Back to What's So Special About Jesus?

The Two Thieves

Why is it that the passages of the scriptures relating to an identical incident never agree with the information given in another? Can Christians not undersand that this is especially important when studying records from the four gospels?

Can they not recognize that while each passage in the gospels relating to the same incident may not give the same details but that they must agree with each other or we do not have the true "Word of God"?

If the situations are identical, that which is set forth in one gospel cannot contradict that which is set forth in the other.

For once, at least on one thing, all four gospels agree that Jesus was not crucified alone. Other than that, we find the usual contradictions and disagreements:

• ~ Matthew 27:38
• ~ Mark 15:27
• ~ Luke 23:32
• ~ John 19:18



• John merely reports that Jesus was crucified between the other two. Both Mark and Matthew mentions that these two criminals joined with the crowds in hurling insults at Jesus:

  Mark 15:27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
  
  15:29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
  
  15:31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save himself.
  
  15:32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
  
  Matthew 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
  
  27:39 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
  
  27:44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

  Luke, however, contradicts the other gospel accounts by inserting an uplifting tale about one of the robbers who was to received by the crucified Jesus into heaven:

  Luke 23:32: And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.
  
  23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
  
  23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
  
  23:40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
  
  23:41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
  
  23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
  
  23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

  Why is there such a glaringly obvious difference between the tales?

  Luke's story cannot be possibly be reconciled with the accounts in Mark and Matthew, both of which show that both the criminals were hurling insults at Jesus.

  Crucified Or Hung?

  Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

  Acts 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree.

  Acts 13:29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

  1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

  Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

If Jesus did actually live, he must have been born. So, when was he born? For an event of such importance as the birth of God's son you would think that there would be a wealth of information but, as with so much else regarding the Jesus myth, one version contradicts another:

• Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea.
• Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria.
• He could not have been born during the administration of these two rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later.
• Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son.
• Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth.

The fact is that Christians had absolutely no concrete proof or reliable evidence that Jesus was actually born.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth."