\

Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately!  See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.

The following was sent to me by a Muslim brother who requested to remain anonymous, may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.

Peter, the Hero and the Coward:

All four gospels report Peter denying Jesus three times while he was being tried or after. Even though they don’t agree on the little details, they do however agree on denying Jesus. Those denials are summarized below.

27 Again Peter denied it. And immediately the cock crowed." (NAB)

Considering the above, we notice that Peter according to Matthew denied knowing the person whom they were trying, that is supposedly Jesus. Likewise, the same according to Mark, but according to Luke and John it is mostly a charge of being one of his disciples. Before we proceed, the reader should pay special attention to the terms used "Galilean" and "Nazorean".

However, before Peter decided to deny knowing Jesus three times we are confronted with another Peter right before the arrest of Jesus.

John 18:" 10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus." (NAB)

Comparing both, we can clearly see courageous Peter defending him, we clearly see Peter declaring that he will lay down his life for his master Jesus, but we also see that this courageous man who fought the Romans soldiers and cut one of their ears off became such coward when confronted a few hours later. We have a 180 degree shift here, from one extreme to another extreme.

Putting It All Together:

Considering all the above we may start to ask, could Peter’s denial of knowing that man on trial be truthful? Peter was told: "You too were with Jesus the Galilean." And on so many occasions he said:

1) "I do not know what you are talking about!"

2) "I do not know the man!"

3) "I neither know nor understand what you are talking about."

4) "I do not know this man about whom you are talking."

Why would we assume that he became such a coward after he said that he would give up his life for Jesus? Could there be some part of the story that we are not told about by those canonical gospels? Or could they have missed something, or invented the prophecy of Jesus?

We may also want to ask, if Peter denied Jesus the Galilean, or Jesus the Nazorean, could he then denied knowing some one else other than Jesus but named Jesus, as this name was popular during those times? We have already learned that being a Galilean means being what the Romans would call Terrorists, or in other words part of the Zealots sect of the Jews. Such a sect promoted violence against the Romans and from the picture portrayed within the gospels we surely know that Jesus, the prophet, in no way could have been from that sect, for he promoted peace and stayed away from politics. Could have Peter denied knowing this person who is a Galilean, a Zealot?

In addition, if we look at the choice that the Jews made between Jesus Barabbas and Jesus the Nazorean, we would find another mark of confusion. We now know that Jesus Barabbas = Jesus the son of the Father and we very well know that Jesus the Nazorean or Jesus the king simply means Jesus who calls himself the king of the Jews or the anointed. Could it be possible that the Jews asked to release the REAL Jesus the son of the Father and have Jesus the Nazorean who belongs to the Zealots to be crucified? The comparison is rather simple; the Jews wanted the one who claimed himself to be the king of the Jews crucified and release Jesus the son of the Father. It cannot get simpler than that. Again, taking into consideration the "name confusion" and the "title confusion" could it be possible that Jesus, the prophet, was the one who was released? Could it be possible that Peter denied knowing the Galilean, the Zealot Jew who claimed to be the king of the Jews?

Even if we consider the gospels themselves about the trial scene things will seem rather vague.

(NAB)

We notice the verse 67; could these words come from someone being falsely accused of something? Also if we consider" You say that I am." We are confronted with no confirmation of the accusation; we could simply understand it as: "You say that I am, I didn’t say that". The reader must understand that other gospels tell the story differently, that is only a clear indication that the authors of those gospels followed nothing but the testimonies of those who witnessed the trial and they were not eyewitnesses themselves to the event. Therefore, such authors could have copied either form each other, or recorded what others said and in fact, there is no way for us to verify their sources. Their sources could have seen things differently and there is no doubt about that. Reading from the Gospel of John after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus:

John 19:" 35 An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true; he knows that he is speaking the truth, so that you also may (come to) believe."(NAB)

We may at that point want to ask, who could be this person? Isn’t that author inspired to know the truth? Or is he not inspired at all such that he needed the testimony from someone we don’t know?

Furthermore if we investigate the event when Jesus was presented to Pilate, the Roman ruler at that time, more confusion would be added:

31 At this, Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law." The Jews answered him, "We do not have the right to execute anyone,"(NAB)

Going through the above, we notice the first mark of hesitation in Pilate’s heart to bring Jesus to Crucifixion.

34 Jesus answered, "Do you say this on your own or have others told you about me?"(NAB)

When considering the words in verse 34, such a sentence could have come out of someone who has been accused falsely. As we read along:

John 18:" 38 Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" When he had said this, he again went out to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in him." (NAB)

And if we continue reading:

12 Consequently, Pilate tried to release him; but the Jews cried out, "If you release him, you are not a Friend of Caesar. 3 Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar."(NAB)

Using the Gospel of Matthew:

Then after all this we read:

John 19:" 19 Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, "Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews.""

Such a sarcastic remark from Pilate is rather unexplainable. Pilate tried as hard as he could to prevent such a judgment on Jesus and when he failed to do so he washed his hands indicating his innocence from Jesus’ blood, but then after all this, he put a sarcastic sign on the cross indicating that his effort to stop the crucifixion were all fake.

However, the story does not end here, quoting Jerald F. Dirks from his book "The Cross and The Crescent" P.109:

However the facts are radically different. On October 28^{th, the Eastern Orthodox Church calendar lists the feast day of Saint Procla, the wife of Pontius Pilate, On June 25th, and the Coptic Christian Church lists the feast day of Saint Procla and of Saint Pontius Pilate! Procla was canonized as a saint by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and by the Coptic Christian Church, while Pontius Pilate was canonized as a saint by the Coptic Christian Church. How did the early Coptic Christian Church ever justify canonizing as a saint the man, who condemned Jesus Christ to death by crucifixion? This defied all reason and all logic. What did these early Christians know that modern Christians don’t know? Perhaps, they knew that Pontius Pilate, their beloved saint, was the man who released Jesus Christ?}

Now we could turn our attention to the early Christian writings found above. There is no doubt that history is always written by winners and when we say winners we mean that they simply adopted what they believed to be true. The Christian front was never a united front until maybe the first council, after the first council the systematic persecution of the other so called heretic sects almost removed them, they were all declared heretics, and their writings were to be burnt. The fact that such writings existed, prove without a doubt that many views were held about the identity of Jesus and his alleged crucifixion. Providing all the theories above and the early writings, a case could be built against such crucifixion. Could it be Simon the Cyrene? Could it be Judas the Iscariot? Could the whole crucifixion be illusionary? Could it be true to say:" "Blessed is he who has crucified the world, and who has not the world to crucify him."?

Also we may want to consider the first Christian sect; the Nazarenes led by James, Jesus’ brother. Such a sect forbade themselves from eating meat; they were strict vegetarians; they refused to cut their hair; they refused to be anywhere near corpses; and they absolutely forbade the consumption of alcohol. Such a sect was the first to exist after Jesus, and if we are to assume that they knew Jesus then how can we justify Jesus turning water into wine? And not being a vegetarian? If we are to take the gospels word then we have no reason to believe that Jesus the Nazorean is actually Jesus the prophet, because Jesus the prophet according to the gospels provided alcohol, ate meat, and came near corpses.

The lie of crucifixion according to several Disciples' writings.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.