CrucifyHim, CrucifyWhom?

EvidencefromChristiansourcethatJesuswasnotCrucified

AbooMohammadJamalDookhy

In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful.

Crucify Him, Crucify Whom?

Written by (Aboo Mohammad) Jamal Dookhy

Foreword This booklet is dedicated to all those people who are in search of the truth, may God guide them to the right path. Dedicated to all the Daees and daeeas who are striving hard to convey the message (the true message of GOD), I just want to say keep up the hard the hard work and may Allah take from your hands. May this book be a useful tool in inviting people to the truth. Also dedicated to my wife and my children who have been so patient with me and supported me at the time when I was researching and writing this book. I also dedicate this book and thank my teacher, mentor and close friend Dr Bilal Philips who has been a great inspiration to me. Thank you very much to Dr James Jones for your contribution and Sheik Abdul Rauf Shakir too for being around and giving answers when required. May Allah enrich the scholars with more knowledge and bless you all. Dedicated also to my mum and dad who have given me the chance of a good education and a good life. I would like to point out that this book is in no way an attack or insult to the Christian faith in anyway whatsoever. This is the findings and results of my researches and studies that took many months. If it does offend anyone in any way I do apologise as this is not the intention. This book was written with guidance in heart, I pray to Allah it serves its purpose.
3

Until then ( 106 or 107 A.D. at the martyrdom of Symenon ) the church remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, for those who attempted to corrupt the healthful rule of the Savior's preaching if they existed at all, lurked in obscure darkness. But when the sacred band of the Apostles and the generation of those to whom it had been vouchsafe to hear with their own ears the divine wisdom had reached the several ends of their lives, then the federation of godless error took its beginning through the deceit of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the Apostles still remained, barefacedly tried against the preaching of the trust the counter -proclamation of knowledge, falsely socalled." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 111, Chap. xxxii.)

Contents
Introduction Gethsemane The trial Pontius Pilate Who was Joseph of Arimathaea What was the sign of Jonas? Cruci-fiction? Resurrection? The gardener A case for Isaiah 53 Where did the concept of the crucifiction come from? Conclusion 6 8 13 17 26 30 35 42 46 52 58 67

Chapter 1 Introduction For many years I have had discussions with Christians over many issues and most often I have found that the answers to these discussions that I had and continue to have, lie there in the Bible and other texts such as bible commentaries and hidden books such as the Nag Hammadi library (considered apocryphal) (although some claim that apocrypha means fake, this is far from the truth, apocrypha does not mean fake, but hidden from the people),and other sources. We only have to search for them and we will find them, however many Christians of today fail to see the answers in their own books. The point of this booklet is not to sling mud at anybody or their faith but to bring out what has been found through research and detailed reasoning. This booklet aims at showing the Christian and also the Muslim the findings of several months if not years of researching into many texts from many Christian sources and Muslim sources too, thus the conclusion reached after this research. The basis of modern day Christianity revolves around the concept that Jesus died on the cross to save man. To the point that belief that Jesus died on the cross is the means of salvation for those who believe in it, and doom for those who do not. However, there were no eyewitness evidences that this event actually took place the way we are told and are expected to believe it, in the Bible it says in Matthew 26:56: 1 So we do not really know from eyewitness sources what really transpired from the time Jesus son of Mary, fell on his face and prayed to the lord in the Garden of Gethsemane to the time he came back to his disciples after three days according to the Bible. What took place was not witnessed by any of the Bible authors, nor the twelve disciples. Many might say that Mary his mother was there, and Mary Magdalene witnessed it. Where does it say so in the scriptures, is there a Gospel according to Mary where all this is written, or show me any reference in the NT made to anyone who saw it? It isnt there. Others may say John
1

Mt 26:56)But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets mightbe fulfilled Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled. (AV)

son of Zebedee, but then there seem to be so much controversy even in Christian circles as to who John the author of the Bible really was, so with what is written in the texts; canonical and non canonical we will try to find out what really happened and whether Jesus son of the father died on the cross. For the sake of Jesus, one of the greatest prophets who trod this earth, one who God bestowed great favours and miracles on let us unravel the truth whether really Jesus son of Mary was crucified. From a Muslims point of view would it be right to say that Jesus son of the father was crucified? Readers might think I am insane if I say yes. But I am sure that after reading this booklet you will all,Muslim and nonMuslim, agree with me that Jesus son of the father was crucified, however Jesus son of Mary was not. You may not agree with me, even then, please read on. First of all let us see what the Noble Quran says about this in Chapter 4: 157. And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allh," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)] 1 158. But Allh raised him ['Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allh is Ever AllPowerful, AllWise. :

This however is one translation of the Quran although the Arabic does not explicitly say but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man). The proper meaning is that they were made to believe that they killed and crucified him. The author of this book found this translation more convenient. We can see the Islamic stance here clearly from the Quran and the Quran is not Conjecture. Noble Quran Chapter 2:2. This is the Book (the Qur'n), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqn [the pious and righteous persons who fear Allh much (abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allh much (perform all kinds of good deeds which He has ordained).

Chapter 2 Gethsemane Let us go back to the garden of Gethsemane where Jesus was praying to his Lord. Was Jesus aware he was going to be the sacrificial lamb? Did GOD (the father, not tell him)? Did he betray his own son( if god had a son)? Did Jesus get double crossed? If not then why did Jesus fall on his face and pray and sweat was running down his face like it was blood? There are many questions we can ask here in the following bible verses Mt26:38-39 1 Jesus is asking GOD to let this cup (death) pass from him, he is not willing to die, and he did not come to die. Had Jesus come to die he would not have been crying and asking GOD to save him from death, he was in grief. In Marks rendition he says in Chapter 14:35-36. 2 So it is clear Jesus was begging to GOD to save him from this ordeal, had he come to die he would have been welcoming it with open arms, since he is not aware of it he says to GOD all things are possible onto thee and nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. 3 Clear proof here that Jesus is not GOD, his life is not in his hands but in the hands of the one who created him, GOD the one and only creator. Also a few points to bear in mind here, all things are possible unto GOD. If he can make Jesus be born of a mother and no father he alone can save him from this death, also Jesus does not follow his will but the will of GOD, as we see in both renditions that Jesus is stressing on the will of GOD being different and
1

Mt26: 38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. 39 and he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. Mr 14: 35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible,the hour might pass from him. 36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
3
2

Ibid

more powerful than his. So this discounts the concept that Jesus was GOD. Thirdly GOD does not fall on his face and beg any one to save his life. So, one who falls on his face and worships GOD cannot be GOD. So we can see that Jesus was not sent to die, He prayed to be saved from this hardship. Another point here is that had Jesus been God he would not need his disciples to look out for him while he was praying, GOD is the omnipotent, the mighty, the powerful, the All seeing and all knowing and does not need a few sleepy, powerless men to look out for him. God had destroyed his enemies in the past and could destroy anybody, no need for men armed with swords. Matthew teals us that Jesus was son of man and not God as in Mt 26:43-45. 1 He says here too clearly SON OF MAN not son of GOD nor GOD, can God be betrayed? This point that he prayed and his prayers were answered is also reflected in Hebrews 5:7 2 where it say clearly that Jesus was saved from death because of his reverent submission to God .So make no mistake about it he prayed to GOD in his life and in the Garden of Gethsemane and he was heard because of his reverent submission. We must not forget here we are talking of a prophet of GOD and a very great one indeed one who Allah had bestowed great favours so how can his cries be left unheard. Again in this verse we can see the refutation of Jesus divinity in the Bible itself, take a look for yourself; he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death. Had he been GOD he would not need someone else to save him from death, GOD is omnipotent and all-powerful, was not born and does not die and especially does not need anyone else to save him from death. One very important question needs to be asked here, if Jesus the teacher, the healer, the prophet was as peaceful as Christians make out, why was a Cohort (about 600 soldiers) sent to arrest such a peaceful man? The bible in Matthew 27:27 says a cohort came to arrest him in Gethsemane and according to Barnes New Testament Notes it says it was
Mt 26:43 And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy. 44 And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. 45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 2 Hebrews 5:7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.
1

from 400 600 hundred: 1 Also Alfred Edersheim in his book the Life and times of Jesus the messiah says: 2 Has the bible been hiding something we dont know about? The bible covers only 3 years of Jesus ministry, what happened during the rest of his life is not documented. Are we sure that things did not happen before that, are we sure he was not seen as powerful and influential that just at a call those who followed him would revolt? Obviously before the arrest he gets his men to sell their garments and buy swords, he anticipated what was going to happen, he prayed to his Lord to save him and as a prophet he had full conviction that his lord was not going to let him down, those Jews who sent the Roman soldiers to arrest him, knew who they were facing. Only two swords because Jesus was to rely on the civilians who I am sure were armed to the teeth. But since God answered his prayers and saved him from death he did not have to rely on a revolution This is why In Luke 22:36 he told his disciples to sell their garments and buy swords: 3 Jesus also knew very well the nature of the Jews and how they were rebellious; Even Moses has spoken about them, their nature in the OT in Deut 9:24 4 So Jesus son of the father (son of Mary) according to the Bible came for the lost tribe of Israel. Some of the Jews believed in him and many did not (John 11: 45-51)( the Jews, who had taunted and Killed Prophets in the past and wanted him dead too) as mentioned in MT 26: 59-61. 5

The band or cohort was a tenth part of a Roman legion, and consisted of from four hundred to six hundred men, according to the size of the legion. 2 We can now understand the progress of events. In the fortress of Antonia, close to the Temple and connected with it by two stairs,lay the Roman garrison. But during the Feast the Temple itself was guarded by an armed Cohort, consisting of from 400 to 600 men, so as to prevent or quell any tumult among the numerous pilgrims 3 Lu 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 4 Deut 9:24 Ye have been rebellious against the LORD from the day that I knew you. 5 MT 26:59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; 60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two falsewitnesses, 61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

10

Jesus too knew how they were and Like Moses in the verse above rebuked them for their attitude towards other prophets in Mt 23:31 . 1 The next very important point to bear in mind here is that, although Jesus was a preacher, teacher, prophet and if he was the son of GOD why was it than that 600 soldiers from Pilates army did not know him, even the Jews had to pay Judas 30 pieces of silver to take them to him and still when they got there they spoke to Jesus face to face and did not know it was him, Judas had to go and kiss him to reassure them it was him. 2 They did not know who they were looking for; twice, while staring them in the face he told them who he was, yet had he not told them, they would not have known. So how could anyone else be sure it was him that was on that cross when the disciples left him and fled? The Quran certifies that it was not Jesus 3 Make no mistake about it the Quran is not conjecture, out of all those soldiers not one knew him, any one could have been in his place none would have been the wiser, if Judas was not taken there to kiss him and show them who he is;Mat26 4
1

Mt 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 2 John 18: 4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. 6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. 7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. 8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he Chapter 4 Holy Quran 157. And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allh," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. Mat 26: 50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
4

11

Jesus asserted to them that he was preaching daily at the temple yet they did not take him then. This too shows that they did not know him since, had he been preaching daily at the temple the soldiers would have known him. 1 Of course they did not take him from the temple because many had not known who he was and not every one there wanted him dead. The evil high Priests wanted him dead but the Soldiers were only obeying orders, they were not even aware whom they were supposed to capture. Mat 26 2 As we have seen earlier in Hebrews 5:7 Jesus prayers were answered due to his increased reverence to God, at least one angel was sent to the Garden of Gethsemane to reassure him that his prayers were heard, this is confirmed in Luke 22:43 3 Even Pilate did not know who he was and he asked him if it is true what they are saying about him. 4 So how can any one say there is guarantee that it was him who died on the cross? Up to this point the bible authors still have an eyewitness. Peter followed them from far. Mt 27:

48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me? I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled. 22 Mat 26: 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
3
4

And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. Mat27:11 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

.Mat 26: 43

12

Chapter 3 The trial Jesus was brought to the High priests for trial and asked whether he was the son of GOD. Here is your answer, conflicting answers from different bible authors: Mat26: 1 Jesus says in MT 26:64 when asked if he was the son of GOD you are saying so, not me: This is clear from this point that he even denies being the son Of GOD. But Mark wants to hit the Son of GOD message home and this is his version: Mr 14 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. In Luke another version too, he is asked are you the King of the Jews, the King of the Jews here does not mean GOD or son of GOD as David was a great King and so was his son Solomon: Luke 23 3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it. John18 33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? So whom do we believe? Two say that Jesus said you said so and the one says Jesus replied affirmatively. One is actually a denial because Jesus is asking him whether he is asking this or is it coming form others. So in other words he is denying that he was neither the son of GOD nor even the King of the Jews. Peter had been noticed and when questioned 3 times he swore he did not know him. So that was all of the eyewitnesses out of the way. We are left now with hearsay, accounts of third parties.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
1

13

Jesus prayed and begged and cried to the Almighty and his prayer were heard and answered. How can a beloved prophet of God be humiliated and chastised in such a way, even in Islam although we do not consider Jesus is the son of GOD or GOD but we believe he was one of the greatest prophets GOD sent to mankind. When he was performing all his miracles he was calling to God and his prayers were being answered: John 11: 41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes,and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. Why not this prayer at a crucial time of his life? Matthew 7 [8] "FOR EVERYONE THAT ASKETH RECEIVETH; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Clear and dry Jesus asked and it he received, how could he be preaching a message that did not apply to him. So GOD was planning, as he is the greatest of all planners. Jesus was locked up during the course of the night while being tarried from place to place for his trial. By coincidence who else was imprisoned on the same by the same governor Pilate? None else but Jesus son of the father. Many Writers, Muslim and non Muslim have deduced that Jesus (son of Mary) was crucified but was not killed, I will go even further and show you that he did not even get crucified let alone killed. He did not even get put on the cross. Does it not seem to be a coincidence that 2 men bearing the same name are captured and thrown in the same prison at the same time? Both were no strangers to the people. Both were supposed revolutionaries in their own rights. It sure is not a coincidence, it is the work of almighty GOD he planned it that way and that was the way it was going to happen, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. By GODs will alone and no one can change that. Jesus son of the father and Jesus Son of the father end up in the same prison on the same night. What is he talking about? You might ask. Well, one 14

common word between the two, in Hebrew and Aramaic Barabbas,in English the son of the Father. Bar meaning the son and Abba meaning the father. Remember Jesus is in English, in Hebrew it was Yeshua. Greek: Iesous ton Barabbas. The Night Jesus was captured by a cohort of (around 600) soldiers and put in prison; the same night in the same custody was another Jesus. He too was called Jesus Barabbas (although authors of the Bible and Historians and commentators later dropped the name Jesus from his name because as they said they did not want a sinner to have shared the same name as their beloved son of GOD). The church father Origen was appalled by the use of "Jesus Barabbas" in the manuscripts he was familiar with because he held the conviction that no "sinner" should bare the name and title of "Jesus the Christ ". Jesus Barabbas was a Criminal, a murderer and a revolutionary, a man imprisoned for sedition and insurrection. Some modern day bibles still hold the name Jesus Barabbas: Matthew27:16 This year there was a notorious criminal in prison, a man named Barabbas. [Some manuscripts read Jesus Barabbas; also in 27:17.](New Living Translation) Footnotes of The New King James Version says: {Matthew 27:16 NU-Text reads Jesus Barabbas.} On the other hand we have Jesus son of Mary, a man approved of GOD (Acts 2:22), a prophet Mt 13:57 Mt 21: 11And the multitude said, this is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.) Jesus son of Mary (also known as son of the father) called the people to worship the one true GOD your GOD and my GOD. Joh 20: 17) AVRLE (Jesus saith unto her ,Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. So you have Jesus son of the father, prophet, teacher, healer, preacher and you have Jesus son of the father insurgent, murderer, and criminal. Both in the same prison Charged for crimes and to be sentenced. Jesus Barabas, the criminal, being there sentenced to death too, was not a 15

Coincidence. It was the plan of almighty GOD. At this point when Jesus (Son of Mary) was sent to Pilate, the latter saw no crime in him. As far as Pilate was concerned he was Innocent. He was not prepared to sentence an innocent man and he knew that. No one was witness as to what happened, what was said and done behind those doors, there is no testimony in neither the Bible nor the Historians.

16

Chapter 4 Pontius Pilate: Judea was placed under the rule of a Roman procurator. Pilate, who was the fifth, succeeding Valerius Gratus in A.D. 26, had greater authority than most procurators under the empire, for in addition to the ordinary duty of financial administration, he had supreme power judicially. His unusually long period of office (A.D. 26-36) covers the whole of the active ministry both of St. John the Baptist and of Jesus Christ. . The other events of his rule are not of very great importance. Philo (Ad Gaium, 38) speaks of him as inflexible, merciless, and obstinate. The Jews hated him and his administration, for he was not only very severe, but showed little consideration for their susceptibilities. (NEW ADVENT Catholic encyclopedia) So as we can see here that Pontius Pilate was a not a nice man and did not favour the Jews and not the type that will let people off easily, let alone a hardened criminal like Jesus Barnabbas although the Gospel of John, tries, for some reason or another to play it down and call Jesus Barnabbas just a robber. John 18: 40 Now Barabbas was a robber. Was he? Well the other inspired Bible authors claimed he was a murderer and was anti Roman and caused a revolution. Did John mention him being a robber just to try and explain why it was not a problem for Pilate to release him? After all he was just a petty thief, wasnt he? So, to release him, according to John, does not pose a problem, but not if he was a hardened criminal? However Pilate saw no crime in Jesus (son of Mary) and was not ready to sentence him. By this time it was the high priest who had sentenced him to death No one was there and no one actually saw or witnessed what actually took place there. Even if there is, where is his testimony? The authors of the Bible were not eyewitnesses and they had taken the story from others who too were not there. Gods power works in wonderful ways, ways we cannot imagine sometimes. Something very crucial comes into place. For a man like Pilate who even had to send Jesus to Herod in order not to make 17

Judgment (who also found nothing wrong and returned him). Pilate, a hard man who would rather get hated more by the Jews that to bow down to them. He actually found the King of the Jews not guilty. Why? Could it be that GOD made this mans heart become weak and decide not to kill this innocent man although Pilate himself could not careless about the Jews and what they think? Could there have been outside intervention? No one witnessed the meeting between Pilate and Jesus and even if there were where is the evidence. By that time GOD could have already worked his wonders: Chapter 4: 157. "" - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. It was going to be the criminal who was going to bear the brunt of getting crucified not an innocent man. A man approved of GOD. Fair isnt it? The Punishment for death is death, is God unjust? Was an innocent man going to die and a criminal to walk free? Is there Justice in there? GOD is not unjust. Even Pilate had made up his mind and it was final: Luke 23 16 I will therefore chastise him, and release him. It was said that Jesus was beaten so much that he was beyond recognition: Isaiah 52: 14 "Just as there were many who were appalled at him - his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness. so he was chastised badly to please the Jews, but not killed. Another point to bear in mind is that Jesus was beaten badly in the face and was not recognizable. Actually later on we will see how even after his alleged resurrection he was not recognized by those who knew him. So how could any one confirm it was he on the cross? Being disfigured GOD could have made Jesus look like someone else and that person to look like him. Luke 23 16 I will therefore chastise him, and release him. Pilate was thinking of releasing Jesus son of Mary. According to the Bible, (only according to Mark) it was tradition to have a feast every year in which Pilate releases prisoners in Amnesty: Mark 27 18

15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. However there is no evidence of this feast recorded in any other document outside of Marks Gospel. No mention even that a prisoner is released on any such occasion, not even in passing. Even the OT does not mention anything like this for Passover. This was made up by Mark in order to distinguish between the two sons of the father. Suddenly out of the blue there was going to be a feast and Pilate was going to be very generous to the People he did not like, we are made to believe. He had decided he was going to release one prisoner to make those who hated him and who he hated, happy. The funny thing here is that there were two thieves who were allegedly crucified next to Jesus. Why would Pilate want to release a hardened criminal who was an insurgent and could have spelt trouble for him and his roman soldiers and rather put two petty thieves to death. His intention was to free Jesus not to have him killed: Mark 27 16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. A notable prisoner he claims not a murderer or insurgent, someone who is comparable with Jesus son of Mary? Before we go further we have to note too Pilates wife had mentioned that she had a dream about Jesus the night before and wanted her husband not to have anything to do with him. I.e. causing any harm to him: 19 When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. Who would he listen to most his wife or the Jews? Pilate was ready to release Jesus son of the father so he brought them in front of the people, with Jesus having been beaten so badly he was disfigured: Mat 27: 17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? If it was a tradition for the governor Pilate to release a prisoner at the time of the feast he would no have asked them to choose who they want to release, having seen no fault in Jesus son of Mary he would have released 19

him without them even asking the Jews, after all he was the Governor and did not need their consent. John 19: 4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. Here again there is no consistency in the reports of the 4 Gospel writers .In order not to give the impression that copied each other they all gave different accounts of what happened. One event, 4 different renditions by 4 different writers, none of them being present there to witness anything. John 18: 39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the Passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews? Although the custom is mentioned but the contest is not mentioned as above and as from the other Gospel authors where the choice is given. Why once again did Pilate not just release Christ and finish with it? Mat 27: 17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus, which is called Christ? None of the 4 Gospels as I mentioned before say anything about the real name of Barabbas. Jesus Barabbas. The KJV mentions nothing about it. So when Pilate, in all 4 Gospels, Says Barabbas in reality he was saying Jesus Barabbas. So who do you want me to release? Said Pilate, Jesus son of the father or Jesus son of the father, or as the Bible puts it here Barabbas, or Jesus, which is called Christ? Just put a Jesus in front of the name of Barabbas every time his name appears. Who would you like to me to release Jack Nicholson or Jack Nichols son? Mt27: 21 The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? Mr15 9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? John 19: 15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? 20

Luke 23 18 And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, There is ample evidence even in Christian scriptures here as we can see that Jesus (son of Mary) was not crucified. Here again we have from the Nag Hammadi in the Testimony of Truth we can read: The foolish - thinking in their heart that if they confess, "We are Christians," in word only (but) not with power, while giving themselves over to ignorance, to a human death, not knowing where they are going nor who Christ is, thinking that they will live, when they are (really) in error - hasten towards the principalities and authorities. They fall into their clutches because of the ignorance that is in them. For (if) only words which bear testimony were effecting salvation, the whole world would endure this thing and would be saved. But it is in this way that they drew error to themselves. ... ... (3lines unrecoverable) ... they do not know that they will destroy themselves. If the Father were to desire a human sacrifice, he would become vainglorious. Now by this time GODs wonders and his will had already been executed. I am sure that even the most devout Christian will agree with me that GOD can do all things. The disfigured Jesus was not noticeable to any one. GOD had already changed him to look like someone else and that someone else to look like him. The Noble Quran Chapter 4: 157. "" - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. The Quran has only one version of the story and not three to four different versions told by people who were not eyewitnesses.

Mt 21: 9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. 21

Mt 21: 15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased, Mr 11: 9 And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Mr 11: 10 Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest. Joh 12: 13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord. This same man who was so glorified, that performed Miracles in the name of the lord, the same one who healed the lepers and raised the dead to life all by the will of GOD, who was hailed as the King of the Jews, son of David has now become public enemy number one, is this coincidence or what? When asked who to release why did they call out: Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: Yes away with the one that looks like Christ, who is so disfigured no one can recognise him and as for Jesus son of Mary when asked by Pilate if he should release him: Joh 18: 40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. ( not the one that GOD has already changed his face and made him look like Jesus (son of the father) we want Jesus Barabbas ( son of the father), or at least the one that looks like Jesus Barabbas and as for Jesus son of Mary when asked by Pilate: Why, what evil hath he done? They only replied: Let him be crucified. Luke 23: 21 But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Crucify him, Crucify whom? Pilate still did not want to crucify an innocent man: 24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. 22

26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. Lets say he released the one, who to him, looked like Jesus Barabbas and when he had scourged the one, he saw, looked like Jesus he delivered him to be crucified. Luke 23: 25 And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will. So Pontius Pilate released Jesus son of the father but Crucified Jesus son of the father. For as I came downward, no one saw me. For I was altering my shapes, changing from form to form. And therefore, when I was at their gates, I assumed their likeness. For I passed them by quietly, and I was viewing the places, and I was not afraid nor ashamed, for I was undefiled. And I was speaking with them, mingling with them through those who are mine, and trampling on those who are harsh to them with zeal, and quenching the flame. And I was doing all these things because of my desire to accomplish what I desired by the will of the Father above. (Nag Hammadi Library second treatise of Seth) So Jesus son of Mary (son of the father) gets released into the crowd and walks off un-noticed while Jesus son of the father (Barrabas) gets punished for his crimes; murder, insurrection. He gets crucified. Only fair isnt it, an innocent man walks off while the criminal gets punished for his sins. GOD is not unjust. At this point we will fast forward and not go through the gory details of the cruci-fiction but to a few very important points that has to be considered here. Some people might say rubbish, if it was Jesus Barabbas who was going to be crucified, would he not have at least said I am not Jesus. I ask you, can Jesus Barabbas say? I am not Jesus son of the father, But I am Jesus son of the father. Remember they spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, not English, so yelling I am not Jesus Barabbas, but I am Jesus Barabbas, they would have thought he had gone crazy and that was even more reason for them not to let not to let this guy free. Only the Gospel of John seems to hold the viewthat Mary the mory of Jesus was present there in front of here son while he was being crucified ( we look deeper into this further4 down) none of the other Gospels seem to, and there has been doubt about who the Bible authors actually were. If the 23

disciple John wrote the Gospel and he claims to have been present there at the crucifiction, then why do the other gospels say that all the disciples fled? Why the inconsistencies? It must have been another John altogether who was not even present there but who was writing so many years after Jesus had left the world, and was writing from what he heard others say. The Quran has only one stand over the issue and it is clear with no inconsistencies: Chapter 4: 157. And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allh," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]: 158. But Allh raised him ['Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allh is Ever AllPowerful, AllWise. And the Quran is not conjecture. Now another important point and person comes into play here, there is the mention of Joseph of Arimathaea taking the body from the cross and burying it. I can imagine many readers here discounting this theory by saying you see Joseph of Arimathaea is proof. This here is a very important here, as we will see. Let us see what the bible says about him first, as not much is mentioned about him: Mt 27: 57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus disciple: Joh 19: 38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, Mr 15: 43 Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, Lu 23 24

50 And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just: So as we can see in Matthew (27:57 Joseph, who also himself was Jesus disciple) and from John (19:38, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews,) that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus.

25

Chapter 5 Who was Joseph of Arimathaea Not one of the twelve but a secret disciple. A secret follower or believer I can understand, but a secret disciple? Joseph, as the bible says: an honourable counselor, a rich man of Arimathaea, a good man, and a just, a disciple of Jesus, but secretly. Not much is mentioned in the bible about who he is apart from the fact that he owned something strange. Mr 15: 60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: MT 27: and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. Lu 23: 53and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. So let us recap for a minute, Joseph of Arimathaea, a Jew, very rich, noble man, good, honourable counselor, just, a secret disciple of Jesus and a man who owned something strange. He did not own a barn, a farm or a horse or cow or even a forest full of trees since it would help Jesus who was a carpenter but he owned his own Sepulcher (grave) dug into the rock and it was new too because the bible says: Mr 15: 60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock Lu 23: 53and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. Jo 19: 41 and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. Whenever as Christians or even non-Christians you read the bible do you ever ask yourselves these following questions. Why a sepulcher? Was it a Jewish tradition that every rich man should buy his own grave? The were 26

no records outside of the Bible that mentioned about this issue and as a matter of fact there was not much information about Joseph of Arimathaea in the Gospels although he was rich and influential. Whatever is found is in the Apocrypha mainly the book of Nicodemus (we will see that later).There are 2 important questions we need to ask ourselves or rather ask the Christians here. 1 Why did Jesus have or need a secret disciple? 2 Why would this disciple own his own grave, newly dug into a rock? The answers are clear and are found in the Scriptures if only we search for them we will find them. Now for somebody to be a secret follower where by out of fear he practices his new religion whereby nobody knows, that is understandable. Many people have come into Islam and out of fear of their folks they have kept it a secret only a bunch of friends know and thats it. But a disciple works for that that religion, to preach it, to help it grow and spread the message in any way shape or form, so why was Joseph not a secret follower of Jesus rather than a disciple. Some people might not find it to be a big deal, that Jesus had a secret disciple who had a grave dug into a rock, but we will see the importance later. The Quran tells us why: Chapter 61 14. O you who believe! Be you helpers (in the Cause) of Allh as said 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), to AlHawrn (the disciples): "Who are my helpers (in the Cause) of Allh?" AlHawreen (the disciples) said: "We are Allh's helpers" (i.e. we will strive in His Cause!). So Joseph was a disciple for a reason and because he was supposed to keep it a secret he was not going to go round spreading Jesus message and healing the lepers and the blind in the name of GOD that would become too obvious. And if he feared the Jews, he himself was a Jew, a very rich and influential. It says so in the Bible that he was. It says also that He used his influence to bribe influential people; out of all people he bribed the governor. So this man is not frightened of being persecuted by the Jews. He was influential and affluent too. His secrecy of being a disciple was not out of fear for the Jews but was all planned. Luke 23 27

51 (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. If we, for a minute, just go off to a different direction and search for clues and answers we would understand the situation, let us just see the situation in Islam and compare notes. At the time when the Prophet Mohamed(peace be upon him) received his prophet Islam was and the Muslims who had just adhered to the faith were being persecuted by the Pagans and the Jews Of Mecca. Among those early Muslims who accept his message were some rich and Influential people, His wife Khadeejah for one was a very rich trader and so was his friend Abu Bakr who declared their faith openly. Khadeejah gave all her wealth to the cause of Islam and Abu Bakr used to free slaves and pay the ransom. So they were openly promote and spreading the message of the religion that came to them. Although Abu Bakr together with the prophet Mohamed Got beaten so badly several times by their enemies but their faith was no secret. There came to Islam also many strong and powerful people who were not to be messed with. People like Omar Ibn al-Khattab left his house armed to go and kill the Prophet Mohamed when GOD guided him to Islam, He was so strong and tough that when He came to Islam, he used to pray openly In Mecca and no one messed with him. The prophets (peace be upon him) uncle Hamza was a hunter; he was called the lion hunter and when accepted Islam at the early stages whenever the non-Muslims were persecuting the Muslims and Hamza(PBUT) turned up the persecutors fled. This strengthened the religion of Islam with Influence, wealth and power. So getting back to the point of Jesus and why he had a secret disciple? His influence and riches could have helped Jesus spread the message had he been preaching openly. But no, this disciples mission was different. The answer is simple and it is found in the Bible itself. Let us go back to: Mat 12 38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. So the Jews did not believe he was a prophet and needed a sign a miracle to prove he was who he claimed he was, the one sent by God to carry his message to the people. And clearly here if Jesus had come to die and resurrect after 3 days he would have told them, that in itself would have 28

been the miracle of all miracles. The man, GOD was bestowing his favours on by making him perform miracles, raising the dead, walking on water and healing lepers, is, himself going to die and be raised again. Would that not be a sign to convince them but Jesus tells them otherwise that in itself should be the miracle of all miracles: Mt 12: 39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: Mt 12: 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Mt 16:4 Lu 11:29 Lu 11:30 mentions the same thing. No sign but the sign of the prophet Jonas for the evil and adulterous generation.

29

Chapter 6 What was the sign of Jonas? And what made it so special that Jesus mentioned it and it was going to be his be all and end all sign to the Jews Jonas, one of the past prophets to cut a long story short I will not go and explain all that happened to Jonas. However we will see where Prophet Jonas after boarding a ship, found that there was a tempest and some one had to thrown overboard, so they cast lots and Jonas picked the short straw anyway when he was thrown over board a whale came and swallowed him up. Now Prophet Jonas spend 3 days in the stomach of the whale ALIVE until he was released by the whale. The point here is that Jonas spent 3 days inside the belly of the whale with no food and drink and air. The issue here is not just the time factor 3 Days. But the fact that Jonas came out alive. He was in there alive and he came out ALIVE, he did not die at all. This is what Jesus promised his people too that his miracle would be the sign of Jonas. I have a few Questions here for the Christian: 1. Do prophets prophecy? 2. Are their prophecies fulfilled? 3. Was Jonas alive or dead for 3 days in the belly of the whale? My answers to these questions are YES. Another Question, 4. Did Jesus die on the cross? 5. Did Jesus fulfill all his prophecies? Straight away the Christian will say that yes he did die on the cross. If yes then prophecy not fulfilled, then how can a prophet have a prophecy not fulfilled. He told the Jews that he would be like the prophet Jonah, alive for 3 days, in the heart of the earth. Mt 12: 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. So if Jonas spent 3 days ALIVE in the belly of the whale there is no way Jesus could have been dead even for a short while. That would not have fulfilled the prophecy and although the time factor is not 30

important the importance here the state Jesus was in, DEAD or ALIVE. If he was DEAD, which I am sure a Christian will haste to answer yes, then, think carefully here, Jesus dead no prophecy, no sign of Jonas, prophets word not dignified, Prophecy not fulfilled. Wouldnt the Christian prefer to accept that prophecy from Jesus was fulfilled rather than not. We cannot have it both ways here if prophecy is fulfilled then Jesus could not have died on the cross. If Jesus died on the cross then his prophecy was not fulfilled. One the other hand Jesus having escaped even the torture of being put on the cross, spends 3 full days hiding in Joseph of Arimathaeas tomb all the time ALIVE. Prophecy fulfilled, honourable prophet gets raised. The theory that some Writers have put forward is that Jesus was crucified and spent one day on the cross then was taken down at night and put in the Sepulcher, this does not make 3 days it is one day and one night. I will tell you that Jesus son of Mary was all the time in the Sepulcher for 3 full days from the time Jesus Barabbas was taken to be crucified and let us look into the time factor now, if Jesus was placed in the tomb on Friday sunset then one day is gone he spends one night on the cross. Saturday all day and all night he was in the tomb, by sunrise Sunday he was gone. All in all if we add this up according to the Bible it makes 2 nights and 1 full day. Not 3 days and 3 nights. If we stick to this version that he spent Friday sunset up to Sunday sunrise when he was not there, then definitely it does not make 3 days and 3 nights, thus we cannot accept that the prophecy of the Prophet Jesus was not fulfilled. What more like happened was that when Pilate asked who the crowd wanted freed Jesus son of the father or Jesus son of the father, the fact that GOD had disfigured Jesus and they did not recognize him. And the one that they chose to be freed was actually Jesus himself. And as he said:For as I came downward, no one saw me. For I was altering my shapes, changing from form to form. And therefore, when I was at their gates, I assumed their likeness. For I passed them by quietly, and I was viewing the places, and I was not afraid nor ashamed, for I was undefiled. And I was speaking with them, mingling with them through those who are mine, and trampling on those who are harsh to them with zeal, and quenching the flame. And I was doing all these things because of my desire to accomplish what I desired by the will of the Father above. (Nag Hammadi Library second treatise of Seth) 31

So he would walk away in front of them knowing. Now the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees could not care about Barabbas, all they wanted was Jesus dead. So to see one who looks like Barabbas walk past them nothing strange they just asked for him to be freed and they had no business with him so just let him go and no one was to check up on him. So it is more credible that from then on Jesus would spend the three full days and 3 full nights hidden in Josephs tomb. Prophecy fulfilled. Mr 15 43 Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. Yes he asked for the body of Jesus Barabbas and quickly took it awayso no one can see who was really up on that cross: 46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock. No one was to by any wiser. Joseph of Arimathaea was a disciple and he fulfilled his mission, and this was to provide an exit strategy for Jesus son of Mary and hide him in the Sepulcher for 3 days. This is why Jesus had a secret disciple who owned his own tomb to help Jesus that he does not get caught after escaping the crucifiction. Mat 12: 40 so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The sepulcher was dug out of the rock making it an enclosure just like the heart of the earth all closed up. We also have This next statement was found as a commentary in one of the online bibles called Theopilos: The contents of this Gospel, and the evidence of ancient writers, show that it was written primarily for the use of the Jewish nation. The fulfilment of prophecy was regarded by the Jews as strong evidence, therefore this is especially dwelt upon by Matthew. (Theophilos 3 for Windows Matthew Henrys concise Commentary) This is evidence that the sign of Jonah prophecy had to be fulfilled and it was, since the fulfillment of Prophecy was highly important. Not much else is said about Joseph of Arimathaea except in the Acts of Pilate, The Gospel of Nicodemus in the apocrypha, in which was said: 32

But when the Jews heard these words they waxed bitter in soul, and caught hold on Joseph and took him and shut him up in an house wherein was no window, and guards were set at the door: and they sealed the door of the place where Joseph was shut up. And actually Joseph comes out with the Story of a jailbreak in order to distract them from thinking Jesus could still be alive and never died. Joseph narrates how the jailhouse rock took place: 6 And Joseph said: On the preparation day about the tenth hour ye did shut me up, and I continued there the whole Sabbath. And at midnight as I stood and prayed the house wherein ye shut me up was taken up by the four corners, and I saw as it were a flashing of light in mine eyes, and being filled with fear I fell to the earth. And one took me by the hand and removed me from the place whereon I had fallen; and moisture of water was shed on me from my head unto my feet, and an odour of ointment came about my nostrils. And he wiped my face and kissed me and said unto me: Fear not, Joseph: open thine eyes and see who it is that speaketh with thee. And I looked up and saw Jesus and I trembled, and supposed that it was a spirit: and I said the commandments: and he said them with me. And [as] ye are not ignorant that a spirit, if it meet any man and hear the commandments, straightway fleeth. And when I perceived that he said them with me, I said unto him: Rabbi Elias? And he said unto me: I am not Elias. And I said unto him: Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me: I am Jesus, whose body thou didst beg of Pilate, and didst clothe me in clean linen and cover my face with a napkin, and lay me in thy new cave and roll a great stone upon the door of the cave. And I said to him that spake with me: Show me the place where I laid thee. And he brought me and showed me the place where I laid him, and the linen cloth lay therein, and the napkin that was upon his face. And I knew that it was Jesus. And he took me by the hand and set me in the midst of mine house, the doors being shut, and laid me upon my bed and said unto me: Peace be unto thee. And he kissed me and said unto me: Until forty days be ended go not out of thine house: for behold I go unto my brethren into Galilee. Now this jailhouse rock seems something so extra ordinary yet it was mentioned only in a few lines in a book of the apocrypha and history has it too that it was not authentic. Can you imagine that, the biggest jailbreak in history and it is hidden in the apocrypha? According to Joseph the four corners of the prison were raised up. That would have been a great miracle 33

by itself. But instead it is hidden away in the apocryphal books and I am sure most Christians have not even seen or heard about it, why? Because it most likely did not happen and if Joseph was relating it to the Jews, he was doing a great job in deceiving them because his job was to hide Jesus for 3 days and make them believe he was dead.

34

Chapter 7 Cruci-fiction? Now comes the moment weve all been waiting for, the apparent crucifixion of the Jesus son of Mary. I say apparent here because Paul also backs me up on this actually in his letter to the Galatians we can see that Paul confirms the fact that the crucifixion was only a myth: Galatians 3:1-2 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Paul here stresses that Jesus was Portrayed as being crucified. Not that he was definitely crucified. It confirms the fact that someone was crucified and it was portrayed to be Jesus. But even Saul of Tarsus gives no certainty as to whether it was definitely he who was crucified. Some other writers have mentioned that it was Judas who was punished for his treason and put on the cross and crucified as a punishment, others have said it was Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross and was later put on the cross and also if we read the Nag Hammadi Library in the Second Treatise of Seth this is what is said: But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance. And I subjected all their powers. For as I came downward, no one saw me. For I was altering my shapes, changing from form to form. And therefore, when I was at their gates, I assumed their likeness. For I passed them by quietly, and I was viewing the places, and I was not afraid nor ashamed, for I was undefiled. And I was speaking with them, mingling with them through those who are mine, and trampling on those who are harsh to them with zeal, and quenching the flame. And I was doing all these things because of my desire to accomplish what I desired by the will of the Father above. 35

So we can see here clear proof from the Nag Hammadi Library that Jesus did not die on the cross but someone else. From the same source, the Nag Hammadi Library in the Apocalypse of Peter we can read: "Come therefore, let us go on with the completion of the will of the incorruptible Father. For behold, those who will bring them judgment are coming, and they will put them to shame. But me they cannot touch. And you, O Peter, shall stand in their midst. Do not be afraid because of your cowardice. Their minds shall be closed, for the invisible one has opposed them." When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?" The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me." If we go back again to what the bible says we see something very interesting: Mat 27: 32 And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross. 33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, 34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. 35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, they parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. Funnily enough, the verses are clear when one reads them but many Christians do not seem top see it. Let us take a look at these 4 verses in detail. So it says as they went out they found Simon of Cyrene and he was forced to carry the cross. Then we see that when they got a place called Golgotha verse 34 says they gave him (Simon) Vinegar mixed with Gall to drink, which he (Simon refused) and 35 says they Crucified him, they 36

Crucified whom? It does not mention Jesus here since the context was about Simon carrying the cross. There is nothing at all that says it was Jesus that was crucified, as matter of fact it says here that Simon of cyrene was crucified. So we can see here again that the Second treatise of Seth backs up this verse with the following: Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance. Time and time again the bible provides the evidence for those who want to see the truth that Jesus was not crucified. Mark15: 21 And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross. 22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. 23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not. 24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take. 25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. Again him refers to whom here? There is no reference to Jesus, they caught Simon, forced HIM to carry the cross, They brought HIM to Golgotha and gave HIM vinegar to drink. Here mark says it was wine but it doesnt matter that is not the problem at the moment. Then they crucified HIM. As usual John gives a totally different rendition and leaves out Simon altogether, why the difference in narrating the story, was there some doubt as to who really carried the cross and as to who really was crucified. John 19: 16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. 37

17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: 18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. To confirm the who is HIM theory, John refers it all to Jesus and Simon is not mentioned at all. John actually claims Jesus carried his cross, we see the contradictions in the 4 renditions. John always uses the holier than thou attitude where he attributes every thing to Jesus even thou we find that Jesus did not actually say or do some of the stuff he claims. It goes on to say that it was written on his Cross THE KING OF THE JEWS. Other renditions have it that it was Written Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews. This however, does not prove that it really was Jesus who was crucified there. The previous verses were addressing the issue of Simon of Cyrene and then it continues with and the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mark 15: 26 that that it was written over him on the cross King of the Jews. So, even if it was written that it was the king of the Jews, it does not necessarily mean that it was Jesus who was in that place. We can see that it was not Jesus who was on that cross, it could have been Jesus Barabbas, it could even have been Simon of Cyrene or it could have been Judas. Would we not rather it was one of these three who was humiliated and crucified instead of Jesus. With all the humiliation and the mockery, GOD, would not have let his beloved go through this, GOD is not unjust. For one of the greatest prophets who walked this earth to be crucified with 2 robbers on each side, is this not humiliation. Why was Pilate so keen on crucifying Robbers yet he let a killer like Jesus Barrabas and insurgent walk free, is that the justice of GOD while he allowed a Great prophet an innocent man to die. Think about it. This is why those who were present were asking the question that if he could perform Miracles how come he could not save himself from such a humiliation: Mark 15: 29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, 30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross. 38

31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. As I mentioned above, It is narrated in the Bible (the book of John) that Jesus mother Mary was in front of Jesus on the cross, so any one can say that is evidence it was truly Jesus who was on that cross. But for a mother who had carried her child for 9 months, who had suffered in childbirth, she seemed very silent when seeing the nails being driven through her sons hands and feet. She would have gone crazy and into a frenzy. No way would a mother stand there silently and watch such punishment being meted out to here beloved son. All mothers would have put up fight. She would have even put her life in danger in order to save her son. So why was Mary silent? Was it because he she was forewarned that it was not her son who was going to be on that cross. If GOD sent the Angel to give her glad tidings of son to be born to here when no man had touched here I am he would have sent someone to inform her of the glad tidings that her son was not the one who would be on that cross, so she would have nothing to worry about. She would have been informed who was in the place of her son that is why she did not take any action or say anything. Actually at the time of dying, Jesus who loved his mother a lot who according to the Quran Praises her in the cradle, according to the Bible he addresses her as woman, something that somebody else would have called her, not her son. Mark actually, cunningly enough puts in another way in chapter 15: 40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; She is referred to here the mother of James the less. Now who was james the less, James the Just, also known as the brother of Jesus, Christian scholars differ As to who he really was. Many claim he was the Cousin of Jesus from Marys sister also called Mary, others say he was the half brother of Jesus from Josephs previous wife. So why does he not get to the point if it was Mary the mother of Jesus and call a spade a spade. Why doe she have to call here the mother of James or as we see in the next verse she is referred to as the mother of Joses. 39

47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid. We see in the next verse too no mention of Mary mother of Jesus. Other women went to anoint him except his own mother, a bit strange isnt it? Could it be that Mary mother of Jesus very well it was not her son that was crucified, so she neither needed to be there in front of him nor did she need to go an anoint the body of Jesus Barrabas or any body else. Mark 16: 1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. We see the same thing in Matthew too but he, in one of his verses, refers to her as the other Mary. Mark 27: 16 And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre. Whos the other Mary? Was it Jesus mother, was it Jamess mother, was it Josess mother who was she? Why would another Mary go and anoint him and not his own mother? Luke also mentions the mother of James, not the mother of Jesus. It is only holier than thou John why according to many scholars, was not the one who was the disciple of Jesus but someone else suing his pseudonym, who claims Jesus mother was there and she was accompanied by two other women called Mary. John 19 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. Cunningly enough John never mentions any other woman called Mary who goes to look for and anoint Jesus. He only places that burden on Mary Magdalene, which I am sure would have been the role of a mother rather than a stranger. Another point to bear in mind here is that although the bible all along is mentioning that other women went to anoint Jesus, he himself when he meets Mary tells her not to touch him, since she is a strange woman for him and not like the Bible wants us to believe that she was going to anoint his naked body. So we can deduce here without any 40

difficulty that the Mary who is claimed, in the Bible, to have been near Jesus at the time of his Crucifiction was not actually his mother.

41

Chapter 8 Resurrection? 3 days had gone and prophecy fulfilled Jesus had to get out of the cave, alive and kicking. Now early morning on the first day of the week Sunday Mary Magdalene decided to go and anoint the dead body of Jesus, There have been many disputes about the reason why she would want to go and anoint the dead body of Jesus, it was neither a Christian nor a Jewish tradition to do so. A body that was wrapped in so much linen how was she going to anoint it any anointing should have been done before the shrouding with linen. Now we, have to bear in mind that if we were to believe the Gospel of John and accept that Mary Magdalene was there when the Crucifiction took place then she knew things that others did not. According to Christianity she too was a disciple and was close to Jesus, so for her to go to the sepulcher with the intention of anointing him she must have known he was not dead but was hiding there. As we have seen that Jesus was beaten and torture prior to the trial and execution. So it is more likely she went to anoint the pains of a living man who was suffering from the beatings, rather than that of a dead body decayed after 3 days with rigor mortis. So who actually went to the Sepulcher, was Mary Magdalene alone or were there others with her and if so who? Also there are conflicting renditions between the 4 gospels as to who was in the Cave because Jesus was not there any more. John 20: 1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. Mt28 1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. Mk16 1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. Luke 24:

42

10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. Who do we actually believe in this case, what actually took place? We will actually take one of the renditions here and stick to that rather than chop and change. It is amazing how the gospel of John seems to different a lot from the other 3.There has been a lot of controversy about the Gospel of John, much has been discovered and said about it. We can see on religion-online.com this interesting article, which says: The Problem Presented by The Traditional Attribution to John, the Son of Zebedee The tradition that this gospel was written by the apostle John can be traced back to the second century, but has been widely challenged during the last hundred years. Two difficulties in particular stand in the way of the acceptance of the tradition, the slowness and difficulty with which it became established, and the difference between the Synoptic and the Johannine portraits of Jesus. Justin Martyr (c. 150-160), who had visited Ephesus, and who quotes extensively from the three synoptic gospels as from the memoirs of the apostles and of those who followed them, appears to show occasional knowledge of the fourth gospel, but never quotes it directly with such an introductory formula. This is particularly striking in view of Justins statement that the Apocalypse was written by John one of the apostles of Christ. The first acknowledgement that survives of Johns authorship of the gospel is not from orthodox but from heretical writings of the sixties and seventies of the second century; Irenaeus (c. A.D. 185) knows of other heretics who reject the gospel. Irenaeus himself, with Theophilus of Antioch (c. A.D. 190) and the Muratorian Canon (between A.D. 170 and 200), provides the first orthodox witness to John (the apostle and the disciple of the Lord) as author of the gospel. On the other hand there seem to have been Christians at this period, nicknamed Alogi (= anti-Word men, also -- anti-Reason men) by their opponents, who rejected the Johannine authorship of the gospel and the Apocalypse, but were not generally regarded as heretics. The terms of their protest show that at that time the gospel was generally attributed to John, although the fact that it 43

could be openly challenged within the Church is hard to reconcile with a long-established belief in the authorship of one of the Twelve. There is more lots more, please read on: (http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=531&C=554) The gospel of John most Christians is the most important of all gospels however many scholars claim that the John that the Gospel claims to be authored by is not the same John that was actually written and referred to in the Bible as the apostle that Jesus loved. Although there are so many controversies concerning this gospel, I think it would be more than appropriate to look into this Gospel (John) and quote some verses from it, as some of the clues and answers lie in there. And since John is claiming to be the eyewitness gospel of the 4 (as Christians seem to proclaim) there are many things we can deduce from his gospel. So at this point in time we see Mary Magdalene heading to the Sepulcher to anoint Jesus and as we can see she is not alone however the Gospel of John does not mention any body else with her, so let us stick to that version of the story for now. So according to John she went there and found Jesus was not there, the cave was open the stone rolled away from the entrance: John 20: 1"Now on the first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb." So Mary Magdalene runs to tell the others: John 20: 2"She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him." Interestingly enough Christians claim that the Gospel of John was written by John the disciple whom Jesus loved. Why does he then refer to himself in the second person here and other places? So at the time Peter and the beloved John went into the sepulcher there was no one else there as far as Johns gospel has it not even Jesus. No angels and no guards so any one could walk in freely and walk out freely too. So after they had left it was Mary who saw the two angels, who had not manifested themselves to John the alleged author and Peter but had suddenly appeared to Mary Magdalene. 44

11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, 12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And they spoke to her, but not to Peter and the One Jesus was supposed to have loved so much. They decided to wait for the disciples to go then manifest themselves to Mary Magdalene only it says above she just stooped down and looked into the cave and saw them, however John and Peter went in and saw nothing. According to the other renditions, the angels told the other women too who were with Mary at the time they went to the cave and they even told them to tell the others so according to the other gospels every one else knew about these angels and were told Jesus has risen. Only the Gospel of John does not mention this. 14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. So Jesus was behind her, he suddenly made an apparition behind her, he too let John (his beloved Disciple) and peter leave and allowed Mary Magdalene to see him. What about the other 2 to 3 women that Matt, Mark and Luke say were with her, did they not see Jesus? Now we have reached a very interesting point in this story.

45

Chapter 9 The gardener 15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Why would she suppose that Jesus, her Lord, her teacher, who she knew very well, was a gardener? Do gardeners look extremely different from any body else; do they get disfigured so no one notices them? Do they wear masks or at least did they do in those days? If I ask my son what he wants to be when he grows up and he says he wants to be a gardener, would I have to worry that he will not look the same, that his mother and I will not notice him any more? Would he have to disguise himself when he does any gardening? If I decide to devote some of my time in doing my garden would my wife think I am a total stranger? The answer is clear NO. There had to be a way for john to explain that no one recognized him because GOD had changed his appearance. Of course John would not come out with it as the Quran puts it: Chapter 4: 157. "" - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. He tries in some way or another to explain that Jesus did not look the way he was before where his disciples recognized him, now he had changed appearance and even his closest disciples did not recognise him.But john does not attribute this great act of changing him completely to a point of him being unnoticeable by those close to him, as an act of GODs mighty power. Johns attempt in showing Jesus had changed and did not look the same can be backed up with the verse from the Second Treatise of Seth, Nag Hammadi Library: For as I came downward, no one saw me. For I was altering my shapes, changing from form to form. And therefore, when I was at their gates, I assumed their likeness. For I passed them by quietly, and I was viewing the places, and I was not afraid nor ashamed, for I was undefiled. And I was speaking with them, mingling with them through 46

those who are mine, and trampling on those who are harsh to them with zeal, and quenching the flame. And I was doing all these things because of my desire to accomplish what I desired by the will of the Father above.( Nag Hammadi Library second treatise of Seth) It is clear as we can see that the person who seemed to be Jesus on the cross could not have been him because as we can see above in John 21:15 that he was standing with Mary Magdalene and she did not recognise him so, it could have been anyone on the cross made to look like him. His own disciples who left him and fled (remember) did not see the procedure where the changes in him took place. The wonder of GOD had worked it wonders and even those close to him were not able to tell the difference. Now Matthew tells another tale, he needs to preach the message that Jesus was GOD and was worshipped so he says in his Gospel: Matt 28: 9 And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped him. Other interesting points we can gather from this are, according to the Gospel of John (whose Authorship raises doubt) Jesus met no one except Mary Magdalene, who at first did not even recognize him, had he not spoken she would not have known it was him. Matt claims they all saw him, took hold of his painful feet, which the nails had been inserted in and worshipped him. Mark proves the point I made above that no one recognized him even when he walked with them since in his Gospel he says: Mark 16 12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. Luke 24: 13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. 14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 47

17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? 18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? 19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. Mark from there goes on another tangent of talking in tongues and so on. Now Luke even puts it better, when he appeared to them, they thought they had seen a ghost, Because rumours had been going round that Jesus was crucified, and was therefore dead no one was there to see anything else so: Luke 24: 36 And as they spake these things, he himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit. Mary Magdalene thought he was a gardener, at least she did not think he was a ghost unlike the others they had to be reassured that he was not a spook, he had to show them he was flesh and bones: 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? And wherefore do questionings arise in your heart? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having. 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. Now a very good point to note here he showed them his hands and feet to reassure them he was alive and not dead, he did not say look at the holes in my hands and feet, had he been pierced with nails in his hands and feet, even after three days he would have been in pain and not able to walk to them it mentions nothing at all here and else where that they actually saw the nail holes on his hands and feet. 48

Ok, in brief, Jesus tells Mary to assemble the others etc and he goes to meet them, one time, they have no problems in recognizing him (according to Dear John). All But doubting Thomas is there and then he comes back after 8 days now to find Thomas there. John 21: 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. Again he does not say See the holes in my hand and feet, he says see my hands and feet, i.e. I am human not a ghost and I am alive, believe that I did not die. Heb 9: 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment Even Christian scholars have raised doubt over the doubting Thomas verse above. The Noble Quran Chapter 4: 157. "" - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. Now another point to raise here is, before he comes back again and meets Thomas, the first meeting he had with them. The Gospel according to Luke says: Luke 24: 41 And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish. 43 And he took it, and ate before them. Very interesting, what we can deduce from these three verses is that: 1. Jesus asks for food, dead people do not eat, he was hiding alive in the cave for 3 days (remember the sign of Jonas) and he was fasting, an act that he did occasionally, now he was starving. 2. Those who claim Jesus was GOD, GOD does not ask his Creation for food, he is the Sustainer, and as we see in the verses that follow that he took the food and ATE.GOD does not eat. 3. Jim Bishop (a Christian authority of note), in his book "The Day Christ Died," gives the dimensions as 5 feet wide by 7 feet high by 15 feet 49

deep, with a ledge or ledges inside ( Ahmed Deedat {may Allah have mercy upon him}) So he was like inside a single (box room) where he was able to move and even stretch his legs for 3 days, the only thing he did not have must have been food. He goes off again and reappears to them a third time while they are fishing: John 21: 1 After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself. 2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. 4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. 5 Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No. This here again proves the above point that before he was to be raised up to his lord, indefinitely, (Quran) Chapter 4: 158. But Allh raised him ['Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allh is Ever AllPowerful, AllWise, he was to be unnoticeable by even his own disciples. Peter and even doubting Thomas, who was supposed to have met him a while before that, did not recognise him, even his favourite, beloved disciple John. In order to be sure it was him they would only have to look at his hands and feet, if the holes were there (or what would have started to heal but wounds or the scars would have remained) then definitely it would have been Jesus. So how can any one else guarantee that it was definitely Jesus who was on that cross when he appeared to them 3 times and they did not recognize him only after he spoke they recognized his voice. Again he asked them for food. All this is there to show people clearly, for those who want to see that he was not GOD and also that he was not crucified. Ample evidence is there we just have to want to see it. 50

 Jesus saith unto them, Come [and] dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.

51

Chapter 10 A case for Isaiah 53 Most Christians, when confronted with the issue of the crucifixion, use the Old Testament in order to justify that the ancient scriptures and ancient prophets have prophesied the coming of Jesus and his death. The verses in Isaiah 53 are used to justify that Jesus was the one mentioned. However when we look carefully into this issue we find that it is not the case. First of all, most Christians when they refer to the original bible think of the Greek Septuagint as the original. The Septuagint was written in Greek and both the early prophets and Prophet Jesus did not speak Greek but Hebrew and Aramaic. So why go to the Greek translation for answers when they lie in the Original Hebrew and the Aramaic? Translators often translate documents in ways they understand them although they may not mean exactly what the translator thinks they do. First of all let us look into the Aramaic, where we see that the translation and the real deal differs substantially. In his Book Being like the teacher Ramazan Zuberi on page 4, shows the Aramaic Bible compared to the English which, after having been translated from the Aramaic to Greek and then to English we can see there is a difference in the word used and a difference in meaning. Finally, before Jesus departs from this Earth, he leaves behind something which can only be understood if read in his native tongue, Aramaic. In John 14:27, we read: Peace I leave with you, my (way of) peace I give unto you. (Shlama shabaq ana lakoon, Shlama deelee yaheb ana lakoon) Jesus seems to have established a way of life here, basically to surrender oneself to GOD .He tells his people that he gives them Peace (shlama), but his own way of Peace. What does this exactly mean? If you read further into the verse, he continues and says, not as the world gives it to you, but only as I give it to you. What was the real need to say this? Hes trying to reinforce the religion he came with, pure monotheism, the ChristLike religion where total submission to Gods Will exists. There are two commentaries of the word Shlama (peace) in this verse which I came across that I would like to present. One of the comments comes from an Assyrian Bible scholar whose native language was Aramaic, and the other is from a Bishop from the Church of the East. They say: (Tranquility, that Peace which is under and in accordance to Gods Will.) 52

(Enlightenment From Aramaic, Selected Passages From The Khaboris Manuscript, by Sadook De Mar Shimun, Archdeacon) (The Peace which caused them to surrender themselves to God (New Testament Light, George M. Lamsa, Copyright 1968 by Nina Shabaz, page 141)(Being like the teacher Ramazan Zuberi page 4) The point I am trying to make here is that Jesus in the Aramaic was saying that he has brought and will leave his people with a way of life that he calls Peace (Shlama in Aramaic) in other words translated in English as total submission to the will of one GOD that is the way of life. After being translated into Greek and then English, peace, here does not have the meaning total submission to GOD. If you ask any Christian he would say, just peace of mind, peace and love, Flower Power but nothing at all to do with Submission to GOD, even though the explanation above from 2 Christian scholars confirm what it really means. Scholars of the translated bible prefer to give it the translators meaning: That peace will only come when the age to come begun with Jesus is ushered onto earth in its fullness. Jesus' peace is well-being. Even in the midst of conflict and persecution the peace of Christ can guard us (see Philippians 4:7). When one is focused on the Father's will and is supremely confident that His will will be done one can live through any circumstances with a sense of well-being. The world offers no such peace. The gift of peace is the real reason that we need not be troubled and verse 27 repeats the command of verse 1, "Stop letting your hearts be troubled."( http://www.cresourcei.org/biblestudy/bbjohn17.html) So we can see here how the translators have changed the meaning of the word into what they wanted the reader to understand it as. This is not just the only case we can see this in many other cases and this is where the mistranslation of Isaiah 53 among others, comes in. When we look into Christian and Jewish scholars seem to differ on the meaning of Isaiah 53.When one needs to find the truth, one needs to go to the source the proper source and Greek is not the proper source of the OT not even the NT, Just like the Quran was originally revealed in Arabic and to find the answers one does not look into a Spanish translation, that was translated from the English, that in turn was translated from the Arabic. So 53

let us go to the source, who best explain the Hebrew bible than Jewish scholars. Let us look at what a few scholars, Jewish and Christians say about Isaiah 53. On his website from Bet Emet ministries Pastor Craig M. Lyons M.Div. Mentions, concerning translation of the bible into Greek.

http://faithofyeshua.faithweb.com.
A Christian must be fully aware that basically the Old Testaments in our Christian Bibles come from this Septuagint and the Greek translations and not the Jewish Masoretic Hebrew texts long revered by the Rabbis and the Jewish people. Thus the problem confronting Christendom is that of Jewish texts which read completely different in the Jewish Bible when compared with the same texts in the supposedly Greek translation of them and the Christian's Old Testament. Other scholars said about the translation of the NT:
C.D.F. Moule, in The Birth Of The New Testament, records for us on page 59 that the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures is "a

wildly

inaccurate translation."
C.D.F. MOULE

Below we can see in this table the difference in translations between the KJV translated from Greek to English and the Jewish bible translated from the Hebrew: note the Substantial difference in meaning.

54

Verse 53:5

King James Version Translation But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (1) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Jewish Translation from the Hebrew But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wounds we were healed. We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the L-rd inflicted upon him [or, accepted his prayers for] the iniquity of all of us. He was oppressed, and he He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened was afflicted, yet he would not not his mouth: he is brought open his mouth; like a lamb to as a lamb to the slaughter, the slaughter he would be and as a sheep before her brought, and like a ewe that is shearers is dumb, so he mute before her shearers, and openeth not his mouth. (2) he would not open his mouth. He was taken from prison and From imprisonment and from from judgment: and who shall judgment he was taken, and declare his generation? for he his generation who shall tell? was cut off out of the land of For he was cut off from the the living: for the land of the living; because of the transgression of my transgression of my people was he stricken. people, a plague came upon them.

ISAIAH 53:5
Isaiah 53:5 But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wounds we were healed. Isaiah 53:5(KJV) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

55

There are significant differences between the two translations. First is the problem of the expressions because of (Jewish rendition) and for (KJV rendition), which are not interchangeable in the context of this verse. The Jewish rendition relates that the servant was hurt due to the sinful acts of the (Gentile) nations, i.e., the cause was the behavior of the (Gentile) nations against the servant, and the effect was his being hurt. The Christian rendition attempts to convey the message that the servant vicariously took on the sins of the people, which caused him, and not them, to bear the consequences. In other words, the servant took on the iniquities of others and, thereby, causing their sins to be expiated through his suffering. This, of course, is diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Hebrew , where (human) vicarious atonement is strictly forbidden; every person is responsible for his or her own sins (e.g., Exod 32:31-33; Num 35:33; Deut 24:16; 2 Kgs 14:6; Jer 31:29[30 in Christian Bibles]; Ezek 18:4,20; Ps 49:7-8). Second, in the closing phrase of the verse, a change in tenses occurs in the KJV relative to the Jewish translation. The KJV has " we are healed ", while the in the Jewish translation we find " we were healed ". The application of the root verb, (rapha), [to] heal, is common in the Hebrew Bible. However, the phrase (nirpa-lanu) is an idiomatic expression that occurs only once, at Isaiah 53:5. The first word in this phrase, (nirpa), is the 3rd-person, singular, masculine, past tense conjugation of the root verb in the niph'al stem (a passive construct), giving it the meaning [he/it] was healed. The second word in the phrase is (lanu), meaning to/for us. Thus, the literal translation of the phrase (nirpa-lanu) would be [it] was healed for us, referring to an illness, and from which the idiomatic expression that means we were healed was formed. Finally, the KJV and the Jewish translations differ on the way the render a term that derives from the Hebrew word (havurah) 1[1]. The KJV renders it as a stripe (plural, stripes), meaning a blow or a stroke (as from a whip), while the Jewish translation renders it as a wound (plural, wounds). (www.messiahtruth.com)

56

Table and commentary courtesy of www.messiahtruth.com Here we see another explanation from www.jewsforjudaism.org The Jews for Judaism analysis of Isaiah 53 makes these additional points about translation: in verse five, rather than "he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities," the prefix "mem" means "from," not "for", i.e. the speakers of the verse hurt the servant, not that he was punished by G-d as a substitute for them. In verse 11, the Hebrew "yatsdeek" means "will make just" (by bringing the Torah), not "will justify (someone's sins by taking their punishment)." As we can see that when we go back to the source, in the original language of Hebrew, not some translation of a translation, the meaning is altered to suit what the translator believes. So from this we can see that any other prophet before the Jesus did not preach the cruci-fiction, nor did Jesus and those who Jesus officially appointed to succeed him after his departure preach it. James the Just (also known as the brother of Jesus) who was the high priest of the Jerusalem temple, who Jesus left behind to officially carry his message further, did not preach it and neither the early Christians. It definitely did not come from Isaiah as we can see above. So who and where did it come from? I think one who reads the Bible and knows Christianity well does not have to be a rocket scientist to see where and from who this concept came from.

57

Chapter 11 Where did the the concept of the cruci fiction come from: Although most of the learned Christians acknowledge and accept that the bible was not written by one particular person at one particular period in time, and that Jesus was not the actual founder of modern day Christianity but Saul of Tarsus AKA St Paul was, most of the common, unlearned Christians hope to believe the contrary. They have been made to believe that like the Quran, that the Bible was written at one period of time while the prophet was still alive. However if we look into Christian history and scriptures we see that they were written by several unknown authors, over a long period of time, we also see that the teachings of Jesus have been left far behind and the teachings of Saul of Tarsus, known to every one as St Paul, has taken precedence. Most unlearned Christians would dispute the fact that Paul changed the Original teachings of Jesus and made his own version called Christianity that he himself converted to. Who was Saul of Tarsus: Saul of tarsus, (born 10 CE and died 70 CE), born a Roman citizen but originally a Jew, from the Tribe of Benjamin. He was related to Herod. He was not a Palestinian Jew, as was Jesus and his followers. Paul was a Hellenist or Diaspora Jew. He was a Pharisee, from the same Pharisees who Jesus always reprimanded and the same Pharisees that wanted Jesus dead. Philipians3: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee (KJV)] Paul was a Jew when he needed to be one and roman when he needed to be one. He says so in his gospel: Corinthians 9: 20-22: To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. 58

With his roman citizenship he was free to move around and go where he wanted and say what he wanted and even gets the protection of the roman soldiers. He was working for the Romans: Ac 22: 28 And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. Saul had never met with Jesus while Jesus was on this earth; as a matter of fact he was killing those who followed the true message of Jesus Christ: Acts8: 3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. Acts 8: 1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.(KJV) Acts 9: 1But, Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, going unto the High-priest, 2 asked from him letters for Damascus, unto the synagogues; to the end that, if he should find, any, who were of The Way, whether men or women, he might bring them, bound, unto Jerusalem. For more details on Pauls persecution of the followers of the true message of Jesus, and more about Paul, please read my article called the vision that changed the future, you will find it on the internet, by doing a search on the title. After Jesus left this earth he claimed to have seen him in a vision on his way to Damascus and that Jesus made him an apostle. He then changed his name to Paul and converted to what is called Christianity today. That vision is described in detail to in my article the vision that changed the future, in which we can see that those who he claimed were his eye witnesses, were no eye witnesses at all since according to Paul they saw nothing and heard nothing. In three different renditions of the same event 3 different stories are told and all 3 contradict the fact there were eyewitnesses to that event. 59

Even Saul of tarsus had a blinding eye disease (Opthalmia) that he was not able to see properly and there was no way he could have seen anyone in front of him that clearly, especially, a ray of light. When he heard the voice he called out my lord. He did not know Jesus, did not meet nor even speak to him. So how he was sure when he heard the voice that it was Jesus? Like I mentioned above the people he claimed saw and heard Jesus did not see nor hear anything. He says it himself in the book of Acts. So how can we now take his words as truth when he even says in his letter to the Romans? Romans 3: 7 If through my lies Gods truth abounds to His glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? He confesses that he lied about GODs word, so do we take his Gospel as truth Here we see what James reminded Paul of in Acts. Ac 21: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. Even western writers do not give Paul a Gold star and most educated and learned person can conclude that Paul was the true founder of what we call today, Christianity. Not Jesus. "When I turn back to study the life and teachings of Jesus it seems that Paul has not only been an important influence on Christianity, but that in a very real sense he was its founder. He could be called the first Christian" (Armstrong, The First Christian, 12, 13). More recently Geza Vermes comments in Jesus and the World of Judaism, p. 56-57, that "little by little, the Christ of Pauline theology and his Gentile church took over from the holy man of Galilee. Paul did not have a very good reputation at all, being the One who supposedly took over after Jesus and is known as the real founder of Christianity, look what Clement of Alexandria has to say about him:

60

Chapter LXX. - Tumult Raised by Saul. "And when matters were at that point that they should come and be baptized, some one of our enemies, entering the temple with a few men, began to cry out, and to say, `What mean ye, O men of Israel? Why are you so easily hurried on? Why are ye led headlong by most miserable men, who are deceived by Simon, a magician? 'While he was thus speaking, and adding more to the same effect, and while James the bishop was refuting him, he began to excite the people and to raise a tumult. so that the people might not be able to hear what was said. Therefore he began to drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been arranged with much labour, and at the same time to reproach the priests, and to enrage them with revilings and abuse, and, like a madman, to excite every one to murder, saying, `What do ye? Why do ye hesitate? Oh sluggish and inert, why do we not lay hands upon them, and pull all these fellows to pieces? 'When he had said this, he first, seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others also, seeing him, were carried away with like readiness. Then ensued a tumult on either side, of the beating and the beaten. Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight, in the midst of which that enemy attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him." It has also been said that Paul seized a firebrand and beat James, the high priest, on the head till he opened his skull and killed him. What followed was the fall and destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. Following this Saul changed his name to Paul. So this is very interesting her to see how the one who claimed to have seen Jesus in a vision and who Jesus apparently made an apostle, was the same one who came to the temple and kills James the one Jesus ordained was going to take over after him as the High priest of the temple. You see here how Clement refers to him as one of our enemies, Saul of Tarsus A.K.A Paul, the one who was supposedly appointed by Jesus to be a disciples is referred to here as one of the enemies. This is serious. So we can see here that Paul was out to destroy Jesus true message and replace it by that of his own. This is why he and James never saw eye to eye. He was adding things into the Doctrine that was not part of Jesus teachings and the Crucifixion 61

and resurrection was one of them. Pauls teachings did not exactly compare with that of James and in the Homilies clement says: "Our Lord and Prophet, who has sent us, declared to us that the Evil One [that is, 'the Devil'], having disputed with him for forty days, but failing to prevail against him, promised that he would send Apostles from among his subjects to deceive them. Therefore, above all, remember to shun ANY APOSTLE, TEACHER OR PROPHET WHO DOES NOT ACCURATELY COMPARE HIS TEACHING WITH JAMES...and this, even if he comes to you with recommendations," (non-canonical 'Homilies of Clement' 11.35, Peter preaching at Tripoli). This seems to fit Paul like a glove since James reprimanded him on many occasions for the changed he was making, he preached that man should only Believe in Jesus and not the works as he says in his letter to the Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified: He introduced the concept that all you must do to be saved is to believe in Jesus Christ, it was not Jesus who preached this and neither was it from those who were officially mandated by Jesus to take over. Acts 16: 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. He even claimed that those who follow the works under the Law That Jesus came to Fulfill, and not destroy were cursed. For him there was only one law, his law his gospel. Ga 3: 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them. In contrasts to the self imposed apostle who even the disciples were afraid of because they did not know Paul was an apostle, James in keeping with the law.

62

Jas 2: 14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Acts 15: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. We can see clearly why James and Paul never saw eye to eye as we can see that Jesus in so many places mentioned about how important it was to uphold the law and the works Mat 16: 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. For those Christians who continuously Claim that Paul did not change anything from the teachings of Jesus please think again: 20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 23 What shall we do? and this one too Ro 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 63

Is all this not enough evidence that Paul was guilty of Changing the true message of Jesus and making his own religion the called In Antioch and call today Christianity? Paul even claims that he received revelation direct form Jesus not from any human. Already he has made Jesus sub human. Also we know very well that it is GOD who gives revelation either through the Angel Gabriel or in the case of Moses he directly spoke to GOD. So how on earth did Paul receive revelation from Jesus when Jesus did not give revelation he received it himself from the one and only true GOD: We can see how Paul the Self professed apostle, one of the enemies, as clement puts it, one who Satan said he will send from among his apostles to deceive others, lied through his teeth below: Gal 1: 11-20 I certify to you, brothers, that THE GOSPEL WHICH WAS PREACHED BY ME IS NOT MAN'S GOSPEL, for I DID NOT RECEIVE IT FROM MAN, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT IT CAME THROUGH A REVELATION of Jesus Christ."For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the Assembly of God violently and tried to destroy it ... But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and called me through his Grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me ['Jesus Christ'], in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I DID NOT CONFER WITH FLESH AND BLOOD, NOR DID I GO UP TO THOSE WHO WERE APOSTLES BEFORE ME, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other Apostles except James the Lord's brother. Now the things I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie. So we see clearly what agenda Paul was fulfilling, he was there to destroy the true message of Jesus Christ we can see now where this concept of Cruci fiction and resurrection of Jesus came from. He makes it Clear it is from his Gospel: 2 Timothy: 8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, 64

Acts 17: 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. {whom: or, whom, said he, I preach} 1 corinthians 15: 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. I wonder what scriptures he is referring to since his letters were written way before the other 4 gospels and nothing in the Old Testament refers to this. The Harpers Bible commentary backs this up too the earliest written evidence of the resurrection is not in the gospels but in Pauls first letter to the Corithians again. 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. All this proves my point that the concept of the cruci fiction was nothing but fiction made up by Paul. As he said that his preaching would be USELESS if there was no resurrection. So there had to be a crucifixion and a resurrection to make his preaching and the Christian faith genuine so even if Jesus Was not really Crucified Paul was going to make sure the rest of the world believed he did. 17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. 18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. As we can see he disputed this issue with the Jews as many true followers of Jesus would not take his story lying down and we can see also that he preached about strange gods, paganism more likely that the devout Jews would not swallow. 65

Paul even goes as far as to make Jesus equal to GOD when Jesus said the Father was greater. He made Jesus GOD in his Gospel: Philippians 2: 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, Much of the concept introduced by Paul into Christianity has it roots from pagan origins. An example is Dionisus, who, was depicted as being given a crown of ivy, dressed in a purple robe, and was given gall to drink before his crucifixion. Pagan Gods were married and had sons and daughters. Mithra was the sun god and the son of god. He was born on 25th December. This was ascribed to Jesus, although the date of Jesus birth is not mentioned as 25th December in the Bible all Christians would like or are made to believe that was the date he was born. This concept was also introduced into the Gospels and ascribed to Jesus by the Gospel who writers who were following Pauls concepts since his letters were the first of Gospels of Christianity and were included in the bible. Quran chapter 6 : 93 Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none, or (again) who saith, "I can reveal the like of what Allah hath revealed"? If thou couldst but see how the wicked (do fare) in the flood of confusion at death! - the angels stretch forth their hands, (saying),"Yield up your souls: this day shall ye receive your reward,- a penalty of shame, for that ye used to tell lies against God, and scornfully to reject of His signs!"

66

Chapter 12 Conclusion So here we find documented evidence that Jesus son of Mary did not get crucified and did not die. I hope this has helped to open the eyes of these Christians who were made to believe in something that did not really exist, and I hope it confirms the truth that many had in the hearts that the prophet Jesus did not die on the cross as Allah says in the Quran, and the Quran is not conjecture. We also see in this book clear proof that Jesus was neither GOD but a human who fell on his face and worshipped the One who could save him from death. In most places in this book the bible speaks for itself in proving that it was not Jesus son of Mary that was put to death on that cross, as a Christian one must be open minded and read without any indoctrination in mind. One also sees how much of the texts that have been made apocrypha contain information that conform with the true message of Jesus and that they were not considered apocrypha because they were fake, but because they contained information that was total contrary to the Pauline doctrine of the Crucifiction, resurrection and the divinity of Jesus I hope Allah uses this book to guide those who are searching for the truth. My point in this book is not that there was not a crucifixion that had taken place on that day. There was, actually there were three including the 2 robbers. But it was not Jesus son of Mary, as all the information above prove the point that some body else, may have been Jesus son of the father (Barabbas) was and died while Jesus son of Mary walked away Scott free laughing all the way to heaven, seventh heaven.

67