The truth of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

As a human beings and a civilized person we must have to read history and we have to believe on it. History always says truth about the past.

 You don't have to be a Christian or Muslim or Jew or Hindu to know the fact of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Yes, the Bible says the truth about the crucifixion of Christ but if you don't believe in Bible then you must have to believe in history. That is why I want to point it out on historical view. What the historians says about the crucifixion? There are so many verses in the Holy Bible which says about the truth of the crucifixion. But as I said I am not going to bring any verses of the holy Bible about the crucifixion.

 Josephus Flavius. Josephus Flavius 37-97 A.D., the Jewish historian mentioned the crucifixion of Christ in his huge volume. He wrote, "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a performer of astonishing deeds, a teacher of men who are happy to accept the truth. He won over many Jews and indeed also many Greeks. He was the Messiah. In response to a charge presented by the leading men among us, Pilate condemned him to the cross; but those who had loved him at first did not give up, for he appeared to them on the third day alive again, as the prophets of God had spoken this and thousands of other wonders about him. And still to this day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not disappeared." (Antiquities XVIII 63-65).

 Cornelius Tacitus. Cornelius Tacitus, the great ancient Roman historian, a heathen, in the year 55 A.D, wrote in his huge volume 18 detailed passages about the crucifixion of Christ and His sufferings.

 Lucien. Lucien, the Greek (100 A.D) an outstanding Greek historian, wrote he was an Epicurean by belief, he could not understand the faith of Christians and their readiness to die for Christ. In his writings he ridiculed their belief in the immortality of the soul and their longing for heaven. He looked on them as a deceived people, clinging to uncertainties after death rather than living for the present. One of the significant allusions to the subject of Christ in his writings in this, "The Christiana continues to worship that great man who was crucified in Palestine he brought new religion to the world."

 Pontius Pilate. Pilate was the Roman Procurator of Judea during the reign of Tiberius. Contemporaries like Josephus and Philo of Alexandria described him as a tyrant, a bloodsucker and a corruptible character. Pilate ordered to crucify Jesus and sent a report to Rome about the crucifixion and death of Christ, which has been preserved among the records of Rome as was customary with civilized empires of the day. From this legal inscriptions Tacitus was able to obtain his information in addition to other public sources. Reference to this inscription, was made by the philosopher Flavius Justinus in writing to the Emperor Antonius Pius in the year 139 A.D. Also by the scholar Tertullian, writing from Carthage in the year 199.D.

 The Talmud is a holy book for the Jews. A copy published in Amsterdam in 1943, states this following information; "Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Passover." this information is found on page 42.

 Thus you see the incident of the crucifixion of Christ was a thing predetermined and a notable event known among pagans, Jews and Christians; not only among the common people but also among the elite for 600 years, until the Koran came and denied it, not openly, but by means of ambiguous statements and various texts which have caused much uncertainty for Muslims, causing some to deny it emphatically and others to believe it.

 Now my thoughtful readers assume that 60 honest men witnessed clearly that Zaid killed Amor in the street market and the eye witnesses knew perfectly both the killer and victim. Then assume that the killer confessed publicly to his ugly deed.

 For about 600 years it is the general belief and undisputed fact that Zaid killed Amor. But then, after this long period a contradictory witness presented himself before the judge, obviously not an eyewitness. Let us assume that he was an impartial witness and said, "I testify that the killing did occur but that the one killed was not Amor but Akbar." How do you think the judge would decide the case? Would he confirm that Amor had been killed or would he judge that the one killed was Akbar, basing his decision on this latest isolated and baseless testimony?

 There is no doubt that a fair-minded judge would confirm the decision that it was Amor who was killed on the basis of numerous eyewitness and the confession of the killer. Anyone who judges otherwise would demonstrate his ignorance of civil and canonical laws and only confirms to others that he is totally devoid of justice!

 I do not have to warn you that this example concerns the case of Christ's Crucifixion and applies to it in every way.