outside of Jerusalem’s city walls”. (Paul J. Achtemeier. HarperCollins’ Bible Dictionary(1996). HarperCollins. p. 164)

Mercer Dictionary of the Bible tells us,

“Jewish and Roman law would likely have required capital punishment to take place outside the city walls (John 19:20; Heb 13:12).” (Watson E. Mills. Mercer Dictionary of the Bible(1990). Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press. p. 128)

According to Encyclopedia Brittanica Golgotha was outside Jerusalem,

“The hill of execution was outside the city walls of Jerusalem, apparently near a road and not far from the sepulchre where Jesus was buried.” (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/238060/Golgotha) (emphasis added)

According to Online Etymology Dictionary it was near Jerusalem,

hill near Jerusalem,” via L. and Gk., from Aramaic gulgulta, lit. “place of the skull,” from Heb. gulgoleth “skull.” So called in reference to its shape (see Calvary)” (GOLGOTHA.” Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 23 Apr. 2009. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/GOLGOTHA>.) (emphasis added)

In John 19:20 which is cited by Keith W. Stump in his article we read that the place was NEAR the city(Jerusalem),

“Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek.”

The word is eggus which literally means near. What does it mean to be near? Near indicates being outside! If you said, “I am near my house.” What does it mean? Does it mean you’re inside your house? NO. It means you’re in close proximity to your house, but it is outside. If you said that you are near New York, you are not inside it but rather outside. So according to John Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha which was near(outside) of Jerusalem. If that is true then it is in clear opposition to Jesus’ own testimony in Luke 13:33 which we read and analysed earlier. There are really only two options for reconciliation.

1. Jesus lied in Luke 13:33

2. Jesus did not lie in Luke 13:33.

In Matthew 7:24 Jesus says,”Everyone, them, who listens to this sayings of Mine and puts them into practice will be like a thoughtful man who built his house on the rock.” Who is your master? Is he Jesus or the anonymous author of John? My master is Jesus and I would like to follow and believe in what he says. What about you? Luke 13:33 clearly denies what is told about his alleged crucifixion. Unless he died in Jerusalem the whole incident was no incident at all. In fact, it was a lie. Jesus was never crucified nor killed as the Qur’an clearly declares in Chapter 4.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

27 Responses to “Jesus denies the crucifixion!”

  1. LD says:

    For example…….say my address is 12345 Somewhere City but I actually live 2 miles outside of town. So, according to your logic, if I tell someone I live in Somewhere City, I’m either lying or I don’t know what I’m talking about. Your logic is not sound.

    When someone says it’s raining cats and dogs, who is crazy, the person who said it or the person who believes cats and dogs are falling from the sky.

    There is a HUGE difference between general language that makes a point and language that is used to express general truths.

  2. Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings,
    LD, what you have said does not make much sense to me. You claim that my logic is unsound, yet your counter argument doesn’t even make any sense lol. Thanks for the try anyway. If you’re living 2 miles outside of New York and you claim you live in New York then you’re a liar. It’s as simple as that.

  3. Mansoor_ali says:

    The same argument was also raised by Brother Shabir Ally in his debate with Dr.James White.

    According to Brother Shabir Ally

    Taken from http://shabirally.com/report.php

    “…In the cross examination, I pointed to another piece of evidence to indicate that Jesus did not die on the cross. According to John’s Gospel, the crucifixion occurred outside of Jerusalem. But Luke’s Gospel has a remarkable episode in which Jesus says he must press on to Jerusalem, because “it is impossible for a prophet to die outside of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33). I asked James if there were not prophets who did in fact die outside of Jerusalem. He answered that indeed there were. But he added that Jesus meant only himself as the prophet who could not die outside of Jerusalem. Now, logically, if Jesus cannot die outside of Jerusalem, and the cross was outside of Jerusalem, then Jesus did not die on the cross. James explained that when Jesus mentioned Jerusalem he did not mean strictly Jerusalem. In that case, he claims, it does not matter that he actually was crucified and died just outside the city gates. I leave it to reviewers of the debate to comment on this part of our discussion…

    Again Brother Shabir Ally comment on this issue at http://shabirally.com/line_of_oct23.php

    Luke 13:33 as evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross

    I will not belabor the point here. But James asserts that this point was only marginally related to the Atonement. I would have expected him to comment on the point I was making. I was using this verse as evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross. In fairness, I did explain in my earlier report that James has an explanation with which he may be satisfied that my point does not hold. Yet I press forward with the point here as being at least a piece of evidence that points to a reality other than that to which the Gospels wish to convey. They assure us that Jesus died on the cross. But this verse has Jesus saying that it is impossible for a prophet to die outside of Jerusalem. And John’s Gospel does say that the crucifixion took place outside of Jerusalem. James agrees that Jesus said this in self-reference. This means that Jesus himself is the prophet who cannot die outside of that city. It follows logically that Jesus did not die on the cross. James dismisses this implication with the assumption that Jesus did not mean to speak strictly of Jerusalem but to allow for Jerusalem and its immediate environs to be included in the mention of Jerusalem. Yet it remains that this is a verse that should be placed on the side of the evidence that supports the view that Jesus did not die on the cross…

    Thanks

  4. truthspeaker12 says:

    i dont think we have jesus saying anywhere that he will be resurrected. the only place he talked about this was when he compared himself with jonah. however jonah was alive and that was the miracle! the “3 days and 3 nights” itself seems to be another copout.

    Also notice this , Paul giving the earliest account of resurrection 1 Corinthians 15:4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures << where in the scriptures do we actually find this?? 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. << is it a joke, cephas is peter and he was among the 12, no??

  5. cxjiek says:

    read in context of the whole Bible please

    truthspeaker12, hello?

    Luk 18:33 And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise.”

    could it mean then to the other 12?

  6. Ray says:

    First of all the verse Luke 13:33 says “..out of Jerusalem” Not outside. (KJV)(ASB)(NIV)(WB) Big difference. Christ was not “out” of Jersalem he was out of Bethlehem. The Majority of translations state “out”. In reference to Ibn Anwar’s response to LD. LD made sense to me. My mailing address says Waterford, MI however I live in a suburb called Drayton Plains. When I am asked where I am from I say both. It is refernced numerous times in the bible that Christ came from Bethlehem and Nazereth, he was called a man from Gallilee. Obviously address were not the same as they were in Christ’s time. However, the same priciples apply. Please do some more research before you start to trampling on other people’s belief.

  7. Ray says:

    In response to truthspeaker12’s comment about how Christ never said that he would be resurected. “i dont think we have jesus saying anywhere that he will be resurrected” Jesus said this in John 2:19 “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Clearly he was speking of himself and the temple of the body. This is backed up by 4 other accounts in the bible of him being accused of saying these things. Mark 26:61, Matt 27:40, Mark 14:58, and Mark 15:29. Once again if you do not know all the facts please read and then comment.

  8. Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings,
    First of all, I would like to thank you for your attempts. With regards to the verse and the word “out” you’re being selective with the translations. In the translation given in the article from the New International Version it clearly says “outside”. The same is found in the NASB and WEB. In the Hebrew version it says מחוץ which literally means outside. In the Arabic Bible the word خَارِجًا is used which literally means outside also. In the Greek Bible the adverb used is έξω (exo) which is synonymou with απέξω and πλευρά, all of which mean outside. However, let us say for the sake of argument that it’s really “out” instead of “outside”. Let us see what Cambdrige Dictionary says,
    out (OUTSIDE)
    adverb
    outside a building or room:
    It’s bitterly cold out, today.
    Would you like to wait out here, and the doctor will come and fetch you in a minute?
    Danger! Keep out (= Do not enter)!

    the adverb out means outside(noun) in case you have never studied English which seems to be the case lol.

    In conclusion, your argument is no argument at all.

    As for your defense of LD ….thanks, but your attempt does not prove anything at all.

    With regards to John 2:19 …well, I don’t see the word kill or crucified in that verse, do you? The word there is the verb λυσατε which literally means “to loosen”. It also means to break. If my body were broken as a result of an accident does that necessitate death? No, it does not. And that is with the provision that the verse is talking about the physical body. The noun is naos which means temple or shrine i.e. a place of worship. If Jesus had meant the human body surely he would have said σώμα.. In fact, the Jews’ response was that they thought Jesus was referring to the temple in Jerusalem. I find it very interesting that when it suits the Christian he/she will say that the Jews’ response was the correct one such as John 10 31 onwards where they thought or accused Jesus of claiming divinity by what he said. But, when it does not suit you the negative is given and you say that their response was wrong. In any case, nowhere does Jesus clearly say that he will be resurrected. Nice try…but, try harder next time and yes I do usually know what I’m talking about..if I did not I would not talk about it.

  9. Ibn Anwar says:

    Cxjiek…that verse is in black if you open the Red Lettered Bible where the words of Jesus(allegedly) are highlighted in red. That means Jesus did not say that. Who said it? The author of Luke? Luke was not an eye-witness to the events. So that verse was written after the fact and not before. It does not amount to proof of a foretelling of Jesus’ alleged death at the hands of the Romans.

  10. Mansoor_ali says:

    John 2:19 “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

    My Response:

    “The divine teacher is called, is tested by the “adversary”, gathers disciples, heals the sick, preaches the Good News about God’s kingdom, finally runs afoul of his bitter enemies, suffers, dies, and is resurrected after three days. This is the total pattern of the sun god in all the ancient dramas”. (The Pagan Christ, p. 145)

    Visit:

    “Is there Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus” The debate between Dr.Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kSl8L6Lehk

  11. satya bol says:

    its is visible truth that like their prophet muhamamd,muslims will do anything to cover the truth.Even allah cudnt explain what happened on the cross that now Muslims have to reap for it by preparing many theories and cursing each others.

  12. Ibn Anwar says:

    satya..you have not responded to the article at all lol

  13. Abdul-Qadar says:

    Great article brother,

    I use the contents of this article on christians – they are gobsmacked, lol. I confess, I learnt this here. Jazak’ALLAH Ibn Anwar.

    Jesus supports the Quranic narrative, Alhamdolillah.

    With Dua,
    A-Q.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Assalamu’alaikum,
      Jazakumullah khair ya akhi. I hope you are always in the best of health. I truly appreciate it that you take the time to leave snippets of thoughts on the articles published. And I am very glad to hear that you’re also in the field i.e. spreading the word(of truth) and have found some of the things on Unveiling Christianity beneficial to your efforts. May Allah s.w.t. continue to give you sound understanding and assist you in your endeavours. Ameen.

      Ibn Anwar

  14. Ar198 says:

    “I’m sorry but I do not think you have actually read the New Testament very well. If you have you would know that none of the four gospels actually have Jesus saying that he has come to die for the sins of humanity(in any explicit manner) nor from the anonymous writers themselves.”

    Explicit

    Matthew 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you,
    Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

    John 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
    ***John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”

    Implied

    Luke 22:20 He did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you.

    Mark 14:24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

    Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    John 12:23 And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
    John 12:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
    John 12:25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

  15. Ibn Anwar says:

    Greetings,
    Greetings,
    Let us state for the record that Ar198 has totally ignored everything that the above article on Luke 13:33 discusses and also most of the points in my response to his comment under the Lost Books of the OT article. He instead chose to reply to one of the things I said in my response to him namely that he has not really read the Bible because of his claim that every book in the NT supports the idea that Jesus died for the sins of people which I had shown to be nothing more than a fallacy. Let us have a look at the verses he has put forward and see whether they actually support his view or not.

    Ar198 claims that the following verses are explicit,

    Matthew 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you,
    Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

    When did this event take place Ar198? Was it after the alleged crucifixion or before? The answer is of course before the alleged crucifixion. So what in the world was he talking about when he said that “THIS IS MY BLOOD…”? Did he injure himself and poured out his blood for them to drink? What in the world was he doing? You may argue that it’s a prophecy to which I would ask you which parts of the verses do we take literally and which parts metaphorically? Why and how? You see these two verses are not explicit! We can only arrive to the interpretation that you have concerning them if we had the presupposition that you do i.e. Jesus died for the sins of people. I don’t see in the verses Jesus saying that he has come to die for people’s sins. What I see is that it talks about his blood at that time which was not poured out (literally) in any way and how it cam remit sins. Notice also that it does not say that “it will be poured out”. If it was a prophecy surely it would be in the future tense but it seems as if Jesus is talking about something that has taken place! This then disproves the alleged crucifixion. Further more, this is the author of Matthew’s way to say that Jesus is fulfilling an OT doctrine which was basically something that the author of Matthew loves so much(writing verses after verses to mirror OT verses e.g. fulfilling prophecies). Verse 28 is written in such a way as to mirror Exodus 24:8 where we have Moses supposedly saying, “behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
    I would like to see where Moses said that the blood was to be drunk like how a vampire drinks blood. Can you show me that Ar198? What Matthew has done is that he has radically expanded the doctrine of ‘atonement’ so much so that he did not realize that he was contradicting Levicitus 17:14,
    because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.”
    The same message is seen in Genesis 9:4,
    “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”
    What was Jesus doing contradicting these verses? Do you not find it strange that the disciples were not asking Jesus what he meant when there are two clear verses in the OT telling them NOT to drink the blood of any creature? These two verses are seriously problematic unless you extrapolate it to such an extent that you render the words therein meaningless and introduce new meanings by doing amazing semantics gymnastics. In any case I do not see how the verses are explicit in saying that Jesus had come to die for the sins of humans. In addition, we see that both Luke and Mark do not contain the part about “remission of sins” in their version of the incident in Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20. This then seems to indicate that Matthew interpolated the part about sin remission. Could it all have been faked? I think the discussion thus far seems to point to that direction.

    What about 8:23 and 24? Where in the world is his alleged crucifixion and atonement for sins implied there??? It says you have to believe in him(that I am he) that’s all lol.

    What about the following verse?
    Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    This verse can only be true if the disciples did not serve Jesus. Putting aside the incident of Jesus washing their feet did they not serve Jesus in all his endeavours during his ministry? Did Mary not serve him when he was a babe? I don’t see where the verse actually says that Jesus has come to DIE? It says that he is to “give” his life. If I said I have given my life to religion does that mean I have been killed or died? This is no proof at all. Further more, according to classical commentaries on Jesus being a “ransom” for many is that the devil was holding people ransom and God had to pay that ransom for satan to release us from his grasp. That is the idea of ransom after all. Ransom means to hold someone captive for payment. This means that satan had humanity as captives for thousands of years before the alleged crucifixion. If that is the case then the implication is that satan has power over God which then contradicts James when it says, “God cannot be tempted by evil.” It would also contradict Job 2:22 and Luke 1:4,5. If satan had everyone captives there could not have been righteousness and innocence, yet Job is described as perfect and morally innocent and Zecharias and Elizabeth as following in all the commandments doing no wrong(sinless). Unfortunately, you have just dug a deeper grave Ar198. John 12:23-25 in no way shows Jesus saying he’s going to die by crucifixion to remit the sins of people. You have not at been able to disprove my proposition that,
    “I’m sorry but I do not think you have actually read the New Testament very well. If you have you would know that none of the four gospels actually have Jesus saying that he has come to die for the sins of humanity(in any explicit manner) nor from the anonymous writers themselves.”

    • Ar198 says:

      Arr.. I’m going to disappoint – but out of everything… look at “Jesus being a ransom for many” I actually have substance for that… the rest or all weak responses…. your a strong debater… :/

      “Ar198 claims that the following verses are explicit – Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

      “Was it after the alleged crucifixion or before? The answer is of course before the alleged crucifixion. So what in the world was he talking about when he said that “THIS IS MY BLOOD…?” Did he injure himself and poured out his blood for them to drink? What in the world was he doing? You may argue that it’s a prophecy to which I would ask you which parts of the verses do we take literally and which parts metaphorically? I don’t see in the verses Jesus saying that he has come to die for people’s sins. What I see is that it talks about his blood at that time which was not poured out (literally) in any way and how it cam remit sins. Notice also that it does not say that “it will be poured out”. If it was a prophecy surely it would be in the future tense but it seems as if Jesus is talking about something that has taken place! This then disproves the alleged crucifixion.”

      Well it could be literal… in we take into account church doctrine – during communion – the wine is literally transmitted into His blood… (I know this is a very weak explanation…)

      “I would like to see where Moses said that the blood was to be drunk like how a vampire drinks blood. Can you show me that Ar198? What Matthew has done is that he has radically expanded the doctrine of ‘atonement’ so much so that he did not realize that he was contradicting Levicitus 17:14,because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.” The same message is seen in Genesis 9:4,”Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”

      I sadly also have nothing for this… I could only say that maybe there are special circumstances, which negate the overall rules.

      Exo 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

      Deu 5:8 “‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
      —————
      Exo 25:18 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19: Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends.

      In addition, we see that both Luke and Mark do not contain the part about “remission of sins” in their version of the incident in Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20. This then seems to indicate that Matthew interpolated the part about sin remission. Could it all have been faked? I think the discussion thus far seems to point to that direction.

      Yes, Matthew 26:28 is the only account that talks about the forgiveness of sins with the connection of blood for communion.

      “What about the following verse? – Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

      This verse can only be true if the disciples did not serve Jesus. Putting aside the incident of Jesus washing their feet did they not serve Jesus in all his endeavours during his ministry? Did Mary not serve him when he was a babe? I don’t see where the verse actually says that Jesus has come to DIE? It says that he is to “give” his life. If I said I have given my life to religion does that mean I have been killed or died? This is no proof at all. Further more, according to classical commentaries on Jesus being a “ransom” for many is that the devil was holding people ransom and God had to pay that ransom for satan to release us from his grasp. That is the idea of ransom after all. Ransom means to hold someone captive for payment. This means that satan had humanity as captives for thousands of years before the alleged crucifixion. If that is the case then the implication is that satan has power over God which then contradicts James when it says, “God cannot be tempted by evil.” It would also contradict Job 2:22 and Luke 1:4,5. If satan had everyone captives there could not have been righteousness and innocence, yet Job is described as perfect and morally innocent and Zecharias and Elizabeth as following in all the commandments doing no wrong(sinless).

      In response to what is said above, I may actually have some substance to support “Jesus being a ransom for many”… The ransom isn’t about Satan or Satan having power over God… but rather what the power of death has over us.

      Job, Zachariah, Elizabeth, Abraham, David, and all other people when they died being holy or non-holy – whether they had “forgiveness” or “repentance” they went to Sheol. When They died and they went to the grave or pit (HadesLand of the Dead). However, there are a few exceptions to this rule such as Enoch, and Elijah (who God took up to Heaven before they died).. and I believe one more maybe? But for most people when they died, they did not have true salvation which is in the Kingdom of Heaven. (One of the things that John the Baptist preached was that the kingdom of Heaven was at hand)

      Hosea has a prophesy which states that people would live before God in Heaven – depending on how you interpret it – it could also be a prophesy which alludes to Jesus…

      Hos 6:1 “Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up. Hos 6:2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.

      In the Psalms of David – it is said that God would ransom those David’s soul from Sheol.

      Psa 49:15 But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me. Selah

      Earlier on it is stated that a man cannot ransom another man… this would allude to the idea that if Jesus’ death for true salvation meant anything He would have to be more than a mere man.

      Psa 49:7 Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life,

      It’s one of the reasons why Christians believe Jesus went to hellHadesSheol to preach to the dead to raise them up to the Kingdom of Heaven.

      1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 1Pe 3:19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,

      “Unfortunately, you have just dug a deeper grave Ar198. John 12:23-25 in no way shows Jesus saying he’s going to die by crucifixion to remit the sins of people. You have not at been able to disprove my proposition that, “I’m sorry but I do not think you have actually read the New Testament very well. If you have you would know that none of the four gospels actually have Jesus saying that he has come to die for the sins of humanity(in any explicit manner) nor from the anonymous writers themselves.”

      Ok… I concede… I remove my stance that the gospels have any “explicit” sayings that connect Jesus dying for sins, but I still believe that it is implied within the gospels.

      Other passages in the gospel which may allude to salvation from Jesus.

      I know you’ve gone into Isaiah 53… but even if we say that all of Isaiah isn’t in reference to Jesus… two of the gospel writers do make a connection with the last part of it..

      Luk 22:37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”
      Mar 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

      Isa 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

      Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

  16. Ar198 says:

    Philosophically, one could argue that Jesus did indeed die inside Jerusalem.

    It was Inside Jerusalem where the trial was held and he was sentenced to die, were the verdict was cast, and a lot of Jesus’ suffering came from him being in Jerusalem. Judas a friend of Jesus betrayed him in Jerusalem; he was publicly rejected, and tortured by an account of the gospel in Jerusalem.

    Though – the deed was completed outside Jerusalem, all the events that took place that put Jesus on the cross was stated inside Jerusalem.

    So, it could be argued that Jesus did not perish till he went to Jerusalem and that he perished inside Jerusalem.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Greetings,
      I apologise for the delayed response. I’ve been really busy lately. Your argument is indeed quite novel. No Christian before you that I have met have actually produced such an interesting rebuttal. However, it is absolutely and without a doubt wrong. The word used in the verse is ‘πορεύεσθαι’ which literally means to die(without any metaphorical meaning embedded in it) and as the phrase previous to it says(which I discussed in the article) ‘it is not possible’ i.e. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR A PROPHET TO DIE OUTSIDE OF JERUSALEM. In addition, the context repels the idea of some metaphorical interpretation as the verse that immediately follow(34) pointedly says ‘O, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you…’. Were they metaphorically killed and metaphoricall stoned? Is that what Jesus meant? No, that is certainly not what he meant. Clearly, the Jews were literally rebellious against their own prophets and even went to the extent of literally killing them.
      You mentioned that Jesus was pronounced guilty at the trial inside of Jerusalem. Well, if you read the Mishnah this is what it says,
      ” 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(tomorrow) with a 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]. (Sanhedrin 32a)

      This information smacks on the idea that Jesus was tried by the Jewish Sanhedrin in the middle of the night and condemned to die having supposedly committed a capital crime i.e. blasphemy. Christian theologians themselves have struggled with this information found in the gospel finding it hard to reconcile with the fact that trials would not be held by the Jews in such a fashion.

      The fact of the matter is that Jesus died supposedly at Golgotha which contradicts the Luke 13:33 which clearly shows Jesus saying that HE CANNOT die OUTSIDE of Jerusalem. The problem remains unreconciled in my view. Thanks anyway for th try Ar198 :p.

      • Ar198 says:

        Well – I don’t know.. I’ll have to look at some biblical commentary… because there has to be another view on this…

        Luke 13:32 alludes to something happening on a third day – “on the third day I shall finish my work.” or “Complete my work”… some would say that is in reference to the resurrection at least.

        Later on in Luke chapter 18 it does however make explicit references that Jesus would indeed be killed… Also in two other places in Luke…

        Luke 18:31 Jesus took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, “Listen! We are going to Jerusalem where everything the prophets wrote about the Son of Man will come true. 32 He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33 On the third day he will rise again.”

        Luke 24:7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ”

        Luke 24:
        46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        Greetings again,
        Some of the Bible commentaries that I have looked at totally skips verse 33 in Luke 13 such as the Liberty Bible commentary. Perhaps the reason is because the editors found the text to be problematic? Shabir Ally also posed the verse to Dr. James White to the latter’s bewilderment.
        You are postong verses and passages from elsewhere in the gospel. I know that Jesus is mentioned to have been killed and that there are some verses that appear to show Jesus saying that he would, but here we have a verse which has Jesus clearly saying something that contravenes the alleged crucifixion event. We have been discussing this for weeks now and yet you’re still struggling to explain the verse. Citing a thousand verses mentioned elsewhere will not help your case, unless you can provide a cogent explanation for the verse in question itself. Now, what about Luke 18:31? Well, where exactly did the prophets write that “The Son of Man ill suffer through all that and that after being killed he will rise back up on the third day”? Will you be citing Isaiah 53? lol….please have a look at my article on that passage before using it here. If you can’t show me clearly where it is taught by the prophets that the Son of Man will undergo tremendous humiliation, killed and then rise up again on the third day then we must conclude that the text is nothing more than a fabrication.

  17. Abul Layth says:

    Salamu ‘Alaykum,

    So I have been at my in-law’s house (they are catholic), and I presented this argument, and I spent most of my time proving that Christ was a Prophet.

    Good argument! 🙂

    Abul Layth

  18. Ar198 says:

    Don’t mean to keep casting ‘Necro’ on this forum… but I was thinking about this a little bit more…

    Luk 13:33 Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.’

    I know you argued that this statement cannot be metapharical or figurative… but if we take this passage literally it totally becomes untrue.

    “I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following” – If we take this portion literally then, it would mean that from this day that the statement was made – Jesus only has two days of ministry left.

    Instead it is a figurative statement which could simply mean.. Jesus has but a short time till the end of his ministry.

    “for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.” If taken literally, is also untrue because there have been other prophets who have been slain without even being near Jerusalem.

    Matthew has an interesting addition and omission to Luke 13. (The whole Herod dialog is not there)

    Mat 23:35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
    Mat 23:36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
    Mat 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!
    Mat 23:38 See, your house is left to you desolate.
    Mat 23:39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'”

    …With this connection it could mean to imply that the blood of all the prophets who were slain is on the hands of those in Jerusalem and their generation. That the house of ‘IsraelJerusalem‘ isn’t in good standing because of disbelief and this guilt.

    Even though this is somewhat of a weak argument… again if Luke 13:33-34 is taken to be absolutely literal…. then it becomes completely untrue.

  19. peacecrusader says:

    Jesus Christ was executed by crucifixion. He was nailed on the cross flanked by two thieves. The coup de grace was delivered when Longinus, a Roman centurion, pierced His side with his lance to hasten His death.

    Jesus was crucified on a Thursday, August 17, 1 BC, the eve of the New Moon Festival. This was revealed by the Holy Spirit Himself which I heard in 1983. I did a study from 1999 to 2003 wherein I was able to prove that the date is true and correct. He was 32 solar years old or 33 lunar years when He died. For details, you may read my blog at wordpress.

  20. islam1979 says:

    Please brother Ibn Anwar reply to “Ar198 said
    July 24, 2009 at 11:23 am “

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      there’s really nothing to reply to. Ar198 admitted that his argument is weak, “Even though this is somewhat of a weak argument… again if Luke 13:33-34 is taken to be absolutely literal…. then it becomes completely untrue.”

      Ar198 like so many Christians have to perform extraordinary semantics gymnastics to twist and twirl to wriggle themselves out of conundrums. Look at what he says,
      ““I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following” – If we take this portion literally then, it would mean that from this day that the statement was made – Jesus only has two days of ministry left.”

      I don’t see anywhere in that portion where Jesus is saying that that is the duration of his ministry. The context does not help Ar198 in any way. The fact of the matter is that Luke 13:33 poses a great difficulty for the crucifixion myth as illustrated in the article.

Leave a Reply