Crucifixion or Crucifiction: What Did 1st Century Christians Believe?


Discover The Truth

Kaleef K. Karim

It has puzzled scholars for many years why the Quran in very strong words says that Jesus (p) was not crucified:

“And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger – they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.” – Quran 157-158 (Pickthall Translation)

Most Christians have regarded this verse to be contrary and in conflict with what their version of the New Testament states. Their belief in the crucifixion is the cornerstone of their faith. No crucifixion, there is no Christianity. Many Christian debaters, missionaries, and their scholars have challenged the Quran’s version of history.


View original post 6,821 more words


Categories: Islam

8 replies

  1. I know Dr Latouhi has a survey of this nature in one of his books. Really useful.


  2. Amazing article!


  3. So even the earliest discourse amongst the founders/followers had scripture and belief that what would turn out to be modern christianity today is based on a complete fiction. Who would have thunk it!


    • flying pir , on ehrmans forum someone posted:

      scholar dale martin says that the trial of jesus was not historical
      dr ehrman says that the empty tomb narrative is not historical
      mark says that the women fled and said nothing to anyone
      who was left to tell the disciples in galilee the details about the crucifixion? if they ran away to galilee, who was left to describe the crucifixion of jesus?

      did the disciples just assume he was crucified without knowing any detail?

      paul does not describe any detail too. no crowds. no nailing. no crown of thorn. no writing. nothing .

      quoting the last response

      It is generally agreed among critical scholars that the ending in Mark is late and secondary, and do not have an independent value. It is most likely concocted from the already known other gospel endings. Isolated, therefore, it has the appearance of creating harmony between the gospel resurrection stories.
      The resurrection stories in Matthew do not allow for any appearances to the apostles before the incident on the Galilean mountain top. Matthew’s story is in fact little else than an expansion of Mark without the special ending. Matthew knew Mark 14:28 and expanded it. In fact, the original Mark also supposes that the first visions take place in Galilee. Thus, it is completely impossible to harmonize Matthew/Mark and Luke on this point.
      Compare this to Luke’s treatment of Mark 16:7. He converted it into Luke 24:6, twisting the meaning completely, while at the same time omitting Mark 14:28 from his own rendering of the same pericope. Luke simply erased Galilee from the post-execution stories.
      A modern , critical reader is immediately puzzled by the Galilean excursion. Why should they make this troublesome trip to listen to a short message? It is all to clear that it is an apologetic construct devised to soften the sad fact that they most likely fled to Galilee, in place of trying to support their leader.


      so what we see here is that they ALL fled to galilee , who WAS LEFT TO TELL the DETAILS of crucifixion ?

      ehrman THINKS the details are CREATED from psalms and ISAIAH


Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: