How could Joseph have allowed his father to mourn him for so long? Why didn't he let Jacob know that he was alive? Egypt
is not so far from Canaan, and it was certainly within Joseph's means
to dispatch a courier to his father with the good news that he was alive
and well.
----------------------------------------------
Contradiction
Ishmaelite or Israelite
19
August 2017
20:54
Abigail was the
mother of Amasa, whose father was Jether the Ishmaelite. (1 chronicles 2:17)
And
Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a
man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that
went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother. (2
samuel 17:25)
Yevamot 77a:1
Doeg raised before them all those
objectionsfrom the others who are disqualified from entering into the
congregation, and they were silent, not
knowing how to respond. Doeg then wanted to
proclaim that David was disqualified from entering into the
congregation. He was immediately answered.
Here it says: “Now Amasa was the son of a
man, whose name was Jithra the Israelite, that went into Abigal the daughter of
Nahash” (II Samuel 17:25), andyet
elsewhere it is written that
Amasa’s father was named “Jether the
Ishmaelite”(I Chronicles 2:17).
More contradictions
When Esau was forty
years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and also Basemath
daughter of Elon the Hittite. (Genesis 26:34)
From the above verse
we can cleary read basemath was the daughter of Elon the Hittite. However a few
chapters later the same basemath become the daughter of Ishmael.
also Basemath
daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebaioth. (Genesis 36:3)
Of David.
A psalm. The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who
live in it; (Psalm 24:1)
Contradiction
The
heavens belong to the LORD, but he has given the earth to all humanity. (Psalm
115:16)
Rabbi Levi raised a contradiction: It is written:
“The earth and all it contains is the Lord’s,” and it is written else
where:
“The heavens are the Lord’s and
the earth He has given over to mankind” (
Psalms
115:16). There is clearly a contradiction with regard to whom the
earth belongs. (
Talmud Berakhot
35a)
God made two great
lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the
night. He also made the stars. (Genesis 1:16)
Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi raises a contradiction between
two verses. It
is written: “And God made
the two great lights” (
Genesis
1:16),
and it
is also
written in the same verse:
“The greater light to rule the day,
and the lesser light to rule the night,”
indicating that only one was great. (Talmud Chullin 60b:)
Assuredly, I will
take back My new grain in its time And My new wine in its season, And I will
snatch away My wool and My linen That serve to cover her nakedness. (Hosea
2:11)
Contradiction
I will grant
the rain for your land in season, the early rain and the late. You shall gather
in your new grain and wine and oil— (Deuteronomy 11:14)
the
Gemara cites that
Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa
raised a contradiction: It is written, “I will take back My grain at its time and
wine in its season” (
Hosea 2:11),
and it is written: “And you shall gather your grain, your
wine and your oil” (
Deuteronomy 11:14). To whom does the
grain belong: To God, or to the people? (
Talmud
Berakhot
35b)
Return,
ye backsliding children, and I will heal your
backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the
LORD our God. (Jeremiah 3:22)
Contradiction
Turn, O backsliding
children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of
a city, and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion: (Jeremiah 3:14)
Rabbi Yehuda raised a
contradiction between
two verses. It is written: “Return, you
backsliding children I will heal your backsliding” (Jeremiah
3:22), implying
that anyone can achieve healing, which is dependent only on repentance. But it
also states: “Return, O backsliding children, says the Lord, for I am a lord to you, and I will take you one from a
city, and two from a family” (Jeremiah 3:14), implying that repentance is available only to certain
individuals.
Goat
atones Yahweh's anger?
And
there shall be one goat as a sin offering to the LORD, to be offered in
addition to the regular burnt offering and its libation. (Numbers 28:15)
------------------
God saw that the moon was not comforted. The Holy One, Blessed be He,
said: Bring atonement for me, since I diminished the moon. The
Gemara notes: And this is what
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: What is differentabout
the
goat offering
of the
New Moon, that it
is
stated with regard to it: “For the Lord” (
Numbers
28:15)?
The Holy One, Blessed
be He, said: This goat shall be an atonement for Me
for having diminished the size of
the moon. (
Talmud
Chullin
60)
Wait!
the "Goat" was an atonement for Yahweh?
for
Your faithfulness is as high as heaven; Your steadfastness reaches to the sky.
(Psalm 57:11)
Contradiction
for
Your faithfulness is higher than the heavens; Your steadfastness reaches to the
sky. (Psalm 108:5)
Rava raised a contradiction: It
is written: “For Your mercy is great unto the
heavens, and Your truth reaches the skies” (
Psalms
57:11);
and it is written elsewhere:
“For Your mercy is great above the heavens, and
Your truth reaches the skies” (
Psalms 108:5).
How so? How can these verses be
reconciled? (
Talmud Pesachim 50b)
The earth
brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every
kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that this was good.(Genesis
1:12)
Contradiction
when no
shrub of the field was yet on earth and no grasses of the field had yet
sprouted, because the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was
no man to till the soil, (Genesis 2:5)
Rav Asi raises a contradiction between
two verses. It
is written: “And the earth
brought forth grass” (
Genesis 1:12),
on the third day of the week of Creation.
And it
is also
written: “No
shrub of the field was yet in the earth” (
Genesis
2:5),
on Shabbat eve, the
sixth day of Creation, immediately before Adam was created. (
Talmud
Chullin
60b)
The
LORD is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works. (Psalm 145:17)
Rav Huna raised a contradiction between
the two halves of a verse.
It is written:
“The Lord is righteous [tzaddik] in all His ways” (
Psalms
145:17), indicating that God acts in accordance with the attribute
of strict justice [
tzedek],
and then
it is written in the same verse:
“And kind [ḥasid] in all His
works,” implying that He acts with grace and loving-kindness [
ḥesed], going beyond the
letter of the law.
(
Talmud
Rosh Hashanah 17b)
So
Moses the servant of the LORD died there, in the land of Moab, at the command
of the LORD. He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, near Beth-peor;
and no one knows his burial place to this day. (Deuteronomy 34:5-6 Masoretic
Torah)
According to the
Masoretic Torah, Moses of the Bible was buried by Yahweh in the land of Moab.
The verse goes on to say no one knows where Moses was buried till this day.
This tells us the text was written much later i.e. long after Moses.
Here's where it
gets interesting. We have a text which
pre dates the Masoretic Torah by roughly a thousand years, that is the DSS.
So
Moses the servant of the LORD died in the land of Moab, according to the word
of the Lord . And they (Israelites) buried him in the valley in the land of
Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows of his burial place to this day.
(Deuteronomy 34:5-6 DSS Torah)
Did you catch the
problem? The Masoretic Torah which postdates the DSS states Yahweh buried
Moses. However the DSS which predates the Masoretic states "they"
i.e. the Israelites buried Moses in the land of Moab. The other problem is, if
the Israelites buried Moses in Moab, then surely they would know they location
to where the exact place is. The text on both manuscripts states "no one
knows till this day", again indicating the author wrote much later. If for arguments sake the author wrote a
thousand years after Moses, then yes he wouldn't know where the exact buried
location would be unless they had a strong oral tradition which we know they
didn't. It's possible the people who participated in burying Moses orally told
people the location, which eventually faded away from the lips and memory of
people. Whatever the case we see the earliest manuscript i.e. the DSS proves
tampering took place at best.
Another issue to deal
with. Did the Masoretic writers refer the Israelites as God?
If you ever forget
the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I
testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. (Deuteronomy 8:19
Masoretic Torah)
There is a variant
reading of the above statement.
And If you forget the LORD your God and walk after other
gods and serve them and worship to them, I call the heavens and the earth as
witnesses against you today that you
will surely perish. (Deuteronomy 8:19 DSS Torah)
Notice how the DSS
Torah states Yahweh will use the heavens and earth as witnesses against those
who worship a false god. This is very interesting since Christians brag, Yahweh doesn't depend on
anything as he only swears by himself. seems like the DSS opened a new can of
worms.
It is a land the
LORD your God cares for; the eyes of the LORD your God are always on it, from
the beginning to the end of the year. (Deuteronomy 11:12)
so that your days
and the days of your children may be many in the land the LORD swore to give
your ancestors, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.
(Deuteronomy 11:21 Masoretic Torah)
According to the DSS
a foreigner is not allowed to eat Passover.
--------------------
And he said, Thou
canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. (Exodus 33:20)
Contradiction
But [Micaiah] said,
“I call upon you to hear the word of the LORD! I saw the LORD seated upon His
throne, with all the host of heaven standing in attendance to the right and to
the left of Him. ( 1 Kings 22:19)
In the year that
King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the
train of his robe filled the temple. (Isaiah 6:1)
-----------------
How comes Micaiah
and Isaiah were able to see Yahweh, yet when Moses demanded Yahweh refused to
show himself? Doesn't that make Micaiah and Isaiah more unique then Moses for
seeing Yahweh?
------------------
אין זה
כי אם בית אלוקים,
“this can only be (the location of) the House of G-d.” Rashi endeavours to find
the source for the statement by the sages that G-d had said that it is
intolerable that a righteous person of the calibre of Yaakov who needed a place
to spend the night, should be unable to find more than a stone to lay his head
on. Also why would Yaakov call the place that had been known as Luz
“Yerusalem,” i.e. the house of G-d? Furthermore why afterwards does he refer to
“Beyt El,” a place much further north? Clearly there appears to be some
contradiction here! Our sages themselves seem to have had second thoughts when
they said that Yaakov renamed called Luz as Beyt ElBeing aware of these
difficulties, Rashi says; “therefore I say that Mount Moriah had been moved and
Yaakov had arrived there, i.e. as far as Beyt El, (all on the same day)[If any
reader finds all this as strange, I remind him that if G-d enabled Eliezer,
Avraham’s servant, to cover a similar distance with his 10 camels when he went
to look for a wife for his master in the course of one day, then Yaakov’s
experience can certainly not be considered as so unbelievable. Ed.] There is
also the problem that Yaakov instead of walking from B’eer Sheva to Charan
would be travelling from west to East, as testified to by Isaiah
9,11 ארם מקדם ופלשתים מאחור, “Aram to the East and the land
of the Philistines at the back.” (to the west) Moreover, we (our author) had
previously explained that Aram and Charan are one and the same. (compare verse
10). According to what we have read here Yaakov was traveling from the south to
the north according to what Rashi explained earlier. We have to say that Yaakov
travelled the same route that his grandfather Avraham had traveled when coming
from Charan, southward after having left both Ur Casdim and Charan on his way
to the land of Canaan. He had proceeded southward in stages all the way to
B’eer Sheva. Both he and Yitzchok had taken up residence in towns on this route
from time to time as we have read in previous portions of the Torah. The route
was well known and they were familiar with it. This is the reason why Yaakov
also used this route. As to Rashi quoting Yaakov as having said that possibly
he had failed to stop at a place where his father and grandfather had offered
prayers to G-d, this must have referred not to Mount Moriah, for he had prayed
there repeatedly as stated by our sages in B’reshit Rabbah at the end of
chapter 78,16, where we are told that no one can properly appreciate how many
libations Yaakov had offered at Mount Moriah, but to Beyt El, for Avraham had
prayed there and built an altar as recorded in Genesis
12,78. Our sages
in Sanhedrin 44 are on record that if Avraham had not prayed between
Beyt El and Ai, the Jewish people would long ago have perished completely (Joshua
7,25 when
they were defeated there during the first encounter They were saved only due to
the merit acquired by the prayers Avraham had offered in that region.) The
reason that this location is referred to as Beyt El is on account of the
prayers offered there in the future, for in Yaakov’s time it was still known as
Luz. Yitzchok had also offered prayers at that altar which his father Avraham
had built. Even though we do not possess a written record of it, it is quite
plausible to assume that he used this altar on numerous occasions in order to
offer prayers. Yaakov, on the other hand, had not had an opportunity to offer
prayers at that location up until now. This is also why he said: “is it
possible that I simply passed by this place without stopping to offer up a
prayer?” He therefore decided to retrace his steps after coming to Charan, and
to go back as far as Beyt El to offer a prayer there. In response to Yaakov’s
determination to do so, G-d folded the earth beneath him to expedite matters.
What this meant in practice was that the town known as Luz was transported to
the vicinity of Charan, saving him many days of walking. G-d’s motivation was
that the prayer of a righteous person such as Yaakov should preferably be said
in a Temple or other sacred site. As a result, the mountain of Moriah was
immediately uprooted and removed as far as Charan. After having prayed there
Yaakov continued on his way. When G-d saw that, He said: seeing that this
righteous person has taken so much trouble to come to My residence, how can I
allow him not to have shelter for the night? This is why He arranged for the
sun to set prematurely so that Yaakov would spend the night there. During that
night he dreamt the dream reported in detail in our chapter where it became
clear to him that the place he had slept was destined to become a Temple in the
future. Realising that this was the meaning of the dream, he called the site
“house of G-d,” renaming the town of Luz to be known as Beyt El. (House of
G-d). This is the meaning of the line: “he called that site Beyt El, the site
being that which had previously been known as the town of Luz. The stone which
had served as Yaakov’s “pillow,” which had come from Mount Moriah, remained at
that site. Yaakov anointed it with oil as a symbol of its future significance.
As soon as he had done this, he proceeded on his trek to Charan. It would be
wrong to understand the verse as meaning that Yaakov arose in the morning in
the town of Charan. This is clear from the Torah telling us in 19,1 that Yaakov
then set out in the direction of the people residing in the land of the
Orientals. When he met the shepherds huddled around the well he asked them
where their home was and they told him that their home was Charan. When Yaakov,
20 years later, was on the way from Lavan to the land of Canaan, he passed this
location and he named the site Beyt El and erected a monument at the site. (Genesis
35,7, and
15)[This is a unique exegesis, as, normally, Yaakov is understood as having had
to return to that site after having already settled in the land of Canaan and
having overlooked his promise to erect a Temple at that site so that G-d had to
remind him. (compare chapter 33,18 30) Ed.] (COMMENTARY Chizkuni Genesis, Chapter
28:17)
-----------
Question for my Jewish and Christian friends
According to the Bible from creation till now, the earth is around 5,700 - 6000 years old. if this is true what evidence do you have to support it?
------------------
Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32 For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. (Matthew 21:31-32)
-------
Which tax collector and prostitute believed in John the Baptist? and if by believing in John the Baptist could attain a Prostitute salvation what good is the blood of your Jesus? no need for a human sacrifice. it was enough to believe in John the Baptist.
There is no mention of Jesus saying believe in John the Baptist and me. he already confirmed those who believed in John the Baptist are entering the kingdom of God.
------------
Q) Is Yahweh Holy?
A) Yes Psalm 99:9 (God is Holy)
Q) Is Yahweh a spirit?
A) Yes John 4:24 (God is a Spirit)
Q) If Yahweh is Holy and a Spirit, doesn't that make him the "Holy Spirit"? If Yahweh is the Holy Spirit who is the other Holy Spirit that's also called Holy Spirit? And how many Holy Spirits are there?
A) You need the Holy Spirit in you to know the answer! please stop asking me those questions as i'm under pressure. i won't be answering you. I'M BUSY!
-------
Did Only the Nile Turn to
Blood or All the Water in Egypt? Flat out contradiction!
Yahweh said to Moses: Say
to Aharon:Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt,
over their tributaries, over their Nile-canals, over their ponds and over all
their bodies of water, and let them become blood! There will be blood throughout
all the land of Egypt—in the wooden-containers, in the stoneware. (Exodus 7:19)
But all Egypt had to dig
around the Nile to drink water, for they could not drink from the waters of the
Nile (Exodus 7:24)
Let me start at the end,
with verse 24, which suggests that only the Nile water was affected by the
plague. That flatly contradicts verse 19, which claims that the blood plague
affected all the water in Egypt: “There will be blood throughout all the land
of Egypt—in the wooden-containers, in the stoneware,” where the last phrase
suggests that even water stored in various containers turned into blood!
--------------------
The words of Qarāfī, who says: ‘If (the Christians) say, “how do you (Muslims) hold onto these scriptures [i.e. the Bible] when you consider them to be unauthentic?” we reply that the prophethood of our Prophet, peace be upon him, is proven by miracles and has no need for these books. Yet, we point to what they hold as proof of his prophethood, peace be upon him, only in order to force the ahl al-kitāb, who believe in their authenticity, to accept the argument (ilzām)’ (Qarāfī, Ajwiba, p. 463).
---------
1. God loves the world versus do not love the world.
For God so loved the world, that he gave
his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal
life. (John 3:16)
Do not love the world or the things in
the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (1
John 2:15)
2. People believed when they saw Jesus’s signs versus
they did not believe.
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the
Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was
doing. (John 2:23)
Though he had done so many signs before
them, they still did not believe in him. (John
12:37)
The
author of John’s Gospel has recorded contradictions at the superficial level of
language to encourage the audience to think more deeply.
3. They know Jesus and where he comes from versus they
do not.
So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the
temple, “You know me, and you know where I come from.” (John
7:28)
Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear
witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and
where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.” (John
8:14)
They said to him therefore, “Where is
your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew
me, you would know my Father also.” (John
8:19)
4. If Jesus bears witness of himself, his testimony is
not true, versus the opposite.
If I bear witness about myself, my
testimony is not true. (John 5:31, my trans.)
So the Pharisees said to him, “You are
bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true.” Jesus answered,
“Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where
I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or
where I am going.” (John 8:13–14)
5. Jesus judges no one versus he has much to judge.
You judge according to the flesh; I
judge no one. (John 8:15)
Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is
true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. (John
8:16)
I have much to say about you and much to
judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard
from him. (John 8:26)
6. Jesus did not come into the world to judge it
versus he came to judge.
If anyone hears my words and does not
keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to
save the world. (John 12:47)
For God did not send his Son into the
world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through
him. (John 3:17)
Jesus said, “For judgment I came into
this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become
blind.” (John 9:39)
Thinking Deeply on Meaning
I hope that after reading the list above and studying
the subtle way the Gospel of John is written, you will agree that these formal
contradictions are deliberate. They are part of the author’s way of making us
reflect more deeply on the multiple meanings of the words involved.1This sample prepares us to consider a quotation by skeptic Bart Ehrman
from a book in which he explains what he thinks are the clearest contradictions
within the Gospels:
One of my favorite apparent
discrepancies—I read John for years without realizing how strange this one
is—comes in Jesus’ “Farewell Discourse,” the last address that Jesus delivers
to his disciples, at his last meal with them, which takes up all of chapters 13
to 17 in the Gospel according to John. In John
13:36, Peter says to
Jesus, “Lord, where are you going?” A few verses later Thomas says, “Lord, we
do not know where you are going” (John
14:5). And then, a few
minutes later, at the same meal, Jesus upbraids his disciples, saying, “Now I
am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you
going?’” (John 16:5). Either Jesus had a very short attention span or there is
something strange going on with the sources for these chapters, creating an odd
kind of disconnect.2
This forms part of Ehrman’s cumulative case for there
being irreconcilable contradictions within the Gospels. However, it also shows
a weakness in his method. In every case listed above, Jesus is portrayed as
speaking one or both sides of the contradiction. But why may an outstanding
teacher not use paradox? Each of the formal contradictions we have seen
highlights the multiple meanings of words. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is
going to the cross and then to his Father, God. The disciples are not asking
about that but are only thinking in mundane terms of where he will next walk
to. Ehrman has just missed the irony.
Written
for the skeptic, the scholar, and everyone in between, this introduction to the
historical and theological reliability of the four Gospels helps readers better
understand the arguments in favor of trusting them.
The problem seems, therefore, to be that the question
of contradictions has become part of a point-scoring exercise between those who
claim or deny error in the Gospels. Here the author of John’s Gospel has
recorded contradictions
at the superficial level of language to
encourage the audience to think more deeply. It is somewhat similar to how
Dickens opened his A
Tale of Two Cities with a whole list
of contradictions to characterize the inconsistencies of an era. He famously
began, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”3
The presence of such deliberate formal contradictions does not mean that the contradictory statements
are not both true in some way at a deeper level. But these formal
contradictions do show that the author is more interested in encouraging people
to read deeply than in satisfying those who want to find fault.
If one author may use vocabulary in more than one way,
why may not two authors? If anyone wants to argue that two Gospel accounts are
in such conflict that both cannot be true, he must first ensure that he has
correctly understood the claims being made in each text and that he is not
reading either of the accounts in a way that is not intended. For all the many
contradictions that have been alleged in the Gospels, and for all the texts
that remain puzzling, I do not know of any that cannot possibly be resolved.
Notes:
- Oxford philosopher Thomas W.
Simpson argues that the formal contradiction of John 5:31 and 8:14 in fact
shows “philosophical sophistication.” See his “Testimony in John’s Gospel:
The Puzzle of 5:31 and 8:14,” Tyndale Bulletin 65, no. 1 (2014): 101–18,
esp. 101.
- Bart D.
Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the
Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know about Them) (New
York: HarperOne, 2009), 9.
- Charles
Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (London:
Chapman & Hall, 1859).
------------------
Pauls thought on homosexuals
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God's justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:26-32)
---------------
Notice how Paul condemns the homosexuals in verse 27
"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved."
Soon after Paul says verse 32, the law of God states they should die, i.e. executed according to the law of the Torah
"They know God's justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.(verse 32) cross reference with the Torah
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:13)
We can conclusive evidence from Paul where he quotes the Torah saying homosexuals should be killed. Now the question is how many Christians agree with Paul?
What was the first deception?
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)
The question from the above passage is, what was
his "FIRST DECEPTION" that the Jews were so concerned about? why
didn't the disciples nor the author make any comments of this FIRST DECEPTION.
What exactly did he do to be labelled a deceiver? Such an allegation was not
refuted.
What is mean by the "first deception" is not made clear.
Theologian Daniel J. Harrington suggests it was probably Jesus' claim to be the
King of the Jews
Harrington, Daniel J., The Gospel
of Matthew, Liturgical Press, 1991 pg. 405
