Did Jesus really die on the cross?

The Apparent Death Hypothesis according to Dr. William Lane Craig

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)

This article is a response to a section of a debate that took place on the subject of the resurrection of Jesus between the Islamic scholar Shabir Ally and the Christian scholar Dr. William Lane Craig which can be viewed here. The following is a transcript of the section that this article aims at addressing:

“The first one, the crucifixion is universally agreed upon by all historians and here Shabir says that he doesn’t deny that Jesus was crucified but what he suggests is that he was taken down alive from the cross and God raised him out of the tomb into heaven. This is a fantastic hypothesis and an incredible concession on the part of an Islamic theologian to Christian claims about Jesus. Basically it is an attempt to resurrect the old Apparent Death theory which was popular among German rationalists during the late 17th hundreds and I’ve got to say no historian or New Testament scholar would defend this Apparent Death theory today. It’s sort of the theological equivalent of the flat earth theory. Why is this hypothesis abandoned? Well, one thing is that there is simply no doubt that the crucifixion was fatal. The Romans were professional executioners and they ensured the deaths of their victims by a spear thrust into the heart of the victim so that even if the victim had simply lapsed into a comatose state on the cross he would certainly be killed by the thrust of the spear into his heart and this is exactly what happened in Jesus’ case.”

Is the crucifixion universally agreed upon by all historians? No, it isn’t. Bruno Bauer, J.M. Robertson, Paul-Louis Couchoud, Earl Doherty, Tom Harpur and G.A. Wells have all argued against the existence of Jesus although Wells have actually revised his original position. It goes without saying that if Jesus did not exist then his alleged crucifixion did not happen. This means that there are those from among non-Muslim historians and Biblical scholars who do in fact disagree that Jesus was historically crucified, hence demolishing Dr. Craig’s confident declaration that it is “universally agreed upon by all historians”. Dr. Craig describes Shabir Ally’s proposition as fantastic without actually specifically qualifying what he meant by this. In any case, is the idea that Jesus survived the crucifixion and was later assumed to heaven any more stupendous than the Christian claim that Jesus came back alive after being dead for three days and then went up into heaven? Both are remarkable theological claims and for a Christian to suggest that Shabir’s proposition is fantastic to the point of unbelief is unwarranted. To compare the so called Apparent Death theory to the flat earth theory is simply absurd. Whilst there is possibility for the former in the realm of logic and reason there is no possibility for the latter. Dr. Craig said that the Apparent Death theory has been successfully refuted and buried because “there is simply no doubt that the crucifixion was fatal”. At this point it is clear that Dr. Craig forgot Mark 15:44. Here we have Pilate himself who was responsible for condemning Jesus to death doubting that Jesus had died. The verse says, “Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died.” If as Dr. Craig would have it that there is no doubt that the crucifixion was fatal then why was Pilate surprised at hearing Jesus’ alleged death? The answer is quite simple, that is, the crucifixion is only truly fatal if the victim is left on the cross for a sufficiently long enough period which was not at all the case with Jesus. In fact, we know that there are those who were fixed on the cross for three days and yet they were still alive. A particularly pertinent account is recorded by Josephus. The New Testament expert, Geza Vermes mentions the story:

“Less extreme believers in Jesus’ survival argue that recovery after crucifixion was possible, as it is attested by Flavius Josephus. In his autobiography, Josephus recalls that on an occassion when he was returning to the capital, he saw many crucified Jews by the roadside. Among them he recognized three of his friends who were still alive. On his pleading, Titus, the future emperor, promptly ordered them to be taken down and treated by Roman physicians, and as a result one of the three survived (Life 420).” [1]

If ordinary men were able to survive for over three days on the cross and upon release one was actually able to recuperate why exactly did Jesus die in much less than half a day? Oh, it was because of the spear thrust that Dr. Craig mentioned right? Prof. Raymond E. Brown who is hailed by Dr. Craig as one of the best New Testament scholars of modern times deny that there was actually a spear thrust  in John 19.34. Rather, he believes that it  merely involved prodding and nothing more than that. Prof. Brown says, “Crucifixion pierces no vital organ, and so inevitably one must wonder what physical or organic factor caused Jesus to die. The extremely brief Gospel descriptions of the death of Jesus are of little help in answering this question.” [2] The quotation clearly shows that Prof. Brown unlike Dr. Craig does not consider spear thrusting(that penetrates the flesh) as part of the crucifixion process. Many other Biblical scholars simply deny that there was any such incident of piercing or thrusting. Geza Vermes opines, “One may further speculate that the piercing of his side by one of the executioners was a later invention introduced by John (Jn 19:34) to dispel doubts about whether Jesus was dead.” [3] Around the time when the Gospel of John was being written a group of Gnostics called the Docetists were  in operation circulating doubts concerning Jesus’ actual and physical death on the cross, hence the introduction of the spear thrusting into the story was meant to quell those doubts. The New American Bible states, “John probably emphasizes these verses to show the reality of Jesus’ death, against the Docetist heretics.” [4]  Willem Nicol states, “…it is probable that 1:14; 6:53ff. and 19:34 contain a hidden polemic against docetists.” [5] (emphasis added) One need only read the next few lines after verse 34 to confirm that this is John’s unique invention. The author of John connects the spear thrust to an Old Testament  scriptural text that was supposedly fulfilled in the incident, “They will look on the one they have pierced”. This text is extracted from Zechariah 12:10:

“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.”

A careful reading of the above verse’s context will lead any reasonable reader to the understanding that it is not about Jesus. It is about Jerusalem that is besieged by aggressive surrounding nations all of which will suffer total destruction according to God’s plan. It has nothing to do with salvation through the sacrifice of a single individual called Jesus. The verse itself from which the line in John 19:37 is taken from tells us that the ones responsible for the piercing “will mourn for him…and grieve bitterly…” Where did the Sanhedrin, the centurions or Pilate mourn and grieve bitterly for Jesus’ death? The context then goes on to say that on that day the whole of Jerusalem including all the clans and their wives will start weeping/crying. Where is this recorded exactly? Which clan cried for Jesus on the day of his crucifixion and piercing? The answer is none which brings us to the ultimate conclusion that the spear thrusting is nothing more than John’s own invention. In conclusion, the reason that invalidates the idea that Jesus could have survived the crucifixion as presented by Dr. William Lane Craig is untenable and without foundation.


[1] Vermes, G. (2008). The Resurrection: history and myth. United States: Doubleday. p. 145

[2] Brown, R. E. (1994). The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. p. 1088

[3] Vermes, G. Op. Cit.

[4] The New American Bible, Revised Edition (2011). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 1236

[5] Nicol, W. (1972). The Semeia in the fourth gospel: Tradition and redaction. Brill Archive. p. 135

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

15 Responses to “Did Jesus really die on the cross?”

  1. Rocky says:

    why should we trust the gospel claims that the romans COMPLETELY destroyed jesus on the cross? WHY ARE WE TRUSTING thier RECOLLECTIONS when thier RECOLLECTIONS DESPERATELY NEED jesus to COMPLETELY DIE. i tell you the truth john did not TRUST the other gospels RECOLLECTIONS thats why he makes SURE THE ROMAN pierces jesus’ SIDE. pilates SUPRISE that jesus DIED FASTER THAN any other CRIMINAL was ringing alarm bells in johns christian head.

    “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.

    37With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.d

    38The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.e 39And when the centurion,f who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died,* he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!

    “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”

    50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.d

    51At that moment the curtain of the templee was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks splitf 52and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and* went into the holy cityg and appeared to many people.

    54When the centurion and those with him who were guardingh Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”i

    44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

    47 The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.” 48 When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away.

    IS THERE EVEN A hint that a roman guard changed his mind and decided to stab jesus’ side? Like i said, whatever sources the gospel writers took , they realised that jesus was not 100 percent destroyed.

  2. Derek Adams says:

    Ibn Anwar said: “If as Dr. Craig would have it that there is no doubt that the crucifixion was fatal then why was Pilate surprised at hearing Jesus’ alleged death? The answer is quite simple, that is, the crucifixion is only truly fatal if the victim is left on the cross for a sufficiently long enough period which was not at all the case with Jesus.”

    The surprise here was at the amount of time in which it took Jesus to die. Pilate wasn’t questioning the fatal results of crucifixion method. Read again: “Pilate was surprised to hear that he was ALREADY dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had ALREADY died.” You also said: ” why exactly did Jesus die in much less than half a day?”

    The fact that Jesus died earlier than some other individuals who died by crucifixion is evidence against the view that he survived the crucifixion, as the earlier the death the more severely inflicted he was. The fact that he died earlier than some others pressuposes the beating and scourge he received before hand had caused him an earlier death and also possibly implies that he was put to death by piercing without even needing to appeal to John.

    Ibn Anwar you also need to explain why the Roman soldiers let Jesus down alive directly disobeying the orders of Pilate which would have resulted in severe punishment, not only Pilate but also the crowds amassed to have him put to death which they would have been terrified of since even Pilate supplicated to them. You also need to explain how the Roman solider(s) were able to let down Jesus alive right in front of those who were watching at Golgotha. Also what was the motivation to set him free?

    Here let me quickly quote a few of your friends:

    ““The passion of Jesus is part of history.” Geza Vermes

    “One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Ponitus Pilate.” Bart Ehrman

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Dkman: The surprise here was at the amount of time in which it took Jesus to die. Pilate wasn’t questioning the fatal results of crucifixion method. Read again: “Pilate was surprised to hear that he was ALREADY dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had ALREADY died.” You also said: ” why exactly did Jesus die in much less than half a day?”

      My reply:
      The point is that crucifixion in and of itself is not fatal. It is the time factor that is fatal which is why Josephus’ friends were able to survive for three long days. The surprise on Pilate’s part shows that the crucifixion was not meant to be fatal in a short span of time. It was meant to be a long lingering painful death. Is strangling fatal? Yes and no. Yes, it is fatal if the strangulation lasted for a sufficient enough time with the right amount of pressure applied. No, it is not fatal if it lasts for only 5 seconds with mild pressure applied.

      Dkman: The fact that he died earlier than some others presupposes the beating and scourge he received before hand had caused him an earlier death

      My reply:
      presupposes? You’ve been watching Mel Gibson’s The Passion too much. There is no evidence that Jesus was severely punished prior to being placed on the cross. By all accounts he should have stayed alive which is why Pilate was surprised! The presupposition of deadly beating and scourge prior to the crucifixion proper is an assertion based on the presumption of Jesus’ death. One should begin chronologically and if you do that then one should arrive at the same conclusion as Brown, that is, the cause of death is unknown. If we accept that reasonable premise then it is not unreasonable to question whether or not he died in actuality. If one affirms the post crucifixion meetings with Jesus then the reasonable question as posed by Shabir Ally is did he actually die in the first place(apart from the standard delusion hypothesis). The only reason that scholars affirm that Jesus died on the cross is because there is no other source close to Jesus’ time which provides an alternative naturalistic description of Jesus’ death. It should be noted that just because something is written by an ancient writer that does not mean that the information given is accurate e.g. Caesar accused Druids of human sacrifice. If one were to probe Geza Vermes and Ehrman on whether they can be absolutely sure that Jesus truly died on the cross I believe as honest historians they will say no. It is possible and reasonable to believe that Jesus survived the cross given that there is no hard evidence for his actual death. It should be noted that both assumption and resurrection are theological views that are beyond the purview of naturalistic historical analysis.

  3. Dr.Mustafa says:


    The verse which proves that Jesus survived the cross is John 20:27 “then he said to Thomas look at my hand and reach your hand here and put it into my side do not be unbelieving but believing”
    This verse shows that Jesus was showing his wounds which he sustained on cross.
    Before showing how does the presence of wounds on Jesus which he showed to Thomas show that he survived the cross I want to consider the basics of wounds and changes undergoing in a human body after death.
    Definition of wound
    Injury to a part or tissue of the body, especially one caused by physical trauma and characterized by tearing, cutting, piercing, or breaking of the tissue.(1)
    A wound is an area of the body whose normal integrity has been compromised
    Types of wound(2)
    • Puncture, stab
    • Bruise, Contusion (from blunt trauma),
    • Abrasion
    • Incision (inflicted by a sharp object)
    • Laceration (inflicted by a less sharp object like broken glass)
    • Ulcer (a break in epithelial continuity)
    • Avulsion (partial or complete)
    • Degloving (open or closed)
    • Amputation (total, or near total)
    Which wound did Jesus sustained
    So among the above mentioned types of wounds Jesus sustained stab or puncture type of wound.
    Puncture wounds(3)
    It is caused from penetration by long narrow instrument with blunt or pointed ends to the depth of body such as knife, dagger,nail,needle,spear,arrow,screw driver etc .When these objects enter cavity of body they are called penetrating wounds. When weapon enters the body on one side and comes out on other side perforating or through and through wounds result
    Characteristics of puncture wounds(4)
    1)wound will gape if muscle is cut
    2)the depth is greater than the length
    3)the shape of the wound corresponds to the weapon used
    4)margins are clean cut ,lacerated if weapon is blunt pointed
    5)structures cleanly cut
    6)hemorrhage varies usually internal
    7)bones may be punctured
    How many puncture wounds did Jesus sustain
    Now turning to bible, Jesus sustained 3 stab wounds, 2 on both the hands and 1 on side when roman soldier pierced a spear (John 19:34)
    What happens when we get wounded(5)
    In humans after sustaining a wound, the normal physiological process of wound healing starts. Now what is wound healing
    Wound healing(6)
     It is the effort of injured tissues to restore their normal function and structural integrity after injury
     During the effort to restore barriers to fluid loss and infection oftentimes flawless repair is sacrificed because of the urgency to return to function
     Regeneration is in contrast perfect restoration of preexisting architecture in absence of scar formation
     Although regeneration is the goal of wound healing it is found only in embryonic development in lower organisms in certain tissues such as bone and liver
     In adult humans the accuracy of regeneration is sacrificed for speed of repair
    Stages of healing(7)
     Wound healing follows a predictable pattern that can be divided into overlapping phases defined by the cellular populations and biochemical activities into 3 stages
     They are
    stage of inflammation
    stage of proliferation
    stage of maturation
    So Wound healing is a cellular response of the body to heal the wound where in many body cells take part to accomplish the healing

    The cells which take part varies with time .The graph given below shows various cells which take part in healing in relation to time

    How healing occurs(8)
    Healing of wounds is a systematic process where in cells recruit one another by many biochemical signals and bring about growth, maturation and healing of injured tissue through various of the biochemical growth factors
    The diagram given below depicts those biochemical signals which occur between the cells during wound healing

    Why all these basics
    The basic purpose of showing all these is to convey that
    1)Wound healing is a process which occurs at cellular and molecular level
    2)And as we can see it requires a normal haemostatic mechanism of body to occur and it cannot happen in dead people

    What happened to Jesus after sustaining the wounds
    Jesus after sustaining the wounds is believed to have died

    Now coming on to death what it is ?

    Death is of two types(9)
    2)cellular or molecular

    It is complete and irreversible stoppage of circulation, respiration and brain functions
    It is death of cells and tissues individually which takes place one to two hours after stoppage of vital functions. molecular death occur piecemeal. nervous tissue die rapidly within 5 minutes, the muscles live for up to 2 hours

    Mechanism of death/why do people die(10)
    It is due to the physiological or biochemical disturbance produced by the cause of death which is incompatible with life
    Signs of death (11)
    Insensibility, loss of voluntary power, cessation of respiration and circulation
    Cooling, post mortem lividity,rigor mortis occurring early and putrefaction lately

    All of these start few hours after the death(12)

    What happened when Jesus died
    So when Jesus died as said by the Christians all the above mentioned molecular changes which occur after death should start to occur in his body with post mortem changes occurring with them.
    Then as said Jesus resurrected on 3rd day
    He was dead on Friday and resurrected on Sunday.

    Now in view of above scientific facts and John 20:27 we have the following points to consider
    1)When body of Jesus resurrected then there should be reversal of all the molecular changes that occurred after his death in him to normal. It is not that the molecular changes which occurred in him following his death are still persisting in him and he came back to life .
    Same we can consider with Lazarus when Jesus resurrected him he reversed all the changes that occurred in Lazarus after his death .
    Suppose for example Lazarus died of myocardial infarction Jesus reversed the changes occurring after infarction, it is not that the changes of infarction are still persisting and Lazarus came back to life a scientific impossibility as it is scientifically not possible that changes which do not support life are present in him and he is living.
    2 )Now when Jesus came back to life after reversing the molecular changes which occurred in him after his death then his wounds should also be reversed and should not be present on him, as it is because of the wounds and changes in his body after he got the wounds that he died (John 19:34 piercing of his side by roman soldier)and when he is reversing the changes which came after wounds over him then his wounds should also be reversed because
    wounds are the cause and death is the effect and it is not possible that he is reversing the effect without the cause as if cause persist then effects of it will again occur .
    and also because both the wound and changes after death are at molecular level and both are interlinked and reversal of one should lead to the reversal of another
    3)Now when Jesus is showing the wounds to his disciples that means 2 things, either it could be that the wounds are just the same when he sustained it with out any change(with out getting healed) since his death which is a scientific impossibility as we have seen above that the wounds which caused him to die are still present and Jesus cannot be living .
    The other could be that Jesus survived the cross and is showing his disciples healed or healing wounds which he sustained on the cross because as we have seen wound healing never happens in dead people.
    This can be appreciated in John20:26 “and after 8 days were again inside ……” here it is said the disciples along with Thomas met Jesus after 8 days .It is not possible for wounds not to heal for 8 days and remain the same and also not possible for the wounds to not heal for 3days 3 nights when Jesus supposed to have been dead and then again start healing because at the point when he resurrected the wounds will be the same when he sustained it and was the cause of death at that time so the moment he resurrect healed he should again die.
    4)Point 3 can also be appreciated from the statement of Thomas in John 20:25 where he says “unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and put my finger into the print of the nails and put my hand into his side I will not believe “.
    Notice here that Thomas is saying he wants to see the print of nails in Jesus hand because he was not believing Jesus survived the cross and he wants to make sure by seeing the nail prints on Jesus hand which are typical of the puncture wounds.
    Had he thought Jesus to raise from dead he would have not seen for the nails as resurrected bodies will not be having any stigmata of the cause or disease from which they die e.g. Lazarus and also it is scientifically impossible as seen above.
    5)point no 3 can be again appreciated in John 20:17 where Jesus says to Mary when she touches him “do not touch me for I have not yet ascended to my father …”
    Here Jesus says not to touch as he is in pain from the wounds he sustained had it been that Jesus died and resurrected he would not be having pain
    6)It is usually said that the side wound which Jesus received when roman soldier pierced his spear damaged his heart and Jesus died because of this(which is not as I will show later).If for a matter of discussion even if we take it correctly ,then when Jesus resurrected he should be reversing the damage on heart as it is not possible that the damage is there and he is springing back to life. And when he is reversing the damage on heart then there should be no side wound as the damage on heart and on the side are single wound sustained when then soldier pierced Jesus and reversal of one should lead to reversal of another .
    So when Jesus is showing his side wound to his disciples it means he did not die instead he survived the cross and is showing his wounds.

    Thank you
    1)Srb manual of general surgery 3rd edition page 1
    2)Srb manual of general surgery 3rd edition page 1 and 2
    3)Narayan Reddy synopsis of forensic medicine 15th edition page 93
    4)Narayan Reddy synopsis of forensic medicine 15th edition page 93 and 94
    5)Sabiston text book of surgery 18th edition page 191
    6) Sabiston text book of surgery 18th edition page 191;Bailey and Love short practice of surgery 25th edition page 24
    7) Bailey and love short practice of surgery 25th edition page 24,25; Sabiston text book of surgery 18th edition page 192;Schwartz principles of surgery 8th edition page 224
    8)Sabiston text book of surgery 18th edition page 193
    9) Narayan reddy synopsis of forensic medicine 15th edition page63
    10) )Narayan reddy synopsis of forensic medicine 15th edition page66

    Dr. Mustafa

    • Malik says:


      Your scientific analysis is good but you didn’t explain why the spearing if indeed the heart was the target , will not suffice to cause the death. would you mind elaborating on that.i would appreciate it very much.Also wouldn’t the spearing which caused the blood to flow help in reversing the process of somatic death .

      • Dr.Mustafa says:


        Penetrating heart injuries are of 2 types one which causes pericardial tamponade and the other exanguinating hemorrhage

        Pericardial tamponade is caused by those injuries where the defect in the pericardium is small or when a single chamber of the heart is injured.Here there is no hemorrhage as blood is contained with in the pericardium or the covering of heart

        Exanguinating hemorrhage is caused by
        those injuries where defect in pericardium is more and more than 1 chamber of heart is damaged

        Jesus was pierced with a spear on one of his side.Either right or left the spear should pass through either chest or the abdomen to reach heart

        Suppose from the chest the spearing may cause tamponade or hemorrhage but as gospel of John 19:34 says “at once came blood and water” this indicates an hemorrhage.But it is scientifically impossible for the bones of the chest not to broken as penetrating trauma to heart with hemorrhage from the thorax is always associated with chest bone fractures.But this is not the case as John says in same chapter verse 36″not a bone of him shall be broken”

        Now coming to abdomen the spearing should pierce heart from the diaphragm and right ventricle lies over the diaphragm and most of the right ventricle injuries cause tamponade rather than hemorrhage.Even if we go with hemorrhage the blood goes into the vast chest and abdominal cavity instead of coming out.

        Even if it comes out blood and water are not separately visible as John tells in 19:34 says “at once came blood and water” because pericardial fluid is 5-15 ml and mixes with blood and is never separately visible .

        This point was even told by Mike Licona in his debate with Yusuf Islam on the topic 1st century Jesus.This was told to him by American troops stationed in Iraq as they deal with penetrating injuries day in day out.

        Then Mike Licona says in the debate ” it is possible if Jesus was having pulmonary contusion before he was speared as it would result in blood and water coming out”

        This even is not possible as for pulmonary contusion to occur huge amount of force is required as that seen in road traffic accidents and Mark,Matthew,Luke and John never mentions that Jesus was heavily beaten on the chest .

        Even if we take it as a possibility it does not match with the mode of death in the gospels because all the 4 gospels tell Jesus was talking on the cross till the end and shouted “my god my god why have you forsaken me” when he breath last .

        But patients of pulmonary contusion because of the hypoxaemia or the low oxygen in blood become delirious and loose their conscious before they die but Jesus did not .Even if we take it for granted still pulmonary contusion patients when pierced in the chest does not pour out blood and water as mentioned in John .

        So the whole episode of chest piercing and the events following are a scientific impossibility and most probably an later insertion for apologetic purposes as brother Anwar showed.

        Even more the death of Jesus on cross does not match any mode of medical death which i will show later.

  4. rocko says:

    i want to say a few things.
    some unknown guy called jospif of arimatea takes jezuz’s body DOWN from the cross and puts it into AN UNKNOWN TOMB in and UNKNOWN location .some guy called mark INFORMS his READERS WITHOUT EVEN mentioning where this damn tomb was.but 1 MONTH LATER christians are preaching that they are having visions of jesus’ eating fish and chips in an UNKNOWN tomb. PILATE DOESN’T grab joseph of arimatea by the KNECK and ask him , “was he alive when you put him in the tomb?” does pilate look for the pagan guards who declared jezuz to be “the son of god” all these cartoon characters disappear from the stories.

    in johnny’s gospel jezuz is ABLE TO carry his cross.

    luke claims to have examined things right from the begining
    and he says that jesus wasn’t scourged /flogged. luke who “examined things from the begining” says he didn’t receive the torchering that he did in marks version. what is worse is that dericks god is ABLE TO CARRY out conversations lol.
    you would think a badly beaten jesus would REMAIN silent like he did in the other gospels, but no, hes chatting away.

    this just begs the question , why didn’t the guard IMMEDITIAELY STAB jesus ? i tell you why not, the dirty sick christians NEED slow and painful death . SUFFERING IS VERY central to the christian religion

    think about it. an all powerful god needs to apply human wrath unto himself to cool himself down and he has NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE but violence.

    and why would a jew FALL in love with a cross? would he have fallen in love with fire had he have been burnt to death?
    these stories are very strange. they don’t make sense in jewish context , but do make sense in european setting

  5. rocko says:

    “…some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done . 12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, 13 Saying , Say ye , His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept .”

    “Ibn Anwar you also need to explain why the Roman soldiers let Jesus down alive directly disobeying the orders of Pilate which would have resulted in severe punishment, not only Pilate but also the crowds amassed to have him put to death which they would have been terrified of since even Pilate supplicated to them. You also need to explain how the Roman solider(s) were able to let down Jesus alive right in front of those who were watching at Golgotha. Also what was the motivation to set him free?”

    one month LATER christians are going round telling people that jesus EAT fish and chips in atomb and appeared to 500 PEOPLE LOL. PILATE doesn’t GO LOOKING for these GUARDS ? pilate DOESN’T THINK , ” hey, maybe he didn’t die h e just fell unconcious AND joseph of arimatea helped him to esCAPE ”

    ” i was SUPRISED that he DIED so quickly , but what must have happened was that he DIDN’T die quickly”

    you see the problem? PILATE DOESNOT even SUSPECT THE GUARDS INVOLVENT/ guards helping jesus espcape. pilate is TOTALLY LIKE THE OTHER CHARACTERS taken OUT FROM THE STORY. very fishy.

  6. rocko says:

    2. It is my decision [concerning] graves and tombs–whoever has made
    3. them for the religious observances of parents, or children, or household
    4. members–that these remain undisturbed forever. But if anyone legally
    5. charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted
    6. those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who
    7. have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has
    8. moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person, I order that a
    9. judicial tribunal be created, just as [is done] concerning the gods in
    10. human religious observances, even more so will it be obligatory to treat
    11. with honor those who have been entombed. You are absolutely not to
    12. allow anyone to move [those who have been entombed]. But if
    13. [someone does], I wish that [violator] to suffer capital punishment under
    14. the title of tomb-breaker.
    Nazareth Inscription

    it gets worse and worse. body is STOLEN and BLAME IS on the deciples, yet mr pilate is SILENT lol.

  7. rocko says:

    mr r carrier wrote:

    When it comes to the crucifixion argument, the basic version you hear is that that was so embarrassing no Christian would claim it unless it were true. But this can be refuted with a single example: the castration of Attis was also embarrassing, yet no one would argue that therefore there must really have been an Attis who really did castrate himself. Arguably this was even more embarrassing than being crucified, as heroically suffering and dying for one’s beliefs was at least admirable on all the value systems then extant, whereas emasculating yourself was regarded as the most shameful of all fates for any man. Yet “no one would make that up” clearly isn’t a logically valid claim here. Attis did not exist, and a non-existent being can’t ever have castrated himself. So clearly someone did make that up. It’s being embarrassing did not deter them in the slightest. And in fact that is true throughout the history of religions: embarrassing myths were (and in all honesty, still are) the norm, not the exception.

    There are many other reasons why the argument fails here, but they all reduce to the same Bayesian point: there are other explanations of the evidence (other reasons why a god or hero would be depicted as humiliated and murdered, like the goddess Inanna was, or the god Prometheus was) that are not sufficiently improbable for us to assume “it’s true” is automatically the best explanation. Thus “embarrassment” just isn’t a valid argument. You need to look at all the available explanations and compare their relative probabilities.

  8. rocko says:

    how could the idea of a crucified jezuz be embarrassing to the likes of paul ?
    the guy simply derives magic from the murder of jesus and tries his best to find jesus’ murder on a cross in the torah. i think the crucifixion of pauls jesus was NOT AN embarrsment to paul at all . even todays evangelists have DECORATED 4 times 4 planks of wood with all sorts of wierd and wacky ideas even LINKING it to burnt offerings and 4 legged lambs .

  9. rocko says:

    why should people not trust the claims of the gospels?
    first of all look at the memories of jesus’ companions. look at thier iq level
    these same companions who ran away and apostated from jesus’ beliefs. they left him for dead. nobody wrote a book on how good peters memory was, but we do know from the gospels that he was illiterate fisherman. obody wrote a book praising jesus’ companions being TRUSTFUL and honest people , but we do know that according to matthew “some DOUBTED” SO ” SOME doubted” the truth the gospel writers ATTRIBUTE to jesus . all know that the gospels were written at a time when jesus’ companions were EITHER dead or very old. there is no chain of narration going back FROM student to deciple to jesus. all we have is stories in the 3rd person because matthew SAID SO or makr SAID so .

    according to ROBERT M PRICE in his dEBATE with james white


    Second, the claim that Jesus and the disciples would have prevented
    error from accruing, which is a common evangelical argument, is
    disproved by the contents of the gospels themselves and contrary to
    what our expectations would be. In the gospels we’re told that Jesus
    himself couldn’t prevent listeners from telling tales he didn’t want
    told. The gospels tell us that false reports concerning Jesus
    circulated widely and in fact Jesus directed the disciples to not
    bother correcting them. Making up things was considered pious and
    acceptable in this culture. Gnostic teaching was accepted widely.
    Gospel reports indicate erroneous resurrection belief. John the
    Baptist was thought to be raised but this is a case of mistaken
    identity. This is proof that this error is easy to make. In the Gospel
    of John we’re told that Jesus did say he’d destroy the temple in 3
    days, but John allegorizes the story. Mark and Matthew tell us that
    Jesus said no such thing and only false witnesses say he did. Luke
    says that Steven is reported to have said it. Look at every day
    experience. What preacher hasn’t been chagrined to learn what others
    have thought him to have said? Look at the fact that rabbis can’t keep
    straight who it is that supposedly uttered a statement, attributing
    the same wise saying to various sages. Why does Mt 10 tell us that
    Jesus wanted the gospel to go only to the Jews, Mt 28 says he wanted
    it spread far and wide, and yet at Acts 15 they’re debating whether
    the gospel should go to Gentiles as if they’ve never heard of the
    great commission?


    clearly the gospels protray jesus as a POWERLESS nobody who is only able to create attention which ends his life.

    But was Jesus a ruler over Israel? On the contrary, the younger
    Kimchi pointed out, “He did not govern Israel but they governed him.”

    1.In the Synoptics Jesus Christ was NOT known as a Messiah at all by
    the JEWS during his supposed life on earth.

    In the Synoptics, Jesus was just PERCEIVED to be
    an ORDINARY JEW, like John the Baptist or one of the prophets.

    3.NOTHING CHANGED in JUDEA at all when the Synoptic Jesus was on
    EARTH. Even based on Josephus, there many MIRACLE workers and so-
    called prophets in Judea in the 1st century.

    Jesus Christ was NOT known as a Messiah, NOT known as a Savior, Not
    known as a Heavenly character by the JEWS.

    end quote



    apostles of jesus were POWERLESS AND PERSECUTED

    christians in 2nd CENTURY making up STORIES AND placing EYEWITNESSES in them LOL

    christians in 2nd CENTURY duping many ppl into believing that thier STORIES were in fact going all the way back to apostles and jebus LOL


    jebus WORDS IN THE jewish synagouges WEREN’T RECITED 5 TIMES A DAY LOL


    Notice in the gospels jesus’ HAS TO RUN FOR HIS LIFE?

    IF THESE deciples were awesome memorisers of jesus SPEECHS IN THE TEMPLE , why didn’t the writers of the GREEK NT simply preserve jesus VERBATIM ? I MEAN IF PEOPLE CAN MEMORISE ENTIRE QUR’AAN TODAY AND GODS RESPONSE IN THE 1ST PERSON AND MUHAMMAD RESPONSE IN THE 1ST PERSON , WHY DIDN’T THE gospel writers preserve jesus’ words in the 1st person and give us clues as to how they know that it goes back to jesus in a temple?

    i explainsome more

    under persecution HOW WELL DOES YOUR memory work? running for your life , how well does your memory work?


    reading some of the gospels gives the picture that jesus was in hiding and explain decoding his parables in SECRET.



    WHO WAS THERE TO WITNESS pilates dream and thought that jesus was son of god?

    many times jesus is doing things WHEN THERE ARE NO WITNESSES AT ALL

    LIKE SATAN TAKING jesus on a high MOUNTAIN


    Tradition can start through
    interpretation of scripture as well. It can start many different ways.
    At a point, innovations start to creep into tradition and get passed
    off as religion when it is not, just like the Rabbis that claimed one
    must wash hands. As I said, for you to establish that transmission is
    authoritative, you need to establish an unbroken chain of
    transmission, i.e. that transmission has to include the temporal
    aspect. This is where text also comes into play. There is no such
    thing in Christianity. There is in Islam.

    Are you saying the presentation of a ‘chain’ establishes authenticity?
    What about the Gospel of Thomas and the traditions that originated out
    of the Alexandrian Churches? The connection established is through an
    Apostle, but according to your Church, it is heretical. On what basis
    do you argue so?

    You mean power has no connection to tradition? When you have power,
    you can create educational institutions according to your will and
    propagate correct teachings, without interference from outside
    influences, don’t you agree? When you have political power, that
    entails that you cannot be persecuted for your beliefs, and you don’t
    have to go into hiding, and can openly proclaim the religion to all,
    enemies and friends alike.

    You mean Pharoah couldn’t propagate his way of life because of his
    control and dominion? Why do you think it was extremely difficult for
    Moses to succeed in preaching? The fact that the United States is the
    number one Super Power has no bearing on thier propagation of
    democracy throughout the world?

    Again, an empire ensures that transmission isn’t interrupted by
    outside influences. Teachers and Students don’t exist in a vacuum.
    Plus, multiple people ensures that the transmission happens correctly.
    Even the most pious person can be incorrect.

    No, we have not established that tradition is independent of
    scripture. Your argument ignores a whole series of factors, among

    1. Your assumption is predicated on the notion that tradition is
    2. Bad tradition can in fact creep into a community and text is used
    to reject it.
    3. Scripture initiates tradition in many cases



    For Matthew being Jewish:

    The fundamental affirmation of the Law (cf. Matt 5.17-20; 23.3a,

    The sustained reference to the Old Testament and the emphatic
    application of the idea of fulfilment (cf. e.g. Matt 1.22-23;2.5-6,
    15, 17-18; 3.3; 4.4-16; 8.17 and others).

    The fundamental limitation of Jesus’ mission to Israel (cf. Matt
    10.5-6; 15.24).

    The Matthean community still keeps the Sabbath (cf. Matt 24.20).
    The Matthean community still lives within the jurisdiction of Judaism
    (cf. Matt 17.24-27; 23.1-3).

    The Moses typology in Matt 2.13ff.; 4.1-2; 5.1 and the five great
    discourses in the Gospel present Jesus as having an affinity to

    The language, structure, reception of the Gospel of Matthew point to a
    Jewish Christian as its author.


    The Gospel’s offer of salvation to all clearly points to a Gentile
    mission that has been underway for some time (cf. Matt 28.18-20;
    8.11-12; 10.18; 12.18, 21; 13.38a; 21.43-45; 22.1-14; 24.14; 25.32;

    The nullification of ritual laws (cf. Matt 15.11, 20b; 23.25-26).
    The Matthean critique of the Law. Especially in the Antitheses of the
    Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5.21-48) Jesus places his own authority
    higher than that of Moses, for which there is no parallel in ancient

    Matthew presents a thoroughgoing polemic against Pharisaic casuistry
    (cf. Matt 5.20; 6.1ff.; 9.9ff.; 12.1ff., 9ff.; 15.1ff.; 19.1ff.;

    Matthew avoids Aramaisms (cf. Mark 1.13/ Matt 4.2; Mark 5.41/ Matt
    9.25; Mark 7.34/ Matt 15.30; Mark 7.11/ Matt 15.5).

    The Matthean community understands its life to be at some distance
    from that of the synagogue (cf. Matt 23.34b ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς ὑμῶν
    [in your synagogues]; Matt 7.29b καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς αὐτων [and
    not as their scribes]).

    Ritual prescriptions for the Sabbath have lost their significance (cf.
    Matt 12.1-8).

    The rejection of Israel, i.e. that Israel has lost its distinct place
    in the history of salvation, has been accepted by Matthew as reality
    for some time (cf. Matt 21.43; 22.9; 8.11-12; 21.39ff.; 27.25; 28.15).

    …….. ….. **********************

    Another possibility for explaining the for and against is that we are
    dealing with two different authorings which reflect different times
    and states of the religion in the locale of writing.

    I find the assumption that there was only one evangelist writer per
    gospel preposterous.





    if 4 eyewitnesses to a bomb EXPLOSION handed in 4 statements and the officer WHO EXAMINED these statements noted that the 4 are USING SAME WORDS, SAME ORDER , SAME ACTION , THEN isn’t there going to be a question mark in the officiers head? if matthew and LUKE had VIRBRANT ORAL traditions as thier sources , why are they SO MUCH DEPENDANT ON MARKAN ORDER/SEQUENCE/ WORDING ECT? EVEN WHEN THEY DISAGREE WITH MARK THEY ARE STILL REPRODUCING HIS WORDING AND ORDER .


  10. semsav12 says:

    “When they came to the home of the synagogue leader, Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. 39 He went in and said to them, “Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep.”But they laughed at him.”(mark 5:38-40)

    The crowd was very emotional because they thought that their daughter had died, even the suggestion that she was still alive but unconscious had been meet by ridicule by the crowd, yet she was actually still alive.

    New American Standard Bible (©1995)
    After crying out and throwing him into terrible convulsions, it came out; and the boy became so much like a corpse that most of them said, “He is dead!But Jesus took him by the hand and helped him to his feet, and he stood up.(mark 9:26-27)

    The crowd saw the boy after the event, and most of them had believed that the boy was dead but he actually was just unconscious as the passage indicates.

    “19 Then some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and won the crowd over. They stoned Paul and dragged him outside the city, thinking he was dead. 20 But after the disciples had gathered around him, he got up and went back into the city.”(acts 14:19-20)

    An enraged crowd seeks to kill paul, drags him out of the city and tires to stone him to death, and they think they have killed him, yet Paul was not dead and walked several miles the next day.

    Philny the younger(a first century roman historian) had also said it was difficult to tell when one was really dead.

    Even now with modern medical equipment people still have a hard time telling if someone is ACTUALLY dead.

  11. semsav12 says:

    Salam bro Anwar, with the falvaius Josephius example, doesn’t it indicate that all three people were taken off of the cross alive, and two of them eventually died while one survived? Now wouldn’t it take time for the three people to be transported to a ancient medical facility and then the docters had spent some time with them? how long did it take for the Jesus’s body to go to the tomb? I think this historical passage from Josphus is more helpful then I thought…

  12. semsav12 says:

    “I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.”[54]

    Salam, I found the actual quote so they were Taken down all of them alive, then transported somewhere where they were taken care of, then physicians worked on them and one survived. My question would be how long were the two then ended up dying alive for until they died, and how long was the transportation from Jesus’s cross to his tomb, any thought Bro anwar?

Leave a Reply