Further Topic Research:
Run "Go" twice to bypass Bing

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube |

The Crucifixion Hoax

Abdullah Smith
 (He is a new convert to Islam)

[Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5] [Part 6]

The Crucifixion is Unhistorical 


Surely, if Jesus had been crucified, the suffering of childbirth should’ve been eradicated. According to Genesis 3, the pain of childbirth is the “curse” given to Eve and her descendants (womankind), but Jesus’ death failed to eradicate the pain. Hence, he wasn’t crucified.

Shamoun confesses: The curse was that women would suffer labor pains as a consequence of Eve’s sin. The pain was the curse, the punishment, not the act of conceiving and bearing children. [1]

Let’s quote the Bible on childbirth pain.

Then they moved on from Bethel. While they were still some distance from Ephrath, Rachel began to give birth and had great difficulty. And as she was having great difficulty in childbirth, the midwife said to her, "Don't be afraid, for you have another son." As she breathed her last—for she was dying—she named her son Ben-Oni. But his father named him Benjamin. (Genesis 35:16-18)


Here, we see that childbirth pain (the curse of Eve) got so bad that Rachel died as the result. 


“For a long time I have kept silent, I have been quiet and held myself back. But now, like a woman in childbirth, I cry out, I gasp and pant. (Isaiah 42:12-14)

Pains as of a woman in childbirth come to him, but he is a child without wisdom; when the time arrives, he does not come to the opening of the womb. (Hosea 13:13)

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. (Romans 8:22)

The sacrifice of Jesus did not eradicate the pain of childbearing – proving that Jesus was not crucified.

“…in sorrow, thou shalt bring forth children”. This is a major plank of the curse. It defies explanation, that Jesus is reputed to have been sacrificed by alleged crucifixion, in order to wipe out the curse upon mankind placed by God upon Adam, Eve, and their progeny. In brief, if Jesus was crucified as a ransom for mankind i.e.; to expurgate, negate or nullify the curse on Adam and Eve then it follows that the curse would have been nullified, abrogated and neutralized and thus would have ceased to apply upon Jesus’ supposed demise. Today, however, womankind continues to labour under labour pain distress and sorrow during the natural birth process.

Thus, the deranged theology of the Church is vexatious, null and void and illogical. The Church’s primitive reasoning of a blood ransom accords with pagan-philosophy, very much as the cannibalistic ritual of the symbolic eating of the flesh and the drinking of the blood of Jesus is insensitive, barbaric and horrendous to the delicacy of refined humanism. (Farouk Hosein, Fundamentalsim Revisited, 1996, p. 8)

If the crucifixion (sacrifice) of Jesus occurred, then why are woman suffering in childbirth today?

The Book of Genesis lays down the curse (3:16) yet the “blood of Christ” has not eradicated the pain of childbirth, even to this day. So the crucifixion of Jesus never occurred, or never had any miraculous effects!

Women are not saved through Jesus’ sacrifice, they are rather saved through “childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:14-16).

The scholar Bonnie Thurston explains:  

The Pastoral writer states that a woman “will be saved through childbearing”. On the face of it, this suggests that Christ’s redemptive and saving work does not extend to women; they must save themselves by a particular form of “work”. (Women in the New Testament, p. 146)

The Christian will probably argue that Jesus’ death only eradicated the “spiritual curse” (sin) and not the physical curse (childbirth pain). In other words, the “original sin” was destroyed, not the pain of childbirth.


For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)


But why didn’t God eradicate the pain of childbirth? The Bible openly says: “The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him” (Dan. 9:9) and “The LORD your God is a merciful God” (Deu. 4:31, Ps. 77:9). The Christian response is destroyed because the “original sin” is a myth [1][2]
Adam and Eve were forgiven (Quran 2:37), every Human is born sinless.


According to the Islamic creed, the original religion taught by all these prophets is and was always Islam, which is the peaceful submission to the One and Only God. Thus, the concept of sin as taught by all prophets of God ought to be the same.

The closeness between Judaism and Islam in this regard is obvious; but in Christianity we find a great difference, which results from the influence of Saul of Tarsus, who is later known as St Paul. Paul introduced into Christianity the ideas of ‘God becoming man’ and ‘God dying for the sins of man’. Such concepts are entirely alien to the Semitic religious tradition and considered ‘pagan’, according to the Islamic view…


Islam teaches that all humans are innocent by birth and they become sinful only when they consciously commit a sin. Islam regards the concept of “original sin” and the need for atonement by God Himself - via dying on the Cross - as a pure invention of those who came after Jesus Christ, declaring themselves as Christians.

Another important point to bear in mind about the Islamic concept of sin is that one man’s sin cannot be transferred to another; nor can the reward due to a person be transferred either. Every individual is responsible only for his or her actions, for God is never unjust.

Christians believe that Christ has paid the wages of sin through his death, and having suffered for all men’s sins. Salvation is based on this faith. Without the doctrine of original sin there would be no need for a saviour and, consequently, the trinity, the crucifixion and the resurrection would become meaningless. [2]


The burden of pain during pregnancy is the “curse” which God should’ve destroyed. And it doesn’t make sense that God destroyed the “original sin” but not childbirth pain.  How can Jesus’ blood remove the “original sin” when God can easily forgive? It doesn’t make sense that God murdered His own prophet (or anyone) to atone for mankind. We don’t need any bloody sacrifice, God says: "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, FOR MY OWN SAKE, and remembers your sins no more (Isaiah 43:25).

There is no reason for Jesus to die for our sins (Deu 24:16, Ez. 18:20, Jere. 31:30, Micah 6:7-8, Isa. 1:11), we are responsible for our own sins (Ps. 24:8, Isa. 59: 18, Jere. 25:14).


Why do some people have to paint God as a blood thirsty and vengeful deity who cannot forgive sins until he gets satisfaction? Does God need blood to forgive? Is that what the Lord's Prayer or the story of the prodigal son teaches?

What I wish people would ask Christians is if God is so powerful that he can come down as a man being born of a woman then why is it so hard for him to forgive people by just saying it rather than being killed? 


How can a bloody sacrifice remove our sins? The very idea of “heredity sin” is nonsense, foolish, denial of God’s mercy! 


This doctrine is a blasphemy against the justice of God. It is highly unjust, inhuman and ungodly, to sacrifice the life of an innocent man, for washing off the sins of sinners. God Almighty is never unjust even in least degree, how this injustice and unkindness can ever be attributed to Him. God Almighty is Absolute and Merciful enough to forgive the sins, even without sacrifices. (Dr. Roshan Enam, Follow Jesus or Follow Paul? p. 52)


This dogma is not only a denial of the mercy of God but also of His justice. To demand the price of blood in order to forgive the sins of men is to show a complete lack of mercy, and to punish a man who is not guilty for the sins of others… We fail to see how the suffering and death of one man can wipe out the sins of others. It sounds something like the physician breaking his own head to cure the headache of his patients. The idea of substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice is illogical, meaningless and unjust. (Mrs. Ulfat Aziz- Us- Samad, Islam and Christianity, pp. 50-51)

Suffice it to say that linguistic and positive religious explanations have one thing in common: both define fitrah as an inborn natural predisposition which cannot change, and which exists at birth in all human beings. What makes our religious understanding positive is that it not only acknowledges fitrah as a natural predisposition, but also one which is inclined towards right action and submission to Allâh, the One God…After discussing the implications for human responsibility, I compare, for the benefit of Western readers, the Islamic concept of original goodness with the Christian concept of original sin. I argue that the doctrine of original sin, from an Islâmic point of view, cannot be reconciled with the notion of Divine mercy nor the human responsibility.


The Christian belief about Jesus is that he is the only-begotten Son of God or God Himself, who died on the cross to save humans from Original Sin. Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") hold that there is no such thing as Original Sin. So God had no reason to become a human and die on the cross. Even if there were something called Original Sin, Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") do not see how God could be so helpless as to atone for that sin by dying on the cross (naked).

Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") would insist in the first place, that God is One and One Only, and, therefore, He didn’t have a son. Second, as God is Just, He would not punish the innocent to save the sinners. Third, the so-called Original Sin cannot be such a problem for the Almighty God that He is compelled to sacrifice “His own Son.” He could very well cancel that sin or He could simply demand an atonement from the sinful or at least ask for sincere repentance from them. (words in brackets are mine) [2]

This act of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit is labeled by Christianity as the Original Sin. They say that because of this Original Sin, all people born afterwards were born in sin. The newborn baby according to Christianity is a sinner. Islam however goes on to give us a deeper lesson from the story.


It is learnt that after eating from the forbidden tree, Adam repented and God forgave him for God is Most Merciful. This is the lesson given to all Mankind by Quran. It is not of the Original Sin but of Original Forgiveness which shows the Merciful nature of God.

Man is by nature bound to commit sins either of small or major magnitude. God knows this nature of man because He is the Creator. God on the other hand is Most Merciful and is there to forgive man when he sincerely repents. The lesson derived from the Quran is much more complete and gives us a better picture of the nature of God. For forgiveness, all man needs to do is to turn towards God, repent for the wrong he did and promise not to repeat it. God who is Most Merciful then forgives the creation and on the Day of Judgment, this act will not be held up against him.


Thus the lesson which God wanted to give for all of humanity was that of Original Forgiveness rather than Original Sin. Islam teaches us this lesson and informs us that all newborns are without the burden of any sin on their shoulders. They are innocent. From the story the theme is easy to understand. God created man – Man committed sin – Man turned towards God for forgiveness – God forgave man for indeed God is Most Merciful. [3]

Without original sin there is no need for any idea of a great event to remove this burden from human beings. The idea that Jesus (peace be upon him) was crucified to take away the sin of man looses its meaning when sin enters and leaves life in the same way it has always done - through the actions of individuals; there is no need for 'salvation' except through repentance and forgiveness of God (as Adam did, as Abraham did and as all believers until the beginnings of Christianity did and they were not Christians.) ; there is then no reason to accept the divinity of Christ or that his mission was profoundly & essentially different from that of previous prophets….


This is just one aspect of what to me seems the basic problem with Christianity: If Christ died to atone for our sins then this great act must have changed something about the way to salvation, i.e. that before the act people had a certain route to salvation and that after the act the route to salvation is profoundly different. Indeed this seems to be the claim at the heart of Christianity. But if God fundamentally changes the way he judges people in different times from being harsh to being easier, then this can hardly be justice! [4]

"If by Christianity we understand faith in Christ as the heavenly Son of God, who did not belong to earthly humanity, but who lived in the divine likeness and glory, who came down from heaven to earth, who entered humanity and took upon himself a human form through a virgin, that he might make propitiation for men's sins by his own blood upon the cross, who was then awakened from death and raised to the right hand of God, as the Lord of his own people, who believe in him, who hears their prayers, guards and leads them, who will come again with the clouds of heaven to judge the world, who will cast down all the foes of God, and will bring his own people with him unto the home of heavenly light so that they may become like His glorified body - if this is Christianity, then such Christianity was founded by St. Paul and not by our Lord." (Dr. Arnold Meyer, Professor of Theology, Zurich University, Jesus or Paul, p. 122)


Christians believe that Christ has paid the wages of sin through his death, and having suffered for all men’s sins. Salvation is based on this faith. Without the doctrine of original sin there would be no need for a saviour and, consequently, the trinity, the crucifixion and the resurrection would become meaningless.


Islâm rejects the premises of these doctrines, especially the concept of original sin which is alien to Islâm and inconceivable to the Muslim mind. Islâm has a different version of the Fall. Adam acknowledged that he had gone astray and sincerely sought Allâh’s forgiveness which was granted to him unconditionally. Adam and his progeny descended from bliss to the earth because of his error, and yet, none of his children inherited the blame for his error. The volitional implication of fitrah is that man is responsible for his own wrong actions. It is inconceivable to Muslim thinking that mankind should be punished for wrong actions that others did. The concept of Divine forgiveness features strongly in the Qur’ân, for Allâh accepts the sincere repentance of His slaves. [5]


Could it be that childbirth pain still exists because Jesus only died for man, not woman? This is what Church father Tertullian believed


And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert-that is, death-even the Son of God had to die. [1]


This shows that women are not saved by Jesus’ sacrifice.


Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") believe that every child is born in a pure, natural state. Left to their own, children will grow up instinctively seeking the one true God, Allah. However, environmental influences and parents turn a child away from the pure, natural state. A saying of the prophet, on whom be peace and the blessings of God, confirms this. It says that each child is born in a natural state just as, for example a baby animal is born without any brand on its body; then the owner brands it with his own mark. Similarly, parents too would give a newborn their own religious identity (see Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, vol.8, no.597 and Sahib Muslim, Eng. Trans. vol 4, no. 6423).

The saying "every child of Adam is a sinner" means that every human being is a sinner, sin being an inevitable outcome of a fallible human nature. No matter how righteous a person is, he or she may at times disobey God through ignorance or forgetfulness. The prophet, on whom be peace, meant to emphasize that the best person is the one who seeks forgiveness for his or her sins. Furthermore, he said that one who repents from sin is like one without sin. God says in the Qur'an that He will replace the evil deeds with good for those who repent, believe, and do righteous deeds (see Qur'an 25:70).

Another saying of the prophet indicates that God actually intended that humans will be a species that commit sins so they can turn to Him and He would forgive them (see Sahih Muslim, Eng. Trans., vol.4, nos. 6620-2). This is a much better explanation than the popular conception according to which God at first sees that humans are good, then God discovers that they are wicked and so, being sorry that He made them in the first place, God eventually decides to wipe them off the face of the earth; but then he changes His mind again and lets them eventually procreate and fill the earth although they are still sinful as ever. The better explanation is that God knew in advance that we would sin, and we turned out just the way God planned. God does not discover new things - He knows everything always.

So, simply put, the Islamic belief is that people are not born in sin but they will eventually commit sins for which they should sincerely repent, and God will wipe out their sins. People do not inherit sins. Sin is something you do wrong. You couldn't have done anything before you were born, therefore you were born without sin. The Qur'an teaches that God does not hold us responsible for what others did before we were born, and no innocent person would carry the guilt of another (see Qur'an 4:111; 6:164). This coincides with our own sense of justice. No one considers it right to blame children for the sins of their ancestors, or to punish the innocent so that the guilty may go free…

Adam and Eve were created with the potential to do either good or evil. They had a free choice either to obey God or disobey Him. They did not realize how deceptive the devil was, and so prompted by him, they made the wrong choice. Will God remain forever angry with them over that one mistake? No! Instead, God taught them how to repair their relationship with Him by praying for forgiveness. Muslims  (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name.  Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") still often recite the same prayer, as follows:
Our Lord, we have wronged our souls. If you do not forgive us and have mercy on us, then surely we are lost (Qur'an 7:23).

What we obtain from that incident is not original sin, but original forgiveness, and an original lesson on how to seek that forgiveness. God set the precedent that He will forgive those who turn to Him in sincere repentance. We will all find ourselves in a similar situation as Adam and Eve. The prophet, on whom be peace, said that every child of Adam is a sinner, and the best of them are those who turn back to God in sincere repentance.

This shows that God does not demand absolute perfection from us humans. That would be an impossible demand, since God alone is absolutely perfect. To err is human. God wants us to know that he will accept us as we are, shortcomings and all, as long as we are trying our best to obey Him. Even in our human situations, it is well understood that absolute perfection is not to be demanded from anyone. Suppose teachers were to demand that all students must score 100% on all their tests, and that if they make even one mistake they will not pass. No one of sound mind will demand this, for it is clearly beyond human capacity. Similarly, God does not demand from people what is beyond their capacity (see Qur'an 2:226).  (Shabir Ally, Common Questions People Ask about Islam, pp. 38-39)


The Quran is superior to the Bible

1. The Bible says the deceiver was a serpent, but the Qur'an says it was Satan.

2. The Bible says that Adam was not deceived, but only Eve was deceived; it says that Eve then gave the fruit to Adam and he ate. On the other hand, more than one Qur'anic passages mention that they were both deceived. One passage specifically says that Satan approached Adam and deceived him. The Qur'an does not single out Eve for blame in any passage.

3. The Bible says that when the couple heard the sound of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, they hid from him among the trees. So God called out to Adam asking where he was, and asking if he ate from the forbidden tree. On the other hand the Qur'an does not depict God in limited human form. The Qur'an and the Bible both teach that God knows everything always.

4. According to the Bible, when the couple was confronted with their mistake, they blamed each other, and Adam even blamed God because God gave him the woman who gave him the fruit. According to the Qur'an they did not pass the blame. Instead, both repented.

5. According to the Bible, God cursed them. According to the Qur'an, God forgave them and guided them.

6. According to the Bible, they were driven out of the garden because God was afraid that they may eat from the tree of life and live forever. According to the Qur'an, God's plan was to educate our first parents in paradise, then send them into the world for a limited time to resist Satan, the enemy. They were sent to earth as part of God's plan for them; not as a way of preventing them access to the tree of life, but as a test to distinguish those deserving of everlasting enjoyment in God's paradise.

7. According to the Bible, God had said that when Adam eats from the tree he would surely die, and the serpent said they will not surely die. The serpent was right - they did not die. Contrary to this, in the Qur'an, God said that if Adam and Eve eat from the tree they will become wrongdoers, then they will have to leave the garden and come out to where they will have to labour. Satan, however, promised them that if they eat from the tree they will live forever. Satan was wrong - they did not live forever.

8. According to the Bible, because of God's curse, serpents have to crawl and eat dust, women have to suffer in childbirth, and men have to sweat for a living. According to the Qur'an, no such curse was issued. The difficulties of life on earth are what makes it different from life in paradise. Shabir Ally, Common Questions People Ask about Islam)


We find throughout the Bible that woman is cursed for leading Mankind astray.

I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare. (Ecclesiastes 7:26)

Then the cover of lead was raised, and there in the basket sat a woman! He said, "This is wickedness," and he pushed her back into the basket and pushed the lead cover down over its mouth. (Zechariah 5:7-8)


A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1Timothy 2:14)

Recommended links:
















My Thoughts on Easter


The festival of Easter is a pagan celebration of the sun-god, having no connection to Jesus.

Please read the following article from www.nydailynews.com about the Easter celebrations.


JERUSALEM - Christians celebrating the "holy fire" ritual filled their most revered church yesterday, lighting row upon row of candles, pouring hot wax onto their faces and dancing joyously.

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem's Old City, where Christians believe Jesus Christ was crucified and entombed, was filled with the smoke of blazing candles seconds after Orthodox religious leaders descended into an underground chamber and emerged with a flaming torch.

Worshipers lit candles from the flame, stretching their arms across barricades erected to hold back the surging crowd.

The "holy fire" is passed among worshipers outside the church and is taken aboard special flights to Athens and other cities - connecting many of the 200 million Orthodox worldwide to their spiritual roots.

As worshipers in the church quickly lit their candles, Arab Christian women ululated and others beat out drum rhythms.

One youth bounced up and down on another's shoulders, waving a candle.

Other celebrants dropped molten wax onto their faces.

The ceremony started with the entrance of Jerusalem's Greek Orthodox Patriarch Theofilos, dressed in his robes and a large yellow-and-white cowl, who descended into the church's underground tomb to get the flame.

When he emerged, church bells pealed and the flame exhange began in earnest.

The ritual dates back at least 1,200 years. The faithful believe the flame appears spontaneously from Christ's tomb as a message from Jesus on the eve of Easter Sunday that he has not forgotten his followers. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/04/08/2007-04-08_holy_fire_lights_christians.html)

The “Christians” of Jerusalem are following a pagan ritual that dates back thousands of years. The dying and rising sun is the god that Christians worship, not Yahweh, the God of mankind. The Trinitarian pagans say they are worshipping Jesus, but they are honoring the sun.


Another peculiarity of the Papal worship is the use of lamps and wax-candles. If the Madonna and child are set up in a niche, they must have a lamp to burn before them; if mass is to be celebrated, though in broad daylight, there must be wax-candles lighted on the altar; if a grand procession is to be formed, it cannot be through and complete without lighted tapers to grace the goodly show. The use of these lamps and tapers comes from the same source as all the rest of the Papal superstition. That which caused the "Heart," when it became an emblem of the incarnate Son, to be represented as a heart on fire, required also that burning lamps and lighted candles should form part of the worship of that Son; for so, according to the established rites of Zoroaster, was the sun-god worshipped. * When every Egyptian on the same night was required to light a lamp before his house in the open air, this was an act of homage to the sun, that had veiled its glory by enshrouding itself in a human form…


While Rome uses both lamps and wax-candles in her sacred rites, it is evident, however, that she attributes some pre-eminent virtue to the latter above all other lights. Up to the time of the Council of Trent, she thus prayed on Easter Eve, at the blessing of the Easter candles: "Calling upon thee in thy works, this holy Eve of Easter, we offer most humbly unto thy Majesty this sacrifice; namely, a fire not defiled with the fat of flesh, nor polluted with unholy oil or ointment, nor attained with any profane fire; but we offer unto thee with obedience, proceeding from perfect devotion, a fire of wrought WAX and wick, kindled and made to burn in honour of thy name. This so great a MYSTERY therefore, and the marvellous sacrament of this holy eve, must needs be extolled with due and deserved praises." That there was some occult "Mystery," as is here declared, couched under the "wax-candles," in the original system of idolatry, from which Rome derived its ritual, may be well believed, when it is observed with what unanimity nations the most remote have agreed to use wax-candles in their sacred rites.



"The burning of candles is undoubtedly the result of fire worship that dates back to the beginning of time. It was found by early man that fire could drive away the feared beasts of prey, make his food taste good, and warm his body. Thus fire was found to be beneficial. Down through the ages man has discovered the mystical properties of candle burning, associated with various colors."

Cardinal Newman admits in his book that; the "temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, Holidays, and seasons of devotion, processions, blessings of the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests, munks and nuns), images, and statues... are all of PAGAN ORIGIN." -The Development of the Christian Religion Cardinal Newman p.359 [2]


“…So in a Catholic Bible, if you look in the 6th Chapter of Baruch, you will find confirmation that the Pagan Babylonian practice was to light lamps or candles before the idols of their gods. I would venture to say that if you enter virtually any Catholic Church, you will find statues of Mary, Jesus or various saints that have candles lit before them. This practice has no Christian or Jewish origin, it is strictly pagan, and honors the sun god. Wax candles are not Christian in origin, they are Pagan, and have no place in true Christian worship...


Among people of Western Europe, it is traditional to eat hot cross buns on Easter Sunday morning. These small, sweet buns are usually decorated with equal armed, or solar crosses made of white icing; but the Pagan Greeks also made offerings of cakes inscribed with the solar cross to several Goddesses. Eos, the Goddess of the Sunrise, was probably among these. Anglo-Saxons too make offerings of cakes incised with solar crosses, and they were worn as amulets and hung in the homes for protection and prosperity. [3]

God’s creations are not manifested in human form. Jesus was God’s messenger, not his sun. The myth of “dying rising god” was attached to his life.


The belief of redemption from sin by the sufferings of a Divine Incarnation, whether by death on the cross or otherwise, was general and popular among the heathen, centuries before the time of Jesus of Nazareth. (T.W. Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 183)


A very important part of the pagan faiths was the belief in a god who was young and handsome and was supposed to have died or mutilated himself for the sake of mankind.(A.D. Ajijola , The Myth of the Cross)

Jesus could not have foreseen his rejection, death, and resurrection, as the idea of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah or son of Man was unknown to Judaism. (Israel Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus, The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 2)


“The divine teacher is called, is tested by the “adversary”, gathers disciples, heals the sick, preaches the Good News about God’s kingdom, finally runs afoul of his bitter enemies, suffers, dies, and is resurrected after three days. This is the total pattern of the sun god in all the ancient dramas”. (The Pagan Christ, p. 145)



The Church father Tertullian confirms:


"Crosses, moreover, we Christians neither venerate nor wish for. You indeed who consecrate gods of wood venerate wooden crosses, perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners, and flags of your camps, what are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it." [1]


The concept of “dying-rising” god was very common. Even the cross is based on the sun-god myth.


The solar cross is probably the most ancient spiritual symbol in the world, appearing in Asian, American, European, and Indian religious art from the dawn of history. Composed of a equal armed cross within a circle, it represents the solar calendar- the movements of the sun, marked by the solstices. Sometimes the equinoxes are marked as well, giving an eight armed wheel. (The swastika is also a form of Solar cross, emphasizing movement.) [2]

It is very difficult to trace the origins of the cross. Some scholars believe the cross might have its roots in the practice of the solar religions. In many cultures, the cross became a symbol of the sun as a dying and resurrected god. From an astronomical and religious point of view, the sun was hung on a cross, in other words crucified when it passed through the equinoxes. The dark winter sun was believed to be the crucified one. It is resurrected as the bright summer sun that ascends into heaven. The crucifixion must have been especially important for the people living in northern climates. The Scandinavians had a crucifixion ceremony of the sun on the shortest day. [3]

The Holy Quran says:


Among His Signs are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. Adore not the sun and the moon, but adore Allah, who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve. (Quran 41:37)


The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (Quran 9:30)

Say: "O ye People of the Book! Why obstruct ye those who believe, from the path of Allah, Seeking to make it crooked, while ye were yourselves witnesses (to Allah's Covenant)? but Allah is not unmindful of all that ye do." (Al-Quran 3:99)

From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. (Al-Quran 5:14)


O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not "trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (Quran 4:171)


IT seems the pagan Christians are knowingly doing what is forbidden, the article says: “The ritual dates back at least 1,200 years” not 2000 years. Christians of Jerusalem are guilty of breaking the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:3, Matt 22:37), worshipping the sun, and corrupting the Gospel. There is no evidence in the Bible that instructs “Christians” to light candles and pour wax on their faces. Even the pagan word ‘Easter’ does not appear in the Bible [1][2][3].

Throughout history, the Christians had the worse character before Islam gave birth to the Renaissance [1], but they are ungrateful.

The Christians of Jerusalem are supposed to be examples to Christendom, because Jesus walked in Jerusalem, not Rome or Greece. The Church was established by Paul, but no evidence suggests that Peter visited Rome, he rejected Paul’s doctrines. The Christians of Jerusalem are pagans who sanctified the Easter festival, consecrated the Church to practice idolatry. God said: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3)

The false tendencies, born of centuries of deviations, ignorance and malpractice, now took another form. Though they accepted their Prophets during their lives and practiced their teachings, after their deaths they introduced their own distorted ideas into their religions. They adopted novel methods of worshipping God; some even took to the worship of their Prophets. They made the Prophets the incarnations of God or the sons of God; some associated their Prophets with God in His Divinity. (Abdul Ala Mawdudi, Towards Understanding Islam, p.39)



The Gospel writers plagiarized from the Old Testament.

David was betrayed by Ahithophel, Buddha was betrayed by Devadatta, Osiris was betrayed by Seth. The gods were mocked and humiliated before they were crucified, just like Jesus! The betrayal, mockery, and crucifixion of Jesus are plagiarized events.

The Gospels account of Jesus’ mockery is borrowed from the writings of Philo (50 CE), a Jewish scholar. The Gospels borrowed the story of Carabbas, a crazy lunatic, who later became “Jesus”.


 (36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths;


(37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him;


(38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.


(39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris!; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign. (Philo Judaeus - Flaccus, VI., online Source)




27:26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.


27:27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.

27:28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.

27:29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews

This is probably the source of Jesus’ mockery scene (Matt. 27:26-29), they adore the “King of the Jews” only to humiliate him.

Note the parallels, Jesus is Carabbas, only for this scene, but Barnabas never existed. The man “Barabbas” was created to exonerate the Romans and blame the Jews.


In all New Testament accounts, Pilate hesitates to condemn Jesus until the crowd insists. Some have suggested that this may have been an effort by early Christian polemicists to curry favor with Rome by placing the blame for Jesus' execution on the Jews, and that it was part of the process by which Pauline Christians marginalized the still-observant Christian Jews of the Levant. [1] 


The story of Barabbas has special social significances, partly because it has frequently been used to lay the blame for the Crucifixion on the Jews and justify anti-Semitism. Equally, the social significance of the story to early hearers was that it shifted blame away from the Roman imperium, removing an impediment to Christianity's eventual official acceptance. [2]


The story of Barabbas being freed in exchange for Jesus is pure fiction. Two Gospels describe a Roman custom of freeing a prisoner during Passover festival, but no such policy ever existed on the part of the Romans. A Roman procurator, especially someone as ruthless as Pilate, would likewise never consent to the pressure of a mob. [3]


A sign of the powerlessness of the temple priesthood was seen in the need to have the cooperation of Rome in capital cases. This was achieved quite easily, for Roman officials did not encourage rebellious religious leaders for very long. The details of this execution may well lack literal historicity. Surely the story about Pilate releasing a notable prisoner named Barabbas, which means the son of God (Bar = son, Abba = God as Father), was legendary. (John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? p. 240)

This proves Barabbas never existed, but Carabbas’ story was plagiarized by the Gospel writers. The prophet Jesus became Carabbas (the lunatic) only for this scene, the crucifixion was also borrowed from the ‘dying rising god’ myth.


Krishna was depicted as if crucified. The Persian remembered only the atoning sufferings on the cross of Mithras the Mediator. Aztecs prayed for the return of their crucified saviour, Quexalcoatl, and were rewarded with Cortez. Caucasians chanted praises to their slain Divine Intercessor, Prometheus, for voluntarily offering himself upon the cross for the sins of a fallen race. Yet the Christian disciple hugs to his bosom the bloody cross of the murdered Jesus, confident that only one god ever died for the sins of man.

To retain their following, Christianity is based on unchangeable dogmas which disciples must accept to the exclusion of all knowledge adverse to their own creed. Whenever they are able they actually destroy contrary evidence for fear of rivalry. Then they magnify their own religion to a unique position above all others.

The earlier Christian saints, having determined like Paul, to know only Jesus Christ and him crucified, made stern efforts to obliterate from the page of history facts damaging to their case.

A report on the Hindu religion, made out by a deputation from the British Parliament, sent to India to examine their sacred books and monuments, was left in the hands of a Christian bishop at Calcutta, with instructions to forward it to England. On its arrival in London, it was so horribly mutilated as to be scarcely recognisable. The account of the crucifixion was gone. The inference is patent.

The disciples of the Christian faith have burnt books, blotted out passages and bowdlerised testaments which suggested the opposite of their belief. Not only that, they have demolished monuments showing crucifixions of previous atoning gods so that they are now unknown. Hence, the disbelief of Christians when other cases are mentioned… [1][2][3]

The Origins of the Betrayal

The betrayal of Jesus is recorded by all four Gospels, casting Judas as the traitor, who sold Jesus out.

David was betrayed by Ahithophel (2 Sam. 17-19), and he laments in Psalms 41:9, which is mistaken for a prophecy (John 13:18). The Gospels plagiarized from the Old Testament and pagan documents. The Quran, the Word of God, totally denies the crucifixion (4:157).


The traitor Ahithophel was David’s close friend, he later sided with Absalom to murder him.

Now David had been told, "Ahithophel is among the conspirators with Absalom." So David prayed, "O LORD, turn Ahithophel's counsel into foolishness."…           (2 Sam. 16:21)

Ahithophel said to Absalom, "I would choose twelve thousand men and set out tonight in pursuit of David. I would attack him while he is weary and weak. I would strike him with terror, and then all the people with him will flee. I would  strike down only the king  and bring all the people back to you. The death of the man you seek will mean the return of all; all the people will be unharmed." This plan seemed good to Absalom and to all the elders of Israel. (2 Sam. 17:1-4)

... And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled up his donkey and returned to his home town. He put his household in order, and then hanged himself: he died, and he was buried in his father's sepulchre. (2 Sam.17:23)


Ahithophel later hanged himself because his counsel was not followed.  Judas also hanged himself.


And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:25)


The only difference is David the Anointed was victorious (Ps. 18:50), but Jesus was crucified, contradicting Psalms 20:6. The Anointed David prevailed over his enemies, so Jesus shall prevail over his enemies (Matt.  7:23).

Here is an exposition of the betrayal “prophecy”.

 “Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.’” — Matt. 27:9-10

      In point of fact, Jeremiah says nothing like this. The closest the Hebrew Scriptures come is Zechariah 11:12-13: “I then said to them, ‘If it seems right to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.’ So they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver. Then YHWH said to me, ‘Throw it into the treasury — this lordly price [only about four thousand dollars in today's money] at which I was valued by them.’ So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them into the treasury in the house of YHWH.” Notice that the shekels were weighed rather than counted. (The Latin word expendere means "to weigh"; the Greek word drachma originally meant "handful.") Zechariah wrote around 530 BCE, centuries after money had been invented but centuries before the value of the metal a coin was made of was divorced from the value of the coin itself. For hundreds of years, the talent was the shape and size of a cannon ball, and weighed anywhere from 60 to 100 pounds.

      Much as inerrantists would like you to believe otherwise, Jeremiah and Zechariah were not the same person. Jeremiah prophesied the coming of the Babylonian Exile; Zechariah lived roughly 100 years later, and uttered prophesies of hope after the return from exile and during the rebuilding of the Temple. [1][2][3][4]


Jesus was never crucified, God saved him from death.



Back to Contradictions and Errors in the Bible.

Crucifixion is a lie according to several of the Disciples' early writings.

Articles by Abdullah Smith.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.


What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube