A response to the alleged Crucifixion of Jesus being “One of The Most Certain Facts of History”
[🧵]
[🧵]
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Among the most common supposed Historical sources attesting to Jesusʼ crucifixion are:
1. The Testimonium Flavianum,
Leading expert on Flavius Josephus, mentions the overwhelming majority of Modern Scholarship question this passageʼs authenticity.
Among the most common supposed Historical sources attesting to Jesusʼ crucifixion are:
1. The Testimonium Flavianum,
Leading expert on Flavius Josephus, mentions the overwhelming majority of Modern Scholarship question this passageʼs authenticity.
The First Person to ever mention this is ‘Eusebiusʼ, from the 4th century.
There were 8 Christian writers before Eusebius, who referenced from Josephus, without mentioning the Testimonium,
Infact Origen cited 5 passages from the same chapter, without mentioning this passage.
There were 8 Christian writers before Eusebius, who referenced from Josephus, without mentioning the Testimonium,
Infact Origen cited 5 passages from the same chapter, without mentioning this passage.
Even after Eusebius, 4 Christian writers referenced passages from Jospehus, but none mentioned this “Flavianum Testimonium” crucifixion passage.
Moreover, the Extant Manuscript comes not before the 11th century.
Moreover, the Extant Manuscript comes not before the 11th century.
Popular Christian Apologist, admits using Flavius Josephusʼ passage about Jesusʼ crucifixion is “almost useless”.
2. Cornelius Tacitus (117 CE)
Firstly, Tacitus is merely defining what Christians in his times believed. He was no independent Historian.
Firstly, Tacitus is merely defining what Christians in his times believed. He was no independent Historian.
Secondly, Tacitus didnʼt even mention the “Crucifixion”,
All he did was mocked Christians worshiping a god, who got the “ultimate punishment”.
Scholars mention it can be interpreted in many different ways.
All he did was mocked Christians worshiping a god, who got the “ultimate punishment”.
Scholars mention it can be interpreted in many different ways.
Thirdly, the Extant Manuscript of Tacitus comes from the Ninth and Eleventh century.
3. Pliny the Younger
4. Suetonius
5. Mara Bar Serapion
6. Thallus
7. Lucian
8. Celsus
9. Rabbinic sources
Christian Scholar, Mike Licona, admits all of theese sources are “not useful” to prove Jesusʼ crucifixion.
4. Suetonius
5. Mara Bar Serapion
6. Thallus
7. Lucian
8. Celsus
9. Rabbinic sources
Christian Scholar, Mike Licona, admits all of theese sources are “not useful” to prove Jesusʼ crucifixion.
Having answered the alleged Historical records,
A fraction of people keep boosting Bart Ehrmanʼs and other orientalistsʼ statement, that, crucifixion of Jesus is the most certain fact of History.
Letʼs look at their reason for the claim, and answer it.
بإذن الله
A fraction of people keep boosting Bart Ehrmanʼs and other orientalistsʼ statement, that, crucifixion of Jesus is the most certain fact of History.
Letʼs look at their reason for the claim, and answer it.
بإذن الله
Bart Ehrman, believes that the Old Testament doesnʼt talk about Jesusʼ crucifixion, and Christians had a hard time convincing the Jews about that,
Hence Jesus must have been Crucified.
This actually creates a problem for the Christians and refutes their Theology.
Hence Jesus must have been Crucified.
This actually creates a problem for the Christians and refutes their Theology.
The very “Criteria of Embarrassment” Ehrman used for crucifixion, is rather subjective because,
Other Scholars argue,
“Nothing was so fruitful for early Christian theology as the Crucifixion of Israelʼs messiah.”
and then argued it being against, criteria of “Embarrassment”.
Other Scholars argue,
“Nothing was so fruitful for early Christian theology as the Crucifixion of Israelʼs messiah.”
and then argued it being against, criteria of “Embarrassment”.
Another criteria, used by these scholars to prove Jesusʼ crucifixion is “Multiple Attestation”.
But as ‘William Lyonsʼ argues,
how can all Gospels record a particular thing if itʼs actually embarrassing? The Multiple Attestation is itself an argument against Embarrassment.
But as ‘William Lyonsʼ argues,
how can all Gospels record a particular thing if itʼs actually embarrassing? The Multiple Attestation is itself an argument against Embarrassment.
Renowned New Testament scholar, Dale C. Allison, argued against theese criterias and called them subjective, troublesome, misleading and unsatisfactory.
“Jesus of Nazareth: A Millenerian Prophet”
“Jesus of Nazareth: A Millenerian Prophet”
Having said that, another argument is,
“we know Church Fathers believed in the Crucifixion, and they have an Apostolic chain going back to Jesus”.
Well do you know, the Basilides?
They didnʼt believe in Jesusʼ crucifixion, and they also have an Apostolic chain going back.
“we know Church Fathers believed in the Crucifixion, and they have an Apostolic chain going back to Jesus”.
Well do you know, the Basilides?
They didnʼt believe in Jesusʼ crucifixion, and they also have an Apostolic chain going back.
The NIV study Bible admits, that the Apostles rejected the Crucifixion of Jesus.
Many proofs from Paul writing himself, that Christians of his time rejected it (Gal 3:1, 1 Cor 1:23; 2 Cor 11:4 etc.)
Many proofs from Paul writing himself, that Christians of his time rejected it (Gal 3:1, 1 Cor 1:23; 2 Cor 11:4 etc.)
One Important thing to point out is,
The Qur’ān is actually defending Jesus from the Slander of the Jews
It is not condemning people for believing, who thought he was Crucified
In fact, the Qur’ān affirms, he was made to appear so as Crucified, by some people.
The Qur’ān is actually defending Jesus from the Slander of the Jews
It is not condemning people for believing, who thought he was Crucified
In fact, the Qur’ān affirms, he was made to appear so as Crucified, by some people.
Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said,
“If it is said that the disciples, or some of them, or most of the people of the Book, used to believe that the Messiah himself was crucified, they were mistaken in that, but this mistake was not something that would undermine their belief
“If it is said that the disciples, or some of them, or most of the people of the Book, used to believe that the Messiah himself was crucified, they were mistaken in that, but this mistake was not something that would undermine their belief
in the Messiah, if they believed in what he brought, and they are not inevitably doomed to Hell, because the Gospels that are in the hands of the People of the Book mentioned the crucifixion of the Messiah.”
In conclusion,
There is zero non-Christian witness to the Crucifixion
It is not a certain Historical fact
There were people in Paulʼs time, rejecting the Crucifixion
Qur’ān never denied people believing in it
Those who believed prior to the Qur’ān, are excused.
There is zero non-Christian witness to the Crucifixion
It is not a certain Historical fact
There were people in Paulʼs time, rejecting the Crucifixion
Qur’ān never denied people believing in it
Those who believed prior to the Qur’ān, are excused.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
