- Biblical Illness: They gave him wine mingled with myrrh to drink. (Mark 15:23) Vs They gave him vinegar mingled with gall to drink. (Matthew 27:34)
Excuse; 1st) Bible proponents pursue to rationalize this disparity by proposing two different drinks were given to Jesus at two different times.
2nd) Another propagated explanation is that the myrrh and gall were mixed together.
Rebuttal: 1st) Though this is a hopeful explanation, it does not fit the text. Here are the verses in order from Matthew and Mark and including both times Jesus was given the drink;
|From the start of the crucifixion;|
|27:34 – “they gave Him wine to drink mingled with gall; and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink.”
(Greek “wine” is “ozos” which is a mixture of sour wine or vinegar and water.)
|15:23 “And they tried to give Him wine mixed with myrrh; but He did not take it.”
(Greek “wine” is “oinos” which means simply, wine.)
|several hours later|
|27:48, “And immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink.”
(Greek “sour wine” is “ozos” or vinegar as above).
|15:36 “And someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink.”
(Greek “sour wine” is “ozos” or vinegar).
Therefore, the “different drinks at different times excuse” is only valid if we are examining only one disciple’s testimony. 2nd) Parallel inspection refutes this mixing excuse because we still see that different drinks were given between Mark and Matthew.
This is another invalid justification because the mixture of the two is not mentioned, whereas mixtures are specified in other parts of the Bible;
“They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.” (Proverbs 23:30)
“Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water: (Isaiah 1:22) etc…
Therefore, if the wine was mixed with anything, even as basic as water, it would have been mentioned. In conclusion, if the myrrh was already included to improve the smell of the wine, it would not have been mentioned separately in Mark, and if Mark saw fit to be detailed enough to mention the myrrh, then he would have certainly mentioned the secreted gall.
- Biblical Illness: How many thieves on the cross mocked Jesus?
“Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.” (Mark 15:32)
Both hanging thieves ridiculed Jesus
“One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?” (Luke 23:39-40).
Only one thief ridiculed and the other defended Jesus
Excuse; Bible proponents pursue to rationalize this disparity by proposing the reader be less literalistic or accurate, instead they suggest we have an imaginative interpretation. The fictitious scenario we are requested to swallow is that both thieves mocked Jesus at first, and then one repented.
Rebuttal: We know this is a false rationale because if one of the thieves did indeed repent, then the remorse would have been documented as the Gospels record the repenting centurion standing below Jesus;
“and when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said; ‘Truly this man was the Son of God!’ (Mark 15:39) and (Matthew 27:54)
“Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, and said, “Certainly this man was innocent!” (Luke 23:47)
Throughout the Bible, if a repent happened, especially in the presence of Jesus, it is recorded, therefore if they did not happen; they are not recorded as in the case of the criminal.
Another problem with this Luke inclined sequence is that it polarizes Mark even more. In Mark, who states both criminals taunted Jesus, then records a helpless Jesus crying twice and being teased till death by a third bystander (Mark 15:36) is in contrast to the prophetic Jesus in Luke.
While three spectators mocked a crying Jesus until his final hour in Mark, Luke documents a rebuke by the other thief who was silent up until then. This refutation by the thief then leads to an honorable predictive (yet untimely) monolog by Jesus disregarded in Mark “And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43)
In conclusion, the more we examine the dialogs on the cross, the more diversity we see. We go from two mocking thieves and two cries in Mark to one mocking thief, and one cry. Therefore, we see a difference larger than a presumed repenting, which apparently did not take place.
- Biblical Illness: a premature promise to paradise [Friday] was the day pledged to the partnering prisoner (Luke 23:43), yet on [Sunday] Jesus states he has not yet gone to Heaven (John 20:17).
Excuse; 1st) the time period peculiarity between Friday and Sunday is often blamed on punctuation between Greek and English, further insulting our Producer by pretending God took part in improper pronunciations. 2nd) That is what it says but that is not what it means. The Spirit of Jesus went immediately to Heaven but his body did not.
Rebuttal: 1st) the excuse of a mistranslation or mis-punctuation is unacceptable in the Light of the beautiful and authentic Quran.
2nd) If Jesus meant his body had not gone up yet, then he would have specified his body instead of stating “I” (as a whole) has not gone to the Father yet. The Gospel speaks of the body over 120 times;
“thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:29)
Jesus differentiates between himself and his body often;
“This is my body which is given for you” (Luke 22:19)
So it is inexcusable that he does not mention or does not specify that only his body did not see God yet as the Bible defenders assert.
Another reason why the (spirit only) excuse is faulty is that according to Christians, Jesus was God, so their spirit was already together, therefore there was no reason for the spirit only to ascend, and their supposed full reunion was on Sunday as Jesus states.
The third reason this excuse is invalid is that it would be accusing Jesus of being a liar! If his inner self (soul/spirit) already ascended to God and came back, then Jesus would be a liar to say, “I have not yet ascended to My Father”.