In Chapter 6 of the Gospel of Mark, we read that the God Jesus miraculously exorcised a “demon-possessed” man in the “country of the Gerasenes,”[1] located on the Western side of the Sea of Galilee. He then returns to the Eastern side where He cures a woman suffering from chronic vaginal bleeding,[2] and raises a dead 12-year-old daughter of a Jewish synagogue leader back to life.

Jesus next travels to Nazareth to preach to the inhabitants of his former hometown. It is there that an astonishing turn of events takes place.

Upon hearing the God Jesus preach in their synagogue,[3] the Nazarenes are awed and “amazed” by the religious knowledge and wisdom” Jesus has displayed, and stand confounded by the reports of the “remarkable miracles” he is said to have performed. Why he’s Mary’s son,[4] the brother to four others, and to sisters who still live among us, they remind themselves. What happened to cause such a change in “the son of Joseph” (Luke 4:22), his listeners wonder.

But the Nazarenes quickly turn their awe and amazement into outright hostility towards Jesus. And oddly enough, Mark fails to clarify the precise cause for this strange change of heart. Neither does Matthew (13:53-58). Luke, however, writing much later and using a copy of Mark as a template before him, does. But before we delve into his account of Jesus’ rejection in Nazareth, let us re-examine a piece of gospel evidence that is extremely relevant.

In chapter two of Luke’s gospel, Luke portrays Jesus as wowing the Jewish Temple leaders in Jerusalem with his prodigious religious knowledge and wisdom, and at the tender age of only twelve![5] But if true, the child Jesus would naturally have left a similar impression on Nazareth’s synagogue leaders, as well as Jesus’ fellow villagers throughout the region. His fame for possessing such extraordinary knowledge at such a tender age would certainly have been widespread. And yet, Jesus’ listeners exhibit no awareness whatsoever of Jesus’ previous exceptionalism.  So, we must ask: Why are the citizens of Nazareth suddenly “amazed” by Jesus’ knowledge and wisdom only now?

In any event, Luke begins with Jesus standing in Nazareth’s synagogue reciting the first verses of Chapter 61 from the Book of Isaiah which begins with:

“The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me because the Lord has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.”

Jesus goes on to tell the congregation that He  is the embodiment of Isaiah’s “prophecy,” that He’s  their long-awaited Messiah. Surprisingly, his listeners are not in the least bit offended at this point. In fact, Luke tells us that the Nazarenes,

“All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips (Luke 4:22).”[6]

But Jesus suddenly appears irked. Someone must have told Him: “Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you’ve done in Capernaum,”[7] for Jesus responds: “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”

Mark claims that Jesus could not perform any  miracle there, but then quickly contradicts himself by adding, “except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them” (Mark 6:5; NIV). But the Greek text of Mark 6:5 states that Jesus did no “mighty” miracle there;[8] the word δύναμιν (dunamis) exemplifying power and strength. So are we to assume that the miraculous healing of a collection of sick individuals fails to be deemed a “mighty” miracle? Or should we simply take the latter text to be an interpolation by a later hand?

Matthew, who also  used a copy of Mark as his template, and writing some 15 to 20 years after  Mark, altered Mark slightly by writing, “and he did not do many  miracles there because of their lack of faith.” (Matthew 13:58). However, Luke (4:14-30) fails to report any  miracles performed by Jesus, neither mighty nor minor. In fact, Luke’s timeline would almost preclude miracle-performing on the part of Jesus, for Luke has Jesus:

  1. Read from Isaiah Chapter 61,
  2. then elucidate his “interpretation” of several key verses in Isaiah 61,
  3. which, in turn, enrages the Nazarenes to the point that they grab Jesus and drag Him to a cliff[9] with every intention of throwing Him off of it.

“All the people in the synagogue were furious …  They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff.” (Mark 4:28-29)

Luke, therefore, appears to contradict Mark and Matthew by failing to mention any  attempts at miracle-performing on Jesus’ part, and, judging by Luke’s timeline, little opportunity for Jesus to perform a miracle of any great significance anyway.

Then again, perhaps Luke does  report a Nazareth “miracle, after all. It appears that in Luke 4:30, Jesus must have used divine power to supernaturally numb the angry ardor of the Nazarenes and thus, walk to safety through their midst.

So either Jesus did no  miracles in Nazareth (Luke), no “mighty’ miracles there (Mark), or was unable to do “many” miracles in Nazareth (Matthew). Take your pick.

What is truly astounding is the fact that Mark asserts Jesus couldn’t  perform a single miracle of any great significance in Nazareth due to the lack of “faith” on the part of the Nazarenes. And note, the text in Mark doesn’t state that Jesus didn’t want  to perform any mighty miracles in Nazareth, it plainly states that he couldn’t.

Now wouldn’t the God Jesus have known beforehand  what He would encounter in Nazareth? After all, He had the power of divine omniscience to alert Him. And wouldn’t performing a genuine miracle of note before his friends, family, and acquaintances help prove He truly was the Messiah? Moreover, isn’t the ultimate aim of performing a holy miracle to bring people to  faith?

So now the question: How do most Christian apologists explain away Mark 6:5? Well, in the main, by claiming that Jesus could  have performed any miracle He wanted to but chose not  to perform any significant miracle because of the hostile attitude of the Nazarene community, while admitting that lack of faith does  act as a barrier to miracle-performing. But all that tells us is that Jesus exhibited pure vindictiveness; hardly the hallmark of a “loving” God. And as we’ve already pointed out, the text of Mark doesn’t say he “chose” not to perform a mighty miracle, it says He couldn’t (Gk: οὐδεμίαν [oudemian]) and all due to lack of faith on the part of Jesus’ family, friends, and acquaintances.

Christians need to think back and remember this:

In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.  “The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,  and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.”

“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.” (Luke 1:26-38; NIV)

and ask themselves how Mary (and Jesus’ brothers) could think Jesus “nuts”[10],  “without honor,” and incapable of miracle-performing (on occasion) in the face of unbelief if Luke 1:26-38 is  the “gospel truth”?


[1] Matthew 8:28 states it was two  demoniacs in the region of the “Gadarenes,” while Luke 8:26-39 has just one demoniac that Jesus exorcised, but, along with Mark, in the region of the Gerasenes. Note: the only “city” where the exorcism could have possibly fit the narrative was “Kursi,” otherwise known as “Gergesa”—a city which none of the gospel writers cite. And which is part of the country of the “Gergesenes, not  the Gerasenes or Gadarenes. (See Map Here)

[2] Touching Jesus in her “unclean” condition would have rendered Jesus unclean as well—according to Jewish law.

[3] Modern archeological evidence indicates that there was no actual “synagogue” per se in Nazareth during Jesus’ lifetime. In fact, not a single one has been found anywhere in the whole of Galilee. (See Here) So we must take the word “synagogue” to mean the meeting place of worshiping Jews, whether in someone’s home or elsewhere, and not a temple-like structure we refer to today.

[4] Many a Christian NT scholar has noted that calling Jesus the “son of Mary” would be taken as a slur. The Jews would almost universally use a patriarchal reference, not a matriarchal one.

[5] Luke 2:41-51.

[6] Luke 4:22

[7] I.e., Exorcised demoniacs, healed Simon Peter’s fevered mother-in-law, a leper, a paralytic, etc.

[8] So the KJV.

[9] There was no “cliff” per se in the old village of Nazareth proper. Christian apologists maintain that Luke was referring to Mt. Precipice. But Mt. Precipice is located 2 miles  from the old village. Therefore, we may rightfully conclude Luke has made up this episode out of whole cloth.

[10] See Luke 3:21; cf. John 7:5; 10:20. Many apologists try and deflect by insisting that the Greek makes it possible to be referring to Jesus’ followers or “associates” in 3:21. But Mark 3:31-34 makes it clear it is Jesus’ Mother and brothers 3:21 is referring to.


*Note: If you receive this post via email, please click the post title within your email to view any changes made.

     In Part I, we addressed the claim that Jesus didn’t know the date of His own Second Coming because He voluntarily “emptied himself “of that knowledge through a theological  process known as “kenosis.”

     In Part II, we will address a variant of the Kenosis Argument  which Christian apologists have termed the Hypostatic Union, or “two natures” of Christ Jesus.

     We’ve already established the Christian belief that Jesus was born a one-of-a-kind hybrid consisting of both man and deity inextricably intertwined to form a Man-God. In fact, God Almighty incarnate.

     Jesus was not “possessed” by a deity, He WAS deity; a divinity completely inseparable from the human Jesus. He wasn’t two  entities occupying one body; He was a singular  entity occupying one body.

     Was, then, Jesus a singular being possessed of one nature, or two? If two, did both natures intermingle or were they completely separate?

     Pious early Christians maintained that Jesus possessed only ONE nature; some believing it to be strictly divine, others believing His was of a strictly human nature. But there are far too many gospel passages where Jesus exhibits supernatural abilities to maintain His nature was solely human.

     It was during the Council of Chalcedon  (October 8 to November 1, 451) that Church officials officially declared that the God Jesus was a single entity possessed of two “natures.” Furthermore, these two natures did not meld together to form a single consciousness; rather, they each existed distinctly apart from one another with no blending of one with the other whatsoever. The Chalcedonian Creed states:

“born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;  the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God  the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ”[1]  

     In an article titled How Can Jesus Be God and Man? Author and Christian apologist Matt Perman writes:

“We must understand that the two natures of Christ remain distinct and retain their own properties. What does this truth mean? Two things: (1) They do not alter one another’s essential properties and (2) neither do they mix together into a mysterious third kind of nature.[2]

     But think about it. How in the *world*  could Jesus conduct Himself with two independent natures which did not interact with one another? When would the “human” nature decide to take a back-seat to the “divine” nature at any point in His day-to-day existence? What would “trigger” the divine nature taking over from the human nature and back to the divine again? Would the human in Jesus even know He was God if His divine nature was so alienated from that of His human nature? And wouldn’t Jesus exhibiting just a human nature for any length of time render Him less  than God during that time frame? Not surprisingly, these are questions Christian apologists conveniently fail to address. They’re virtually impossible to answer without resorting to the tired, worn-out “It’s a mystery” rejoinder. Or else fabricate an explanation out of whole cloth.

     It would have made far greater sense for Christian apologists to argue that since Jesus was a singular hybrid entity composed of both man and deity, his “mind,” would also be a hybrid mixture of both divine and human natures as well. That way, Jesus could decide to be “human” when he wanted to, yet act divine when called for. In fact, this was the belief of Christians opposed to the Chalcedonian Creed. This non-Chalcedonian belief was called Miaphysitism and is the theology of Oriental Orthodox Churches (the fourth largest contingent of Christian Churches in the world) to this day.

     The Roman emperor Marcian (450-457) had convened over five-hundred church officials at Chalcedon to, among other things, reinforce belief in an updated version of the Nicene Creed of 325, declare certain Christian beliefs heretical, and define true Christian faith. What transpired was that a huge assembly of over five-hundred Christian big-wigs argued bitterly over what was “true Christianity” and what wasn’t for 24 straight days. All that was needed was a majority vote to declare a particular Christian doctrine or tenet the law of the land. And that was that. Who needed any real proof any of it was irrefutably true? That’s your “faith,” they told the faithful. Learn to live with it and believe it―or else be labeled a heretic!


     We have seen that both the Kenosis Argument  and the Hypostatic Union  of the God Jesus are completely baseless explanations as to why a God failed to know the date of His very own Second Coming. 

As previously stated, all that the God Jesus needed to do when pressed for the date was to simply reply,I’m not at liberty to reveal it.And that would be that. Instead, we not only have the God Jesus clueless as to the date of His so-called “Parousia,” but the Holy Spirit God as well. Only one of the three Gods of Christianity knew the date: God the Father.[3] How is one to explain the fact that the Holy Spirit God was also kept in the dark and yet still be viewed as “God”?

The God Jesus has been revealed to be less than God by being clueless as to the date of His very own Second Coming. And no amount of special pleading can alter that fact.


Part I Here

[1]Bettensen, Henry (trans.) “Chalcedon Formula.” (accessed on April 30, 2018)

[2] Perman, Matt. “How Can Jesus Be God and Man?” (accessed on April 30, 2018)

[3] Is this not further proof that the concept of the Triune God that Trinitarian Christians so staunchly adhere to is entirely baseless?


*Note: If you receive this post via email, please click the post title within your email to view any changes made.

     The following is a tongue-in-cheek atheist’s take as to what events may  have actually occurred  in regards to the fictitious Garden of Eden story in Genesis. Be forewarned, it will undoubtedly offend some viewers. Yet, it is  in line with what we can glean from the Bible.

1.   The Prelude: The God  Jesus creates everything in existence (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; and Revelation 4:11), including very evil itself. He then creates a booby-trapped “Tree of Knowledge” that embodies pure evil so it can be unleashed into the world by the first person who partakes of its fruit.

2.   God, presumably God the Father, then situates that tree practically in the lap of Adam & Eve and tells them not to partake any of its fruit or they will die. (Note: He doesn’t even tell them what evil is, just that they’re not to partake of the fruit.) But  God already knows that Eve will partake of the fruit due to His omniscience. But does He give a flyin’ Hoot? Hell, NO!!

3.   The God Jesus then creates an evil serpent with the evil ability to lie, deceive, and beguile the unsuspecting pair. God then sees to it that the evil serpent is  planted near the unsuspecting couple as well, gleefully wringing his hands after having done so.

4.   Now, Eve hasn’t the faintest clue as to what “disobeying” really  means. That’s because she has no concept of what it truly means to “disobey.” And that is because she has no clue whatsoever as to what evil is.

Remember:  Eve does not possess” free-will “at this point because she has not yet partaken of the forbidden fruit. Evil is not part of her consciousness as of yet.

5.   God’s evil serpent approaches Eve and tells her that God said it’s now perfectly fine for her to go ahead and partake of the fruit. He tells Eve that God told him  to tell her  it’s no longer forbidden. Trust me,” the serpent tells Eve, “If He’s changed his mind, He’ll let us know.

6.   Trusting Eve, who has no idea whatsoever as to what a “lie” or deceit is, takes the evil serpent at his word and partakes of the fruit. Meanwhile, God the Father, the Holy Spirit God, and the God Jesus are standing by, snickering to themselves like there’s no tomorrow, gleefully anticipating what is about to unfold.

7.    Eve partakes of the fruit and only now  realizes she has disobeyed God, but at the same time was “tricked” into doing so. But it’s too late. Evil has now been unleashed upon planet earth. And the three Gods who are claimed to be only ONE God by Christian apologists aren’t about  to do a damn thing about it.

8.    SIDE NOTE: God had already  unleashed evil previously. He wanted the angel Lucifer to turn evil and did so by inventing “Free-Will,” a ploy He used as a tool to infect Lucifer and an “army” of angels with evil and into rebelling—knowing full well what the consequences of His monstrously evil behavior would entail.

9.    God now pretends He’s upset that Adam & Eve disobeyed Him. Instead of saying,” Oh, you two, I was having a little fun. Get along now and go play with the lions. I forgive you!  After all, I had the evil serpent deliberately deceive you and trick you into sin. My bad.”

10.   Instead, “God” malevolently proceeds to ensure death and suffering afflicts ALL of humanity—even generations of humans who had absolutely NOTHING to do with what Adam & Eve did. And not only that, God decides the animal world should be made to experience death and suffering as well. And the kicker is that He and His evil-creating Son are sitting on their thrones in Heaven laughing their asses off watching brainwashed idiots worshiping and adoring them despite what they’ve so fiendishly accomplished.

     And so, the Bible believer is faced with the fact that if they believe the Adam & Eve story in Genesis to be historically true, they’re unconsciously worshiping and adoring the most monstrously cruel, sadistic, and evil a trio of deities they could ever possibly imagine.

For more on this subject, see here.

Up Next: The God Jesus on the Date of His Second Coming. Part II

*Note: If you receive this post via email, click the post title within your email to view any changes made.

After “prophesying” the destruction of the Jewish Temple, the God Jesus and His immediate disciples move on to the Mount of Olives. It is there that the disciples ask Jesus when His Second Coming is to occur? “God” replies with an astounding declaration, a declaration that has confounded Christian apologists for ages:

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but ONLY the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.”  (Mark 13:31-32; see also Matthew 24:36; NIV; Emphasis mine)

Jesus of Nazareth is claimed to have been born 100% human AND 100% “deity” inextricably bound together to form a Man-God. In fact, God Almighty incarnate according to Christian apologists.  So how is it even possible  that God Almighty, in the guise of Jesus of Nazareth, could be entirely clueless as to the date of His very own Second Coming? Moreover, how is it that the Holy Spirit God stood clueless as well?

Christian apologists, embarrassed by Jesus’ declaration, have struggled mightily to provide a logical explanation for God Jesus’ ignorance. Many apologists have appealed to Philippians 2:7 and the term “kenosis” in trying to rectify the problem. We must duly note that the Kenosis Doctrine is wildly disputed, with even the most “Christian” of Christian apologists at complete loggerheads with one another over it. Worse is the fact that adherents of the Kenosis Doctrine have divided themselves into two camps. The first camp believes that God Jesus divested Himself of only some  of His divine attributes when He became “human.” The second camp, on the other hand, holds to the belief that in “emptying himself,” Jesus divested Himself of all His divine powers; thus making Himself completely  human. The 3rd Century Bishop of Neocaesarea, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, says as much in his Twelve Topics of the Christian Faith:

“If any one affirms that the flesh of Christ is consubstantial with the divinity, and refuses to acknowledge that He, subsisting Himself in the form of God as God before all ages, emptied Himself and took the form of a servant, even as it is written, let him be anathema. How could the flesh, which is conditioned by time, be said to be consubstantial with the timeless divinity? For that is designated consubstantial which is the same in nature and in eternal duration without variableness.”

Christian kenosis adherents, however, rely on the words of the apostle Paul:

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature[ God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. (Philippians 2:5-7; NIV; Emphasis mine.)

The words “made himself nothing” in NT Greek (heauton ekenōsin) is transliterated “emptied himself.” (See here.) Apologists have jumped all over this to argue that the God Jesus, in becoming human, willingly divested himself of the ability to know the date of His return (i.e., the adherents in “Camp one”) .The popular Christian apologetic website, Got  explains things this way:

“Although Jesus was fully God (John 1:1, 14) when He became a man, He voluntarily restricted the use of certain divine attributes (Philippians 2:6-8). He did not manifest them unless directed by the Father(John 4:34; 5:30;6:28). He voluntarily restricted that omniscience to only those things God wanted Him to know during the days of His humanity (John15:15) . . . Yes, both are God. But some things Jesus had apparently chosen to “give up the rights” to be privy to during his earthly ministry.”1

Voluntarily restricted the use of certain divine attributes? Voluntarily restricted His omniscience to only those things God wanted Him to know? Are we to believe that the God Jesus knew the date of the Second Coming but told God the Father, that while in His human state, He’d let God the Father induce selective amnesia whenever confronted with a question God the Father wanted the answer kept a secret?

Where is the biblical proof for this? All Philippians 2:7 indicates is that the God Jesus, while still “God,” became a subservient human, nothing more. Becoming subservient in no way translates into a God suffering selective amnesia. Jesus is claimed to be a one-of-a-kind Man-God hybrid, but God on earth nevertheless. Therefore, He had  to know the date of His Second Coming. And remember, Jesus’ words means the Holy Spirit was left clueless as well. How does one  explain that  one?

The argument that Jesus “emptied himself” points to a God who is automatically  reduced to less  than God. A God who is completely ignorant regarding certain matters. A God with only limited  supernatural powers. He is a God who ends up being nothing more than a semi-divine “puppet.”

Jesus could have simply told his disciples, “I’m not at liberty to tell you the date of my Second Coming” and be done with it. Could He not?

Even the author of the Got Questions  article reveals he is merely speculating when he writes that the God Jesus apparently  suffered induced selective amnesia, yet provides no irrefutable biblical proof of it.

Christian apologists want to point solely to the human side of Jesus to account for Jesus’ ignorance as to the date of His Second Coming, stressing that He had to “grow in wisdom” and that He grew hungry and thirsty like any other human. Though He was a subservient human, He was still  “God.” Therefore, He had more than enough “wisdom” for both the divine and human sides of “the Son of Man’ regardless of what apologists try and maintain.

As for His need for food and water, we must ask: “Could the God Jesus have starved to death or die from dehydration if deprived of food and water? Not if He was truly God. The God part of Jesus was still inextricably intertwined with the human Jesus, and for all time, no less. The God part of Jesus would have kept the human in God Jesus alive by virtue of the fact that Jesus was a deity. A truly mortal Jesus could, indeed, die. But Jesus, as a Man-God hybrid could not possibly  succumb to true death. Jesus was 100% God, so the apologists tell us.

If  the God Jesus had  somehow truly divested Himself of his supernatural attributes, He would not be the 100% God Christian apologists insist He is, but only 100% human. The apologists would then have to kiss John1:1 in conjunction with John 1:14 goodbye. It would no longer remain true. Jesus would be “God” in name only.

And so the Kenosis Doctrine falls flat on its face. It is no more than a patently contrived concoction manufactured by the Church in an attempt to try and save Jesus and the New Testament from biblical error.That  is as transparent as it gets.

1 Question: “If Jesus was God, why did He not know when He would return?” http.// (retrieved 1/22/2018)



In Part II we will deal with the so-called “Hypostatic Union” of Jesus. In other words, his supposed “two natures.” But before that, a playful account of what happened in the Garden of Eden.

For more on the supposed “death” of the God Jesus, see here.


Combine John 1:1 with John 1:14’s “And the Word became flesh”  and the result is Christianity’s Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus, Christian apologists, tell us, was born a hybrid unlike anything humanity has ever witnessed, being simultaneously both 100% fully human AND 100% full deity inextricably bound as one to form a Man-God. In fact, God Almighty in the flesh

God the Father is said to have sent God Jr. down to earth to be crucified on a Roman cross in order to absolve humanity of its “sins.” His Almightiness  evidently felt simply uttering a thunderous proclamation from the heavens to the men and women alive on earth at the time, or forgive mankind with quiet, noble grace wouldn’t quite do. No, “loving” God felt that subjecting another  God-being to torture and death was His only real option. Whatsmore, who was the God Jesus to say “Not me!!” to that other God anyway?



But what actually ceased to live when Jesus “died” on the cross? Surely it wasn’t the “God” in him. Gods don’t die. Jesus was made up of both deity and human composition inextricably inseparable at birth. So how can one say Jesus actually “died” if the deity in Him remained alive throughout Jesus’ “death”? Remember, Jesus wasn’t “possessed” by the Divine like humans possessed by demonic spirits are claimed to be. He was born  deity, a deity who was every bit as much human as he was “God.”

Was it only human Jesus that died, then? Seeing that both the human and the deity Jesus were  inextricably bound together as one entity, one cannot rightfully claim “Jesus” died without the deity of Jesus dying as well. Jesus was ONE being, not two. Jesus certainly didn’t shed his divinity when “Jesus” ceased living, did He? And if He didn’t, Jesus, while in the grave, wasn’t truly “lifeless.” Or am I missing something here?

A further observation: If Jesus never really  died, it means God the Father never absolved humanity of its “sins.” How could He? Jesus was to die for the redemption of man’s sins, not pretend  to die to redeem them.


Greywolf’s 1st Dictum: There can be no greater evil in all of existence than the Creator of Evil. (I’m referring to the God Jesus, of course. The conscious, deliberate, act of creating very evil is, in itself, inherently evil. Try thinking of an act even remotely  more evil.  End of story.)

Greywolf’s 2nd Dictum: If if happened, God wanted it to. If He didn’t, it would never have happened. (Assuming God actually exists, of course. Note: This would include every human tragedy, every evil to befall man. Would it not? It’s A sobering conclusion that needs to be honestly dealt with by every God believer. The God named Jesus (as opposed to “God the Father”) willfully created very evil itself when he didn’t have to. Ask yourself if that  wasn’t being evil in the extreme. See John 1:3 here.)




A Theological/Bible Related Commentary

         We now turn to yet another  difficulty Christian apologists must be forced to contend with. And one which is not quite so readily apparent.

        In John 20:1, we learn that Mary Magdalene, traveling alone, made her way to Jesus tomb, “while it was still dark” on the first day of the week (i.e., “Sunday”), only to find it empty. But we also learn from 28:1 that Mary Magdalene, in the company of the “other Mary,” returned to the tomb, at daybreak; making it Magdalene’s second visit there. (And a third  “just after sunrise” if we take Mark 16 into account.) It is then when the pair is said to have encountered a lone angel sitting atop Jesus’ burial stone.

          Since Mary Magdalene’s earlier visit in John’s gospel took place “while it was still dark,” and her second visit takes place at the “at dawn,” it means Jesus would had to have arisen on Saturday, and not Sunday—this, despite John 20:1 stating it was “early on the first day of the week” when Mary first made her way to the tomb.

          The Greek text of Matthew 28:1 actually reads: τῇ  ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων. Literally, “It being dawn toward   [the] first [day] of [the]* week.” (Emphasis mine.)

           We must remember that the Magdalene had traveled back to Jerusalem to tell Peter and the Beloved Disciple that Jesus’ tomb was empty, then returned with them both in tow to search for Jesus’ body. She then, once again, returned to Jerusalem. The time needed for such back-and-forth tripsin addition to her tomb activities, plus  the time needed to gather “the other Mary” and then return to the tomb for a second time at daybreak, simply does not permit a Sunday resurrection. There is simply too much traveling back and forth and other activities between Mary’s first visit in John 20:1 and this second visit at the crack of dawn in Matthew 28:1 for Jesus to have arisen on Sunday proper.

            Fact is, the claims of a Sunday resurrection actually rest on nothing more than Church doctrine and dogma. There’s no empirical evidence whatsoever to positively demonstrate that Jesus actually arose on Sunday rather than Saturday. There were no eyewitnesses to the event. And nothing in the gospel records can actually certify a Sunday rising. That being the case, we should honestly rule the Resurrection a Saturday  event rather than a Sunday one (assuming, for the sake of argument, that there even was  a “resurrection”). The latter being more of a matter of Church tradition rather than a matter of fact. And so, until proven otherwise, the Saturday resurrection stands. There is simply no irrefutable proof indicating otherwise.

Evangelists Caught Altering Text

           Previously we wondered why both Matthew and Luke changed Mark’s “After three days” to “On the third day” in their respective gospels. A vital clue, perhaps, is to be found in the text of I Corinthians 15:3-4. where the “apostle” Paul declares :

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”

          The question is: What  specific verses of “scripture” is Paul actually referring to? His claim has confounded bible scholars for centuries due to the fact there are no Old Testament passages specifically stating any such thing. Nonetheless, Paul may have had in mind Hosea 6:2-3. where we read:

He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him. Let us acknowledge the Lord;
    let us press on to acknowledge him.
As surely as the sun rises,
    he will appear

          Knowing the propensity of the gospel writers to try and tie Jesus to Old Testament “prophecy” in as many ways as possible, Hosea 6:2-3 may have been just too  irresistible for Matthew and Luke to pass up and not try and conform it to the death of Jesus in some fashion.

          Best bet is that Hosea 6:2-3 was seen by both Luke and Matthew as yet another “fulfilled prophecy” regarding Jesus that could be extracted from the Old Testament, and so they decided to alter the text of Mark accordingly. Veritable proof of the likeliness that this did indeed occur lies in the fact that not only have both Jerome and Martin Luther believed Hosea 6:2-3 to be Old Testament prophecy at work, but so too many modern  day evangelical Christian writers! A survey of Bible commentaries reveals that list to be rather extensive. We provide a very brief listing of some of those commentators here. So there can be little doubt that both Matthew and Luke deliberately altered Mark’s wording in order to see in the death of Jesus, the fulfillment of  Old Testament prophecy―this, despite the fact that Hosea 6:2-3 is clearly referencing the nation of Israel and not a lone individual.

The “On the Third Day” Tradition

         Earlier, we mentioned that nowhere in the gospels does Jesus arise on the “fourth” or “fifth” day; a fact that Christian apologists claim “proves” Mark 8:31 must be interpreted as meaning ON the third day. And today, the “third day” tradition is practically carved in stone. But that is NOT what the text of Mark 8:31 maintains. Mark clearly  indicates Jesus would arise three days AFTER his death:

He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and AFTER three days rise again. (NIV; emphasis mine)

        This is also the case in Mark 9:31, 10:34, Matthew 12:40, and 27:63. The Christian cannot simply choose to ignore verses of Scripture that do not “square” with their religious world-view. That’s being dishonest with the texts, and consequently, not dealing with the “truth” in a forthright manner. A hallmark of the Christian religion is that its members are to always tell the truth, not flee from it.


         We have seen that there is no “legitimate” way Christian apologists can reconcile the contradiction between between Mark 8:31 and Matthew 16:21 and their corresponding parallel passages. So as it stands, not only do the two passages remain in a state of  irrefutable contradiction, but Mark 8:31 also puts on the lips of Jesus a “prophecy” which has proven to be patently false. And, in turn, proves Luke 1:37 ‘s declaration, “No word from God will ever  fail,” to be untrue as well. There is simply no escaping this fact.

          We’ve also reached the conclusion that Jesus did not arise on Easter Sunday, but during the evening of Saturday instead―assuming that there even was a “resurrection.” The preponderance of evidence for Saturday is just to strong to deny; and the ramifications of which are yet to be fully determined.

          Church tradition will, of course, invariably hold sway more often than not. The faithful will continue to believe what they want  to believe. The Christian apologists will hold firm to tradition. But that doesn’t make their beliefs “true,” nor tradition right. Neither faith nor tradition prove anything  true. Only the truth does that.

End of Part IV – The Conclusion

Part I Here     Part II Here     Part III Here

* See also the NASB and Berean Literal Bible.

A Theological/Bible Related Commentary

Part III – The Rebuttal Begins

        In Part I of this article, we addressed the fact that the website Apologetic Press rigorously defends the bizarre idea that “On the third day,” and After three days” both denote one and the same day. (And is not the only apologetic source to do so either.**) The Apologetic Press’ Eric Lyons writes:

“…as awkward as it may sound to an American living in the 21st century, a person in ancient times could legitimately speak of something occurring “on the third day,” “after three days,” or after “three days and three nights,” yet still be referring to the same exact day”*

      The two-step process taken in pursuing this line of defense was to first stress that time-keeping in ancient times was not nearly as precise as it is in the 21st century; and second, to emphasize the fact that we moderns are not familiar enough with the Jewish idioms of Jesus’ day to recognize no real problem exists. Eric Lyons states:

“The idiomatic expressions that Jesus and the Bible writers employed to denote how long Jesus would remain in the grave does not mean that He literally was buried for 72 hours. If we interpret the account of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection in light of the cultural setting of the first century, and not according to the present-day (mis)understanding of skeptics, we find no errors in any of the expressions that Jesus and the gospel writers used.”*

    Eric lists six examples of biblical time-keeping verses which he feels are similarly ‘contradictory” to those undergoing our scrutiny, but which upon close inspection, prove to provide no real problem for the skeptic either. The most pertinent one related to our examination is reproduced below:

  • In 1 Samuel 30:12,13, the phrases “three days and three nights” and “three days” are used interchangeably.

     What is imperative to keep in mind, however, is that in I Samuel 30:12,13, the Egyptian is recounting the events of his ordeal on the fourth day of the week―not the third. Below is the text as to what actually transpired:

“They found an Egyptian in a field [on the fourth day of his suffering] and brought him to David. They gave him water to drink and food to eat— part of a cake of pressed figs and two cakes of raisins. He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days And three nights.  David asked him, “Who do you belong to? Where do you come from?” He said, “I am an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I became ill three days ago. ” (I Samuel 30:12-13-NIV; emphasis mine)

       So there is no question that in this  particular instance, both “three days AND three nights” and “three days” are, indeed, perfectly interchangeable seeing as the Egyptian is recounting his ordeal on the fourth day. The text of Matthew 12:39b-40, however, is an entirely different matter altogether. Here are the actual words of Jesus himself:

“An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days AND three nights, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (NIV; emphasis mine)

       There is simply no valid reason whatever to doubt that Jesus was being as precise as possible in detailing his prophecy. Taking Jesus at his word then, it means the resurrection would had to have occurred on the “Monday” following Good Friday, and not Sunday. But before we explore this point any further, let us first examine the ramifications of trying to insist that “On the third day” and “After three days” both refer to the same exact day, and that any “perceived” disagreement is simply due to a modern “misunderstanding” of 1st-century Jewish Idiom.

A Conversation Between Two Apostles

        Envision the following scene: Jesus’ apostles, Peter and James, have  just met at a well on a very hot Sunday afternoon in the village of Nazareth:

Peter:     Did you hear? Timothy is getting married!

James:   Why, that’s wonderful  news!! When’s the wedding?

Peter:     Well, let’s see, Bartholomew told me it was to be on the third day of this week, so that  would make it Tuesday afternoon.

James:   Well I’ll make sure then, that I have my mule and I ready to arrive as early as I can after [those] three days, on Wednesday, so that I don’t miss any  part of the wedding ceremony.

So much for the skeptic’s “misunderstanding” 1st-century “Jewish idiom” argument.

End of Part III



Part 1  Here          Part II  Here     Part IV Here

Next Time: Part IV: The Rebuttal Continues

Resurrection 6

A Theological/Bible Related Commentary

Part II

     In Part I of this article, we focused on the Christian apologetic argument that “On the third day” and “After three days” are, in reality, one and the same “day.” This is a claim that is rigorously defended on the Christian website Apologetic Press.*  So now we will turn our attention to another angle Christian apologists have used to reconcile the apparent contradiction between “On” the third day, versus three days later. And that is to simply deny that there isn’t any  gospel evidence for a “fourth” day resurrection of Jesus at all!

     The Christian apologist, Andreas Köstenberger, whose work can be found at the website, Biblical Foundations** reports:

Regarding the Gospel evidence, we can observe at least two things. First, the Gospels uniformly attest to the fact that Jesus was crucified and subsequently rose “on the third day” (e.g., Luke 24:7; see also Luke 24:21 where the two disciples on the road to Emmaus tell Jesus that this is “now the third day since these things happened”; this later became part of the gospel message, as we can see in passages such as 1 Cor 15:4 and later still in the Apostles’ Creed). The Gospels nowhere say Jesus was crucified and rose “on the fourth day” or “on the fifth day”; it’s always on the third day.

     Technically speaking, this is true. No New Testament writer ever asserts that Jesus arose on the “fourth” or “fifth” day. But this is point we will be exploring more fully later in this article.

     A third method Christian apologists use to reduce the “On” the third day,” versus the “three days later” statements of Jesus to insignificance, is to either avoid any mention of the issue at all, or bypass “after three days” without drawing any attention to the passage whatsoever.

     Finally, we turn to our last example. And that is to plead that Mark was not actually marking the days from the day of Jesus’ death, but rather from the day he was apprehended and tried before the Sanhedrin. In other words, on the Thursday preceding  Good Friday! Bible commentator Matthew Poole states it this way:

“With the doctrine of his suffering, he joins also the doctrine of his resurrection the third day: so saith Matthew. Mark saith, after three days, [μετὰ] meta, which seemeth to be a difference between the two evangelists, and also a difficulty, when it is certain that our Saviour did not lie three entire days in the grave. But either Mark reckons the time from his first being betrayed and apprehended, so it was after three days; and Matthew speaketh only of the time which he lay in the grave, that was but part of three days; or else it was the fault of our translators to translate [μετὰ] meta, “ after,”  because indeed it often so signifies, whereas it sometimes signifies in, which had better fitted this text.“*** (emphasis mine)

     And so we conclude the Christian apologist portion of this article. Now it’s on to view the evidence from a very different perspective.

End of Part II




Part I – Here

Next Time:  My rebuttal: Part III – Here



A Theological/Bible Related Commentary

Part I

     The New Testament actually provides two  answers as to when Jesus was to arise from the dead.

     In the one instance, Jesus tells his disciples:

“They will kill him [i.e.,the Son of Man], and ON the third day he will be raised to life.” (Matthew 17:23; NIV; emphasis mine)

and in another, Jesus says this:

“The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and ON the third day be raised to life.” (Luke 9:22; NIV; emphasis mine)

     Thus, it seems pretty clear that since Jesus was crucified on (Good) Friday, his resurrection was to take place on the following Sunday, i.e. the “third day.”

     But elsewhere we read this:

“He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and AFTER three days rise again.” (Mark 8:31; NIV; emphasis mine)

     The passage above is paralleled as well in Mark 9:31; 10:34; and Matthew 27:63.

     Now, interestingly enough, scholars fully recognize that Mark was the first written gospel, and that both Luke and Matthew used  Mark’s gospel as an exemplar as each was composing their  own version of events. So it seems rather odd that Luke and Matthew would both chose to alter the text of Mark to read “on the third day,” instead of keeping intact Mark’s original “after three days.” Why do such a thing remains quite the mystery; a mystery we will attempt to solve later in this article.

      Short of midway in Matthew’s gospel, we also find Jesus declaring :

“For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days AND three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:40; NIV; emphasis mine)

    Thus, even Matthew’s gospel points to a fourth day! That leaves us with two clearly conflicting indications as to when Jesus was to arise from the dead. The question now becomes:  How have Christian apologists managed to ” resolve” this thorny issue?

The Christian Apologists Respond

      The most accepted explanation put forth by Christian apologists, when they’re brave enough to even tackle the issue at all, is that “On the third day,” and “After three days’ are to be actually understood to mean one and the same  day!

      Christian apologist, Eric Lyons, at the popular website, Apologetic Press,* argues that both phrases are simply Jewish “idiomatic expressions” used on the part of Jesus to signify the very same day. Eric first cites Matthew 27:63:

“Sir,” they [i.e., the chief priests and the Pharisees] said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again,” (NIV; emphasis mine)

which certainly finds full agreement with the statements found in Mark’s gospel. But then he adds the next verse, where we read:

“So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.” (Matthew 27:64 – NIV; emphasis mine)

     What Eric does next is remarkable. He argues that since the tomb was to be “made secure” for just three days, and not four, it must surely mean that ON the third day, and AFTER three days both mean one and the same day. He writes:

“The phrase “after three days” must have been equivalent to “the third day,” else surely the Pharisees would have asked for a guard of soldiers until the fourth day. Interesting, is it not, that modern skeptics charge Jesus with contradicting Himself, but not the hypercritical Pharisees of His own day.”*

     Eric attributes the skeptic’s “misunderstanding” of scripture to a lack of understanding ancient Jewish idiom and how “days” were actually reckoned at the time. He writes:

“While to the 21st-century reader these statements [“On the third day” versus “After three days”] may initially appear to contradict one another, in reality, they harmonize perfectly if one understands the different, and sometimes more liberal, methods ancients often used when reckoning time.

     Eric then concludes:

“The idiomatic expressions that Jesus and the Bible writers employed to denote how long Jesus would remain in the grave does not mean that He literally was buried for 72 hours. If we interpret the account of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection in light of the cultural setting of the first century, and not according to the present-day (mis)understanding of skeptics, we find no errors in any of the expressions that Jesus and the gospel writers used.”*

End of Part I

Next Time: More Christian apologetics. And later, My rebuttal. (Part II here.)


A Theological/Bible Related Commentary


The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas “triad”, from trinus “threefold”) defines God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; “one God in three persons.”   (Wikipedia)

     Just substitute the word “Gods” for “persons,” and you actually have something more in line with what Trinitarian Christians are really  looking at: The God Jesus is God, but NOT God the Father; that they’re really separate from each other, but not really.

     Think “square-circles”!

    Trinitarian Christians are taught to believe that the three “persons,” or entities, that make up God are actually ONE entity. “He is three, and they are One” makes just about as much sense as believing in the existence of square-circles. If one could be brainwashed into believing that  sort of nonsense, it would prove they’re utterly brainwashed, wouldn’t it?

    Claiming that the Trinity is some sort of a “mystery” that the feeble mind of man  has to simply accept as the truth is flat-out nonsensical―and an insult to the rational mind. It is patent nonsense. It is as intellectually dishonest as it gets.

   Don’t believe so?  Let the Trinitarian Christian provide irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

*For more on this subject, see this.