Accusation of contradictions in the Crucifixion story

[DeusVeritas]

Hi everyone,
I was watching a video made by a young man who I will assume is Muslim. In the video he states the contradictions that he has found in the story of the Crucifixion. I’d really appreciate it if some of the more knowledgeable posters on CAF could take the time to refute the points made in the video below. Each poster doesn’t have to take on all of the points at the same time but if different posters each took on a different point that would be great. BUT if any of you want to take them ALL on…I would not complain one bit.

Thanks in advance.

The video in question is titled The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ

youtube.com/watch?v=RHASuqhq2dk

In the video he makes the following points on why he believes there are contradictions in the story of the Crucifixion:

1. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke there is no mention of the three Mary’s or John at the foot of the cross. It is only in the Gospel of John he says that this is mentioned. He states that it seems like **the author of John was doing a clean-up act ** for this discrepancy in the other gospels by adding the three Mary’s and John at the foot of the cross.

The young man then said that the reason for so many discrepancies is that none of the apostles/disciples of Christ were witnesses to the crucifixion and that it is only in Matthew and Mark that the women were mentioned looking at the crucifixion from afar.

Then he went on to say that Christians will often try to reconcile this by saying that the women, the Mary’s and John were at first looking from a distance and simply moved forward to the foot of the cross.

1. In Mathew, Mark, Luke it shows Simon the Cyrene carrying the cross…

Yet in John only Jesus carried the cross…no Simon in sight…

1. That only in the Gospel of John is the killing blow of the **spear thrust ** spoken of and that this was never mentioned in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Furthermore he says it is ridiculous to think that it **only took 3 hours for Christ to die on the cross ** and that the author of John needed to do clean-up for this discrepancy again by adding the spear thrust to the crucifixion story.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

1. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke there is no mention of the three Mary’s or John at the foot of the cross. It is only in the Gospel of John he says that this is mentioned. He states that it seems like the author of John was doing a clean-up act for this discrepancy in the other gospels by adding the three Mary’s and John at the foot of the cross.

It is apparent, in carefully reading the gospels, that the authors of the gospels were not interested in writing a history in the modern sense of the word. For them a “history” was the basic facts – that Jesus was sacrificed by crucifixion – and then a collection of details, not necessarily factual, which teach us theological truths. So, the concept of engaging in a “clean-up act” would never have occurred to the gospel writers.

There are vast numbers of articles and books turning handsprings attempting to justify the discrepancies between the gospels, to try to “save Christianity” for Christian “historical jot-and-tittlists,” who believe that the Bible must be historically true down to the jot-and-tittle level ostensibly because God only talks like the perfect recording machine / computer.

The critic being talked-about by you here really has the same “disease” as the Christian “historical jot-and-tittlists,” except that he is an anti-Christian “historical jot-and-tittlist.”

Ironically, by implicitly ratifying the “historical jot-and-tittlist” perspective, Christians who do that assist anti-Christian “historical jot-and-tittlists” in destroying Christianity.

This website is jammed with Christian “historical jot-and-tittlists.” They really have no concept of how dangerous they are to the Church. The Church survives in spite of them, not because of them.

Here is an example of all of this…

In Matthew 20, as He is leaving Jericho, Jesus encounters two blind men, and cures them.

In Mark 10 and Luke 18, as He is approaching Jericho, Jesus encounters one blind man, and cures him.

Is that because we are talking about two different encounters, one going and the other coming?

Is that because in one encounter there were two blind men, and in the other encounter only one?

No. In truth, there probably was some kind of curing of blindness. But neither divine author was inspired to be concerned about perfect historical accuracy.

In fact, the Holy Spirit may have inspired one, or both, to be historically inaccurate! Why?

Well, focusing in one Matthew’s account, “two” is the Biblical symbol, or type, for “the Church.” “Blindness” is the Biblical symbol, or type, for “a lack of faith.” So, the incident is portrayed as involving two blind men becure of blindness probably because the story is a picture of Jesus curing the lack of faith in His Church. Jesus is probably shown leaving Jericho at the time probably because Jericho is a distinctly “Gentile” city in the OT, and Jesus is shown “leaving” it because the story is a picture of what He will do for the Gentile Church after His resurrection and ascension.

That lesson is more imporetant than the historical accuracy of the incident. Christian “historical jot-and-tittlists” who focus-in on the story to “prove” its “perfect” historical accuracy are completely missing the point of it.

 

[DeusVeritas]

---

There are vast numbers of articles and books turning handsprings attempting to justify the discrepancies between the gospels, to try to “save Christianity” for Christian “historical jot-and-tittlists,” who believe that the Bible must be historically true down to the jot-and-tittle level ostensibly because God only talks like the perfect recording machine / computer.

The critic being talked-about by you here really has the same “disease” as the Christian “historical jot-and-tittlists,” except that he is an anti-Christian “historical jot-and-tittlist.”

Ironically, by implicitly ratifying the “historical jot-and-tittlist” perspective, Christians who do that assist anti-Christian “historical jot-and-tittlists” in destroying Christianity.

This website is jammed with Christian “historical jot-and-tittlists.”

That lesson is more imporetant than the historical accuracy of the incident. Christian “historical jot-and-tittlists” who focus-in on the story to “prove” its “perfect” historical accuracy are completely missing the point of it.​

I appreciate your post but I am not one of those Christian “historical jot-and-tittlists” and merely wanted a refutation of the points I posted on the video because I wanted to see what would be the varying refutations to these points. Nowhere in my OP do I say anything about the young man’s video affecting my faith or that I am of the mindset that the bible is suppose to contain a “perfect” historical accuracy.

Personally I subscribe to the view of how the bible was written as it is stated by the Catechism :

**#76 "whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit… in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the Apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.” **

Instead of continually repeating over and over your “historical jot-and-tittlist” point, you could of just came out and directly said what you thought instead of implying it by saying “Christian(s)”.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here’s a lists of so-called contradictions answered litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Answers+to+the+so-called+%22Bible+contradictions%22

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I appreciate your post but I am not one of those Christian “historical jot-and-tittlists” and merely wanted a refutation of the points I posted on the video because I wanted to see what would be the varying refutations to these points. Nowhere in my OP do I say anything about the young man’s video affecting my faith or that I am of the mindset that the bible is suppose to contain a “perfect” historical accuracy.

Personally I subscribe to the view of how the bible was written as it is stated by the Catechism :

**#76 "whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit… in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the Apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.” **

Instead of continually repeating over and over your “historical jot-and-tittlist” point, you could of just came out and directly said what you thought instead of implying it by saying “Christian(s)”.

You are wrong. I am not thinking of you at all, in #2. I meant “Christians.” This website is jammed with severe literalists – “jot-and-tittlists.”

 

[Nita]

Hi everyone,

1. That only in the Gospel of John is the killing blow of the **spear thrust ** spoken of and that this was never mentioned in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Furthermore he says it is ridiculous to think that it **only took 3 hours for Christ to die on the cross ** and that the author of John needed to do clean-up for this discrepancy again by adding the spear thrust to the crucifixion story.

The spear thrust did not kill Jesus. He was dead already. (John 19:33-34 but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side…)

Very probably, the reason that Our Lord died in only 3 hours had something to do with the fact of His being scourged – and crowned with thorns. (There is no indication the 2 thieves received this punishment.) I don’t have a link or reference for you, but I know I’ve heard/read that scourgings by the Romans could be so severe that the recipient sometimes died from it. People sometimes say that whipping was limited to 40 lashes; but that was the Jewish regulation (Deut 25:1-3). I don’t know if there was a Roman law regulating the number of lashes that could be given; or if there was, how rigidly it was adhered to.

 

[Nita]

In the video he makes the following points on why he believes there are contradictions in the story of the Crucifixion:

1. In Mathew, Mark, Luke it shows Simon the Cyrene carrying the cross…

Yet in John only Jesus carried the cross…no Simon in sight…
.

I don’t see how he, or anyone, can deduce from John’s gospel that “only Jesus carried the cross” - and there was no help from Simon of Cyrene. John just plain doesn’t go into anything that happened on the way to Calvary. Here are John’s words:
John 19:17-18 So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha. There they crucified him, and with him two others,…

 

[Nita]

1. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke there is no mention of the three Mary’s or John at the foot of the cross. It is only in the Gospel of John he says that this is mentioned. He states that it seems like **the author of John was doing a clean-up act ** for this discrepancy in the other gospels by adding the three Mary’s and John at the foot of the cross.

The young man then said that the reason for so many discrepancies is that none of the apostles/disciples of Christ were witnesses to the crucifixion and that it is only in Matthew and Mark that the women were mentioned looking at the crucifixion from afar.

Then he went on to say that Christians will often try to reconcile this by saying that the women, the Mary’s and John were at first looking from a distance and simply moved forward to the foot of the cross.
.

Guess I’m doing this whole thing backwards!
I’m one of those Christians that he speaks about - who understand from the Gospel passages that there was a group of “many women” (Mt 27:55) who, at one point, were watching from afar. Then later a few of these women, along with John, approached the cross.

 

[DeusVeritas]

You are wrong. I am not thinking of you at all, in #2. I meant “Christians.” This website is jammed with severe literalists – “jot-and-tittlists.”

Ah… then I owe you an APOLOGY for thinking you meant me.

I am sorry… now I will go to the corner with my cap as self-punishment.

 

[DeusVeritas]

Here’s a lists of so-called contradictions answered litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Answers+to+the+so-called+%22Bible+contradictions%22

Thank you so much for the link…I will be scouring over all of the information as soon as I answer the other posts in this thread. Muchas gracias. Thanks.

 

[DeusVeritas]

The spear thrust did not kill Jesus. He was dead already. (John 19:33-34 but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side…)

Very probably, the reason that Our Lord died in only 3 hours had something to do with the fact of His being scourged – and crowned with thorns. (There is no indication the 2 thieves received this punishment.) I don’t have a link or reference for you, but I know I’ve heard/read that scourgings by the Romans could be so severe that the recipient sometimes died from it. People sometimes say that whipping was limited to 40 lashes; but that was the Jewish regulation (Deut 25:1-3). I don’t know if there was a Roman law regulating the number of lashes that could be given; or if there was, how rigidly it was adhered to.

Thanks for your response. I forgot to add in my original post that the young man gave as a reason why Christ could not have died in just 3 hours is that the Romans didn’t need how to read a pulse or that the idea of someone being clinically dead was not known for centuries.

Now, I could see this in the case of say when someone has had a heart attack but after a flogging, the crowning with thorns, crucifixion and spear thrust… that’s kind of hard to believe that they couldn’t recognize he was dead at this point and I would need to take a HUGE GRAIN OF SALT to be able to swallow that rationalization about clinical deaths in Our Lord’s case.

I will look into the Roman law about lashes. Thanks again.

 

[Spirithound]

I appreciate your post but I am not one of those Christian “historical jot-and-tittlists” and merely wanted a refutation of the points I posted on the video because I wanted to see what would be the varying refutations to these points. Nowhere in my OP do I say anything about the young man’s video affecting my faith or that I am of the mindset that the bible is suppose to contain a “perfect” historical accuracy.

Instead of continually repeating over and over your “historical jot-and-tittlist” point, you could of just came out and directly said what you thought instead of implying it by saying “Christian(s)”.

I think our friend was also referring to the maker of this video. There is an assumption on his part that if something is not mentioned in one Gospel, then that is a contradiction of the Gospel where it is mentioned. So, in one Gospel, “the other Mary” isn’t mentioned. Well, that’s because that writer wanted to focus more on Jesus’s Mother Mary being there, or John being there. It does not mean that “the other Mary” wasn’t there.

1. In Mathew, Mark, Luke it shows Simon the Cyrene carrying the cross…

Yet in John only Jesus carried the cross…no Simon in sight…

Same deal. Just because Simon of Cyrene isn’t mentioned in one Gospel doesn’t mean the author is saying he wasn’t there

1. That only in the Gospel of John is the killing blow of the **spear thrust ** spoken of and that this was never mentioned in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Furthermore he says it is ridiculous to think that it **only took 3 hours for Christ to die on the cross ** and that the author of John needed to do clean-up for this discrepancy again by adding the spear thrust to the crucifixion story.

The Gospels never say how long Jesus took to die.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi everyone,
I was watching a video made by a young man who I will assume is Muslim.

His defense of “allah” as the name of God, etc. would support that.

In the video he states the contradictions that he has found in the story of the Crucifixion. I’d really appreciate it if some of the more knowledgeable posters on CAF could take the time to refute the points made in the video below.
…

1. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke there is no mention of the three Mary’s or John at the foot of the cross. It is only in the Gospel of John he says that this is mentioned. He states that it seems like **the author of John was doing a clean-up act ** for this discrepancy in the other gospels by adding the three Mary’s and John at the foot of the cross.

When I watched the video, it was clear that he is pitting two incomplete statements against each other. eg: that in one gospel – the women watched from a distance, but in John they were at the foot of the cross.

I would actually agree that John is doing a clean-up (or perhaps call it a filling in) of the other Gospels. We do know that the Gospel of John was written at a later time – and the need for the account, then, could not have been to merely give the information already present in the other Gospels.

I also have to laugh, his interchanging error with discrepancy makes it difficult to know what he means – eg: the word “discrepancy” is not the same as “error” it merely means out of harmony – a very subjective idea in itself. Does he mean that he doesn’t “like” it – or does he mean it is actually “wrong” in some way/falsified.

He never did explain why it was necessary for women to be at the foot of the cross such that John had to “clean it up”. Much of his other arguments are empty in the same way. Much of what he says amounts to “It COULD be an error” but does not show that it “is an error”. I wouldn’t be convinced by anything he said unless I wanted not to believe in the first place – eg: his arguments are mostly for people who already have a bias.

The young man then said that the reason for so many discrepancies is that none of the apostles/disciples of Christ were witnesses to the crucifixion and that it is only in Matthew and Mark that the women were mentioned looking at the crucifixion from afar.

This has the same problem as before. Disciples and Apostles are both used to refer to the 12 in different contexts. A disciple was at the foot of the cross doesn’t demand that it be one of the twelve, nor does it deny it. But, the style of John’s writing is peculiar in that he refers to this disciple as “the one Jesus loved”. Many attribute this to John speaking of himself – but it is clear that Jesus loves all his disciples including those of today. John shows by this a broader way of thinking about the events – as in, he is inviting his audience to be there themselves.

This shallowness is particularly acute in the case of the sword piercing Jesus’ side.

Then he went on to say that Christians will often try to reconcile this by saying that the women, the Mary’s and John were at first looking from a distance and simply moved forward to the foot of the cross.

Yes – but he offers no rebuttal as to why they must be wrong. He just lets out some hot air … scoffing.

1. In Mathew, Mark, Luke it shows Simon the Cyrene carrying the cross…

Yet in John only Jesus carried the cross…no Simon in sight…

I don’t recall the word “only” appearing in the gospel of John. So, it is the same problem as the other arguments.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

1. That only in the Gospel of John is the killing blow of the **spear thrust ** spoken of and that this was never mentioned in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Furthermore he says it is ridiculous to think that it **only took 3 hours for Christ to die on the cross ** and that the author of John needed to do clean-up for this discrepancy again by adding the spear thrust to the crucifixion story.

This also shows the shallowness (at least at present) with which he argues.
Setting aside that there are two different time clocks in use – so that one is not sure of how long Jesus hung there –

John does not stop at the spear thrust, but immediately talks about “blood and water” coming forth. Yet anyone around a dead corpse or slaughtering animals – as John is likely to have done being a known person to the high priest(s) – that such is not common at butchering time. I have butchered rabbits, and I know how quickly rigor mortise sets in. Blood does not flow easily once something is dead.
Mortuaries have to add fluid to blood lines to get it to come out in modern times when preparing the body for viewing at funeral homes.

It is clear, from reading the Hebrew old testament – that the reference to blood being life – contains the idea of it’s flow. To the contrary of the argument made in the video – I don’t think John was trying to prove Jesus was dead at all. He was witnessing something miraculous in his eyes.

How quickly one forgets that Jesus was purchased for money – just as the lamb was purchased for sacrifice. Far more telling is to whom Jesus was Given – eg: to the Romans whom had no sacrifice. The scene at the foot of the cross is a Roman acting as priest thrusting the spear into the victim. It is the ritual of the passover which John is showing has been given to the Romans. This isn’t to convince Jews Jesus was dead --It’s more likely to shame them and recall that the sacrifice was prophecied to be offered by the Gentiles because God was unhappy with the sacrifice the Jews offered.
God wanted A CLEAN sacrifice always and everywhere.

Also, it is not clear to me, that John believed Jesus to be mortal without his own consent. That is, the spirit was not taken from Jesus – but rather “he gave it up”.
This also centers around the curious word where many bibles translate VERY poorly as – “it is finished” – but which does not have “it is” in the text. There is a single word which means consummation or permanence of being at that point of the narrative. Quite possibly Jesus spoke the word in Greek – which is harmonious with the shock of a Roman soldier just after the death where the comment about the manner in which Jesus dies eg: surely he was the son of God – for the word is possibly a Greek rendering of the name “He who is” in the perfect – eg: the Father’s name in perfect harmony with the other Gospels – but highlighting the opening of the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles.

Nor does the video make a very convincing case about the death of Jesus being fake by citing other mistaken deaths. Those were public stonings – by public mobs – not by people charged with making sure he was dead. Guards who failed their task – were executed. But even allowing the videos doubt – he misses, for example, that Jesus’ body was wrapped with wet cloth (and spices and perfumes) such that his head was sealed in – and yet he still breathed ??

From St. Thomas – I would note that the flesh upon the cross is not traditionally though of as dead in the forensic sense of the word anyway. Rather – it is that the breath and spirit left it – but no corruption of the body was permitted by the Father.

Also, the Shroud of Tourin – whether or not one believes it is Jesus’ – clearly shows a Jew executed by crucifixion and having chunks of his flesh ripped out by some kind of lashing. To survive what was seen in the shroud of Tourin is beyond my imagination – and I seriously doubt from the Gospel description – that Jesus death was any less violent than that one.

 

[grannymh]

I think our friend was also referring to the maker of this video. There is an assumption on his part that if something is not mentioned in one Gospel, then that is a contradiction of the Gospel where it is mentioned. So, in one Gospel, “the other Mary” isn’t mentioned. Well, that’s because that writer wanted to focus more on Jesus’s Mother Mary being there, or John being there. It does not mean that “the other Mary” wasn’t there.

Same deal. Just because Simon of Cyrene isn’t mentioned in one Gospel doesn’t mean the author is saying he wasn’t there

The Gospels never say how long Jesus took to die.

If what I heard is true, death on the cross was by asphyxiation. The way to avoid that was to support one’s body weight by lifting up from the feet so that the lungs could operate. Apparently, the Roman soldiers knew about how long death would take because they would check those hanging on the cross. If a person on the cross was still alive, his legs would be broken so he could no longer support the operation of his lungs. The soldiers did not have to break the legs of Jesus.

I sure hope someone tells me that this description of a Roman crucifixion is false.

Jesus truly suffered for us.

 

[Spirithound]

If what I heard is true, death on the cross was by asphyxiation. The way to avoid that was to support one’s body weight by lifting up from the feet so that the lungs could operate. Apparently, the Roman soldiers knew about how long death would take because they would check those hanging on the cross. If a person on the cross was still alive, his legs would be broken so he could no longer support the operation of his lungs. The soldiers did not have to break the legs of Jesus.

I sure hope someone tells me that this description of a Roman crucifixion is false.

Jesus truly suffered for us.

I’ve heard, actually (having not been there myself ) that the Romans could indeed adjust the condemned so that he lasted on the cross for days, and that breaking the legs of the criminals beside Jesus was not a usual occurrence, but a sort of concession because the next day was Passover.

 

[incense]

How quickly one forgets that Jesus was purchased for money – just as the lamb was purchased for sacrifice. Far more telling is to whom Jesus was Given – eg: to the Romans whom had no sacrifice. The scene at the foot of the cross is a Roman acting as priest thrusting the spear into the victim. It is the ritual of the passover which John is showing has been given to the Romans. This isn’t to convince Jews Jesus was dead --It’s more likely to shame them and recall that the sacrifice was prophecied to be offered by the Gentiles because God was unhappy with the sacrifice the Jews offered.
God wanted A CLEAN sacrifice always and everywhere.

Wow. This is a new insight to me. Thankyou.

 

[juliamajor]

i always find it strange when people see different material or competing material in Gospels that it some how the totality of that material can’t be trusted.
Four different authors, four different(maybe) source materials, 4 different literary styles,4 different audiences-why anyone would expect everything to completely gel is beyond me.
I always think of the movie “Rashamon” where every one has a different take on the same occurence.
When I teach why the Gospels are different I take four paintings from four different artists. Same subject, same ‘source’ -but it can appear to be radically different.
When your working with oral source material- it can change from mouth to mouth.
When you have a family reunion -how many versions, nuances of a familar family story is there. Uncle Harry remembers it a certain way. Aunt Harriet says cousin Sam was there but cousin Otho doesn’t recall seeing Sam there, but saysGreat Aunt Mary was there.
I think if we over intellectualize it we forget the nature of storytelling ,the nature of human perception and the artistry that it took to create the Gospels.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

i always find it strange when people see different material or competing material in Gospels that it some how the totality of that material can’t be trusted.
Four different authors, four different(maybe) source materials, 4 different literary styles,4 different audiences-why anyone would expect everything to completely gel is beyond me.
I always think of the movie “Rashamon” where every one has a different take on the same occurence.
When I teach why the Gospels are different I take four paintings from four different artists. Same subject, same ‘source’ -but it can appear to be radically different.
When your working with oral source material- it can change from mouth to mouth.
When you have a family reunion -how many versions, nuances of a familar family story is there. Uncle Harry remembers it a certain way. Aunt Harriet says cousin Sam was there but cousin Otho doesn’t recall seeing Sam there, but saysGreat Aunt Mary was there.
I think if we over intellectualize it we forget the nature of storytelling ,the nature of human perception and the artistry that it took to create the Gospels.

Hi, Julia.

What the literalists do is “platonize” Scripture, because the Bible is inspired.

I.e., they say that the Bible is the “perfect history book,” and so they spend volumes “proving” that God is like a pre-programmed compturer, who is mechanically prohibited from misstating facts.

In fact, sometimes God misstates facts intentionally. We are discussing this now in the thread on 2 Maccabees.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Julia.

What the literalists do is “platonize” Scripture, because the Bible is inspired.

I.e., they say that the Bible is the “perfect history book,” and so they spend volumes “proving” that God is like a pre-programmed compturer, who is mechanically prohibited from misstating facts.

In fact, sometimes God misstates facts intentionally. We are discussing this now in the thread on 2 Maccabees.

Really? I don’t recall reading that the Bible is the “perfect history book”. I thought the Psalms were songs or prayers…

God mistaking facts intentionally – that sounds weird. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion regardless…I guess…