The Good News

'
The Good News
Almost five years ago, I began blogging the Bible, with detailed skeptical analysis covering the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) and the Gospels. Last week, I finally finished my intended scope of analysis. Overall, it has been a challenging and enriching experience, but I am ready for a break! :-)

Before I go, I thought I would give you some highlight posts from the Gospels, as I had done for the Torah when I finished that about two years ago. So without further ado, here are the posts I would rank as the most important ones to consider. The top five from the Gospels are:

1. John the Baptist Leads the Way? - Ever wonder why baptism is so prominent in Christianity? It has to do with prophesy, but a closer look at these prophesies reveals considerable discrepancies to what we find in the Gospels.
2. Why Jesus Spoke in Parables - Do you believe God/Jesus really wants to save everyone? Jesus' reference to an Old Testament prophesy proves otherwise.
3. The Unforgivable Sin - Only one sin is explicitly claimed as being unforgivable. What does this one exemption say about God?
4. Foundation of Sand - Speaking of Jesus' teachings, at the completion of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said those who did not obey were destined for disaster. A review of His teachings seems to illustrate just how few people actually do obey.
5. An Easy Yoke - According to Jesus, His burden is light, meaning that following Him is easy. However, another, more-complete review of His teachings up to that point would seem to prove otherwise.

Beyond those top five, below are a collection of hand-selected posts which, I believe, are also instrumental in more-fully revealing the truth of Christianity. If you missed these before, or this is your first time here, I think it is worth taking a look:

• Damnation by Association - To those who believe that we each individually make the choice to accept or reject Jesus' offer of Salvation, Jesus' words suggest otherwise.
• The Fall of a Sparrow - To those who believe that the accidents and catastrophic disasters in this life are not under the direct control of God, Jesus' words indicate differently.
• Preparing the Way Out of Context - This is a deeper investigation into how the prophesy within Malachi, prophesy which contradicts Christianity, was inappropriately applied John the Baptist.
• Misquoted and Misguided - You know you are in trouble when Jesus misquotes Scripture, and this study examines one of those misquotes, and examines its true, contextual meaning.
• Walking on Fluid Myth - With just a small amount of scrutiny, we can easily see that stories like Jesus walking on water are likely myth, and may have even originally been intended to communicate Gnostic knowledge.
• By Invitation Only - To those who believe that your Salvation is an individual choice of free will, Jesus' (and Paul's) words explain that it is God who chooses the Saved, not the other way around.
• The Signs of the Times - Jesus berated a mostly illiterate audience for not knowing the Scriptural signs of the times, but a detailed look into Daniel's prophesy reveals that Jesus was the one in the wrong.
• Tasting a Deceased Kingdom - The end of the world is nigh! Or, at least it was near. That was the message preached by Jesus; that the Kingdom of God was coming soon, not 2000 years later.
• Understanding Grief - Everyone knows that there are apparent contradictions in the Gospel accounts. Most of them are only weak differences that can be explained away thanks to the lack of explicit language. But when the authors repeatedly took opposing sides on the same issues, like the Disciples understanding Jesus' fate, such differences cannot be reconciled.
• Cut Off Your Reason - While there is a trend within Christianity now to accept the mantra "we are not perfect, just forgiven", Jesus advised taking extreme measures to avoid sin to live perfect, as you will see in this study, which also includes an investigation of prophetic Hell.
• Inequity of Time - While there are many subtle differences in the Gospels, discrepancies like the one studied here illustrate how the Gospel authors manipulated the message as they saw fit.
• Lazarus, Lying About - The story of Jesus resurrecting His beloved friend, Lazarus, is plagued by absurdities, and John's description of its impact creates one of the strongest possible arguments from silence of the other three Gospels against the story being true.
• Enter, Stage Jerusalem - Jesus took measures to ensure that His entrance into Jerusalem appeared prophetic, yet a look at that prophesy reveals another extraction from context.
• Entrapment in the Temple - Jesus zealously cleared the Temple courtyard of dove-sellers and money-changers, forgetting how God's Law essentially established their necessity there.
• Near the end of Jesus' teaching career, He revealed many signs which would accompany the end of the world. I did a series of posts called "The End Back Then", with Temple Tragedy, Jesus' Return, and Be Ready being particularly worthy of attention.
• Denial of a Difference - This study of Jesus' prophesy of Peter's denial reveals, yet again, how the Gospels have some contradictions which are not possible to resolve, even though some Christians deny such contradictions exist.
• Finally, everyone who knows of Christianity has likely heard the story of Judas' betrayal of Jesus. However, through a series entitled "Judas Fish", the details of the story appeared to be rather fishy. The stench of lies is most completely and thoroughly revealed in the study of The Aftermath of Judas' betrayal.

Damage Control

'
Background
The resurrected Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, to Peter, to two disciples who did not recognize Him, and to the Eleven Disciples (some of whom had doubts).

According to John, Jesus also appeared to a group of seven disciples who had been on an overnight fishing trip. Jesus appeared on shore, helped them be successful at fishing, and then hosted a breakfast of fish and bread on the shore. None of the disciples dared ask Him "Who are you?". This study picks up as a continuation of that appearance.

Damage Control

The Gospels, as we know them today, came into their final forms decades after Jesus had died. Decades. Besides making it challenging to memory to recall exactly what was said, when, where, and by whom, this time lapse also created other problems, and opportunities, for advancing the Christian cause. As the Gospel of John wraps to a close, we come to a couple examples of how this lag was leveraged for advantage.

Peter's Fate
After a beach breakfast of bread and fish, John 21:15-17 recorded that Jesus had a conversation with Peter, where Jesus famously asked Peter if he loved Him and told him to feed His sheep three times. This appears to be granting Peter special significance among all of the other Disciples. This is similar to, yet very different from, how Matthew 16:17-19 granted that significance to Peter, which you may remember from a previous study.

In John 21:18-19, Jesus continued on to tell Peter:

"I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then He said to him, "Follow Me!" NIV

It does seem odd that this information is juxtaposed next to Jesus' instructions to feed His sheep, as it would be difficult to feed anyone's sheep when you are dead, and hardly sounds like a reward for all of that sheep feeding! ;-)

More significant, though, is that the language used here, that extra clarification of what Jesus meant, suggests a "fulfilled prophesy", not one that was yet to be fulfilled. In other words, Peter was likely already dead by the time that the author wrote those words. The other three Gospels were also likely written after Peter's death, at least in the form we recognize them today.

Based on the information available, it appears that Peter was killed around 64 AD, and that he likely died on a cross as well, but upside-down. The legend is that Peter requested that configuration, but soldiers carrying out crucifixions were known to occasionally nail people up in non-standard ways as a form of twisted entertainment for themselves. Regardless of which reason is more likely, we should recognize that it is entirely possible that Peter was crucified upside-down.

In looking back over the Gospels, and even ahead into Acts and some of the Epistles, Peter's prominence permeates the pages more so than any other Disciple, except, perhaps, for the later addition of Paul. I believe that it is important to consider this in attempting to piece together the puzzle of early Christianity. To that end, I submit the following theory:

Peter was a zealous believer. He did not "die for a lie", because he wholeheartedly believed in the resurrected Jesus without a trace of doubt. His zeal and confidence were inspirational to other believers, especially the new ones who had not witnessed Jesus personally. However, Peter was not the brightest light in the chandelier. He may have been a "fool for Christ" in a couple senses of the words.

So we find that the story of Peter assembled after his death becomes a tale of him acting and speaking rather foolishly at times while he was with Jesus in the Gospels, but eventually portrayed more as a champion of the faith after the Resurrection, and particularly after the receiving of the Holy Spirit. While Peter was (in my opinion) a real person, his story became that of a mythologized martyrdom; a flawed and foolish soul who became purified and perfected through faith in Jesus and the reception of the Holy Spirit. Peter became the banner, the rallying cry, that we mere mortals could hope to become like when the perfections of Jesus seemed a little too out of reach. His story was powerful, inspirational, and effective, and John leveraged that tool to persuade and encourage his flock of believers.

It should be noted that, while, in Peter's mind, he did not "die for a lie", that does not mean that it was true, especially given the other disciples' doubts after seeing the resurrected Jesus. Peter may have just been credulous, especially if his foolish nature recorded in the Gospels bears any resemblance to what was his true character. As it happens from time to time in life, we sometimes discover that that which we had resolved as real turns out to be a product of our own delusion.

The Beloved Disciple's Fate
As the story continues in John 21:20-23, it seems that that "Follow Me!" command Jesus gave Peter was literal, not figurative. They started walking somewhere, and Peter noticed that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. Peter mentioned that to Jesus, but Jesus deflected his concern in an awkward, problem-creating way. In John 21:23, we read:

Because of [how Jesus replied], the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; He only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" NIV

This is an interesting verse for a several reasons.

First, we should consider that this rumor was strong enough that John felt the need to explicitly counter it in the Gospel.

Next, given the rumor's strength and the need to counter it, this beloved disciple was likely dead, or pretty close to being so, by the time that this Gospel was written. Based on available information, it appears that John died in 100 AD, and, as it happens, most scholars believe John to have been written in the 90-100 AD time frame.

Following those lines of thought, we should ask how it would be possible for a rumor to be that strong after so much time when it would have had plenty of chance for correction by the Disciples? A possible, if not probable, answer is that everyone thought that the rumor was a true statement, but the events of time forced John to re-evaluate reality to curtail the damage to the faith that this beloved disciple would enact upon his death.

Finally, we need to consider the divine aspect here. Jesus, if He was God and had omniscience, would have known how His words would be misconstrued to cause this rumor to be circulated. So for Jesus to have given that reply makes Him appear negligent with His word choices.

Summary
When you consider this claim of Peter's death as prophesy and a passage that would mitigate the damages potentially caused by the beloved disciple's death, it appears that John is making an effort to handle the delayed Second Coming to the best of his advantage. Without any of the other three Gospel to back him up, there are doubts as to whether or not this event happened, or if John simply dreamed up this scenario to bolster the faithful and to control a once-promising, now-damaging, "rumor".

Who Are You?

'
Background
Jesus, resurrected, appeared to Mary Magdalene, either while she was at Jesus' tomb alone or while she was headed back to tell the Disciples about the empty tomb. Jesus may have appeared to Peter. Then He appeared to two disciples who had difficulty recognizing Him.

Next came appearances to the Disciples, along with some contradictions, such as where the appearances occurred (Galilee or Jerusalem). Not only were there contradictions, but there were doubts among the Disciples; some resolved, others not.

After that appearance, John 20:30-31 contains a "false end" to his Gospel, which explains that Jesus did much more than just what was recorded in his Gospel, but that the author had selected what had been included "that you may believe". In the study below, we will examine some of what was appended to the Gospel beyond that point.

Who Are You?

Mary Magdalene first thought the post-resurrected Jesus was a gardener. Jesus appeared in a "different form" to two other disciples. In one way or another, even among the inner circle of the remaining Eleven Disciples, there were doubts upon seeing Him again. This lack of recognition is as conspicuous as it is suspicious. Let us look at the final case of mistaken identity found in the Gospels; one presented exclusively by John.

You will find the story in John 21:1-14, and it goes like this:

Seven disciples of Jesus went out on an overnight fishing trip, but caught nothing. Jesus was on the shore in the morning, but they did not recognize Him. He instructed them to cast their net off the right side of the boat. When they did, they caught so many fish that the net almost broke, prompting "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to recognize that it must be Jesus standing on the shore. So they all went into the shore to meet with Him, and found that Jesus was already cooking fish and bread. Along with some of the fresh catch, Jesus gave thanks and gave it to them. This was Jesus' third appearance to the disciples. (My paraphrase)

These disciples did not recognize Jesus visually (John 21:4), and there is no indication of them recognizing His voice (John 21:5-6). This seems odd, especially in light of the fact that they already knew that Jesus was living again and could pop up anywhere. However, they were on the order of 100 yards (91.4 meters) away from Him, so perhaps we can just explain their lack of recognition with the distance...

Perhaps, until we factor in another rather peculiar verse which followed. In John 21:12 we read:

Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples dared ask Him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord. NIV

The language here is bizarre, if we are referring to a visual and auditory recognition of Jesus. In other words, if Jesus looked like Jesus, and sounded like Jesus, why would there be any question in their minds tempting them to ask "Who are you?" They "knew" it was Jesus instead of seeing that it was Him. So what is going on here?

According to John 21:14, this was Jesus' third appearance to the disciples, with the first two happening when Jesus had appeared inside of locked houses (John 20:19, John 20:26). In other words, according to John, this third appearance was Jesus' first public appearance where He could have easily been seen by anyone. Yet, based on the implications of John's chosen language, no one else would have recognized Jesus.

Adding this up, it appears that John may have been offering a defense as to why so few people saw this resurrected Jesus, and why it was only select disciples who did.* Jesus did not look and sound like Jesus anymore, so only certain people were able to recognize Him. That is suspicious, to say the least; suggesting that these appearances were but apparitions of the fictional kind, or, perhaps, those of an imposter.

---

(*Note: 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 records that Jesus had appeared to more than 500 disciples at once, but it also claims that Jesus appeared to the "Twelve", which would have been difficult, given that Judas had allegedly left the group and died by then, thus leaving only Eleven. The 1 Corinthians' and Luke's accounts both contradict this anecdote here of this being Jesus' third appearance to the disciples.)

Seeing Is Not Believing

'
Background
Before sunrise on the second morning since Jesus' burial, some women discovered that Jesus' tomb was empty. An angel commanded the women to tell the Disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee. Afterward, either while she was still at the tomb alone or while she was going back to the Disciples, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.

Then, Jesus appeared in a different form to two disciples, who failed to recognize Him until He broke bread with them. As soon as they recognized Him, He disappeared. It seems that Jesus did not want a close, personal relationship with them.

Seeing Is Not Believing

Seeing is believing. If I had been there when Jesus walked on water... If I had witnessed it Jesus healing the sick... If I could have seen Jesus die, and then see Him resurrected... then I could believe. Yet statements like that are not as true as they should be. Even the Disciples had their doubts about Jesus, as we will see in this study.

Note that, in the following, capitalized "Disciple" refers to those students of Jesus who were included as part of the inner circle of Twelve, who were now Eleven in number since Judas had committed treachery and suicide, and that lower case "disciple" refers to any other student/follower of Jesus.

Matthew 28:16-20	Mark 16:14-18	Luke 24:36-49	John 20:19-29
(A prior resurrected-Jesus encounter only with Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.)	(Prior resurrected-Jesus encounter with Mary Magdalene, and a different meeting with two other disciples.)	(A prior resurrected-Jesus encounter with Simon/Peter and a different meeting with two other disciples.)	(A prior resurrected-Jesus encounter only with Mary Magdalene.)
Jesus appeared to the Eleven Disciples in Galilee, on a particular mountain, per His earlier instructions (Matthew 26:32, Matthew 28:7, Matthew 28:10).	Jesus appeared to the Eleven Disciples, implicitly in Galilee, in an unnamed location, per His earlier instruction (Mark 14:28, Mark 16:7).	Jesus appeared to the Eleven Disciples in Jerusalem, where they were assembled (Luke 24:33).	Jesus appeared to most of the Eleven Disciples, implicitly in Jerusalem, in a house (John 20:10*).
The Disciples had gathered specifically to meet with Jesus.	The Disciples had gathered for a meal.	The Disciples were gathered, speaking with two other disciples who had recently seen Jesus.	The Disciples were gathered in a locked house out of fear of the Jews.
(No specifics on what Jesus said initially.)	Jesus rebuked them for lacking faith and for not believing those who had reported seeing Jesus in a resurrected status.	Jesus wished them peace, eased their fright by inviting them to look at His hands and feet, and touch His body to prove it was Him in the flesh, not a ghost.	Jesus wished them peace, and showed them His hands and side.
(No specifics on what Jesus did.)	(No specifics on what Jesus did.)	Jesus ate some broiled fish.	Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit by breathing on them.
They worshiped Jesus.	(No mention of worshiping Jesus.)	(No mention of worshiping Jesus.)	(No mention of worshiping Jesus.)
Some doubted it was Jesus.	(No mention of doubting it was Jesus.)	Some were in disbelief "because of joy and amazement".	Thomas had missed the first group appearance, and claimed that he would not believe until he touched Jesus' wounds. A week later, Jesus appeared to the Disciples again with Thomas present, and Jesus blessed people who believed without seeing.
(No mention of Jesus opening their minds.)	(No mention of Jesus opening their minds.)	Jesus opened their minds so they could understand all of the Scriptural prophesies.	(No mention of Jesus opening their minds.)
Jesus commanded them to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."	Jesus commanded them to "preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."	Jesus said that they were witnesses such that "repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in His Name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."	(There is no Great Commission commanded by Jesus.)
Jesus told them that He would be with them until the end.	Jesus said that believers "will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."	Jesus commanded them to stay in the city until they received the Holy Spirit ("until you have been clothed with power from on high", Acts 2:1-4).	(There were no extra recorded instructions or comments from Jesus at that time.)

OK, so there are lots of differences, but let us concentrate on the biggest issues, starting with one of the five fundamental reporting questions: Where?

Galilee or Jerusalem?
Matthew explicitly, and Mark implicitly, hold this meeting between Jesus and the Disciples in Galilee. The meeting is in Galilee because that is where Jesus had commanded them to meet Him after His resurrection multiple times (Matthew 26:32, Matthew 28:7, Matthew 28:10, Mark 14:28, Mark 16:7).

Luke explicitly, and John implicitly, hold this meeting between Jesus and the Disciples in Jerusalem. John is usually a bit unique, so that contradiction is no surprise. However, John's departure from using Galilee may be indicative of just how early John's version of the Gospel became isolated from the core original story, thus helping to explain why his Gospel is so different.

What about Luke? Luke was actively trying to fulfill a prophesy, probably Isaiah 2:3 in particular. His interpretation/use of that prophesy required the spread of Christianity to start in Jerusalem. In doing so, he created an irreconcilable contradiction with Matthew and Mark. Luke had Jesus command the Disciples not to leave Jerusalem until after they had received the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49), which happened after Jesus had ascended to Heaven (Acts 2:1-4), making it impossible for Jesus to have met with the Disciples in Galilee.

When Did They Get the Holy Spirit?
While we are on the subject of the Holy Spirit, as noted above, Luke/Acts records that the Disciples received the Holy Spirit after Jesus ascended to Heaven. However, John 20:22-23 recorded the resurrected Jesus personally giving the Holy Spirit to the Disciples.

Critical Difference in the Accounts of Jesus' Examined Wounds
Next we come to touching Jesus. It appears as though Luke and John may both be telling different version of the same original story regarding the Disciples touching Jesus' wounds, but that appearance vaporizes with scrutiny.

Luke 24:37 explicitly tells us his reason for the touchy-feely session; the Disciples were afraid, thinking that they had seen a ghost. So this was to prove that Jesus was flesh, not a ghost. In Luke 24:39, Jesus invited them to touch Him and to look at His hands and feet, presumably because they had the indications from the crucifixion. Luke 24:42-43 goes the extra mile to "prove" that this is Jesus in the flesh by having Him eat something.

In John, there is no mentioned suspicion that this was a ghost, and the Disciples were not frightened by Jesus' appearance. Instead, He showed them His wounds, and they were overjoyed to see Him (John 20:20). When Thomas doubted, he wanted to put His fingers in the nail holes and in the gash in Jesus' side (John 20:25). The implication behind Thomas' words is not one of proving that Jesus was flesh, but rather positively identifying Jesus as Jesus. Since Jesus had no tattoos, His crucifixion wounds were the next best thing to do that. ;-)

John Struggling for Credibility
Note that the gash in Jesus' side is mentioned three times in this anecdote, but only by John. If you remember from a previous study, the account of the soldier stabbing Jesus' side (also recorded only by John) was highly dubious, in no small part due to the liar's tell used when relaying that story. John is obviously trying to build up more credibility for that stabbing here.

Resurrected with Flaws Intact
What is really remarkable in light of both Luke and John is the implication that you will be resurrected in that bodily status that you had upon your death! According to these accounts, Jesus was resurrected with gaping bodily wounds! This is not so good for those who died in extremely disfiguring accidents. ;-)

Matthew's Open-Ended Doubt
Back to doubting Thomas, let us take a look at how the Disciples doubted. Mark did not record any doubts at all here. As we saw above, Luke wrote to dismiss doubts of Jesus being a mere ghost, and ends with some Disciples doubting only because they were still in shock about Jesus' return. John wrote with the intent of dismissing doubts that Jesus was, in fact Jesus, and all doubt had vanished after the show-and-tell session. What about Matthew? Matthew 28:17 states:

When they saw [Jesus], they worshiped Him; but some doubted. NIV

They saw Jesus. Some worshiped Him. Some doubted it was Him. Matthew offered no reconciliation for these skeptics. Implicitly, the doubters persisted in their doubts. Something about this "Jesus" did not seem right to them. It is difficult to say for sure, given the track record of error, story manipulation, and blatant fiction found Gospels, but, due to the inherently damaging nature of this verse, it may just be one of the most accurate in the New Testament. But why would Matthew include this potentially detrimental fact?

I suspect that man playing the part of the resurrected Jesus was a fraud in some way, shape, or form. There was some ugly truth about this man that became clear when he presented himself as being resurrected, and that caused some of the prominent disciples to lose their faith in him, possibly even becoming vocal opponents of the faith.

Or, if instead the post-resurrection appearances were completely fictional and so without an imposter present, maybe there were some disciples who just would not believe the story of Jesus returning without seeing for themselves, and thus rejected the direction this new faith was headed based on a lack of evidence.

Yet, regardless of what the "real" story was behind the post-resurrection appearances, Matthew's derivation of doubting disciples may not have even been related to it.

If Matthew was pastoring a flock for any significant length of time, he would have had to deal with apostates; those who had accepted the new faith, but eventually walked away. By including doubting disciples who had actually witnessed the resurrected Jesus, it may be that Matthew hoped to thwart contagious skepticism, because he could point to the doubts of these "eyewitnesses" to prove that some people will not believe the "truth" despite the evidence.

Jesus' Opening of Minds Versus Free Will
The next nugget of news to touch upon comes from Luke 24:45:

Then [Jesus] opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. NIV

If you have been following through Luke's Gospel, you know that, according to him, God has been actively preventing the Disciples from understanding Jesus' fate. Now we find Jesus opening their minds so that they could fully understand Jesus' fate and the Scriptures.

We make decisions based on our understanding. Having God manipulate understanding, means that God manipulated free will. If that is the case, how can anyone truly claim that they have free will? There will always be a question of whether or not God is controlling your mind by controlling your understanding.

Interesting Differences in the Great Commission
Finally, we end with the Great Commission; Jesus' final command for the Disciples to spread the Gospel to the world. As you can see in the table above, none of the language matches from Gospel to Gospel, and John does not even include this commission. The language is similar in meaning enough to make calling it a contradiction a weak stance except from the strict verbatim aspect. However, there are some key differences.

Matthew included a phrase to enforce obedience to Jesus' commands, which also included fully obeying God's Law.

Luke dropped baptism... partially. It was, after all, a "baptism of repentance". Luke's Gospel focused more strongly on repentance than any of the others, so finding this change is not surprising. Luke did not do so at the cost of baptism, though. His book of Acts brings baptism to the forefront. Baptism was important to link with John the Baptist, who was critical due to the prophesy of a forerunner. And, as noted above, Luke required Christianity to begin in Jerusalem.

Summary
So now you see. You see people doubted after seeing this "Jesus". You see the discrepancies and irreconcilable contradictions in the accounts. You see God manipulating human understanding. You see the blatant bastardization of the story to achieve the authors' objectives, such as disproving a ghost and fulfilling prophesy. You see all of this. It seems that seeing is not believing.

---

* Most renderings of John 20:10 state that the Disciples returned to their homes, which may get you thinking that they went back to Galilee. However, that is really a poor translation of the transliterated Greek word "hautou", which is primarily used to indicate "himself" or "themselves", making verse intend to say that the Disciples left the grave site and went back to whatever they were doing before. Where they were before was close enough that Mary could run to see them, so we are talking about Jerusalem here (John 20:2).

Jesus Reincarnated

'
Background
Joseph of Arimathea gave Jesus' body a customary-Jewish burial on the evening of the Passover. Before daybreak on the second day after the burial, a woman, or women, discovered that Jesus' body was missing from the tomb. However, an angel or angels instructed the woman or women to tell the Disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee, or just reminded them of Jesus' words regarding His resurrection.

Then Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, either when she was at the tomb or on her way back to tell the Disciples about the empty tomb. She either grabbed His feet and worshiped Him, or was told by Him not to touch Him.

If that is at all confusing, you have the disparate accounts in the Gospels to thank.

Jesus Reincarnated

Besides the vast number of contradictions from one Gospel to the next, one of the strangest aspects of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances is the great difficulty with which people had in recognizing Him. People under stress or grief can experience “jamais vu”, which is sort of the opposite of "deja vu". It is where a known face, word, or situation instead appears unfamiliar. That is a possible explanation, but what if Jesus did not look like Himself anymore? Let us take a closer look at one of these post-resurrection appearances to see if we can identify the real Jesus.

Luke 24:13-35 records the first and second appearances of Jesus since His resurrection, at least according to Luke, who skipped the Jesus-Mary encounter. The story goes like this:

The day that the empty tomb was discovered, "two of them" (Jesus' disciples, but not of the Eleven Disciples {12-1, Judas had killed himself}) were walking from Jerusalem to a town roughly seven miles (~11 kilometers) to the northwest, when Jesus came along and walked with them (Luke 24:13-15). As Luke 24:16 renders it:

but they were kept from recognizing [Jesus]. NIV

They "were kept" from recognizing Jesus? That speaks of some sort of active impediment or effort which prevented their recognition. That impediment may have been that Jesus neither looked nor sounded like He did before. Or, that effort may be God supernaturally inhibiting their recognition of Jesus, like how God prevented the Disciples from understanding Jesus' prophesy of His fate in Luke 9:43-45 and Luke 18:31-34. Either way, there is clear implication that the reason why they could not recognize had nothing to do with either their innate abilities or their mental status. We will revisit this point later, but now let us continue on with the story.

Jesus Misunderstood
Jesus inquired about the discussion they had been having, and, shocked that this unrecognized Jesus did not know about what had recently happened, they briefly explained that Jesus had been a prophet who was crucified by the Chief Priests, and how the women had found the empty tomb and had an angelic encounter (Luke 24:16-24). The most interesting line in that summary comes from Luke 24:21:

"but we had hoped that He was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place." NIV

Note the past tense here. They "had hoped", meaning that their hope had died with Jesus.

What hope was that? The redemption of Israel. If we take "redeem Israel" in its Old Testament Biblical context, it is more about re-establishing the Jewish nation, independent of foreign (Roman) rule, and enriched by God's blessing, similar to what we see in 2 Samuel 7:23, Nehemiah 1:8-11, and Micah 6:4 (among many other references). This appears to be the context of that statement, as opposed to a reference of a cleansing of sins and a shiny, happy afterlife.

Of course, that was a false expectation. So Jesus rebuked them for not believing the Scriptures, and then reviewed with and explained to them all of the Old Testament Messianic prophesies (Luke 24:25-27).

The Birth of Christianity?
Wait a moment though. Why would these disciples have such wrong expectations and understanding? They were disciples, literally students of Jesus' teaching, so how could they get it so wrong?

It could be that Jesus was a poor teacher, but how could that be? Teaching was Jesus' thing! Or, at least, it was one of His major focuses.

It could be that, like what we noted above, God had prevented them from understanding. However, if that was the case, then Jesus' rebuke of their misunderstanding, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe", would seem misplaced; chiding them for something completely out of their control.

It could be that, although they had become Jesus' disciples, they had resisted His teaching and clung to the traditional interpretations, but why would they follow Him if they did not believe what He was teaching?

Or maybe, just maybe, it could be that this poorly thought-out work of fiction written with an intent. That intent? Simple. Show that those who had been eyewitnesses to Jesus' teaching, even those who had become disciples, did not fully understand His teaching of redemption.

At the hands of the early "church" leadership, this type of recorded misunderstanding would have allowed Jesus' message to evolve beyond anything which the historical Jesus had actually said, inferred, or intended. In other words, this change in understanding was how Christianity was born; "You only thought you understood. What Jesus really meant was... And it is only now that this truth is revealed to us by the Grace of God."

Jesus of a Different Form
Anyway, as the story continued, the disciples invited Jesus to stay with them that night. At dinner, after Jesus shared bread with them, they finally recognized Him and then He suddenly disappeared (Luke 24:28-32).

These disciples went back to tell the Eleven Disciples what had happened. The Eleven believed them, and reported that Simon/Peter had also been visited by Jesus (Luke 24:33-35).

OK, let us take a final look at how the disciples "were kept" from recognizing Jesus until the breaking of the bread. To do so, we will jump over to Mark, the original source of the story. In Mark 16:12-13 we read:

Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either. NIV

Jesus appeared "in a different form". In other words, Jesus did not look like Jesus. It was as if Jesus had been reincarnated as someone else, in a manner of speaking. Or, maybe it was someone else! Also, note the different outcome; the Eleven did not believe these disciples.

Jesus may not have been the only thing reincarnated. It may be that Luke, who has consistently been a bit of an editor, was using Mark for a source here, and did not like what he read. A different form? If he did not look like Jesus, how can you be certain that he was Jesus? That is a huge problem when you are trying to build up credibility in the story, because someone could suggest that an imposter had claimed to be the resurrected Jesus. That uncertainty had to die.

Summary
Luke resurrected, polished, and expanded this snippet from Mark. Luke wanted to be sure to present Jesus as Jesus, without any possible doubt. So it was the same Jesus, but they were kept from identifying Him, presumably by God. Of course, as noted above, that makes Jesus' rebuke of the disciples' misunderstanding unwarranted. Luke was not that good of an editor. ;-)

A Touch of Mary

'
Background
After Jesus died, and those watching regretted killing Him, Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus' body in a vacant tomb on the evening of the Passover. Before sunrise on the second calendar day since Jesus' death, one, two, three, or possibly several women went to Jesus' tomb, but found that Jesus' body was not there. However, there may have been one or two angels there, who either instructed the women to tell the Disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee, or simply reminded them of Jesus' words regarding His resurrection.

The lack of clarity in the above summary is due to the disparity in the stories.

A Touch of Mary

Throughout the Gospels, there are incidents recorded where the Disciples were not eyewitnesses. They had to rely on third party testimonies from time to time, witnesses from beyond the inner circle of the Twelve Disciples. Were the Gospel writers able to capture those testimonies with high fidelity? Were these anecdotes actual testimonies, or were they rather convenient constructs used to make a point?

Matthew 28:8-15	Mark 16:9-11	Luke	John 20:10-18
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were on their way to tell the Disciples of the empty tomb.	(Jesus appeared "first" to Mary Magdalene, but there are no details of where this happened.)	(There is no encounter between Mary Magdalene and the resurrected Jesus.)	Mary Magdalene was alone at Jesus' empty tomb after the Peter and the other Disciple had checked it out and left.
(No angels mentioned.)	(No angels mentioned.)		She saw two angels in the tomb who asked why she was crying.
Suddenly Jesus appeared to them.	(No details of the appearance.)		Jesus appeared behind Mary outside the tomb.
They reacted by grabbing His feet and worshiping Him.	(No details of Mary's reaction.)		Mary first mistook Jesus for a gardener, and asked if He had taken the body.
Jesus told them to tell His "brothers" (the Disciples) to meet Him in Galilee.	(No details of what Jesus said.)		Jesus told her not to touch Him because He had not yet gone to God, but would soon.
Meanwhile, the Chief Priests bribed the tomb-guarding soldiers to claim that the Disciples had stolen Jesus' body.	The Disciples did not believe Mary when she told them that Jesus was alive.		Mary told the Disciples that she had seen Jesus, and told them what He had said to her.

Let us quickly discuss Mark and Luke. As mentioned in the previous post, the original version of Mark's Gospel actually ended with Mark 16:8. The verses of Mark 16:9-20 were later appended to the Gospel, and they appear to be an abbreviated and concise summary of post-resurrection events covered in the other Gospels. Yet that "summary" is not without its own contradictions to the other Gospels.

Luke did use Mark as a primary source for creating his Gospel, and, given that the original Mark skipped this meeting between Jesus and Mary, Luke's omission of it suggests that he may have been using one of the earlier versions of Mark as a resource. However, we will see some evidence suggesting a late-Mark-version in the next study, so there may have been some other reason why Luke elected to drop Mary.

So now we come to Mary's account as recorded by Mathew and John, and they are as far apart as the east is from the west. Sure, there are some trivial differences; the number of women present, the location, the timing. However, there are two fundamental differences which contradict each other to the extent of rendering at least one version of the account fully fictitious.

The first deviant deviation is whether or not Mary touched Jesus when she saw Him. According to Matthew 28:9, she grabbed His feet. According to John 20:17, Jesus explicitly commanded her not to touch Him, as if He would become unclean by her touch.

That leads to the second deviation, because the reason Jesus explicitly gave Mary in John 20:17 for the forbidden touch was that He had not yet ascended to God. As you may remember from the previous study, according to John, the tomb was open by the time Mary had arrived to it, allowing Jesus plenty of time to walk out of it in non-glorified, bodily form. From that same study, Matthew's version tells us that Mary was there for the tomb opening, and the tomb was empty by the time it was opened, implying that Jesus, body and all, had gone up to God, as implied by the "He has risen!" statement made by the angel there. So by the time Mary grabbed Jesus' feet in Matthew 28:9, He had already stopped by and said hello to His Dad.

Can we reconcile these two accounts? Sure, at the cost of all logic: Matthew forgot about Peter checking out the empty tomb, and that Mary had hung around the tomb weeping, and eventually saw two more angels plus Jesus. John forgot that it the tomb was actually sealed when Mary arrived there, that there was an earthquake and an angel opened the door, that prior to the tomb opening Jesus had teleported out of the tomb, but to some terrestrial location as opposed to going to see His Father. So Jesus appeared to Mary at the tomb, told her not to touch Him, went up to see His Father, came back down and appeared to Mary again in His fully glorified status, allowing her to touch Him this time.

Did that make sense? Obviously not. That means that at least one of these story versions is utter rubbish, which is the last thing you want in a book of "Truth", especially when you need credibility the most to establish that Jesus had actually risen. The fidelity of the eyewitness account was not preserved, not even roughly. Furthermore, it opens the door to speculation that these were not eyewitness accounts, but were rather fictitious narratives serving a purpose.

That purpose? It is not clear, but perhaps the authors wanted a witness to the resurrected Jesus in proximity to the tomb, or in Jerusalem (Matthew's and Mark's other appearances happen outside of Jerusalem), or perhaps to add a little more credibility to a bodily-resurrected Jesus as opposed to just a ghost, or perhaps they just wanted to fill-in-the-gap between the tomb and Jesus' later appearances.

Finally, let us consider the very interesting way that Matthew wrapped up his exclusive guarded-tomb narrative. The guards were bribed to say that Jesus' disciples came and took His body while they were sleeping. In the words of Matthew 28:18, "this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day."

If the story that Jesus' disciples had taken the body was widely circulated, that indirectly supports an actual empty tomb. Why? Because, otherwise, if there was no empty tomb, there would not need to be any kind of explanation! So this appears to be a little gold nugget of truth which the faithful can bank on. Well, maybe...

Why maybe? Consider the source, or sources in this case. First, as mentioned before, the other three Gospels mention nothing about the guarded tomb or this conspiracy to hide the truth. Second, the other three have the tomb already open prior to Mary getting there, which, together with the lack of guards, obviously would allow for someone to have taken away Jesus' body.

It may be that Matthew, prior to writing his Gospel, started out orally with a similar story to the others, but in his particular region, there were one or two skeptics who put two and two together to counter with the idea that "Jesus' disciples must have stolen the body", and did so in front of an audience, which then helped to spread that idea throughout the region. This, in turn, made it appear to Matthew that there had been widespread circulation of this idea. So maybe Matthew reasoned that a slight tweak in the story could undermine this "widespread" objection, and thus he created the guarded tomb and the witnessed tomb opening.

Also, we should consider the nature of the claim of the empty tomb. There were only a finite number of eyewitnesses to where Jesus was buried; Joseph, Nicodemus, and "the women". So it would be very easy to claim to others that pretty much any empty tomb was the tomb where Jesus had been buried. Because of that fact, an empty tomb claim is pretty much meaningless. It is the post-resurrection appearances which much carry the bulk of the credibility. Unfortunately, as we have seen in this study and will see in the ones to come, that credibility crumbles with scrutiny.

Empty Recollection

'
Background
Jesus, crucified between two thieves, after a few hours of darkness over the land, cried out to God asking why He had forsaken Him. When Jesus died, there was an earthquake, and the Temple's curtain tore. Dead holy men came out of their graves. Those watching Jesus die realized, at the very least, that it had been a mistake to kill Him.

Joseph of Arimathea petitioned Pilate for Jesus' body. Upon receiving it, Joseph wrapped it with linen, may or may not have adorned it with lots of spices, placed it a tomb, and rolled a rock door in front of the tomb.

Empty Recollection

Regardless of how stable we believe it to be, memory is prone to distortion. So, if we are willing to cast aside the foolish notion of Biblical inerrancy, when we come across contradictions across the four Gospels, honest skeptics and truth-seekers should consider whether or not they represent distorted memories, or instead speak of crafted manipulations of the story. Let us take a look at the differences in the Gospel accounts of finding Jesus' empty tomb, and then discuss the implications.

Matthew 28:1-8	Mark 16:1-8	Luke 24:1-12	John 20:1-9
Two women went to look at Jesus' tomb.	Three women went to anoint Jesus' body with spices.	"The women" went to anoint Jesus' body with spices.	Mary Magdalene alone went to Jesus' tomb (no reason given).
There was an earthquake, and an angel rolled open the door, scaring the guards.	The women found that the stone door had been removed.	The women found that the stone door had been removed.	Mary found that the stone door had been removed.
The angel spoke to the women from on top of the door.	The women entered the tomb, where they found an angel who spoke to them.	The women entered the tomb. Two angels appeared there and spoke to them.	No angels were seen or heard from yet. Mary saw the empty tomb and ran back to tell Peter.
The angel invited the women inside the tomb to see that it was empty, and told them to tell the Disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.	The angel told them to tell the Disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.	The angels reminded them of what Jesus had said in Galilee about rising on the third day.	(No angels there to speak, but two would appear there later with Jesus in John 20:10-18.)
Afraid yet joyous, the women went to tell the Disciples.	The women were afraid, fled, and told no one.*	The women told the Disciples.	Mary told Peter and "the one Jesus loved" that Jesus' body had been taken.
(No Disciples visit the tomb.)	(No Disciples visit the tomb, but later, in Mark 16:11, they would not believe the women's report.)	The Disciples do not believe the women, but Peter alone went to the tomb. Finding it empty, he was puzzled.	Peter and "the one Jesus loved" went to the tomb and found it empty, but they still did not understand that Jesus was to rise from the dead.

OK, so obviously there are several contradictions here, but are they just innocent and honest errors in memory?

On the side of corrupted memory, across all of the variations, there is a narrative skeleton of sorts running through these Gospel accounts; the door stone was removed for a female (at least one) eyewitness to observe the tomb in its empty state, who then informed Disciples of the finding. While an angel, or angels, did not appear in this section of John, they would appear later in the next section in John 20:10-18, so we could even include that element as part of the story skeleton.

This common skeletal thread does, indeed, suggest a common original source. That opens the door for these accounts, no matter how disparate, to have been based on a true story, but that is just one possibility. Equally possible is that the story was constructed by and distributed from one person or group of persons. Either way, the great differences in the story versions suggest that this was passed as part of the early oral history, because some time, and some geographical isolation, was likely necessary to allow for these different versions to develop.

On the other hand, and on the side of intentional alterations, there are some indications that these differences are not the result of corrupted memory, but rather demonstrate deliberate editing.

The easiest case to perceive possible manipulation is in Matthew. As noted in the previous study, Matthew uniquely recorded that Jesus' grave was guarded. He appears to have been writing with a purpose, and that purpose was to communicate that there was no way that Jesus' body could have been removed from the grave by someone. Not only was Matthew's grave guarded, but it was not opened until its opening could be witnessed by the two Mary's, and that opening was accompanied by the supernatural events of an earthquake and an angel opening the grave. And when the grave was opened? The body was already gone.

The other Gospels lack all mention of the guards at the tomb, the angelic tomb-opener, and the earthquake, and instead have the tomb open by the time a Mary arrives. With the tomb already open, who knows what could have happened to the body? (On the side of faith, the resurrected Jesus could have walked out of the tomb, which actually implied later in John, as we will see in the next study.) Without any support from the other three Gospels, and with an obvious motive for Matthew to have the tomb guarded and its opening witnessed, this appears to be a deliberate change that Matthew made.

This change can be further demonstrated by comparing Matthew 28:5-7 to Mark 16:6-7. The wording there is very similar to one another. If these were truly independent accounts, it would be an incredible feat, if not a miracle, for the two authors to remember and record these words in a manner which almost matches each other after so much time had passed, and yet such a miracle would be blemished by Mark not remembering anything about the earthquake and the angelic tomb opener. Instead, it seems much more likely that Matthew was copying from Mark, but tweaking the copy to fit in the guarded-tomb narrative.

Contrasting Matthew and Mark, where no Disciple visited the empty tomb, Luke and John have both recorded that Peter visited the tomb and was puzzled by its vacancy, thus demonstrating (explicitly in John) that the Disciples really did not understand that Jesus was to be resurrected. (Though it is uncertain, it is possible that this lack-of-understanding-the-resurrection meme was employed because the message of the historical Jesus turned out to be quite different than what would come to be known in the resurrected version of Jesus. In this way, the Disciples thereafter could claim to skeptical Jesus-witnesses that no one had really understood Jesus when He was alive.) This creates a couple of problems:

First, as we observed in a previous post, Matthew redacted the Disciples' lack of understanding of  Jesus' prophesied death and resurrection, and, in a different post, we cited how even Matthew's Pharisees understood that Jesus claimed that He would be resurrected, which is why they requested the guard for the tomb! So there is a fundamental contradiction between two alleged Disciples; Matthew and John.

Second, Mark, who was allegedly Peter's traveling companion, translator, and the writer of the earliest Gospel, does not record that Peter had even heard about the empty tomb from the women witnesses, let alone that he personally investigated it and was mystified by the fact that it was empty.

Summing all of this information up, what we have here is many contradictions in this short account of finding Jesus' tomb empty. While it is possible to explain the differences to faulty memory, there are some significant changes which appear to go beyond the realm of rotted recall, and instead drift into deliberate dissertation with contrived intents. I will leave it to you to weigh the evidence in your mind.

* Mark's Asterisk
The oldest manuscripts of Mark end the Gospel with Mark 16:8, without recording the women telling anyone about the empty tomb, and without any sightings of the resurrected Jesus. A series of later manuscripts append this onto the ending:

And they (the women) reported all the instructions briefly to Peter's companions. Afterwards Jesus Himself, through them, sent forth from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.

Still no appearances of Jesus, but at least the women passed on the instructions to the Disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.

A Spicy Grave

'
Background
Jesus was crucified between two thieves sharing the same fate, one of whom He may have pardoned eternally. While on the cross, from noon to 3 P.M. the land got dark. Jesus cried out to God asking why He had forsaken Him. When Jesus died, the Temple's curtain tore, the earth shook, and dead holy men came back to life.

According to the Synoptic Gospels, immediately after Jesus' death, the centurion watching over the crucified people, and possibly his soldiers and other onlookers, finally realized that Jesus had been the righteous Son of God. According to John, soldiers were instead surprised to find that Jesus had already died when they had come to remove the people from their crosses in order to respect the Passover holiday.

A Spicy Grave

An empty grave is hardly worth mentioning unless it was filled at one point in time. We have come to the point of the story where Jesus' body is placed into the grave, so that the tomb's subsequent vacancy would have some meaning to it. Let us quickly pay our last respects as we study the burial of Jesus.

Matthew 27:57-66, Mark 15:42-47, Luke 23:50-56, and John 19:38-42 each cover the entombment of Jesus, and do so with many similarities. Yet there are some distinct differences which are a little too striking for each account to have a stake on the truth. Let us being with John.

John tells us that Joseph of Arimathea had been a disciple of Jesus, but secretly so, because he was afraid of the Jews, and that it was Joseph who asked Pilate to have Jesus' dead body (John 19:38). Nicodemus, the Pharisee whom Jesus had confused with His discussion of being born again, who later defended Jesus to the other religious elite, helped Joseph take care of Jesus' body. Together they wrapped Jesus' body with linen and applied aromatic spices to it according to Jewish burial customs, but the amount of spices used, seventy-five pounds (34.1 kilograms) worth, was consistent with the quantity used for burying royalty ( John 19:39-40). It was quite a suitable honor for the King of Kings.

Needless to say, wrapping Jesus' body while adorning it with that much spice did take some time, and it was already late in the day, so in John 19:41-42 we see:

At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there. NIV

So we read that Jesus was buried close to where He was crucified in a new tomb. The implication of the next sentence is that that location was not one of preference, but one of convenience and need; because it was Passover and because the tomb was nearby, He was entombed there... not to mention it was already late in the day, and rubbing that much spice on a body takes some time! :-)

Now, Mark 15:42-47 tells us a slightly different story. Joseph boldly asked for Jesus body. Pilate was surprised that Jesus was already dead. (Maybe he had missed the whole three-hours-of-darkness-and-earthquake thing.) Anyway, Joseph wrapped Jesus' body in linen and placed it in a tomb carved from rock, with Mary and Mary witnessing the burial.

There is no mention of Nicodemus. There is also no mention of anointing Jesus' body with the massive quantity of spices that John recorded, or any spices for that matter. The silence does not necessarily mean that Joseph's spice slathering did not happen, but Mark's version would seem to imply that it did not. In fact, when you look at the start of the next chapter, in Mark 16:1 you find Mary, Mary, and Salome going to anoint Jesus with spices. Had they seen John's version of the anointing, it would be as though they were bringing a cup of water to the ocean in trying to anoint Jesus' body with the little bit of spices they could likely afford, and their actions would be unnecessary because all of the proper procedures had already been followed according to John 19:40.

Luke 23:50-56 is basically the same account as Mark, with a couple notable exceptions. First, Joseph is portrayed as being vocal against Jesus' sentencing, which does not necessarily contradict, but does cast some possible doubt on some version of the story, considering that John recorded that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus in secret. The second exception is that Luke dropped the reference Pilate being surprised of Jesus' hasty death.

Just like Mark, Luke also had Mary and Mary preparing to anoint Jesus' body with spices.

Finally we come to Matthew 27:57-66. Matthew made very significant changes in order to incorporate the guarded-body/guarded-tomb theme that he uniquely contributed to the story. Before we get to that, let us quickly note the other appreciable alterations.

First, like Luke, Matthew dropped the reference to Pilate being surprised of Jesus' early exit from life. Second, Matthew makes this tomb one that Joseph himself had cut out of the rock, which is a far cry from John's version of just being a convenient resting place. Third, the burial anointment was dropped as well, including the second(?) one done by Mary and Mary. Instead, in the next chapter, Matthew 28:1 reported that Mary and Mary were simply going down to look at the tomb, not to anoint Jesus.

Back to the guards, Matthew's unique content, Matthew 27:62-66 has the Chief Priests and Pharisees asking Pilate to post guards at the tomb to prevent Jesus' body from being stolen. Of course, that is hilariously ludicrous, not only because Matthew has recorded private dialog of that request without having an allied eyewitness, but more so because it portrays the Chief Priests and Pharisees as having a better understanding of what Jesus had promised than His own Disciples! As the story will show as it continues, none of Jesus' Disciples were actually anticipating Jesus coming back to life when He did.

While the stories have a similar backbone, they are quite different. Obviously, not each version can be true. That is not the important question though. The important one is whether or not this is based on a true story; if that backbone represents what actually occurred. Yet if events are recorded which we can be fairly certain did not occur, such as Chief Priests and Pharisees as having a better understanding of what Jesus had promised than His own Disciples, if something can be fabricated and passed of as truth for long enough, then what kind of certainty can you legitimately claim in knowing the truth of the matter?

Post Mortem Epiphany

'
Background
Jesus, with His cross, was led to His fate; crucifixion. Hung there between a couple thieves, Jesus was ever the mild servant of God, taking insults graciously and granting Salvation to a repentant thief. From noon to 3 P.M., the sun stopped shining, and Jesus asked why God had forsaken Him. Then Jesus died, the Temple's curtain was torn, there was an earthquake, and dead holy men were resurrected.

Post Mortem Epiphany

You do not know what you have got until it is gone. Or so it is often said. And it just so happens that that realization of loss is what we find portrayed by some unlikely sources immediately after Jesus' death. Let us take a look at the reactions of those standing by Jesus after His last breath.

Matthew 27:54-56, Mark 15:39-41, Luke 23:47-49, and John 19:31-37 reveal the reactions of people near Jesus at the time of His death. Let us begin this study with the first written Gospel of the set; Mark. Starting with Mark 15:39, we read:

And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard His cry and saw how He died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!" NIV

So this is a centurion's reaction, a division leader in the Roman army. Implicitly, this man was Roman, and that makes it very likely both that he was polytheistic and that he recognized Caesar as divine. So it is strange, to say the least, that the centurion would claim that Jesus was the Son of the singular, Jewish God. However, it is possible that he had heard the story of Jesus and had come to believe. (As you may remember, earlier in the Gospels there were reports of other believing centurions.)

Note what had convinced this centurion of the "truth": hearing Jesus' cry and seeing how He died.

Now, "how He died" may be intended to imply the greater picture of how Jesus reacted to being put on the cross, how He handled the taunting and insults while on the cross, the miraculous three hours of darkness prior to His death, etc.

However, being coupled with the conjunction "and" to the cry that Jesus had made suggests a more immediate relationship; as in literally how Jesus died. It is probably safe to assume that this would not have been the first crucifixion that the centurion had witnessed, and there was something particularly different about the way that Jesus died. Perhaps it was the relative speed of Jesus' death, or an expression of peace and calm on His face, or a gentle transition from life to death, or even the possible witnessing of Jesus' spirit leaving His body. This is just speculation, given the lack of detail in the account, but the words seem to convey that there was something truly special in the manner in which Jesus died.

Mark 15:40-41 adds that there were some women watching from a distance, including a couple Mary's and Salome, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, and "cared for His needs". Well, a man has got needs, you know. ;-) Despite the fact that this implies gender roles where certain burdens are placed on women as a higher priority than the "important work" which the male Disciples were doing, and despite the fact that it is odd for multiple women to have to care for Jesus' needs alone as opposed to having the women portrayed as helping with the needs of the larger group, specifically noting the contribution of these women is a respectable and honorable sentiment.

Yet with the three hours of darkness preceding Jesus' death, it is a little odd that more people than just the centurion are not recognized as having the same epiphany that he did.

Matthew 27:54 changes the scene a little to be more consistent with his uniquely reported earthquake and mini-zombie apocalypse:

When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely He was the Son of God!" NIV

So now we have the centurion and his accompanying soldiers claiming that Jesus was the Son of God. And why? Because of something special in the way He died? No. Because they had been frightened by the darkness and the earthquake.

Like Mark, Matthew 27:55-56 also mentions women, who had cared for Jesus' needs, watching from a distance, including a couple Mary's and the mother of the Zebedee brothers.

Luke may have been a better editor than Matthew, in that he appears to have noticed some of the issues with Mark's version. Luke 23:47-48 reported::

The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man." When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. NIV

So Luke changed the centurion's expression into a more realistic one; not that he recognized Jesus as the Son of God, but that he recognized (presumably based on both Jesus' actions and God's reaction of stopping the sun from shining for three hours) that Jesus must have been a righteous man who was now wrongfully crucified.

It was not only the centurion, or his soldiers, who had this epiphany. The rest of the crowd who had come to gaze at this spectacle had this same revelation, as is implied by the report of them beating their breasts; an cultural display of mourning, and possibly repentance, as observed in Isaiah 32:12-13, Jeremiah 31:19, Ezekiel 21:12, and Nahum 2:7.

This mourning crowd was not made up of Jesus' followers, as, according to Luke 23:49, those who believed in Jesus were watching from a distance, along with the women who had followed Jesus. Luke oddly left out the bit about these women caring for Jesus' needs. Perhaps he also recognized how strange it appeared that multiple women were addressing Jesus' needs, or may by he just got tired of copying.

Now for something completely different. In John 19:31-37, there is no epiphany, or even a centurion for that matter. Instead, submitting to a request from the Jews, Pilate ordered for the crucified people to have their legs broken and to be taken down from their crosses during the Passover Sabbath (John 19:31). Strangely, the soldiers carrying out that task removed the thieves on either side of Jesus first (John 19:18) as opposed to progressing across the lineup of hanging men in a serial pattern (John 19:32).

When they finally came to Jesus (in the non-religious sense of those words), they just then discovered that He was dead (John 19:33). This is an huge contradiction to the Synoptic Gospels which record people reacting to Jesus' blatant moment of passing! But then, in John's version, Jesus' moment of death was much more reserved, having Jesus simply bow His head and give up His spirit, which would have been much easier to miss (John 19:30).

Anyway, the soldiers reacted like many guys do when they come across a corpse unexpectedly; they poked it with a stick. In this case, the stick was a spear, and they punctured Jesus' side with it, reportedly causing water and blood to rush out (John 19:34).

The next verse in John is what I would call a classic liar's tell. In John 19:35 we read:

The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. NIV

It is true. You can know that it is true, because the guy who saw it gave this report, and his report is the truth, because he knows that he tells the truth. Oh please. Why is it that all of the rest of the preceding Gospel of John has been given without any claim of a truth-telling eyewitness until this one point? I will tell you why:

It is a lie. If it were true, there would have been more than just this one eyewitness to make the claim that this sequence of events actually occurred, like the group of Jesus-following witnesses watching from a distance reported by the other three Gospels. Furthermore, there would be no need to vehemently claim that it was true any more than for any of the other far-more-unbelievable events recorded previously in this Gospel. Sure, Jesus walked on water and raised Lazarus back to life after he had been dead for days, but this whole being stabbed on the cross and having water and blood come out of the opening, well, I am going to need a little proof for that...

Now, why would anyone lie about something like this? Well, to fulfill Scripture, of course! Any shred of apparent credibility to support your lie is always advantageous, and prophesy provides one of the best forms of that credibility. And if you are wiling to lie to make a connection to prophesy, why not tweak the Scriptures to make a prophetic match too?

John 19:36 tells us that these events transpired to fulfill the prophesy that "not one of His bones will be broken". Even favorably assuming that none of the bones in Jesus' ankles or wrists were broken in the process of being nailed to the cross (which is highly unlikely), the problem is that there is no such prophesy. The nearest match comes from Psalm 34, which speaks of how God protects righteous people in general. Such is the sentiment we find in Psalm 34:19-20:

The righteous person may have many troubles, but the Lord delivers him from them all;
He protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken. NIV

If the generalized sentiment is not strong enough to realize that this "prophesy" is not applicable, then consider that it says that God would save people from their troubles, which is pretty much the opposite of God letting an innocent, righteous person get killed on the cross.

John 19:37 provides another prophetic match; that "They will look on the one they have pierced." At least this is an actual prophesy as opposed to being just part of a song. This comes from Zachariah 12:10, and, of the little bit of the verse copied here, John almost gets the wording correct. More significant than a minor word adjustment is the fact that it is this prophesy has been severed from its context to make the match. Zachariah 12 is a prophesy about God turning the leaders and people of Jerusalem into an unstoppable, militarily conquering force which consumes "all the surrounding peoples" as part of a counter-attack from the city of Jerusalem being under siege. The verse right before this noted prophesy, Zachariah 12:9, has God defiantly claim:

On that day I (God) will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem. NIV

If I know my history correctly, that did not happen the day that Jesus died, nor any time after that.

Furthermore, if you read the remainder of the prophesy, Zachariah 12:10-14, what you encounter is each of the individual clans of Israelites in mourning; a reference to the old national layout when the Jewish clans each occupied a different region of the Promised Land.

And why are they weeping? Because they have done God wrongfully. If you know the background behind this prophesy, the reason that Jerusalem was under siege was as a punishment doled out by God for the people breaking the provisions of His covenant. So when God steps in to aid His Chosen People, as is foretold in the prophesy, it is then they will come to the full recognition of how poorly they have treated God, and they will appropriately weep in repentance.

Bringing this study to a close, Let us review. We have seen contradictions from one account to the next regarding what actually happened when Jesus died, a liar's tell in the claim of truth, and misapplied prophesies used to help support the claim of Jesus' Messiah status. None of these issues, individually or collectively, indicate that Jesus was not crucified. However, any claim beyond that should obviously be given a healthy dose of scrutiny.