The historicity of Jesus (1)
The church has failed to show any proof that the
Gospels were in existence before 125 CE. This is
demonstrated if one looks at the second century
Christian writings:-
The author of 1 Clement, an anonymous letter, usually
dated as ca. 96 CE, and attributed to Clement writing
from Rome to the church at Corinth, does not
appear to be aware of any written Gospels. On two
occasions he refers to what Jesus had said; in chap.
l3, he repeats the words of Jesus, very similiar to
those in the Gospels, although they are not
quotations. In chap 46 he brings together two
unconnected Markan statements (9:21 and l4:21) and he
appears to be quoting loose sayings that were circulat-
ing, but not in a fixed form; this view is strengthened
by the fact that he never refers to Gospel stories, or
sayings, when it would be very appropriate, applicable
and would support the argument he is making; instead he
quotes or refers to the O.T.
Ignatius, ca. ll0 AD, mentions the Gospel although it
again appears he is referring to the Gospel message,
rather than written documents. He gives much more
information about Jesus' life, but as he refers to
things not found in any of the four canonical Gospels,
eg. the story of Jesus speaking after the
resurrection, (Smyrn. 3) which is apparently from
the apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews and not
from the canonical Gospels, and he describes the
Bethlehem star in a way that is not found in Matthew
(the only canonical Gospel to mention this), it is
not clear what written Gospel was available to him.
He refers to other N.T. writings, but there is no clear
indication he knew of any written Gospels..........
In his letter to the Philippians he uses terms found
in Matt and Luke although it is noteworthy that the
author of l John, facing the same Docetic problem as
Ignatius, but at an earlier time, clearly did not
have the biographical information about Jesus, which
was available to Ignatius.
The Epistle of Barnabas ca. l30 CE, uses OT references
to support its contents when NT ones would have been
far more appropriate. It refers to a passage in Matt
20:l6b and 22:l4 and surprisingly for this early date
calls it 'Scripture'; this is quite unique.
However, 20:l6b appears to have been an interpolation
and if it was a loose saying, it is more likely the
author is using Matthew's source, rather than
Matthew itself. The author chose to use the apocryphal
Enoch when writing about the end (instead of Mark l3),
and in referring to the crucifixion he refers to the
Psalms, not the Gospels. The Epistle (chap. 7) has
a saying attributed to Jesus not found in the
Gospels.
Polycarp, ca. l30 CE, apparently knew Matt and/or Luke
and improves upon Clement's "quotations", but
apparently didn't know of John's Gospel.
Papias, ca. l40 CE, mentions Matthew and Mark in
written form, but not Luke or John and he also
made use of non-canonical apocryphal literature
indicating that Matt and Mark were not seen a sole
source of the gospel message.
Justin Martyr, in the middle of the second century,
refers to written Gospels which were deemed as
authoritative as the O.T, but he does not name them,
nor state their number so it is not known what he
was referring to. He too, used non-canonical material.
It was only by ca. l70 CE that Tatian was using all
four Gospels for his Diatessaron harmony and about a
decade later Irenaeus was arguing for acceptance of
the four canonical Gospels, and only those.
Therefore it appears that the writings that give Jesus
a historical place only appeared in the closing years
of the first century and even these took quite some
time to be established anbd accepted. Therefore with
regard to Jesus of Nazareth being some kind of
historical person, surely one is justified in asking
why there appears to be so little said by this
figure that is original; for example, a good deal of
the Sermon of the Mount goes back to the Old Test
or lst cent BCE apocryphal writings, eg. the Book of
the Secrets of Enoch. Secondly, why there is the
astounding silence over biographical - or
chronological - details about Jesus' life until ca.
90 CE. Paul, in the period before this time, never
invokes his words when they would be invaluable
in supporting his argument, and this is not only
with Paul, but elsewhere, eg. l Peter. The authors of
Romans l3:l-3 and l Peter 2:l3-l4 certainly couldn't
have been aware of the story of Jesus appearing before
Pilate in view of what they say. This silence
continued over into the end of the lst century; in
fact when the author of 1 Clement wrote, he seems to
suffer from the same problem as Paul and others -
total ignorance about Jesus and the Gospels;
obviously as is so clearly demonstrated, Christians
always used scripture or suchlike to support any
argument they were making, so is it somewhat bizarre
that Clement does not do this. In chap. 3-6 he lists
Abel, Joseph, Moses and David as examples of people
who suffered through jealousy - but surely Jesus
would have been the ideal example of this -
Matt 27:l8/Mark 15:l0 ??? When he speaks
about people preaching repentence in 7-8, he uses
Ezekiel and Isaiah as examples - but again surely
Jesus would have been the ideal example to use -
Luke 13:3,Matt l8:3 ? In 9-l2 he lists examples of
faith - but yet again they're all Old Test and fails
to give any Gospel example that would be more fitting.
In l6 he refers to Jesus' humility and one would expect
a reference to his humble birth in a stable,but instead
he quotes from the Old Test again (Isa 53). In chap l7
he speaks about those dressed in animal skins who annou
-nce the coming of Christ. Surely John the Baptist
(Matt 3:4) ? however he lists the Old Test prophets
Elijah and Ezekiel. And so it goes on......
It is very clear that although the Gospels emerged in
the last decade of the lst century AD, they took a
long long time to be circulated and/or accepted
which is strange if they are accurate reports of
Jesus' life. With regard to the eyewitness testimony
for Jesus' existence, there is certainly a problem. It
is amazing that anything up to 70(100 ?),000 people
saw Jesus, but no one made an eye-witness record of
it. Mark was obviously not an eyewitness due to his
host of errors concerning chronological, historical,
geographical and theological matters in lst. cent
Palestine; Matt and Luke have to use Mark as their
base (which they obviously wouldn't have needed to
do if they were eyewitnesses) and in John (Which
even the church only hesitantly accepted into the
canon) reports things that couldn't have happened
eg. Jesus' speech about drinking blood to a Jewish
audience in John 6; it has to be rejected if the
Synoptics are accepted as it conflicts with them,
eg. his dating of the Temple-clearing and the last
supper etc in relation to the Passover. He also
reports situations eg. expulsions from the synagogue
(l6:2) that didn't occur until after 90 CE (ie. Rabbi
Gamaliel II's official cursing prayer of the 'Minim'
in ca. 90 CE). In the case of Paul, he gives virtually
no detail about Jesus' earthly life, other than he
was a descendent of David, was crucified and was
raised by God. If Romans, a genuinely Pauline
letter, and the longest, is examined to discern Paul's
reference to Jesus' earthly life, the silence becomes
most apparent:-
(l)Jesus was a Jew/descended from David (l:3, l5:8,12);
(2)Jesus was human (8:3);
(3)His blood was shed (3:25, 5:9);
(4)Jesus suffered/died/was crucified (5:6,8,10,l5,
6:3,4,5,6,8, 8:l7, l4:l5);
(5)Jesus rose from the dead (l:4, 4:24,25,
6:4,5,9,l0, 8:ll,34, l0:7,9, l4:9):
As can be seen, the same few details are repeated
over and over again; in the letters that are
genuinely accepted as being written by Paul there is
no specific reference to the parents of Jesus,
and certainly not a virgin birth; his place of birth or
the area in which his ministry took place is not
mentioned either; 'Of Nazareth' is never used; the
details Paul supplies give no indication whatsoever of
the time or place of Jesus' earthly existence.
Paul never refers to Jesus' Roman trial, and in fact
he does not appear to even know who crucified Jesus -
in l Cor 2:8 he refers to the death of Christ by
'rulers of the age' - this hardly fits a tinpot
prefect called Pilate; this term really denotes
supernatural spirits - 2 Cor 4:4, Col 2:l5 *. Paul
never refers to Jerusalem as the place of Jesus'
execution and never mentions John the Baptist, nor
Judas, nor Peter's denials (This would have been
quite pertinent in combatting Cephas/Peter at
Antioch - Gal 2:ll-l7. Paul's position was apparently
being threatened by Peter and despite calling him a
hypocrite, he does not allude to his three denials of
Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, eg. Mark l4:30
par). The only chronological reference to Jesus in the
Pauline corpus is in l Tim 6:13 and this letter is
widely accepted as post-Pauline. Furthermore it
appears to be a non-Pauline insertion from a
baptismal creed.
(* Although some argue that Paul's reference in l Thess
2:l4-l5 shows he knew that the Jews crucified Christ
(this of course is incoorect - the Romans did), this
reference is clearly to God's vengeance on the Jews
and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE - therefore
it has to be an interpolation as l Thess was
written ca. 55 CE; however insistence that Paul
wrote this statement originally would preclude Paul
being the author as it would have to be after 70AD, but
Paul died before this date.
Paul also fails to mention any of the miracles Jesus
is reported to have accomplished in the Gospels; Paul
suggests that miracles might be expected wherever a
Christian mission went, for he includes the
working of them among 'the gifts of the Spirit' (l Cor
12:l0,28) and himself claimed to have won converts
by 'the power of signs and wonders' (Rom l5:l9).
Among the signs of a true apostle, he lists 'signs
and wonders and mighty works' (2 Cor 12:12); the
striking feature is that he fails to mention that
Jesus is reported as having done on an extensive scale
in his earthly life. Another striking feature is that
whilst the Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus as an ethical
teacher, there is no suggestion of this in Paul's
letters; Paul is certainly not indifferent to ethical
problems and on several occasions his letters
contain a sizeable amount of ethical instruction. On
only one occasion does he represent Jesus as having
made an ethical injunction and this is in l Cor 7:l0
when Paul discusses the subject of divorce. The Gospel
'parallel' to this is Mark l0:ll-l2 (Matt is simply
following Mark), but there is a difficulty even here
as some reject this is authentic as Jesus refers to
women divorcing their husbands - something that was not
possible in Palestine.
Some say the statement was assigned to Jesus through
Paul quoting a Christian prophet (himself ?) through
whom the risen Lord was speaking and it was then
utilised by the author of Mark who placed it in the
mouth of Jesus whilst on earth, but was careless in
not realising that its context was Gentile rather than
Palestinian. It is clear from such early Christian
writings as the Didache that as late as the end of
the first century Christian prophets were viewed as
being channels of communication for the risen Lord.
Paul was content to suffer weakness, insults,
humiliation, persecution and hardship (2 Cor l2:l0)
adding that he entreated the readers by the 'meekness
and gentleness of Christ' (2 Cor l0:l). He stated
that he imitated Christ (l Cor ll:l) and that his
whole existence was 'to know nothing....except Jesus
Christ and him crucified' (l Cor 2:2) and then goes on
to say he was with his readers in 'weakness, much
fear and trembling' (l Cor 2:3). If this is Paul's
'imitation' of Christ, then it is a far cry from the
Jesus of the Gospels and particularly the picture
of Jesus portrayed in John. It appears Paul thought
Jesus led a humble inconspicuous life that went
completely unnoticed by the world.
Other situations arise in Paul's writing that suggest
knew very little about Jesus' supposed earthly life. He
clearly was unaware of Jesus' command not to go to
the Gentiles (Matt l0:5) in Rom ll:l3, and in Rom 8:26
he states 'for we do not know how to pray as we ought'
suggesting he knew nothing of Jesus instructions of how
to pray in Matt 5:7-l3, Luke ll:l4; the instructions
regarding baptism by Jesus in Matt 28:l9 were also
apparently unknown to Paul (l Cor l:l7).
The person of Paul was that of someone who believed
that God was now revealing secrets or mysteries;
these term arise frequently in Paul's letters, eg. l
Cor 2:7, l3:2, l4:2,, l5:51, with 'revealed' or
similiar arising frequently also, eg. Rom l:l7,l8,
8:l8, l6:25, l Cor 2:l0,l3, 3:l3, 2 Cor 12:l. Paul
believed that he had seen the risen Jesus (l Cor
l5:8) and he had spoken directly to him (2 Cor
l2:8-9); he had experienced ecstatic states (2 Cor
l2:l-4, l Cor l4:l8) and God was now revealing
previously-hidden information (1 Cor 2:l0,12-13, 7:40).
A question therefore arises, did Paul's rather scant
knowledge about Jesus arise through his belief that the
risen Lord was now communicating with and through him,
alongwith other Christian prophets, or from
information gleaned from earthly companions and
eyewitnesses of the earthly Jesus. One passage in which
Paul clearly refers to a historical event in Jesus'
earthly life, ie. the last supper, is 1 Cor
11:23-26. However even this passage begins "For I
received from the Lord...." and again, suggests
this information was transmitted directly from the
risen Christ, rather than from the apostles.
An inevitable question arises, ie. why this should be
as Paul had met the apostles (Acts 9:27, Gal
1:18-19, 2:2,9) and would have been given this
information by them - that is of course if these
"apostles" had in fact accompanied the earthly Jesus
rather than being as Paul, ie. Christians receiving
information direct from the risen Lord, but that is
what the situation appears to have been.
Reference to Jesus' resurrection, rather than his
earthly life appears in l Cor l5:3-8, when Paul
lists the resurrection appearances (apparently in
chronological order); these bear no resemblance to the
Gospels and reference to an appearance to 'all the 12'
whilst Matt report Judas' suicide again suggests lack
of information; his mention of an appearance to five
hundred brethren at one time (l5:6) is quite
extraordinary as it would be inexplicable for the
Gospel writers to have omitted this event if they had
known of it. The empty tomb, nor Jerusalem itself is
ever mentioned by Paul; his several visits to
Jerusalem, recorded in both Acts and Gal. surely
would have brought him into contact with the empty
tomb; the failure to mention the empty tomb, which
surely would have had great significance for Paul due
to his preoccupation with Jesus' death and
resurrection, may have been due, unlike the Gospels
reporting a physical resurrection, to a belief in
Jesus being raised as a spirit (l Cor l5:44,45,50).
The l Cor l5:3-8 passage does not link Jesus to any
specific historical time; it simply reports that he
died, was buried, was raised, and had appeared to a
number of people alive in Paul's time. There is no
suggestion whatsoever that these appearances
occurred immediately after his death/resurrection.
Whilst the Gospels have Jesus appearing as a
resurrected physical human being to his apostles and
Acts having Jesus appearing in a totally different form
to Paul (ie. after his ascension), there is no such
suggestion here; Paul does not differenciate in any
way between the earlier appearances in l Cor l5:3-7
and the one to him (l5:8). It appears from this that he
believed all those listed in l5:3-7 had experienced
the same vision as he had done - they are certainly
not made to be companions of Jesus in his earthly
life and Paul appears to think of the others who are
listed as experiencing a supernatural vision as he had
done. The reason for Jesus now appearing was apparently
because of the approaching end which was imminent (l
Cor 7:29, l5:23-24, l Thess 4:14-17, etc, etc).
Examples of Paul's failure to invoke Jesus' words are:-
Rom 2:l,l4:l3/Matt 7:l, Luke 6:37
Rom l2:l4,l7/Matt 5:44, Luke 6:38
Rom l3:9,Gal 5:l4/Matt 22:39-40, Mark l2:31, Luke l0:27
Rom l3:6/Mark l2:l7
Rom l4:l4/Mark 7:l8-l9
Cor 6:7/Matt 5:39-40
l Cor l5:35-55*/Mark l2:25
l Thess 4:9/John l5:l7
(* In l Cor l5, Paul uses the O.T. rather than Jesus'
statements in the Gospels ie. l5:45 (Gen 2:7), l5:54
(Isa 25:8) and l5:55 (Hos l3:l4).
Paul argues that the 'spirits of this age' will be
put down at Christ's second coming (l Cor l5:24-25)
- he appears to be ignorant of the fact that spirits
were overcome by Jesus in his earthly life (eg. Mark
3:ll) and furthermore this was when Satan himself was
judged and cast out (John 12:31).
Furthermore there seems to be no pagan evidence for
Jesus' existence either. Reference to his existence
doesn't occur until well into the second century and
even then the writers seem to be merely repeating
Christian statements about Jesus (eg. Tacitus in 120
CE). What is really striking is that thee same
ignorance about Jesus' earthly life is found in most
other N.T writings, eg. in l Pet, readers are told to
love one another, have unswerving faith and put away
malice - but the writer never quotes Jesus' words in
the Sermon on the Mount - instead he quotes the Old
Testament.
With regard to Paul and the origins for Jesus, it
does seem that Jesus' 'teachings' overall were
borrowed from the O.T. and occasionally
elsewhere. It does also seem that messages received
'from the risen Lord' by Christian prophets in trance
were fed back into Jesus' earthly life. The Didache,
a Christian writing of ca. lst century (probably
from Syria) writes of Christian prophets; "Welcome
them as the Lord...Every missioner who comes to you
should be welcomed as the Lord....While a prophet is
uttering words in a trance, you are on no account to
subject him to any tests or verifications - this is
the sin that shall never be forgiven.......They
exhibit the manner and conduct of the Lord.....".
Here it can be seen these prophets were treated with
the same respect as Jesus himself; what they said was
treated as coming direct from Jesus and was not to
be questioned. Furthermore this feature is found
elsewhere, eg. B.E.Beck (Senior Tutor and Methodist
minister, New Testament Studies, Wesley House,
Cambridge), in his Reading the New Testament Today,
"....Sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels
were used by Christians without acknowledgement,
but the possibility cannot be ruled out that the
reverse process has occurred - maxims in general
use, from whatever source, have been mistakenly
attributed to Jesus, eg. Matt 6:34, 7:6. Apparently
Christian prophets spoke in the name of the risen Lord,
that is, on his behalf. Were such sayings treasured as
those of the earthly Jesus ? Was any real distinction
made between them when both were felt to express the
mind of the Lord who had now risen and was still
acting through his church ?............
If the distinction was not sharply drawn, what was to
prevent a saying of the Lord, delivered through a prop-
het, being attributed to the Lord in his earthly minis-
try ?...". Much the same thing is said by Ernest Best
(Professor of Divinity and Biblical criticism, Univers-
ity of Glasgow) in his book, 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
As Paul and indeed other N.T. writers say little or
nothing about Jesus' earthly life and Paul's knowledge
of him appears to have come directly through
revelations and ecstatic states (See 2 Cor ll:1, Gal
l:12); at the end of the day it appears that Paul and
a few others* believed there were getting messages
from the crucified and now-risen Christ who had lived
on earth 'sometime in the past' and was now
revealing himself as the close of the age dawned (See
l Cor 7:29, l0:11). * Note how the post-resurrection
appearances listed in l Cor l5:5-8 (which flatly
contradicts the Gospels) does not differentiate
between the appearances to those listed in l5:5-7 and
the one to Paul, but in fact the Gospels and Acts have
Jesus' appearances to some of those in l5:5-7 in a
physical body and before his ascension, but to Paul
it was a wholly different experience, ie. a blinding
vision (eg. Acts 9:3-5), but the way in which the
l Cor l5 list is worded certainly suggests that
Paul believed the others who had seen the risen
Lord experienced it in the same way he did - ie.
by direct revelation. He seems to know nothing of any
idea that they had ever seen the earthly Jesus.
It is necessary to comment on the argument that
proposes that as Josephus and Tacitus, both
non-Christians, refer to Jesus, this surely proves he
was a historical personage.
These references are very brief fleeting statements
concerning a Jesus by (1)Josephus (XVIII, 3.3), ca.
95 CE and (2)Tacitus (anals. xv, 44) ca. 120 CE.
However with regard to these, it must be asked,
(1)Josephus. (i)Why do no Christians up to the 4th
cent. refer to Josephus' priceless remark that
'Jesus was the Christ' ? (ii)Why does the Christian
apologist Origen (l85-254 AD) state categorically
that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the
Christ in view of the statement that calls Jesus
by this very title ? (iii)How could a strict
Pharasaic Jew make such a statement ? (iv)Why is it
written in the same style as Luke ? Surely this
suggests rather than being written by Josephus it
was taken from this Gospel ? (v)Why does it look
like an insertion in the narrative and appears to
interrupt the flow, not following on from what is said
before and not leading into what is said afterwards
? (vi)Why doesn't Josephus say more about Jesus if
he did really believe 'he was the Christ' ? (vii)How
it is that a whole host of eminent Christian
theologians/scholars who firmly believe in Jesus'
historicity reject the passage ?
(viii)Why should this be genuine when other copies of
Josephus's Antiquities have been discovered that are
heavily interpolated with Christian references ?
(ix)The very fact that it does appear to be a Christian
interpolation surely suggests there was a problem, as
why should Christians feel there was a need to even
do this ?
(2)Tacitus. It is never clear why this is even referred
to; this was written nearly a century after Jesus'
supposed existence - it is hardly 'contemporary'.
If he is quoting a historical fact, then why does he
make the same error that Christians also made about
Pilate, ie. calling him a procurator when really he
was a prefect. Trilling - an orthodox Christian -
comments that Tacitus was saying what 'could
have reached him from any educated contemporary' and
'is no more than what could be learned anywhere in
Rome'. In fact when Pliny wrote to Trajan (ca. 117 AD)
he admits that his information about Christians
came through actually questioning Christians - not by
using any historical record or common knowledge.
Tacitus is undoubtedly doing the same. Tacitus does
not refer to Jesus as 'Jesus' but 'Christ' - ie.
the title ('Anointed/Messiah') that Christians gave
Jesus. He could have hardly found this reference in
any records he consulted (which would have therefore
read:- 'We executed the Christ today' !). Again it is
obvious he is only repeating what he had heard
Christians believed.
The situation is adequately summed up by Professor
Fuller, Professor of New Testament, Union Theological
Seminary, New York. (A Critical Introduction to the
New Testament):-
"Of the 27 books of the New Testament only the
authentic Pauline epistles are, strictly speaking,
the testimony of an apostolic witness. And even
Paul...was not a witness of the historical Jesus.
Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing...there is
not a single book in the New Testament which is the
direct work of an eyewitness of the historical
Jesus..." (page 197).
As Christians go on about this Jesus character, it is
interesting to see rather than what Christians say about
him, what the Bible says. and this is it...........
The Jesus of the Gospels is hardly the character that
Christians like to present, eg. he used violence - John 2:15
(and apparently encouraged it; before his arrest he told his
disciples to buy a sword; this was used immediately afterwards
- Luke 23:36,49-50; if he was the omniscient Son of God, he
would have known this was to happen).
His purpose was to break up families - Matthew 10:34-35,
Luke 12:51-53. He taught the gospel was not available for
certain races - Matthew 10:5-8, 15:24. He was ignorant of
the Scriptures he quoted - Mark 2:26 (In fact the priest
was Ahimelech, not Abiathar - see 1 Samuel 21:1,6). He was
cruel to animals - Matthew 8:1-4 ('the offering' Jesus
commanded was a bird being sacrificed - Leviticus 14:2-5),
8:28-34. He treated his mother with contempt - John 2:4.
He suffered fits of temper, not justified by the situation
- Matt 21:18-19, 23:13-33 (In the John 7 outburst, in John
7:37, the Greek is 'to screech like a raven'). He was
hypocritical - Matthew 5:22 (Compare his action in Matthew
23:17); Matthew 6:14 (Compare Matthew 10:14-15); Matthew 7:1
(Compare John 5:30, 8:26). He lacked sympathy for other
people's suffering - Matthew 8:21-22. He rejected his own
family - Matthew 12:46-50, Mark 3:32-35. He had contempt for
other religions and their adherents - Matthew 12:30, 23:2-33,
John 8:44,55. He deliberately taught in a way so people would
not understand him (and therefore be saved from going to
eternal hellfire) - Mark 4:9-12. He encouraged people to
desert their families - Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29.
He taught people to hate* their families - Luke 14:26
(*The Greek here means 'active ill-will' or 'persecuting
spirit'). He taught that suffering was to show God's glory
- John 9:1-3. He ignored a woman pleading for his help: only
after she asked him three times did he condescend to help -
Matthew 15:22-28. He taught that ill-health and human
suffering was the result of sin, or for the purpose of
glorifying God - Mark 2:5,11,12, John 5:8-14.
And furthermore, he clearly seemed to have thought that his
second coming/the end of the world, ie. the final judgement
(etc, etc) was only a short time away, eg. he told the high
priest that he would see his return - Mark 14:61-62, he told
three disciples that they would see his return - Matt 16;28,
he told the disciples he would return before they had preached
throughout Palestine - Matt 10:23.
Furthermore, when Jesus told his disciples about the end of
the world (Mark 13:3-27), he told them that the generation
living at that very time (ca. 30 AD) would still be alive when
"all these things", (ie. the Second Coming, the Final Judgement,
the end of the world, etc, etc) took place (Mark 13:30).
Despite saying all this, only seconds later he then told the
disciples that no one - including himself - knew when
the end would come (13:32).
Also, he foretold that he would be buried for 3 days and 3
nights in Matthew 12:40 - but Friday evening (Mark 15:42-46)
to before Sunday daybreak (John 20:1-2) is NOT 3 days and 3
nights ! Mark 15:42 states he was buried AFTER sundown on the
Friday, ie. this in Jewish reckoning was in fact now Saturday
- the sabbath (also burial on the sabbath was something quite
impossible to have happened!).
The Gospels repeately say how Jesus' death etc 'fulfilled'
the Old Test scriptures (eg. Luke 24:27), but nowhere in the
Old Test does it say the messiah is to be killed, buried and
resurrected after 3 days.
With regard to the end of the world etc, Jesus stated that
there would be an "abominating sacrilege" (Matthew 24:15, Mark
13:14) which would cause a tribulation (Matt 24:16-28, Mark
13:15-23) and IMMEDIATELY after this (Matthew 24:29), he
would return to usher in the Final Judgement (Matthew 24:29-31).
Now Luke has in the parallel passage, the "abominating sacrilege"
as the Fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20); as can be seen by Luke
21:21-23, the author of Luke does equate "the abominating
sacrilege" of Matthew and Mark as Jerusalem's destruction).
However, Jerusalem's destruction (particularly as described
in Luke) occurred in 70 AD - therefore isn't Jesus' return
(which remember, was supposed to occur "Immediately" afterwards),
somewhat overdue ?
Over to you............
DAVID
Ps. The VERY last promise by God/Jesus in the whole Bible was Jesus' promise in
96 CE (or AD - whichever you prefer),
"SURELY, I AM COMING SOON"
So 1900 years later - where is he then ????????????????
Genesis 9:6
Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed...
Exodus 21:12
He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
Exodus 22:19
Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 22:20
He that sacreficeth unto any God, save unto the Lord only, he shall be
utterly destroyed.
Exodus 31:14
Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you. every one
that defileth it shall surely be put to death...
Exodus 35:2
Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a
holy day, a sabbath of rest to the lord: whosoever doeth work therein
shall be put to death.
Leviticus 20:2
...Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that
sojurn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall
surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
Leviticus 21:9
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the
whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
Leviticus 24:14
Bring forth him that hadth cursed without the camp; and let all that
heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation
stone him.
Deuternomy 13:10
And thou shalt stone him with stones that he die, because he hadth sought
to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God...
Deuternomy 17:5
Thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that
wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone
them with stones. till they die.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
...and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: then they shall
bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of the
city shall stone her with stones that she die...
Deuteronomy 22:22
If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall
both of them die...
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her
in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the
gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die...
Deuteronomy 22:25
BUT if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her,
and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
I Kings 21:10
...Thou didst blaspheme God and the King. And then carry him out, and stone
him that he might die.
(New testiment sort of tones it down)
Matthew 15:4
...He that curseth father or mother: let him die the death
Romans 6:23
(the ever popular)
For the wages of sin is death...
Biblical injunction for large-scale impersonal killing (warfare):
Deuteronomy 20
General instructions concerning:
1. priests and officers in war
2. deseiging cities
specifically,
Deuteronmy 20:13
And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite
every male thereof with the edge of the sword
Deuteronomy 20:17
But thou shalt utterly destroy then; namely [list of cities] as the Lord hath
commanded thee.
Deuteronomy 23:14
For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to
give up thine enemies before thee...
Proverbs 20:18
Every purpose is established by counsel: and with good advice make war.
Joshua 6
Detailad instructions on how to deseign, then destroy, jerico.
Results:
Joshua 6:21
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, bith man and women,
young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
(verse 24 has them burning everything except for the $$$$$ )
Joshua 8:1-2
And the Lord said unto Joshua "Fear not, neither be thou dismayed: take all
thepeople of war with tee, arise, go to Ai: see, I have given into thy hand
theKing of Ai and his city and his land. And thou shalt do to Ai and her king
as thou didst unto Jerico and her king: only the spoil thereof, and the cattle
thereof, shall ye take for a prey unto yourselves: lay thee an ambush for the
city behind it.
Joshua 10:8
And the Lord said unto Joshua "Fear them not: for I have delivered them into
thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee.
(slaughter follows)
Joshua 10:32
And the Lord delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the
second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that
were therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah
Joshua 10:37
[same thing, this time to Hebron]
Joshua 10:39
[same thing, this time to Debir]
Joshua 10:40
[same again, this time to hills and springs and all that breathed]
Joshua 11:6-9
General God-inspired destruction by the waters of Meron. I am really
getting tired of this blood-thirsty genocidal individual!
It goes on and on and on and on with "the Lord told him to
slaughter everything, and he did". Yech!
Samuel 30:8
... Pursue: thou shalt surely overtake them, and without fail recover all
in 30:17 he catches up and decimates them.
He goes along with it when it is done by some(one) else...
Job - On a bet, God allows Satan to kill all of Job's children.
(Job was prolific.)
And he condones it:
Judges - God accepts a human sacrifice from Jephthah; his daughter.
(Alright, this isn't genocide.)
And he even does it himself:
Genesis - God destroys the world in a flood.
God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah.
Exodus - God kills the first born of Egypt to force them
to let his people go. (Weren't Egyptians his people, too?)