THE LIAR THEORY OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
The New Testament gospels say that a miracle healing man called Jesus Christ
lived. They say he died by crucifixion and three days later he rose again. The
tomb he was placed in was found wide open with the stone that had been across
the entrance moved back and the tomb was mysteriously empty. His body was gone.
Certain witnesses claimed that Jesus appeared to them as a resurrected being.
The first witnesses were women and then the close friends of Jesus got on the
bandwagon.
The women and the apostles could have lied about the body disappearing from the
tomb and about the visions.
No argument works against this possibility. Considering the gospels say that
Jesus stressed the second coming when he would purge the world of evil and sin
forever and deliver the people it would appear that if Jesus had vanished from
the grave or at least if it had been thought the body in the tomb was not his
that the apostles and their friends who dearly and desperately wanted Jesus to
be the saviour and who could not endure the setback of the cross would have
believed that Jesus rose even if they never saw him. Their belief might not have
been that strong but if they felt that Jesus was with them spiritually it would
have got stronger. They would have felt that lying about his appearances was a
small lie and not very wrong and no worse than the sins we all commit daily. If
these people suffered for their faith they certainly suffered more because they
felt that Jesus was spiritually guiding them not necessarily appearing or
speaking to them but internally being their mentor than for a missing corpse or
miracle appearances. After all, the grace of Jesus was what the religion was all
about. It was the main thing. Grace works and enforces not through itself for it
is not real. It is just the placebo effect mistaken for a supernatural
assistance.
It is suggested that Magdalene and the other women were not well enough known to
be put up to lie. But it had to be women who were ready and able to go to the
tomb. Perhaps they lied without being asked. The gospels say the apostles did
not approve of what they said and believed they were lying. It is significant
that we are never told that they ever believed the women although the gospel may
imply that they did when their testimony was used. But maybe the gospellers
accepted the women and the apostles did not.
It is suggested that the resurrection showed Jesus in a spiritual body and not
in a merely resuscitated corpse (page 344, The Truth of Christianity) and that
was too unique and original an idea to have been invented. That ridiculous
argument overlooks the fact that the whole point of inventing is to think of
something original.
The story about the supernatural spiritual body of Jesus might have been
necessary in case the physical body would turn up. That way they could still say
he rose from the dead if the body was found. The rationale was that resurrection
does not mean turning the whole corpse back into a living person. People would
wonder why they couldn’t find Jesus if he was alive. The "explanation" of the
apostles could have been that he could vanish like a ghost and was not subject
any more to physical laws. Perhaps the idea of resurrection causing a
transformation into a magical being was thought to give the old doctrine a more
attractive slant. A body with magical powers and that is like a ghost would be
more fun than a resuscitated one. Furthermore, this idea of the resurrection is
only in Paul and is not in the Gospels or Acts and in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul
stated that those who thought a rotted body could not be put together were wrong
for the body was only the seed of the new one so he may have invented the
spiritual body resurrection theory as a short-cut to closing up those who voiced
such objections. It is suggested that they would not have invented stories about
Jesus being of a different appearance for that makes the story sillier and is
hardly an indication of its probability but one of improbability. Perhaps they
thought Jesus would have had to change his looks if he appeared in case his
enemies would recognise him.
It is suggested that when Matthew 28 says some doubted when they saw Jesus it
must be history. When Jesus tells them to preach his entire gospel the doubt
would seem to be fleeting but Jesus would ask doubters to preach his word for
faith can be an endless struggle with doubt. This could have been made up to
make it seem that the resurrection was very convincing to sceptics, to make it
sound more impressive.
The change in the disciples that led to them losing their fears and courageously
going out to preach the gospel proves nothing for they had been in danger with
Jesus all the time for years. The alleged change never took place until after
the ascension. Never was there anything written to indicate that it was
cowardice that held them back until then. We are told that they were in real
concrete danger and could not preach. Perhaps, the disciples had to make sure
the body of Jesus was past the possibility of identification before they could
lie in public.
And there is no evidence that any of them suffered just for Jesus or died for
him. Lots of lying prophets have a bad time but it is the people they have
following them that give them the strength to go through it. They do not suffer
for the truth. If an apostle was killed by the Jews it could have been because
he was accused of blasphemy. He died because he was caught and there was no
escape and apologising wouldn’t help. Nothing in this makes a real martyr.
Apologists surmise that if the resurrection was lies then why did nobody say
they saw Jesus rising from the tomb? Since the original doctrine was that the
physical body needed to provide a seed for the new body nobody needed to see the
body coming back to life but only to see Jesus after the resurrection. They
thought that it did not matter when they saw the risen Jesus and many thought
the same not realising that seeing the body rise would be best if that was the
kind of resurrection that they believed in.
You can be sure that if a story gets out about a dead man being alive and nobody
is saying they saw him rise somebody soon will lie and say they witnessed it.
Big stories bring along big liars.
Christians will say that if there is no evidence the witnesses were telling the
truth there is no evidence that they were lying either so there is no problem.
But when somebody makes an unbelievable claim you do need evidence that they are
telling the truth and if they could be lying you have to believe that they are
lying otherwise we would believe anything and should believe anything. The
failure of the gospels to refute the lying theory proves that they are not the
word of God.
This is the evidence for the lying.
The women believed before they saw Jesus (Matthew 28). They lied to themselves
for they hadn’t enough evidence.
The two men going to Emmaus who claimed that Jesus had walked with them after
his resurrection said that there were lots of scriptures that stated that the
Messiah would suffer and then be glorified. This is not true and the predictions
are blatantly ambiguous. No wonder these men were disbelieved by those who knew
them and the Old Testament well (Mark 16:13). Moreover, when these men saw Jesus
they did not know him and they thought he was a stranger and they told him he
must be the only one in Jerusalem who did not know what happened in the last few
days. They said then about Jesus being crucified and that in the two days since
the death the women had gone to the tomb and seen visions of angels saying Jesus
had risen and they found the body gone and that some of their friends went to
the tomb and saw nothing of Jesus. Then the disguised Jesus called them fools
for not believing the women – a verse that is ignored by those who wish to say
that since women were not regarded as reliable that the resurrection must be
true when they were declared to be the first witnesses. He complained then that
the two men were slow to believe the message of prophets. Jesus is plainly
saying you should believe in tall stories. He is also saying that weak testimony
is enough. He is also saying that the prophets are fulfilled because the women
say Jesus rose and that the prophets are the evidence for believing the women.
This is all sheer conjuring trickery with facts. Logic says the prophets should
be as clear as day before being interpreted that way and the women alone were
not enough to believe in such a serious claim. Why should we believe the Emmaus
stranger was Jesus? He sounds like a joker! It is like the hundreds of sane
people who claim to have seen Elvis since his death. The Christians maintain
that Luke was telling the truth, which is arrogance for at most he would have
THOUGHT he was telling the truth. Maybe he was but maybe unfavourable facts were
dropped out of the story he got. And besides, the witnesses would have been
named for Luke could be taking his information from one witness for all we know
and the Bible forbids that so that shows how deep his faith in the Old Testament
that he made his Jesus praise so much really was. The same goes for the faith of
the rest of the New Testament writers. To trust anybody’s perception about Jesus
is not to trust Jesus. The Gnostics emphasised this truth and underlined the
importance of direct mystical experience and the early Church hated them for
that for it was a threat to the authority over minds and hearts that they had
deceptively usurped.
But the apostles said Jesus appeared telling them that Moses and the Psalms were
about him (Luke 24:44). The apostles evidently wanted people to believe that but
they knew the Bible well enough to be aware that none of that could be honestly
proved. They either lied about Jesus or they knew he lied.
Thomas did not believe in the apostles’ visions. He told them that unless he
would see and touch the Lord himself he would not believe. He may have been
accusing them of lying. He may have been accusing them of hallucinating. He may
have thought that they were tricked by a Jesus lookalike. These are the only
options. The gospeller evidently made the story up because had it been true and
known he would have realised the need to rule out the idea that Thomas was
accusing the apostles of lying or being gullible which is just as bad as lying
for that is closing your mind in order to believe whatever turns you on. Thomas
lived with these men and he knew their ways. Thomas believed that he was the
only honest one among them. Since Thomas vanished off the scene at this time the
apostles could easily have lied saying he did see Jesus even if he denied it.
The doubting Thomas story forever silences the Christian lie that when God won’t
do a miracle for a sceptic it is because he does not wish to force belief on the
sceptic. When we don’t see Jesus then Jesus did not rise.
Peter was proven to have lied to people around the time of Jesus' arrest and
trial. He was hardly reliable as a rock or witness to the resurrection of Jesus.
Peter says that a text from the Old Testament spoke of the resurrection. He lied
for it could be referring to being saved from the dying process.
The book of Acts speaks of Paul seeing Jesus as if risen from the dead. Luke took the main points of the story of Heliodorus to make up this story of Paul being struck down from a horse by a vision and falling and having to convert and recover after. See 2 Maccabees 3.
Paul himself reported a converting vision of Christ when he was going to persecute the Church. It can be doubted for he said we never completely avoid sinning and still said we can do good works! He claimed that his vision was the beginning and the divine authorisation of his gospel. Men who report lying visions are probably lying in saying they had the visions.
Acts 17:22-31 says Paul said that you can be an educated
pagan and innocent before God of having wrong ideas about the divine. Romans 1
is clear that nobody has an excuse at all for not knowing God for he makes his
reality plain to them. The following from Acts 17 is even more telling as a
fabrication put into Paul's mouth, “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we
should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image
made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but
now he commands all people everywhere to repent." This waters down the
severe Bible directives from God against idol worship or even worshipping the
real God inappropriately.
Jesus was surrounded by liars and that was what he had carrying his word about.
Perhaps it was the gospellers who were doing the lying. If the people they wrote
about were liars then it could easily have been the gospellers who were the
liars. Acts 4 tells us that the Jews enforced silence on Peter and John for
their part in the cure of a cripple in Jesus’ name because this bore witness to
the resurrection of Jesus. I cannot believe that the Jews delayed action until a
healing took place. Acts even says that Jews let the apostles preach the
resurrection at the trial and let everybody see the healed man! If they and the
apostles were scheming to promote Jesus and fake persecution then the Jews would
have stolen the body and they were all liars. The Bible says the Jews hassled
the apostles Peter and John because of the cure of a cripple that they said they
could not deny. Of course, they could deny it. They were not forced to admit a
natural explanation. Also, why didn’t they react that way over the resurrection
which was a worse miracle and more potent in the matter of getting converts in
their point of view. Acts is saying the resurrection did not happen as the
gospels state. The entire nation was accused of the death of Jesus (Acts 3)
which is ridiculous for the Jewish leaders allegedly attempted to keep their
plans for Jesus low-key for they feared his supporters among their flock.
The gospels show that Jesus promised to save the world by making God overthrow
the kingdoms of the world and establish his own. Instead of this happening he
was nailed to a cross. It may have been that the apostles continued to regard
him as a prophet and that this overthrow would happen with the result that when
he died they took it for granted without seeing anything strange that he rose
again so that he could fulfil his prophecy later on. The resurrection may have
been posited as a reinterpretation of Jesus and the apostles lied about the
visions of Jesus and did not see themselves as bad for doing this for Jesus had
risen though nobody could prove it. It is like how the Moonies believe in the
resurrection of one of Moon’s sons and just take Moon’s word for it.
The resurrection is a legend that we cannot take seriously for it was started by
liars.
Trent Horn in Counterfeit Christs says that the Messiah
was to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem but Jesus did not which makes some think
he was not the Messiah. Horn in distorted thinking says that Jesus himself
became the temple when he rose from the dead and can be described as being the
house of prayer for all people that has been prophesied. Verses he uses
are Hebrews 10:10 and Isaiah 56:7. Jesus in John 2 advocated that
interpretation.
Christian scholars believe that if there is evidence that the witnesses of a
miracle could be lying then the miracle should not be believed in. They deny
that the resurrection of Jesus is in that category. But it is.