"The Difficulties of Jesus Last Hours" Part 1

Questioning Christianity has posted an interesting video that is attributed to Neil deGrasse Tyson. It has been circulating through the internet for some time. Its purpose is to discredit the Biblical account of the last hours of Jesus and expose the discrepancies presented within the text. You can watch the video by following this link: https://questioning-christianity.org/2026/08/22/the-final-hours-of-jesus/ 

Before we get to the claims of the video itself, there are some things you need to know about the video. Even though it is Neil deGrasse Tyson's voice and the image presented as it plays is Tyson, it is not him nor is the video associated with him. It is an A.I. generated video using Tyson to grain credibility. This is not a new tactic, during the second century when someone wanted to get a publication read, they would assign a well-known author to the work and pass it off as an original. Biblical examples are the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary. They are sudo-works being pass off as originals. We know this to be true of this video because of the disclaimer presented by the video itself is posted below. 

The disclaimer states: (AI & CONTENT DISCLAIMER: This video may contain synthetic media, dramatized narration, fictionalized dialogue, and editorial framing for educational and philosophical purposes. The title uses a provocative editorial premise and should not be interpreted as a verified quotation, lecture, or argument made by Neil deGrasse Tyson unless an original source is explicitly identified - This video is not affiliated with Neil deGrasse Tyson or any religious institution.)

This is a huge red flag for anyone desiring a truthful discussion on the subject. The words in the disclaimer such as, “dramatized narration” “fictionalized dialogue” “editorial framing” immediately informs us the content information as been dramatized, fictionalized, and framed to fit a particular point of view.   

Another red flag is the statement made by the speaker starting at, 1:20 minutes

“Because here is what I have spent considerable time thinking about. And here is what I think almost nobody,

1:27

not the believers, not the skeptics, not the historians, not the scientists

1:35

who have weighed in on this. Almost nobody has sat down and done what I am going to do with you today.

:23

Almost nobody notices it. And I think I know why almost nobody notices it. Because to

3:30

notice it, you have to do something that does not come naturally when you are inside a story you have been told since

3:37

childhood. You have to stop reading the narrative and start interrogating the timeline.

 

This is to set the mind of anyone who is uniformed upon the subject he is addressing that he has discovered something no one else has. I see this a lot in videos produced for such purposes. The biblical text is considered one of the most studied and scrutinized texts in history, with thousands of manuscripts available for comparison, making it the best attested document of all ancient writings. The most acquit minds of the past two thousand years have poured over its content, and when an A.I. generated video claims to have discovered something no one else ever has, it's a red flag moment.

 

The first discrepancy no one notices which he presents is found in the Gospel of John where he suggests the synoptic Gospels don't agree on the finial hours of Jesus's life. However, his statement that it is something hardly no one notices must be one of those “fabricated” statements the disclaimer warned about. I remember noticing the difference as a young teenager. I didn't know what to make of it at first, but I soon discovered it has been noticed by almost everyone who reads their Bible regularly. You can find discussions about it as far back as the 2nd and 3rd centuries, so he is misleading his listeners from the very start. (Red Flag). Here are the passages in question. Mark states: 15:22, And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. 
    23, And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not. 
    24, And they crucify him, and part his garments among them, casting lots upon them, what each should take. 
    25, And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. 

 

Then in John we read: 19: 12, Upon this Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. 
    13, When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment-seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. 
    14, Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King! 
    15, They therefore cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him! Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. 
    16, Then therefore he delivered him unto them to be crucified. 

 

The video points out that Mark as well as the other synoptic Gospels record Jesus taken to be crucified about the 3rd hour of the day, which according to the Jewish way of reckoning time would be around 9AM in the morning. However, you may have noticed John records the account to have been about the 6th hour, which would be around noon as we reckon time. The video draws the conclusion from this variant reading that one or both of the narratives are false. 

 

We must admit this is a real problem, and we don't want to sweep it away by saying, “Oh, there's obviously an easy answer.” There isn't an obvious answer. Scholars have debated it for a very long time, however, there are several possible explanations. I will not take the time to address all the possible reasons Johns record may differ from the other Gospels. I will only mention the one that intrigues me the most as a possible answer.

 

The Romans used a solar calendar and began their day at midnight, while the Jews followed a lunar calendar and started their day at sunset. This difference in timekeeping created overlaps and discrepancies in how events were dated and understood between the two cultures. There is evidence based on other factors recorded in the Gospels that could suggest John was reckoning time according the Roman system, while the synoptic Gospels were reckoning time using the Jewish system.  If John were counting from midnight rather than sunrise, the sixth hour then becomes approximately 6 a.m., therefore, the chronology would follow, 6 a.m., Pilate's judgment, 9 a.m., crucifixion. With that being the case, John's account with the other Gospels fits very well. 

 

The problem remains that John did not tell us what system of time he was recording his account with. He was recording events that involved the Roman procurator and the Roman pro-council, which could propose why John would reckon time with the Roman system instead of being consistent with his use of the Jewish system when recording this event. 

 

The skeptic will say prove it, we cannot. But neither can the skeptic prove he didn't. The bottom line is, there is a textual variant here between the Gospels, but it doesn't prove what the video implies. It proves there is a variant reading in text, of which are several possibles reasons why, none of which suggests the narrative is false or contains error.

 

In the next post we will examine another claim made by this video circulating the internet.

 

David  
 

 
 

"A Moral Dilemma"

Societies are constructed via a set of moral values or expectations that is largely accepted among the majority. However, this construction is strained when those moral values weaken as the majority and the social construct begins to change. This can happen when the moral grounding or source for moral values begin to change. For instance, if a previous set of moral values was originally grounded in a religious context, but the society moves from that religious context to a more secular, the moral construct will feel the strain. The two sources produce different moral values. Some old values will begin to be challenged by new concepts of thought which in turn affects the mind's perception of reality and moral obligations.  The old values begin to erode and become misunderstood or skewed. As these systems merge, some values will overlap, but it is certain others will be challenged. In this post I will attempt to address a couple of issues posed to me by a friend. One is a term called "spiritual bypassing" and seems to be something that is acurring in Christian conversations today.

Examples would be something as subtle as one's well-being. Someone might state, "My body is tired, I need to take a day off to decompress." A Christian today might answer, "If you leaned on God more, you wouldn't get so tired." This I understand is spiritual bypassing. It ignores the problems by offering a spiritual solution. However, spiritualizing is not actually a correct Christian response. Though it is good to lean on God more in difficult times, is not to suggest not doing so is the cause of the difficulty. Mark 6:30, And the apostles gather themselves together unto Jesus; and they told him all things, whatsoever they had done, and whatsoever they had taught. 
    31, And he saith unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while. For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat. 
    32, And they went away in the boat to a desert place apart. Jesus did not spiritual bypass the difficulty, but acknowledged the concern recognizing the need for rest. 

Another example could be someone who feels sad being told, "You don't need to be sad, God has given you so much." It is true God has given us so much, but that is not to say we should not feel sad. In John 11:33, When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping who came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, 
    34, and said, Where have ye laid him? They say unto him, Lord, come and see. 
    35, Jesus wept. A crucial part of our human experience is our ability to feel sadness and express it openly. These instructions from the Christian perspective have become skewed and are being challenged by other moral constructs that appear more reasonable. These examples along with many others have become a part of Christian thinking, I think in large part to as a result of what is now Christian Television. Historical Christian thinking which was once governed by Biblical literacy is now replaced with the emotional spiritualization that domonates Christian Television. We hear it so much and so often it has replaced much of our traditional Christian thinking without our even realizing it. Now to the larger question. 

Moral perceptions differ between religious and secular world views. Sometimes, the God of the Bible is seen as a monster instead of a gracious kind redeemer. The two views basically come from different starting points for their moral compass. One troubling scripture we find in the Bible is;

1st Samuel 15:2, Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, I have marked that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt. 
    3, Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.   

   
When reading such scripture it has been asked, "How does someone not see God as a monster?" First it must be understood that the human mind does not approach such a question with a clean slate. It views all moral issues through a foundational lens. I have been accused of seeing everything through God goggles. That accusation was not meant to be a positive thing, but it was an accurate assessment. I do see the world around me through the redemptive lens of the New Testament. Without that lens I would see the world very differently. 

How does someone not see the God of the Bible as a monster when examing such scriptures? The problem of course comes with the command to kill everyone and everything. The men might all be guilty, but the women? The child and the suckling? The Ox and sheep, camel and ass certainly didn't have any guilt. Everyone should recognize the moral depravity of killing the innocent. So how does God become exempt from this moral dilemma? To many he doesn't, therefore, they view him as the monster anyone would be. However, if you look through a different lens you see things differently. 

For instance, organized crime groups like the Mafia and similar syndicates have long maintained internal codes of conduct, often framed in terms of honor, loyalty, respect, and silence. Members view these as a distinct moral framework guiding "the life" or "our thing," even while engaging in serious crimes. This isn't just pragmatic; it's cultural and ideological. It draws from Southern Italian traditions of manliness, autonomy from the state, and family-like solidarity. Members see themselves as "men of honor" who live by a stricter (in their eyes) set of rules than mainstream society, which they often view as corrupt or weak. They do this because of the lens they view their morality through. It causes them to see the framework of outside morality as corrupt. This is because it's an internal code. The broader framwork of society is outside this code and carries a completely different view or morality. I say this to illustrate the human race has an interal code of conduct based upon how it perceives right and wrong, justice and judgment. There is a much larger framework of morality that exist outside this human experience if you believe in God.

The Christian reasons outside these two verses and takes the larger view of Biblical revelation into consideration. He understands from the Biblical perspective we are all condemned already. What happens to the women and children in the event described in these two verses is a result of the overall judgment upon this world. Yes, in this verse women and children were to die, but it is judgment not deferred. Because of judgment upon this world they are all going to die, it's just a matter of when, where, and how. If they did not die in this event, and many didn't because the command was not followed faithfully, they would die from some other cause because the human race is under judgment. Romans 6:23, For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. The Christian has this as the foundation for his moral compass, therefore, is able to see God as gracious for offering the Gospel to free us from this condemnation.

These people were descendants of Esau (related to Israel but hostile). They launched an unprovoked attack on the vulnerable Israelites right after the Exodus targeting the weak, sick, and stragglers (Exodus 17; Deuteronomy 25:17-19). This wasn't a one-off; they repeatedly opposed Israel and God's purposes through them. The command is framed as divine judgment for longstanding, severe wickedness, not casual conquest or ethnic hatred. Similar commands appear in the conquest of Canaan, tied to the extreme depravity of those nations (idolatry, child sacrifice, etc., as described in Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy).

Scripture repeatedly teaches no one is "innocent" by God's perfect standard: Romans 3:9-12, 23: "None is righteous, no, not one... all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 5:12: "Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned." Ephesians 2:1-3: All are "by nature children of wrath," dead in trespasses. This isn't just about personal acts of wrongdoing; it's a condition of the human race after the Fall. From this perspective, every person, infant included, stands under just condemnation apart from God's mercy. The key phase there being "apart from Gods mercy." Physical death is the universal sentence (Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23), delayed only by common grace and, for some, special mercy leading to salvation. We must also keep the context of the passage in mind, God had shown patience for centuries since the Exodus incident. This wasn't impulsive; it was timed judgment after forbearance. Mercy is always undeserved grace, not an obligation. As Romans 9:14-15 puts it: "Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy...'"

Without this lens, this scripture is seen from a human perspective. A human judge could never condemn an innocent child to death and call it justice. And he would certainly be correct in that assessment. But that comes from a naturalistic world view only, which would exclude any divine judgment, it's simply not on their slate. 

Perception changes with the lens, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that killed man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass, were framed as necessary actions to end World War II swiftly. Proponents argued that the bombings prevented a planned invasion of Japan, which was expected to result in massive casualties on both sides. Estimates suggested that an invasion could lead to hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese deaths. The bombings were seen as a way to avoid this prolonged conflict. The U.S. government, including President Harry Truman, justified the decision (saw it a morally acceptable) by stating that it was aimed at saving both American and Japanese lives. There are some similarites that can be drawn from this reasoning and the verses in question.

Despite the justifications, many critics argue that the bombings were fundamentally immoral. They contend that targeting civilian populations constitutes a war crime and that the bombings were unnecessary for achieving Japan's surrender. This viewpoint highlights the ethical dilemmas faced when considering the use of nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, the event happened, how you view it morally depends on which lens you are looking through. Now lets look at the verses again and examine the lens the Christian looks through. Were any of those women and children truly innocent? Not from the divine perspective, they were all already condemned. John 3:17, For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him. 
    18, He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God. 

God is not executing judgment because he takes pleasure in it. Through the Christian lens, all Gods' judgment are executed through divine righteousness and judgment. This righteousness and justice abides in perfection. 

God’s holiness in relation to man means that God is morally pure and set apart without sin and humans are not naturally fit to stand in His presence. 

 He is uniquely righteous, sometimes referred to as his “otherness” and cannot approve of evil. 

Humans fall short of God’s standards, so approach to God must deal with sin. People can’t come on their own merit; they need God to make them acceptable (e.g., through repentance and, in the Christian view, Christ’s atoning work). 

 Not a single person has ever merited acceptance nor could they. Take the most morally righteous group of people on earth today, put them on a planet all by themselves and have them produce a society. That society would be plagued with the same moral failures we have always been plagued with. This is not compatible with God's holiness, therefore his judgment in the verses in question cannot bring a moral judgment upon him. 

The naturalist looks at this verse from a natural understanding of goodness, therefore will never understand or accept this concept. He sees man's morality as evolutionary and developing or changing as man evolves in his understanding. What is moral today may not be moral tomorrow, it changes with man because he is the source of his on morality. 

It has been asked, "How someone in a Third World country can find a graceful God?" I assume that is asked because of the suffering that is seen in those countries. They can't without the Gospel. They may have a conception of some type of god they believe exist and worship it. They will try to please it by whatever means they may devise in their mind that might appease it. They may perceive all their suffering is a result of some displeasure they have accrued or sin they have committed. This god is to be feared because he is powerful and angry. But he not a God of grace. They can know nothing of a God of grace outside the Gospel. The Gospel simply means "good news". 

What is that good news? You can stop trying to please an angry God. What ever moral dilemma you may find yourself in, 1 Cor. 15:1, Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, 2, by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. 3, For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4, and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; 

If you believe that, it is called faith, through which you are saved by grace. You can put on your God goggles and rest in your hope in Christ. You can know you are no longer under judgment and rest in your hope of salvation. It does not change the fact you still live in a cursed world under judgment, but your hope is no longer in this world, but the world to come. 

You can also put on the naturalist goggles and believe only what you can see in this natural world, because that's all that exist. This sees the concept of God as a myth, the need for any kind of redemption as a myth, the concept of sin and its consequences a myth. It sees the human conscience a product of moral evolution developing in man, the ideal he is accountable to anything higher than this evolutionary morality is a myth. He in essence is the master of his own morality, anything higher is a myth. It is amazing, but which goggles you are looking through really does make that much difference. Either way, if you are reading this, you must put on one or the other. The question is which one do you want to look through? 

David