Matthew Admits that Jesus was Never Resurrected! – by Jim


It will take me a few comments to respond to your comment here: . In this first comment, I would like to address the supposed proofs that the religious leaders had. Peter escaping from prison and Paul remaining in prison are not proofs of the resurrection, and I see no purpose in your mentioning them. So I will only write about the priests that believed in Acts 6 and the events in Matthew.

Regarding the priests, they disprove your argument not support it. If they had believed in Jesus from seeing him at the resurrection, they would not only be coming to belief in him in chapter 6 of Acts when some time has passed. They did not believe because they had “first hand evidence”. According to Acts 6:7: “The word of God continued to spread; the numbers of the disciples increased greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.” These priests believed due to preaching, not because they saw Jesus. They had no “first hand evidence.”

But it is Matthew I would like to spend the most time on. First, we must acknowledge that Matthew is an untrustworthy author. He has no regard for the truth. His distortions of Tanach are well-documented. Consider what he does to Isaiah 7:14. He alters it. And I do not mean just with the substitution of the word ‘virgin’ for ‘young woman’. He also changes the naming of the child. Isaiah says that the young woman to whom he is referring will name her child ‘Immanuel’. Matthew changes even this to ‘they’ rather than she. This way the name sounds like an appellative, that people will be hailing this child in some special manner. If he left the verse alone, even just that change of pronoun, it would be obvious to the reader that it did not have anything to do with Jesus. His mother did not name him Immanuel. Even those unfamiliar with the actual context of the verse would be able to quickly identify that it had nothing to do with Jesus. The unethical Matthew found a solution in altering the verse.

He likes to omit the parts that do not suit his purpose, showing no regard for Tanach. When he quotes Hosea 11:1, he omits the beginning, that which tells the reader the topic. The topic is, of course, not Jesus. It is Israel. And the verse is not predictive but descriptive of the past. But I will not run through the whole list of dishonest uses of scripture by Matthew. The point is that he is not trustworthy in the first place.

But even if we did not know that, Matthew accidentally reveals to the reader that his story about the Jewish leadership trying to hush up the resurrection is a lie. The bribe itself shows that the story is a fabrication, because the leadership acts on knowledge that they did not and could not have. At Matthew 28:13, the priests and elders wish the guards to say that the disciples came and stole the body. In writing this, Matthew has just shown us that the story is a lie.

The leadership cannot at that point know what is going to happen. For all they know, Jesus is going to begin walking around the streets of Jerusalem healing people, preaching, and attracting an even larger following than before. He could show up at any moment and demand that they acknowledge him as a prophet, now that he has fulfilled his predicted resurrection. So, how is it that they bribed the guards to say that the disciples took the body? No, they did not do such a thing, because they could not know that Jesus would never show himself. This story is an invention.

Moreover, the story shows that Jesus did not show himself publicly. If he had, no such story could have been circulated. The story is built on the premise that Jesus came only to a few here and a few there, privately.

Matthew’s fabrication has two purposes. First, he wants to draft the Jewish leadership into his argument. He wants to support belief in Jesus from the opposition. To do this, he invents testimony on their behalf. And it is shocking how much Christians and general lovers of Jesus believe whatever the NT tells them about the Jews and the Pharisees. They accept the writings of the NT as if it were the direct testimony of the Pharisees, when it obviously is not. Second, he wants to vilify the Jews, especially the leadership. The Jewish people were not on board with the message of Jesus and his followers, generally speaking. This had to be explained, inasmuch as Jesus is supposed to be their Messiah. So, the Jews become the villains. And how dastardly they are, according to Matthew. He wants us to believe that the Jewish leadership knew the truth but rejected Jesus anyway. Matthew’s lies would be one of the causes of 2,000 years of Jewish persecution.

But the story was not true. It could not be, because as I pointed out, the Jewish leaders are acting as if they know Jesus will not show himself. Obviously this story was fabricated much later, after Christians started teaching that Jesus came back from the dead. And Matthew did not account for what would have been the Jewish leadership’s perspective and knowledge. That Matthew lied at the end of the book should have surprised nobody who had read the beginning. But the book, given to the Torah-ignorant gentiles was believed by them, and it caused great damage to the Jewish people. Two thousand years of suffering ensued.

Clearly, Jesus did not show himself to the Jewish leadership.


This entry was posted in Jim. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Matthew Admits that Jesus was Never Resurrected! – by Jim

  1. Eleazar says:

    Another thing that always bothered me about the resurrection story was that the Jesus who appeared to the select few bore no resemblance to the Jesus who was crucified. To Mary M., he appeared as a common gardener. Others did not recognize him at all, and had to be given “new vision” to realize who this “new guy” was. Never once, between the resurrection and his ascension, did anyone see him and know he was the same man who was crucified. Yet, he always appeared as a normal mortal man in regular clothing with no unremarkable traits.

    • CP says:

      Here are some possibilities;
      Yeshua was beaten beyond recognition.
      He was wearing different clothes.
      They had no electric lighting back then.
      A resurrected body may look different.

      I agree with you in that there is ‘something’ going on with the resurrected appearance of Yeshua. Now a person should ask themselves; ‘if I wanted to make up a believable story would I include these kind of details?’

      • Eleazar says:

        Of course they would, CP. They had no resurrected Jesus, but they did have a contemporary audience who would know if he actually showed up or not. It was a perfect way, the ONLY way if you think about it, to account for the fact that nobody outside the clique reported a resurrected Jesus who hung around for almost two months. Were he resurrected as himself, beaten or not, he no doubt would have been identified.

        For something that was supposed to be THE ONLY SIGN Jesus would give the Jewish leaders, it sure was kept a secret from them.

        • CP says:

          Please allow me to humbly correct your post;

          “the fact that nobody outside the clique reported a resurrected Jesus”

          It is more truthful to say; ‘we do not have a preserved record of a resurrection of any one outside the clique’

          • Dina says:

            CP, we also do not have a preserved record of the existence of unicorns. I’m not saying this to make fun. I mean that it’s not a strong foundation to stand on.

          • CP says:

            Ummm……😊 yes we do!
            Unicorns recorded in the Tanach:
            Job 39:9-12
            Psalm 29:6
            Isaiah 34:7

            Dina, this is typical of the difficulties you and I face; What words mean to US as compared to other religious, cultural and historic meanings. I see this same thing happening with us when it comes to discussing Yeshua.

          • Dina says:

            CP, a re’em is a wild ox, but that is really neither here nor there because that’s not what my point was. Fill in the blank with any other mythical creature then, and read it again in the context of my response to your post.

            I don’t want to be mean, but it feels like you did understand my point but deflected. I’m not sure if you’re doing it on purpose, but it’s frustrating. It feels like you’re not being straight with me.

            We keep getting sidetracked over what seem to me inanities, forgive me for saying so. For example, you never responded to my challenge about Jesus attributing divinity to himself, with damning quotes from your scripture to back it up, because you objected to my use of the word divinity instead of deity (which in the English language are synonymous). Thus an important conversation never got off the table.

          • Dina says:

            I mean got off the ground. Mixing my metaphors🙂.

          • CP says:

            Sorry, unicorns distract me 😋

            Ok, straight to the point:
            “MY” definitions ~
            Diety = HASHEM, there is only ONE and is Supreme and Sovereign over ALL, however other cultures may believe in many.

            Divinity = Ben Elohim, number not known, possibly 70 or 72 or ? HaSatan is possibly such a entity. They are subject to Hashem yet some may be in a state of rebellion. These are possibly the false gods of other nations as implied by a proto- Masoretic Text.

            Created Beings:

            Arch Angels = Ruling Angels
            Angels = Messengers of Hashem

            Hope this helps you understand me better.

          • Dina says:


            Respectfully, it isn’t fair to expect me to use your subjective definitions of the words. When speaking in English, we need to agree that the standard is the English language as it is commonly used or we will forever get mired in pointless distractions such as this.

            I am asking you now to please accept this standard and therefore to accept that in the English language deity and divinity are interchangeable. When I said Jesus attributed divinity to himself, which also means deity, I was making a certain point which you never responded to because you found my choice of words confusing.

            I hope you will respond to that thread because I provided evidence of problematic statements Jesus made that disqualified him from being a Jewish leader, much less a prophet. I ask that you put aside my choice of words and respond to the substance of my argument.

            The thread begins here:


          • CP says:

            You previously quoted the Hebrew definition of Elohim stating it depended on context to which I agreed.

            By using the English definitions of Deity and divinity you inadvertently corrupt the text confusing entities who are not G-D with the ONE who is. This may work to better prove your point but it gets neither of us closer to the truth.

            May I suggest we stick with “Hashem” “Elohim” and “Ben Elohim” for our discussion of Deity. Otherwise there is nothing more to discuss on this matter because you intend to consign a valid definition of an entity to non existence and redefine the entity as a Deity thereby leaving me with nothing to discuss.

      • “Yeshua was beaten beyond recognition.”

        even if a badly beaten up body was dragged out apologists would say it was a different bearded corpse. i note that the guards are the only ones who are witnesses to the ghost they saw near the tomb and then they are paid to spread lies. when the jews paid them didn’t they realise that the guards were easily persuaded to change their stories ? in your chain of testimony you have liars who easily changed their stories and matthew writes ” it is known till this day” which indicates to me that matthew is hearing information from someone about what allegedly took place in secret somewhere else. matthew isn’t a witness he is telling what he has heard.

  2. bible819 says:

    Like Abraham believed the unknown Land- We as Christians have Faith that he Was resurrected.

    ***** The Gardener Clothes ( Hint: Garden of Eden, Sower, Seed( Word)- Gods original intent)

    Before Adam killed us.

    Question: If you got chopped for God- What body would you attain in the Resurrection???

    And no! He had a Body (Image of God) also told you ( At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the >>>>>>>>>> angels in heaven.)

    Read more about him. Appeared as a normal mortal Man?????

    God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; Bible 101

    • Jim says:


      I do not know what any of this means or how it relates to what I wrote. Would you mind elucidating. It would be helpful for me if you constructed paragraphs that expressed thoughts completely and clearly. However, I will take whatever clarification you are willing to offer.


      • bible819 says:

        Hello Jim,

        I read Eleazars statement-

        My Response was the following mentioned above regarding the Resurrection.

        Simply Put. Faith is why We believe in the Rejected Hebrew Yeshua was raised from the Dead.

        Example; Abraham believed God to some unknown Land, Promised Son, Sacrificed his only Son, and Blessed All nations. Faith no Law

        Eleazars said, he appeared as a Normal Mortal Man-

        We were created in God’s Image and that Image is a Normal Mortal Man(Adam)

        • bible819 says:


          What responsibility should Israel take in their many exiles?

          Did they Sin at all?

          If so, what did they do?

        • Eleazar says:

          “Eleazars said, he appeared as a Normal Mortal Man-

          We were created in God’s Image and that Image is a Normal Mortal Man(Adam)”

          Wow, is it possible to miss a point by that much? My point is that he came as a DIFFERENT man than the one who died. He did not assume some angelic or spiritual form that prevented people from recognizing him. They did not recognize him because he looked like someone else. he looked like a man who was not Jesus. If Joe Shmoe walked in and said, “Hi, I’m Elvis Presley, resurrected from the dead” would you believe him? Sorry, that one doesn’t pass the sniff test.

          “Example; Abraham believed God to some unknown Land, Promised Son, Sacrificed his only Son, and Blessed All nations. Faith no Law”

          Actually, Ishmael was the result of father Avraham’s suspension of belief. How many times can you read :

          “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” ( Gen 26:5) and still repeat Paul’s lie?

          GOD SAID Avraham found favor by his obedience to commandments and laws, not like PAUL taught “he believed God and it was accounted for righteousness without obeying the law.”

    • Sharbano says:

      WHAT image. Do YOU understand the Hebrew references made there.

      • Eleazar says:

        Apparently, Sharbano, Bibs believes like the word/faith charismatics that God is a man about 6 feet tall and “Created in His image” means that God looks just like us: has hands, feet, arms, hair, etc.

        • Sharbano says:

          Really! So, if he’s six feet tall then some will have to look “down” to see him “face to face”. If truly “in the image” then we should ask, what does he eat. Where does he go to the bathroom. There are many questions when “This” is the belief.
          I’ve never been able to understand Why it is So difficult to comprehend that G-d is beyond ALL these physical attributes. I would say though it IS much easier to comprehend with an understanding of Kabbalah.

  3. Dina says:


  4. Eleazar says:


    Was the Law Given to Abraham?”

    God said “my commandments and my laws”. Avraham was given a set of laws. Regardless of which laws they were, the Noachide laws, the laws of circumcision or an early form of proto-Israelite law, the point is that God’s approval of Avraham was due to his obedience to the laws God gave him. Do you understand that? Do you approve of God saying that or do you reject God’s praise of Avraham for being “legalistic”?

    No offense, but you can’t really be as dense as you come across as being. You’re just playing games, right?

  5. Eleazar says:

    Read this :

    “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” ( Gen 26:5)

    Now tell me three things:
    1- What commandments, statutes and laws is God referring to?
    2- Regardless of which laws and statutes are in view, whether Noachide or proto-Mosaic, does that change the fact that obedience to those laws was counted as righteousness?
    3- Do you accept as true that God counted Avraham righteous for the reasons this verse says He does? Or do you believe the text was falsified or fraudulently altered? Or do you dismiss it because it is “the Old Testament”?

    This isn’t rocket science. Its just plain reading and basic contextual comprehension.

    • bible819 says:

      Point Being is this,

      The Abrahamic covenant is not the Law. Circumcision was before the Law. The Promise of Isaac was before the Law.

      Some 400 years later the Law was given to the Israelites to understand what God required. I.E Not following The Golden Calf.

      >>>> The Promise was not contingent on the Law. He (Abraham) believed God of the Unknown.

      >>>>> All Nations are not blessed by Law.

      I.E. Israel is still scattered

      You are right its not rocket science.

      As for the name calling, “The Family of Life who Loves The Rejected Hebrew” wants you.

      • Eleazar says:

        So what you are saying is that you deny that text altogether since the only law you believe ever existed in Torah was not observed until Sinai and there was no law OF ANY KIND prior to that.

        My question was, if that is true then how do you account for Genesis 26:5?

        Do you think it was added to the Torah later? Do you think some Pharisee made it up? What do you do with that text, Bibs? Just pretend it doesn’t exist?

        You really didn’t answer any of the questions at all.

        Oh and what “name” did I call you?

        • bible819 says:

          Let us Dive into this;

          Genesis 16:6
          Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

          What did he believe?

          What he heard from God. Y/N

          Righteousness and The Covenant was attained by Faith in what he heard by God’s Word!

          You Say that Laws were Given in Genesis 26:5?( After Abraham Death)

          No Law was given, but what the ( Word came to him) to believe in what he was told. Y/N

          If not, list some so that we may know what you see as a LAW-

          400 years Later- Moses (Wrote) Gods Requirements- Y/N

          While this happening? A Golden Calf was Made

          Without Dispute, Israel didn’t KNOW God.

          I.E They died in the Desert.

          Only Moses did, but yet he Didn’t SPEAK to the ROCK ( Lacked Faith) didn’t enter the promise Land.

          Now consider closely my last statement;<<<<<<

          Caleb had a Spirit that Believed God to go take the Land- Faith

          The Law had nothing with (taking) the Land that God foretold- Others didn't because they were SCARED ( Lack of Faith.

          Read Numbers 14:24

          4"But My servant Caleb, because he has had a different spirit and has followed Me fully, I will bring into the land which he entered, and his descendants shall take possession of it.

          What Spirit is this? Faith

          Thus Christ the Rejected Hebrew is My God by Faith in His Name to the Glory of The Father.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s