The Christian scriptures claim that their leader,
one Jesus of Nazareth, was crucified by the Romans and that as a result of this
he died. These authors of the Christian scriptures tell us that after Jesus’
death he was sighted by some of his followers alive and well. According to
these men, this miraculous event is the sign that Christianity is the true
religion. Some Christians look at the alleged resurrection of Jesus as a solid
foundation upon which to base their faith. These people feel that there exists
solid evidence that proves that the resurrection was an actual historical
event. Although this event supposedly took place many centuries ago, still
these Christians feel that they can honestly be sure that Jesus really was seen
alive after his death on the cross.
We have the testimony of the authors of the
Christian scriptures that tell us that this event really did happen. The fact
that Jesus’ disciples did not abandon their belief in Jesus after his death is
another factor that might lead people to believe that Jesus was resurrected.
Why would these people maintain their loyalty to someone who died and was never
seen again? The disciples underwent persecution in order to remain faithful to
their beliefs. Why would they do so if they had not seen their faith
substantiated with the resurrection? How could these disciples preach a lie and
then go and die for something that they know to be false?
Another factor which seems to lend credence to the
resurrection story, is the fact that Jesus’ opponents did not produce his body
in order to disprove the claims of his disciples? What could have prevented
them from taking this simple step? In the eyes of many Christians these factors
amount to their acceptance of the resurrection story as a substantiated
historical fact. Now if Jesus was a fraud as the Jewish people believe him to
be, then why was he resurrected?
There are a few points though, which these
Christians failed to consider. The first and most basic point is the passage in
Deuteronomy 13:2-6. In that passage God clearly instructs us that even if a
miracle is performed which seems to substantiate the claims of a prophet, we
are not to take this as a sign that God wants us to worship another god. God is
testing us to see if we truly love Him with all our hearts. So, even if Jesus
were to resurrect himself in front of our eyes, still this cannot serve as a
sign that we are to worship him. Since he is not the one who was revealed to
the Jewish people at Sinai, then he is "another god", all his claims
to the contrary notwithstanding. So the entire claim of the resurrection, even
if it could be backed by solid evidence, does not have the strength to prove
the veracity of any brand of trinitarian Christianity. But we shall see that
the entire claim is without foundation.
How do we know about the story of Jesus’ alleged
resurrection? The Christian Church tells us the story. And where did they hear
the story? We have to go back in time in order to try to trace the origins of
this Christian tradition. (The Catholic Church claims that they have a direct
tradition which traces itself back to Peter, the problem is that the dishonesty
of the Catholic Church is a well documented fact, furthermore what do we know
about Peter that tells us to believe him?)
Protestant Christians (who agree that the Catholic
traditions cannot be trusted) would point to the books of the Christian
scriptures. These writings, which historical research indicates that they
existed quite early on in the history of Christianity, they testify to the
story of the resurrection.
Who wrote these books? Who determined that the
authors were trustworthy people? What criteria did the early Christians use to
determine that these writings should be considered holy? What assures us that
the early Christians who had these books, really believed every word that these
writings contained in a literal sense? Since there is no direct chain of tradition
concerning any of these matters, then there seems to be no definite way to
answer these questions.
Let us take the words of the Christian scriptures
at face value. Let us assume that the writers of these books were indeed people
that lived close to where the events were taking place. Let us also assume that
we have no reason to suspect that these authors may have been dishonest. We
will open the books and allow them to speak for themselves.
The first thing that becomes immediately obvious is
that these authors do not tell you where they are getting their information
from. The range of events described by these books precludes the possibility
that the authors themselves were eyewitnesses for every event mentioned in the
books. Much, if not all of their information was (at best) related to them by
other people. (In case you were wondering why we don’t consider the possibility
that these books were written by prophetic powers, ask yourself these
questions. Who determined that these men were prophets, and if they were
prophets then why is there so little conformity in their descriptions of the
same events.) How did these authors interview their sources of information?
What criteria did they use to determine the reliability of the people that told
them the details of the stories that they wrote?
When we realize that the writers of the Christian
scriptures contradict each other concerning the basic elements of the
resurrection story, we realize that someone did his homework sloppily. Luke
tells us that Jesus’ first appearance to his disciples took place in
Matthew has an angel informing Mary that the
resurrection had taken place, before Jesus is sighted. John tells us that until
Mary had met with the resurrected Jesus, she was under the assumption that
human hands had removed the body of Jesus from its grave. The fact that these
authors contradict themselves tells us that someone is lying somewhere.
Another interesting factor that comes to light when
examining the various sightings of Jesus, is the point that the only ones who
testified that they saw him were people who were already totally devoted to
him. Even among the devotees, the Christian scriptures report that there was an
element of doubt concerning the truth of the resurrection story.
Realize what this means. We have a beloved leader;
a leader whom his followers believe to be greater than Moses, and wiser than
Solomon. Protestant Christianity would have us believe that his disciples
believed him to be an almighty god. The devotion of his disciples was extreme.
The Christian scriptures report that the followers of Jesus had to relinquish
all of their possessions in order to join the following. Jesus demanded that
his followers love him more than they love their parents, spouses or their
children. It is clear that what these people would require as evidence to the
resurrection of their adored teacher, would be much less than the evidence
required by one who is unaffected by this bias. With all this in mind Matthew
reports (28:17) that when Jesus reappeared to his disciples, some worshiped
him, but some doubted.
This is comparable to a cult leader who is accused
of shoplifting. Some of his followers come to court to testify that their
leader was elsewhere at the time that the crime had taken place. As you watch
the witnesses filing in to testify on behalf of the accused, it strikes you
that the only ones who are testifying, are people who are totally blinded by
devotion to this man. When these devotees open their mouth to speak, each one
contradicts the other on every point of their testimony. The only thing they
all agree on is that their leader was not in the place where his accusers claim
he was. They do not agree about basic details of their story such as the actual
location of their leader during the time of the crime. Furthermore it is
brought to your attention that even some of his devoted followers who were with
these witnesses, did not come to court. They doubted the veracity of the
testimony of their fellow devotees. Could you decide that you are totally
convinced that this cult leader was definitely not guilty of shoplifting?
The testimony of the Christian Scriptures
concerning the resurrection story is sorely lacking. It is difficult to see how
one can consider these writings as "convincing evidence" to the
resurrection of Jesus.
But what about the disciples? Why were they so
devoted to Jesus if they did not have their faith substantiated by an actual
resurrection? The problem with this argument is that the devotion of the
disciples preceded the resurrection story. It seems that the devotion to their
leader produced the resurrection story and not the other way around. The way
the Christian Scriptures describe the devotion of Jesus’ disciples it would
almost be surprising if there were no resurrection story. Does this mean that
the disciples were preaching a deliberate lie? Not necessarily. There is no way
of knowing today at what point in time was it that the resurrection story came
to be accepted by the followers of Jesus. It is possible that it took years for
the story to develop until it was actually believed in a literal sense. It may
have started with reports of visions, which over the course of time came to be
spoken of as actual sightings. This would explain the manifold contradictions
in the Christian scriptures. It would also explain why the early Christians did
not maintain a tradition concerning the concrete occurrences of Jesus’
reappearance. If indeed Jesus did reappear in a physical sense it would make
sense that the physical details of the event should have been recorded. These
include the noting of the precise location at which these reappearances took
place. We should have the early Church pointing to a particular physical spot
and saying, that this is where the most important event in world history took
place. But no record exists of such a claim. This lends weight to the theory
that the resurrection story began with a series of emotional visions.
Even if we were to assume that the original
disciples believed that Jesus was resurrected in a physical sense, still, we
must take into consideration the simple fact that these people would not demand
the same standard of evidence that an unbiased person would require before
believing a resurrection story. There are many scenarios that would have the
disciples believe that their leader is resurrected which are more plausible
than an actual resurrection. There could have been an empty grave. It is
doubtful if his loyal followers would have required more evidence than an empty
grave before preaching and believing that an actual resurrection took place.
One example for such a situation would be that there
may have been confusion concerning the precise burial site of Jesus. According
to the Christian Scriptures the burial took place hastily, and close to
nightfall. There were no more than four people claimed to be present at the
time of the burial. This being the case, it is quite possible that his
followers pointed to an empty burial spot in which Jesus was never buried.
(Since the graves were hewn into stone it was customary to have such spots
empty, even without anyone dying - the Christian Scriptures tell us that Jesus
was laid in a grave which was opened for someone else who had not yet died.)
Furthermore if indeed the body was put in a grave
which was meant for someone else, it is possible that the body was eventually
removed from there. Remember, John reports that Mary believed that the body was
misplaced by people who were in charge of the burial site. She was under this
assumption for quite a while. She was under this assumption even after she had
spoken to the disciples and reported to them that the grave was empty.
It is also possible that some of the disciples
removed the body from the grave. Matthew tells us that this is what the general
population believed at that time. If this were the case it is obvious that the
disciples who actually removed the body would not believe the resurrection
story, but the rest of the following would have no problem believing it.
Some missionaries try to negate the plausibility of
these scenarios. They point to the guards that Matthew places to protect the
grave, and to the enormous rock which prevented access to the grave. But we
must note that according to the book of Matthew, the general population who
were far more familiar than the circumstances than we are, considered it
entirely plausible that the body was stolen. The book of John reports that Mary
who was an eyewitness to much of what was happening, thought it reasonable to
assume that the corpse was removed by the caretakers of the burial site. If
these people who were familiar with the ways of the times thought these
scenarios to be plausible, then we have no right to differ.
Another rather simple possibility that would have
the followers of Jesus believing a resurrection story, is the scenario in which
some followers deliberately lied and the rest believed. Those who lied would
not have a guilty conscience about it. These people were convinced of the truth
of Jesus’ mission long before the death of their leader. They were already
convinced that he healed the blind, and resurrected the dead. What would a little
lie do to their conscience if they were promoting what they considered to be
the greatest truth that exists? The rest of the following would have little
problem believing the "reliable" testimony of their fellow devotees.
There could also have been some imaginary "sightings" similar to the
Elvis Presley sightings that are commonplace today. There are other
possibilities that come to mind, in any case the garbled story of the Christian
Scriptures does not deserve so much consideration.
Why did the Roman and Jewish opponents of Jesus not
dig up the body of Jesus in order to disprove the resurrection story touted by
Jesus’ followers? This question is based on the assumption that the
resurrection story is actually true. When we hear the story of the resurrection
we are faced with two choices. We can assume that it did happen, or we can
assume that it did not happen. If it did not happen, then the story was made
up. It does not matter much if the story was deliberately invented by his
followers, or if his followers were mistaken in their assumption that the story
is true. In any case, if the story is not true, then there is no reason to
assume that the story began circulating so soon after Jesus’ death. In fact it
is quite improbable that the story began to be heard in the semi-coherent form
that it possesses today, in the weeks following Jesus’ demise. If the story is
not true than it is reasonable to assume that it took months if not years for a
clear story to get around. In that time Jesus’ body would have been totally
unrecognizable to anyone. By that time it would have been futile to exhume his
body. Since all that would have been left would be a decayed corpse, his
followers could claim that the body is not that of their beloved teacher.
Furthermore it is possible that Jesus’ opponents
could not find his grave. Since time had passed between his burial and the time
that the resurrection story got to the ears of Jesus’ opponents there could
easily have arisen confusion concerning the exact location of his grave. This
is even more plausible when we realize that at the time of his death his
opponents did not consider it important to note where exactly he is buried.
Last but not least we must ask ourselves a basic question.
How could we know that his opponents did not dig up his body in order to
disprove the resurrection story? If the governing authorities did exhume the
decaying corpse and display it in order to discount the claims of his
followers, how would we hear about it today? Realize, that if such an event
indeed happened, the record would have to survive centuries of Catholic
censorship in order to arrive here today. That is asking for the impossible. If
indeed the body was brought to the attention of the public then why would his
disciples still believe the resurrection story? They probably claimed that the
body displayed by the authorities was not the one that belonged to their
teacher. Who knows? And frankly, who cares.