In the previous piece, we presented a quotation from the 1st Century of Christianity wherein a group of Christians rejected the crucifixion of Jesus taking place. In this article, we continue to explore further early sources wherein certain groups in early Christianity rejected that Jesus was crucified.
The apostolic fathers have frequently recorded in their writings heretical groups (Christians), which taught and espoused beliefs that were contrary to their own at the time. For example, Ignatius (35 – 108) has an interesting remark against a Christian group which lived in his life-time. Ignatius attacks certain people for holding beliefs which are contrary to his own on Jesus’s crucifixion. The following is stated:
“But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, that He only seemed to suffer (they themselves only seeming to exist), then why am I in bonds? Why do I…
View original post 3,092 more words
Categories: Islam
Blogging Theology 
May Allah bless you, br. Kaleef. You keep amazing me with this kind of articles.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ironically the only Crucifixion will be of the pagan cult otherwise known as Christianity. Day by day, the more we expose and discover of their earliest manuscripts and letters between the competing sects, the more we dismantle it to crumble in the dust and be blown to the wind like all the other ancient pagan myths.
LikeLike
in the torah there is not one verse which says that the invisible God will become visible and murdered by pagans for “sins of humans”
these people brought the almighty to their level. if this is not curse on some human beings then what is ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
They fail to realise that just because the prevailing myth (after destroying those that came before them via various sadistic methods including burning at the steak ) became the dominant version that it does not mean it was the rightful one. Thankfully these letters between the feuding parties highlight this very fact.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Paul,
Interesting thread. From Karem’s post we read:
== The apostolic fathers have frequently recorded in their writings heretical groups (Christians), which taught and espoused beliefs that were contrary to their own at the time.==
Indeed. As you well know, Jesus and his apostles predicted, and warned, their disciples of the rise of heresy; that it would begin to take place in the apostlic age.
==Ignatius is telling us that this group rejected the crucifixion. This group believed that the suffering was an illusion. He only “seemed to suffer”. This belief in rejection of the crucifixion must have been very wide spread. For Ignatius to take his time out to attack this group’s doctrine shows that the belief in illusionary nature was an accepted belief among a big group of Christians in his life time.==
Shortly after Ignatius, we have much greater detail given by Irenaeus as to the larger picture of what such heretical sects believed; sects which became identified with Gnosticism (docetic, encratic, Sethian, Valentinian, et al.). Personally, I think it is poor methodology to accept one teaching from a theological system, while rejecting pretty the rest of what they espoused.
Whislt on the subject of differing interpretations, one should not forget that it is not just Christianity which suffered from competing views. Islam too has not been exempt from competing/differing interpretations. One good example is the interpretation of Surah 4.157. One scholar has mentioned no less than ten differing interpretations of Surah 4.157 and the related ayat. (See THIS LINK; for further discussion, see THIS THREAD.)
In ending, I would suggest that the picture painted by Karem is much more complex than his narrow understanding.
Grace and peace,
David
LikeLike
“Islam too has not been exempt from competing/differing interpretations”
Islamic exegesis may mention different interpretations about some verses, yet they don’t adopt them all. They explain why this one is weak since is not based on the Arabic language, for example. And why the other is strong since it’s mentioned in hadith. In all Quran, Jesus has never been captured by using this word (Mout) = death.
Also, Shaykh Ahmed Deedat didn’t adopt the qadiani’s cult view. He was using an argument against christians. That ‘s it.
Dr Shabir Ally has his own view, yet the language of Arabic doesn’t really help that view.
LikeLike
the amount of different teachings within judaism and 1st and 2nd century christianities should trouble anyone. this implies forgeries were UNCONTROLLABLE and anyone said anything they wanted. OF COURSE one is going to put in jesus’ mouth about FALSE teachers. false teachings were already on high rise. one can verify this by reading the book “forged” by bart d ehrman.
false teachings went ALL the way back to FIRST century judaism.
LikeLike
I finally had some time to check back in on this thread. Reading through the comments, I noticed some typos in my original post. What follows, are those typos, and the corrections: first, “Karem”, should read, ‘Karim’; second, “I think it is poor methodology to accept one teaching from a theological system, while rejecting pretty the rest of what they espoused”, should read, ‘I think it is poor methodology to accept one teaching from a theological system, while rejecting pretty much the rest of what they espoused’.
Moving on, mr.heathcliff wrote:
== the amount of different teachings within judaism and 1st and 2nd century christianities should trouble anyone.==
Does the “different teachings” of the ’73 sects’ that Islam split into (within the first three centuries of AH) “trouble” you?
Grace and peace,
David
LikeLike
David did you get my email?
LikeLike
“one of the most fascinating features of early christianity is that so many different christian teachers and christian groups were saying so many contrary things. it is not just that they said different things. they often said just the opposite things . there is only one god. no there are many gods. the material world is the good creation of a good god. no, it comes from a cosmic disaster in the divine realm. jesus came in the flesh. no, he was totally removed from the flesh. eternal life comes through the redemption of the flesh. no, it comes through escaping the flesh. paul taught these things. no, paul taught those other things. paul was the true apostle. no , paul misunderstood the message of jesus. peter and paul agreed on every theological point. no, they were completely at odds with one another. peter taught that christians were not to follow the jewish law. no, he taught that the jewish law continued to be in force. and on and on and on, would without end. ”
forged page 218
does anybody seriously think that the new testament books existed in time of these heavy and serious divisions? in these times of divisions is it not easy to have your jesus predict about FALSE teachings and false teachers?
how many EARLY islamic sects were divided on the most basic fundamentals?
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
Forgive my somewhat tardy response to your question, but my internet service was down…
I have not checked my emails over the weekend; will shortly do so, and shall look for yours.
Grace and peace,
David
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello mr.heathcliff,
Thanks for responding to my post; you wrote:
== does anybody seriously think that the new testament books existed in time of these heavy and serious divisions?==
We know that Paul’s letters were being copied and distributed before his death. As for the Gospels, they were being quoted by 2nd century Church Fathers; and 2nd century heretics like Marcion are actually rejecting a number of the ‘orthodox’ NT documents.
== in these times of divisions is it not easy to have your jesus predict about FALSE teachings and false teachers?==
He did, and so did is apostles. However, since Christianity was an illegal religion in the Roman empire until Constantine, the state was no ‘friend’ in curbing heresy as it was in the rise of early Islam.
== how many EARLY islamic sects were divided on the most basic fundamentals?==
More than most folk are probably aware of. I think you would be a bit surprised at the number of early Muslim scholars (3rd-4th century AH) who wrote at length on the various heretical sects, while appealing to the ’73 sects’ hadith/s. Later to today, I will start working on a post for my blog that will delve more deeply into this issue. Should have a thread up by Wednesday, the Lord willing.
Grace and peace,
David
LikeLike
i don’t think jesus had any power or control over who was saying what
quote :
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?
end quote
quote :
“We actually *don’t know* what the big issues were in the latter half of the first century, and have only vague information about the early second century. It’s also assuming a monolithic top-down church with a consistent agenda, when in fact it was hundreds of diverse communities and sects with different interests from each other, and the Gospels just represent four of those communities (just as other Gospels, e.g. Thomas, represent yet others; and for most, we have no Gospel at all to tell us what their concerns were). […] the authors of the Gospels had specific goals they were trying to accomplish; they were not writing “church manuals” to address every issue whatever. They only cover the biggest and most common issues (e.g. dealing with intra-family tension, creating symbolic models for baptism, creating evidence of jesus’ divinity and resurrection), and in most cases are responding to each other rather than arguments outside the Gospels. Finally, no non-fundamentalist scholar agrees with Jacoby.
They all concur that sayings are being fabricated (especially in John, to argue against and for specific issues John’s authors deemed important; but also in Matthew, whom everyone recognizes is trying to write an anti-Mark, and his main goal is to support the Torah-observant Jewish Christianity, and has put words in Jesus’ mouth to that effect; likewise Luke, who is inventing things to whitewash the conflict between Matthew and Mark).
For example, Gregory Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (1995) and David Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (1998) and Boris Repschinski, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism (2000), and Richard Pervo, The Mystery of Acts (2008). Those show how real scholars treat the evidence, including the fact that each author had specific agendas, to which other issues took a backseat for them, being not their specific interest or important enough to them to squeeze in.”
////
with all the above information, is it not possible that chistians could easily put words into jesus’ mouth and have him say anything ?
LikeLike
So a minute insignificant heretical group and their belief is all you need to claim you’ve exposed Christianity?that’s sad. And Mr.health cliff have you read Malachi or Zachariah?
LikeLike
Kev lol.. oh my goodness kev… “In other words, there is no rejection of the crucifixion, only a difference of opinion about the nature of it.”
The quran does not reject that a crucifiction took place you silly duffa…. are you reading anything before you post? lol…
LikeLike
This is another classic example of muslim inability to argue logically.
Here is the epic bait and switch….
then…..
In other words, there is no rejection of the crucifixion, only a difference of opinion about the nature of it. Discover the illogical truth has refuted his own thesis within the first few paragraphs. WHat exactly are you arguing here?
Even the later supporting argument does not support the self-refuted argument…
No rejection of the crucifixion here.
Do you even read what you have written before you post?
LikeLike
lol. “No rejection of the crucifixion here” no rejection of a crucifiction in the Quran either lol..
LikeLike
Where did I mention the quran? This is merely more evidence of quranic plagiarism of earlier sources.
LikeLike
You’re conflating two things here. If you read the piece carefully you will get to know two facts:
1. This group rejected that Jesus suffered on the cross.
2. They believed someone else was on the cross.
At the end, they still believed that Jesus did NOT suffer on the cross. Whoever suffered was NOT Jesus.
So they denied Jesus’s crucifixion.
LikeLike
Flying pir
Non sequitur. You’ve come nowhere near to establishing that any early christians believed that jesus had been substituted. You have presented absolutely no evidence to make that conclusion valid.
LikeLike
Yet neither group knew or even met Jesus or were even alive when Jesus was.
You are arguing details of an event we have no way of knowing even took place by using a disagreement between 2 parties who were not eye witnesses to ANY of it.
This is the irony of your argument , if only you would wake up
LikeLike
thristfor knowledge
“Yet neither group knew or even met Jesus or were even alive when Jesus was.
You are arguing details of an event we have no way of knowing even took place by using a disagreement between 2 parties who were not eye witnesses to ANY of it.
This is the irony of your argument , if only you would wake up”
Irony indeed.
It sounds as though you are talking about the hadith. With the hadith we are asked to believe that, let’s say, BUkhari, was able to make value judgements on authenticity and honesty of people who lived hundreds of years before him who were relating events that he and the several generations of oral carriers who passed the info down did not personally witness.
But, wait, don’t tell me….hadith science is accurate because the people it talks about were honest?
Wake up.
LikeLike
Just wasnt jesus who was crucified 🙂
LikeLike
I am intrigued by the character “Jesus Barabas” which when you translate the surname you get Jesus “Son of the father” who was someone supposedly to be crucified alongside Jesus.
It’s funny no one mentions this in discussions on the topic.
It would be easy to understand how the 2 got mixed up. The legend gathers pace down the years when people speak of how “The son of the father got crucified “
LikeLike
kapish? 🙂
LikeLike