Gospel Contradictions – God or Delusion?

What Day Did Jesus Die? The Good Friday Controversy

📅 Today is Day 10 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

✍️ Introduction

Many Christians assume Jesus died on a Friday—after all, it’s called Good Friday, isn’t it? But once we step into the world of Gospel comparisons and ancient Jewish calendars, that assumption begins to unravel. The Gospels don’t agree on the day Jesus died—and the reason may have more to do with theology than history.

Today, we’ll examine that contradiction and explore why it matters.

📖 The Contradiction: Mark vs. John

Mark’s Gospel (the earliest) tells us Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples on Thursday night and was crucified the next morning, Friday—the day of Passover.
John’s Gospel (the latest) says Jesus was crucified before Passover began—because Jesus is portrayed as the sacrificial Passover Lamb.

🕰 In short:

In Mark, Jesus dies on Passover.
In John, Jesus dies before Passover.

These are not just different emphases—they are different days.

📚 How Days Worked in Ancient Judaism

To understand the contradiction, we must understand that a Jewish day ran from sunset to sunset (not midnight to midnight like ours). That’s why Jesus could have a Thursday evening meal and still die “the next day” while technically being in the same Jewish day.

So far, so good—except the timing of Passover doesn’t match across the Gospels.

📜 Why This Discrepancy Matters

The earliest Gospel (Mark) likely preserves the historical timeline: Jesus ate a Passover meal Thursday night and was crucified Friday morning.

But in John, theology takes the wheel:

Jesus doesn’t eat the Passover meal.
Jesus dies just as the Passover lambs are being slaughtered.
This makes Jesus the Lamb of God, fulfilling theological symbolism rather than historical accuracy.

Scholars like Bart Ehrman argue that John changed the date of Jesus’ death intentionally to fit a theological narrative—to portray Jesus as the divine Passover Lamb.

🧠 The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

Does the claim rely on evidence or belief?
- The tradition of a Friday crucifixion is based on belief, not a unified historical record. The Gospels offer contradictory timelines, and no external evidence confirms the exact day.
Are alternative explanations considered?
- Gospel authors had different agendas. John prioritized theology over chronology. Mark stayed closer to the timeline but added symbolic meaning through Passover imagery.
Is there independent corroboration?
- None. The Babylonian Talmud mentions a possible crucifixion date but was written centuries later, making it historically unreliable.
Is the claim falsifiable?
- Not really. The crucifixion date is treated as sacred tradition, and few within the faith community critically examine the contradiction.
Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers?
- Yes. If the death of Jesus was the most important moment in human history, why can’t even the Gospels agree on when it happened? What else might have been shaped—or reshaped—by theological motives?

📌 Conclusion

So—what day did Jesus die?

If we apply historical analysis, the most likely answer is Friday, the day of Passover, as preserved in Mark, the earliest Gospel. But that’s not what John wanted to convey. His Jesus wasn’t just a teacher executed by Rome—he was the Passover Lamb, sacrificed for humanity’s sins.

This raises a bigger question: When faith rewrites facts, how can we trust what remains?

At The God Question, we believe truth matters more than tradition. And that starts by asking the hard questions—even about the day the world says changed everything.

📺 For Further Exploration 🔗

YouTube: “Was Jesus Crucified on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday?”

Description:
This video explores the debate surrounding the day of Jesus’ crucifixion, examining arguments for Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. It delves into biblical texts and historical context to assess the evidence for each proposed day.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

The Resurrection Accounts Don’t Agree—And That’s a Problem

📅 Today is Day 5 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

🧠 Today’s Big Question

If the resurrection really happened as the defining moment of Christianity, why do the four Gospel accounts contradict each other at nearly every major detail?

Wouldn’t something this miraculous—something this pivotal—warrant a consistent, unified report?

📜 A Quick Glance at the Conflicting Accounts

Let’s break down just a few of the major discrepancies in the Gospel resurrection stories (found in Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20–21):

Element	Matthew	Mark	Luke	John
Who went to the tomb?	Mary Magdalene & “the other Mary”	Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, & Salome	A group of women, unnamed at first	Mary Magdalene (alone), then others
Was the stone already rolled away?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Who was at the tomb?	One angel	One young man	Two men in dazzling clothes	Two angels inside tomb
Where were the angels/men?	Sitting on the stone	Sitting inside	Standing inside	Sitting inside
What was said to the women?	“He has risen… go tell…”	Similar message	Similar message	Angels say little; Jesus speaks
Did the women tell the disciples?	Yes	No—they said nothing (original ending)	Yes	Yes
Who saw Jesus first?	Women (Mary Magdalene, etc.)	Not shown in earliest version	Two disciples on the road to Emmaus	Mary Magdalene alone
Where did Jesus appear?	Galilee	Galilee (as predicted)	Jerusalem	Jerusalem

And these are just a few of the inconsistencies. When you compare the full narratives, it becomes clear: these are not four people describing the same event. These are four theological retellings—written decades apart—for different audiences, with different agendas.

🔍 Applying The God Question’s Core Philosophy

Let’s examine the resurrection accounts using our critical thinking lens:

1. Do the accounts rely on evidence or belief?

All the Gospels rely on hearsay and secondhand testimony. There is no contemporary, verifiable documentation of these events—just writings decades later by authors who were promoting a specific theological message.

2. Are alternative explanations addressed?

No. The Gospel writers do not account for inconsistencies or attempt to harmonize the contradictions. Apologists today often try—but the results require cherry-picking, assumptions, and speculation.

3. Is there independent corroboration?

None. All four Gospels are religious texts written within the same faith community. No non-Christian source from the 1st century documents a resurrection, empty tomb, or angelic appearances.

4. Are the claims falsifiable?

No. These are miracle claims presented as divine truth. Any contradiction is explained away as a “matter of perspective” or “complementary” rather than being taken seriously as a credibility issue.

5. Do the contradictions raise more questions?

Absolutely. If the resurrection were a historical event, why do the supposed eyewitnesses disagree so wildly on who saw what, when, and where? If God wanted us to believe it, wouldn’t he have made sure the story was consistent?

💭 Conclusion

For a faith that hinges entirely on the resurrection, these Gospel contradictions should give any honest seeker pause.

We’re not talking about minor differences in wording—we’re talking about clashing stories that disagree on the key details. And when sacred stories look more like legend development than eyewitness reports, we have every reason to question their truth.

The God Question isn’t afraid to ask the hard questions. Because if we’re going to stake our beliefs—and our lives—on something, it should be grounded in truth, not tradition.

📺 For Further Exploration

YouTube Video:
🎥 Are the Gospels Historically Reliable? The Problem of Contradictions

A breakdown of how and why the resurrection accounts differ—and why that matters.

📌 Daily Reminder

Today is Day 5 of our 20-Day Easter Special.
We’ll return to our regular Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday posting schedule after Easter—on April 21st.

Can We Trust the Gospel Witnesses?

Today is Day 4 of The God Question’s Easter Special — a 20-day journey examining the Resurrection of Jesus using reason, history, and evidence-based inquiry. Each post applies The God Question’s Core Philosophy: open-minded skepticism, critical thinking, and truth over tradition.

👁️ Can We Trust the Gospel Witnesses?

The New Testament Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are often treated by believers as eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection. But can these texts be trusted as historical documentation?

Christians assert that these books offer reliable, firsthand testimony from people who saw Jesus alive, watched him die, and later encountered him resurrected. The implication: the Gospels are ancient biographies based on direct observation.

But is that really the case?

📜 Who Wrote the Gospels?

Despite traditional attributions, most scholars agree that none of the four Gospels were written by the people whose names they bear.

The texts themselves are anonymous—the names “Matthew,” “Mark,” “Luke,” and “John” were added decades later.
These books were written 35 to 65 years after the events they describe, in Greek, not Aramaic (Jesus’s spoken language), and by people far removed from the original events.

Furthermore, there’s no internal claim of being eyewitnesses. Even Luke openly admits he’s compiling secondhand information (Luke 1:1–4).

👀 Eyewitness Reliability — A Psychological Reality Check

Even if we had actual firsthand witnesses, how reliable would they be?

Psychological research on memory shows:

Memory is reconstructive, not reproductive.
Eyewitnesses often misremember details, especially under stress.
Accounts are shaped by bias, group pressure, emotion, and time.

Let’s apply that here:

The Gospels were written decades later, in an age without recording technology, in a culture that valued oral storytelling and theological symbolism over journalistic accuracy.
Inconsistencies between the Gospels—who saw Jesus first, where he appeared, what he said—strongly suggest that memory (or theology) shaped the stories more than factual recall.

🕵️‍♂️ Were These Even “Witnesses”?

The Gospels aren’t memoirs. They’re faith documents, written by communities of believers to convince others of Jesus’s divine nature. That’s not inherently wrong—but it does mean their agenda was evangelism, not objectivity.

They don’t read like courtroom testimony. Instead, they contain:

Miracles and supernatural events no one else documented.
Contradictory details across parallel stories.
Later theological developments that reflect church growth, not eyewitness experience.

🔍 The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

Let’s ask the hard questions:

1. Does the claim rely on empirical evidence or faith?

It relies on faith in tradition, not verified eyewitness documentation.

2. Are alternative explanations considered?

No. Memory distortion, myth-building, and oral evolution are never addressed in church circles.

3. Is there independent corroboration?

No. Outside of the Gospels and early Christian writings, there is no independent evidence verifying the events they describe.

4. Are the claims falsifiable?

No. When contradiction or implausibility arises, it’s often explained away as “mystery” or “divine truth,” placing it outside the bounds of critical inquiry.

5. Does the explanation raise more questions?

Absolutely. Why would God rely on flawed human memory and anonymous authorship to share the most important story in human history?

📺 For Further Exploration

🎥 Who Wrote the Gospels? (by Bart Ehrman – 19 min) Dr. Ehrman discusses the authorship and dating of the New Testament Gospels, providing insights into their origins.

🧠 Final Thought

If the Gospels were submitted as evidence in a courtroom, they would be disqualified for lack of credibility, author transparency, and corroboration. While they may offer spiritual insights, their status as historical documentation is deeply compromised.

Faith may not require evidence. But truth-seeking does.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time.

The Resurrection Revisited: A 20-Day Journey Through the Easter Claim

✨ Welcome to Our Easter Special

From April 1 through April 20, The God Question will explore what is arguably the most important claim in all of Christianity: Did Jesus of Nazareth actually rise from the dead?

Each post in this series critically examines one aspect of the Easter story—historically, psychologically, theologically, and scientifically.

📌 What We’re Asking:

What does the evidence really say?
How reliable are the Gospels?
Can resurrection claims survive honest scrutiny?

We invite you to walk with us—step by step—as we explore these questions with humility, curiosity, and a commitment to truth.

🗓️ Day 1: Was Jesus Really Buried in a Tomb?

The traditional Easter story begins with Jesus’s burial in a rich man’s tomb, owned by Joseph of Arimathea. But how solid is this claim? Can we trust it? Or is the story already evolving before the resurrection even begins?

Let’s examine the evidence—and the problems—with the burial narrative.

🧱 The Traditional Claim

Jesus was crucified.
A respected council member, Joseph of Arimathea, took his body.
Jesus was placed in a new tomb carved from rock.
The tomb was sealed and guarded.
On the third day, the tomb was found empty.

This version comes primarily from the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke), with added details in John.

🚩 What’s the Problem?

Burial After Crucifixion Wasn’t the Norm: Crucified criminals in the Roman Empire were usually left on the cross or thrown into mass graves. Giving Jesus a private tomb was not only unusual—it would have required an exception from Roman policy.
Joseph of Arimathea Is an Unknown Figure: We know nothing else about Joseph. He appears suddenly in the story, plays a major role, and then disappears. Why would a “respected council member” (Mark 15:43) risk his position to honor a crucified rebel?
Mark May Have Invented the Tomb Story: Many scholars believe Mark—the earliest Gospel—created the “empty tomb” motif to give the resurrection a physical location. Earlier Christian writings, including Paul’s letters, mention Jesus’s death and resurrection but say nothing about a tomb.
Paul Doesn’t Mention a Tomb: In 1 Corinthians 15:3–8, Paul writes what many believe is the earliest Christian creed: “Christ died for our sins… he was buried… he was raised on the third day…” Yet Paul never references a tomb—not even once. If the empty tomb were known, why would Paul leave it out?

🔍 Applying The God Question’s Core Philosophy

1. Is the claim based on evidence or tradition? It’s rooted in Gospel tradition, not external evidence. No Roman, Jewish, or archaeological sources confirm the burial.

2. Are alternative explanations considered? Christian apologists often ignore Roman burial practices. A simpler explanation: Jesus’s body was discarded—like most crucified criminals.

3. Is the claim falsifiable? No. The tomb’s location is unknown. There is no way to verify its existence or emptiness.

4. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers? Yes. Why introduce an unknown character (Joseph)? Why such detailed burial rituals for a condemned man? Why the silence in Paul’s letters?

🧭 Final Thought

The tomb story may not be the historical beginning of Easter. It may be the literary beginning—crafted by early writers to give form to a spiritual belief.

If the burial claim itself is uncertain, what does that mean for the rest of the resurrection narrative?

Let’s keep asking.

📺 For Further Exploration

Video: The BURIAL of Jesus–The Overlooked Key for Understanding How Resurrection Faith Was Born!

A biblical historian explains why Roman burial practices—and Paul’s silence—cast serious doubt on the Gospel tomb story.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.