Devapriyaji - True History Analaysed

admin · Guru

Resurrection of Jesus- myth exposed

admin · Guru

Were they real angels? Or optical illusions?

But first, how credible were the witnesses? It was Mary of Magdala, whom everybody knew that she was possessed by demons:

(Jn 20:1-18) On the first day of the week, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning, while it is still dark, and saw the stone removed from the tomb. ² So she ran and went to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them, “They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t know where they put him”. ³ So Peter and the other disciple went out and came to the tomb. ⁴ They both ran, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter and arrived at the tomb first; ⁵ he bent down and saw the burial cloths there, but did not go in. ⁶ When Simon Peter arrived after him, he went into the tomb and saw the burial cloths there, 7 and the cloth that had covered his head, not with the burial cloths but rolled up in a separate place. ⁸ Then the other disciple also went in, the one who had arrived at the tomb first, and he saw and believed. ⁹ For they did not yet understand the scripture that he had to rise from the dead. ¹⁰ Then the disciples returned home.¹¹ But Mary stayed outside the tomb weeping. And as she wept, she bent over into the tomb. ¹² and saw two angels in white sitting there, one at the head and one at the feet where the body of Jesus had been. ¹³ And they said to her, “WOMAN, WHY ARE YOU WEEPING?” She said to them, “They have taken my Lord, and I don’t know where they laid him”. ¹⁴ When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus, but did not know it was Jesus. ¹⁵Jesus said to her, “WOMAN, WHY ARE YOU WEEPING? Whom are you looking for?” She thought it was the gardener and said to him, “Sir if you carried him away, tell me where you laid him, and I will take him”. ¹⁶ Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni”, which means teacher. ¹⁷ Jesus said to her, “Stop holding on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” ¹⁸ Mary of Magdala went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”, and what he told her.

'11 But Mary stayed outside the tomb weeping. And as she wept, she bent over into the tomb.' Therefore, when this demon-possessed woman was alone with no witnesses (no witnesses = claim does not stand according to the Jewish Law or any other court of law), she wept, which means she had tears in her eyes. Logic says that in her bent position, the teardrops were dangling from her eyes. By this time of the morning, the sunrays will be in a certain angle with her line of sight through the teardrops. The rays along with the tears in her eyes and with her bent position will make her see two strange sources of light. Inevitably, Mary has to see two strange sources of light, one sparkling in each eye. If there were really two angels there, she should have seen six sources of light, two from each of the two angels and two from the sun. Logic says that there were no angels there but she perceived the optical illusion by the sunrays as two angels in white.

Some Christians say that this happened before there were any sunrays and Mary wiped off her tears. But those Christians failed to explain how could the two disciples have run in such treacherous terrain in the dark without any source of light. Shouldn’t they have carried two torches with them (since they ran separately)? That they later left behind in the tomb? They needed at least some source of light, otherwise they would have walked very cautiously. It is absurd to assume that they ran in the dark in such treacherous terrain without any source of light at all.

Assuming she was never possessed by demons, logic says that innocent Mary was emotionally battered and had tears in her eyes when she mistook the gardener for Jesus. She was still in her ‘Denial Stage’. In this stage, a person in loss will hold on to practically any idea that will take away his/her emotional pain. Mary found that idea when she heard the disciples speak about the resurrection. That’s why Mary thought that it must have been Jesus and not the gardener. Science says that Mary was still in her denial stage when she convinced herself that the gardener was actually Jesus and those two sparkling lights were angels. She went and told the disciples what she wanted to believe. The gardener simply asked her twice “WOMAN, WHY ARE YOU WEEPING?” but she thought that it was the angels the first time and Jesus the second time:13 And they said to her, “WOMAN, WHY ARE YOU WEEPING?” She said to them, “They have taken my Lord, and I don’t know where they laid him”. 14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus, but did not know it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, “WOMAN, WHY ARE YOU WEEPING? Whom are you looking for?” She thought it was the gardener and said to him, “Sir if you carried him away, tell me where you laid him, and I will take him”. It was the gardener all along. If this man was really Jesus, she should have recognized him immediately. But this was not the case. When she turned around, she looked at him in the face, recognized him as the gardener, and talked to him as the gardener “Sir if you carried him away, tell me where you laid him, and I will take him”. Mary looked at this man straight in the face but did not recognize the looks of this man, not even his voice. The voice of this man and his looks did not resemble the voice nor the looks of Jesus. She even talked to him as the gardener and asked him where he laid Jesus and proposed that she would take his body.

Christians give many reasons why Mary misperceived the identity of Jesus, but what they failed to explain is why did she NOT misperceive the identity of the angels for exactly those same reasons. Why should we believe that Mary was in a perfect state to determine that those were actually angels, but still not in the least state to identify whom she was talking to? “Sir if you carried him away, tell me where you laid him, and I will take him”.

Because she used to have demons, everybody in such a small community would have known her name. She had tears in her eyes and talked to him as the gardener who knew her name and asked her not to touch him because he was afraid of her demons... He tried to comfort her by telling her that the dead man she was looking for went to heaven (like all good guys)… She talked to him as the gardener and did not think that it was Jesus until later when she imagined that it must have been him 'For they did not yet understand the scripture that he had to rise from the dead' and neither did she at that time.

admin · Guru

Who moved the stone?

Joseph of Arimathea rolled it on:

(Mk 15:46) So Joseph bought some linen cloth… Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb…

If a single human was able to roll it on, why couldn’t a single human roll it off? Moreover, if even a female (Mary) had to bend over in order to look into the tomb, then this means that the tomb’s opening was pretty low (unless she was 10 feet tall); Hence, it did not take a mountain to block this opening. A small stone disk would have done it (smaller than that of Lazarus).

Some Christians say that the stone was difficult to move because the tomb faced uphill. If the tomb really faced uphill, then rain water would have flown towards it. In this case rain water would have flooded the tomb (rendering it useless as a burial place). In order for the tomb to be suitable for a burial place, rain water should pass by and NOT PASS IN. This can only happen if the tomb faced downhill. So logically, the tomb had to face downhill and not face uphill. The stone would have been easier to roll downhill with the direction of the water (and away from the tombs' opening).

No, the stone was easier to roll off than roll on. So if a single human was able to roll it on, why couldn’t a single human roll it off?

admin · Guru

Empty Tomb

Christians quickly say that the empty tomb is evidence enough. If Jesus were not resurrected then why didn’t the Jews present the dead body?

-The money is missing from the Bank’s vault. Where is it?

-Oh, it must have been transferred to heaven!!!

What does an empty tomb prove? How gullible do Christian apologists think we are? How long would a body be preserved when it is it covered with wounds, blood and living water (from his pierced bladder)? How long do Christians suppose it could last? It will stink immediately, and it will start decaying the very next day. After one week, it will be consumed by worms and maggots... It would be utterly unrecognizable. How about 40 days later? The disciples started promoting the ascension saga later when the believers started turning away from this god (long after the 40 days have already passed and the donations stopped coming in). They claimed that Jesus is missing because he ascended alive to heaven 40 days after his resurrection. The Rabbis could have presented practically any decaying corps and said ‘This is him’. But why should they if the living Jesus was missing? The Jews waited for him but he never showed up. If Jesus were really alive, then where the hell was he? NO, Jesus wasn’t resurrected. The whole story is a big fat lie!

admin · Guru

Problem: Accounts of Jesus' last words conflict
Verses: Luke 23:46, John 19:30; Status: Serious

This is Luke 23:46:

Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last. (ESV)

This is John 19:30:

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (ESV)

You might also hear people say that Mark and Matthew give Jesus last words as "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". However, both Mark and Matthew write that, soon after this, Jesus gave anotherloud cry, so these accounts don't necessarily tell us his final utterance (though they're unclear on whether that cry contained actual words).

Anyway, the contradiction between Luke and John is bad enough on its own. Rational Christianity (link below) tries to resolve this by suggesting that he actually said both, for example:

"It is finished, Father; into your hands I commit my spirit."

But this not an honest reading of the passages. Luke and John seem to expect us to understand that we are reading the actual last words of Jesus. One more thing: there's a fairly obvious difference between the acceptance Jesus displays in Luke and John, versus the despair described in Mark and Matthew.

admin · Guru

Problem: Jesus did and didn't carry his cross
Verses: Mark 15:21, John 19:17; Status: Serious

The synoptic gospels (that is: Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are agreed that a man called Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry the cross of Jesus up to Golgotha where he was crucified. Here is Mark 15:21:

And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross. (ESV)

Matthew 27:32 and Luke 23:26 are nearly identical. On the other hand, this is John 19:17:

And he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. (ESV)

The only solution is to state that Jesus carried the cross part of the way, and Simon the rest of the way. But the natural reading of John is that Jesus carried the cross all the way, especially since the clause "bearing his own cross" is contained in a sentence that covers the entire journey.

admin · Guru

Problem: Accounts of Mary Magdalene at the tomb conflict
Verses: Matthew 28:1-9, John 20:1-2; Status: Serious

The various gospel accounts of the resurrection are so different, it's hard to know what to focus on to prove a contradiction. But the visit of Mary Magdalene to the tomb of Jesus is central. In particular, I don't think Matthew 28 can be harmonised with John 20. Here's why.

Matthew's account

According to Matthew, Mary Magdalene (and also "the other Mary") went to the tomb at dawn on the first day of the week. As they did so, the stone blocking it was moved aside by an angel. This is Matthew 28:1-2:

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. (ESV)

It is not clear whether they actually saw the angel do this. In any case, after the angel speaks to them (verses 5-7), they leave - filled with joy - to inform the disciples. On the way, they actually encounter Jesus himself. This is Matthew 28:8-9:

So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. (ESV)

John's account causes problems

John also describes an early morning visit by Mary Magdalene to the tomb. She finds the tomb deserted and tells Simon Peter and John that the body had been stolen. This is John 20:1-2:

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." (ESV)

The problem is obvious: if Mary met an angel at the tomb, and then Jesus himself (as Matthew says) then why does she merely report that the body had been stolen?

Which visit is Matthew talking about?

John later describes a second visit by Mary to the tomb. Perhaps one can say that the visit described in Matthew 28 is this second visit, which is at John 20:11-12 and onwards:

But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. (ESV)

But this doesn't work. In John, the stone was removed before Mary Magdalene's first visit. And yet, Matthew 28:2 says that the stone was removed as Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were arriving; so he must be talking about that first visit, not the second visit.

Furthermore, Matthew is clearly describing the same visit to the tomb as Mark 16:1-8. In Mark, we are told that Mary and friends were bringing spices to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body with, whilst worrying about how they were going to move the stone. This makes no sense if Mary already knew the body was missing.

So, it seems we're forced into saying that Matthew and Mark are talking about the first visit John describes, in which case it's bizarre that Mary tells the disciples the body has been stolen, and then weeps at the empty tomb.

An impossible solution

Apparently, the standard solution to this problem is to say: yes, Matthew is describing Mary's first visit, but she panicked and ran away (as per John 20:1-2) as soon as she saw the stone was missing. And so, she never actually met Jesus (or the angel) at that point. But this explanation is impossible. Matthew's account only mentions two women, and then says that "they" met Jesus on their way to tell the disciples about the angel.

It's certainly true that Mark's account mentions a third woman, Salome. But Matthew does not, so he can't expect his readers to understand "they" as referring to anyone but Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, who are the only women he mentions. Likewise, Matthew refers to "the women" at verse 28:5, and this faces exactly the same problem - which women? He can only mean Mary and Mary.

Anyway, this analysis is overly technical. Just reading Matthew 28:1-9 should convince any normal reader. Matthew's meaning is crystal clear.

admin · Guru

Problem: Mary Magdalene and friends "said nothing to anyone"
Verses: Mark 16:8, others; Status: Unsure

Mark, the earliest gospel author, records that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome came to the tomb where they met "a young man" who told them (Mark 16:5-7) that Jesus was risen and that they should tell the disciples. This is in rough agreement with the other gospels. However, this is Mark 16:8:

And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (ESV)

These are the last words of Mark about which we are certain. There is a general suspicion that verses 9-20 were later additions by someone else, and most modern Bibles put those verses in brackets to warn you of this.

So Mark 16:8 may have been the gospel's original ending, or the original ending may have been lost. In any case, the statement that the women "said nothing to anyone" is at odds with several other gospel passages. This is Luke 24:9:

and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. (ESV)

This rather suggests that they immediately did this upon their return from the tomb, in which case it contradicts Mark's statement. John 20 and Matthew 28 are less clear that they spoke to the disciples immediately, but nevertheless make it plain that they did speak at some point.

It's unfortunate that there's so much uncertainty about the ending of Mark. If we knew how Mark actually finished his gospel this issue would presumably be clearer. If 16:8 is the original ending then the problem is very difficult, but it's at least conceivable that his next verses, now lost, resolved everything...

admin · Guru

Problem: Thomas did or didn't meet the risen Jesus
Verses: Luke 24:33-36, John 20:24; Status: Minor

An anonymous reader sends me this. The gospels all describe Jesus appearing to his followers after his crucifixion. This is Luke 24:33-36:

And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!" Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, "Peace to you!" (ESV)

This seems to suggest that all eleven surviving disciples were present. However, John 20:24 says not:

Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. (ESV)

I don't see this as a massive problem. "The eleven" could reasonably refer to the group of disciples, even when they're not all present. Or so it seems to me. However, since Luke says everyone was "gathered together" this is not entirely satisfying.

admin · Guru

Problem: The tomb was or wasn't already open
Verses: Matthew 28:1-2, others; Status: Weak

When Mary Magdalene and friends approached the tomb of Jesus, Mark, Luke, and John all say that the stone had already been removed. But here's Matthew 28:1-2:

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. (ESV)

This seems to suggest that the women saw the angel move it. But the passage doesn't explicitly say so, and therefore I think these verses from Matthew are compatible with the other accounts.

There are difficult problems with the resurrection, but I don't think this is one.

admin · Guru

Problem: Accounts of Judas' death conflict (in many ways)
Verses: Matthew 27:5, Acts 1:18; Status: Serious

The two accounts of the death of Judas Iscariot seem directly contradictory. Here's Matthew 27:5-8:

And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. (ESV)

And here's Acts 1:18-19:

Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) (ESV)

There are many problems in harmonising these verses. First, the most obvious: did Judas hang himself, or fall?

The simple reading of Acts is that Judas just fell, and died as a result. But that would be a rather bizarre event. By combining the accounts in Matthew and Acts, things actually make more sense: Judas hung himself and the corpse later fell and burst open. So on this point the two accounts actually fit together quite well. (Having said that, a reader points out that Judas falling "headlong" makes little sense on this view. There are translation problems here though, and "headlong" is not the only possibility, though it is by far the most common choice.)

What happened to the silver?

Did Judas throw the silver away or use it to buy a field? This is as blatant as contradictions come.

Nevertheless: Matthew has the priests of the temple buy a field with Judas's money, and so some suggest that, by extension, Judas "acquired the field". This is the view of the NIV Study Bible:

Judas bought the field indirectly: the money he returned to the priests (Mt 27:3) was used to purchase the potter's field (Mt 27:7)

The ESV Study Bible says the same. But this interpretation seems to stretch the meanings of words beyond recognition. The real meaning of Acts is seems clear: Judas bought the field himself.

Why is it called the Field of Blood? Why was Judas there?

In Matthew's account, the "blood money" that Judas returned to the priests was used to buy a field which was later used to bury foreigners. For this reason it became known as the Field of Blood. But Acts tells us that it was so-called simply because this was where Judas fell and his bowels gushed out.

Finally, why was Judas in the field? Under the natural reading of Acts, Judas was in the field because he had purchased it. But if Matthew is correct, this can't be the reason, since he didn't really purchase it.

Combining it all... a solution?

Tektonics makes a valiant effort to combine everything Matthew and Acts say on the matter, and we end up with an account that looks like this:

Judas returns the silver.
Judas goes to a field.
Judas hangs himself.
And then the corpse falls on the field.
Because the field is now defiled, the priests buy it to bury foreigners in.
Since they bought it with Judas' money, in a sense he "acquires the field".
Because of all of the above events, it becomes known as the Field of Blood.

While this almost explains everything, it leads to the bizarre result that Judas acquired the field after he was dead! This is, of course, not what Acts says. The sensible reading of Acts is that, while still alive, Judas acquired a field, and then he died in it. The above timeline is therefore ruled out.

If you accept the idea that Judas "acquired the field" when the priests bought it, I think you have to say that this happened before Judas died. He then went to that field to hang himself in. That might work, except that Matthew seems to have Judas kill himself first. Still, if you wish you can say that Matthew is not writing in order.

admin · Guru

Problem: Paul started preaching, or went to Arabia
Verses: Acts 9:8-20, Galatians 1:15-17; Status: Serious

Paul (also known as Saul) famously experienced a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus, and immediately became a follower of Christ. But accounts seem to differ over what he did next. These passages areActs 9:8-9 and 18-20, written by Luke:

Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank. (ESV)

[Three days pass]

And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; and taking food, he was strengthened. For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus. And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God." (ESV)

However, Paul himself later wrote about what happened. This is Galatians 1:15-17:

But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (ESV)

So, Acts tells us that Paul "immediately" started preaching, whereas Galatians says that he did not consult with anyone until after he had gone to Arabia.

However, I'm not sure this is a real problem. From the context (especially Galatians 1:11-12) it's clear that what Paul is stressing is that he did not receive the doctrines of Christianity from any human source. So he is really saying that he did not consult with any Christian. The fact that he started preaching immediately does not contradict this; indeed, his whole point is that he was able to preach without being taught by other Christians.

A more difficult issue is that Galatians says that Paul went to Arabia after his conversion, whereas Acts says that he immediately started preaching in Damascus. However, Galatians (as translated by the ESV) does not explicitly say that he went to Arabia immediately. But other translations do; e.g. the 1984 NIV does. There is a disagreement over where to place the word "immediately". Comparing various translations, it seems to me that Paul is really saying:

"My immediate action was not to consult anyone, nor to go to Jerusalem to speak to the apostles, but rather to go to Arabia"

The KJV translation brings this out quite well.

In order to solve this problem, one might suggest that Paul immediately went to Arabia, then returned and started preaching. For example, the Berean Bible Church website tells us:

Based on what we read in Galatians 1:17, the trip to Arabia was evidently made after Paul had received food, but before he spent several days with the disciples at Damascus.

However, Acts says that he immediately started preaching in the synagogues, which surely means immediately after his conversion - any other reading is completely unnatural. So this solution doesn't work.

As an alternative, one might suggest that Paul immediately started preaching, but his trip to Arabia happened soon afterwards - soon enough that it could also be called "immediate". I think this is a bit of a stretch.

Devapriyaji - True History Analaysed

Fake Evidence (Jn 20:1-18)

Were they real angels? Or optical illusions?

Who moved the stone?

Empty Tomb

Problem: Accounts of Jesus' last words conflict Verses: Luke 23:46, John 19:30; Status: Serious

Problem: Jesus did and didn't carry his cross Verses: Mark 15:21, John 19:17; Status: Serious

Problem: Accounts of Mary Magdalene at the tomb conflict Verses: Matthew 28:1-9, John 20:1-2; Status: Serious