By: David Rice
To: Ken Wiens
Re: Resurrection Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------------
KW> Number 1, the resurrection stories in the New Testament are
KW> internally consistent.
Sorry I took so long to respond: I didn't see your message to
me, but did see someone reply to your message to me.
Er, no, the Gospel stories of the ressurection of Jesus are
not internally consistent. Read them and you'll see: there
is no reason to take my word for it--- take the Bible's word
for its own errors. :-)
From _Age_Of_Reason_ By Thomas Paine:
The tale of the resurrection follows that of the crucifixion,
and in this as well as in that, the writers, whoever they were,
disagree so much as to make it evident that none of them were
there.
The book of Matthew states that when Christ was put in the
sepulchre, the Jews applied to Pilate for a watch or a guard to
be placed over the sepulchre, to prevent the body being stolen
by the disciples; and that, in consequence of this request, the
sepulchre was made sure, sealing the stone that covered the
mouth, and setting a watch. But the other books say nothing
about this application, nor about the sealing, nor the guard,
nor the watch; and according to their accounts, there were
none. Matthew, however, follows up this part of the story of
the guard or the watch with a second part, that I shall notice
in the conclusion, as it serves to detect the fallacy of these
books.
The book of Matthew continues its account, and says (chap.
xxviii., ver. 1) that at the end of the Sabbath, as it began to
dawn, toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and
the other Mary, to see the sepulchre. Mark says it was
sun-rising, and John says it was dark. Luke says it was Mary
Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary, the mother of James, and other
women, that came to the sepulchre; and John states that Mary
Magdalene came alone. So well do they agree about their first
evidence! they all, however, appear to have known most about
Mary Magdalene; she was a woman of a large acquaintance, and it
was not an ill conjecture that she might be upon the stroll.
The book of Matthew goes on to say (ver. 2), "And behold there
was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended
from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door,
and sat upon it." But the other books say nothing about any
earthquake, nor about the angel rolling back the stone and
sitting upon it, and according to their account, there was no
angel sitting there. Mark says the angel was within the
sepulchre, sitting on the right side. Luke says there were two,
and they were both standing up; and John says they were both
sitting down, one at the head and the other at the feet.
From _Age_Of_Reason_ By Thomas Paine,
-------------------------------------------------
Matthew says that the angel that was sitting upon the stone on
the outside of the sepulchre told the two Marys that Christ was
risen, and that the women went away quickly. Mark says that the
women, upon seeing the stone rolled away, and wondering at it,
went into the sepulchre, and that it was the angel that was
sitting within on the right side, that told them so. Luke says
it was the two angels that were standing up; and John says it
was Jesus Christ himself that told it to Mary Magdalene, and
that she did not go into the sepulchre, but only stooped down
and looked in.
Now, if the writer of those four books had gone into a court of
justice to prove an alibi (for it is of the nature of an alibi
that is here attempted to be proved, namely, the absence of a
dead body by supernatural means), and had they given their
evidence in the same contradictory manner as it is here given,
they would have been in danger of having their ears cropped for
perjury, and would have justly deserved it. Yet this is the
evidence, and these are the books that have been imposed upon
the world, as being given by divine inspiration, and as the
unchangeable word of God.
The writer of the book of Matthew, after giving this account
relates a story that is not to be found in any of the other
books, and which is the same I have just before alluded to.
"Now," says he (that is, after the conversation the women had
with the angel sitting upon the stone), "behold some of the
watch [meaning the watch that he had said had been placed over
the sepulchre] came into the city, showed unto the chief
priests all the things that were done; and when they were
assembled with the elders and had taken counsel, they gave
large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye His disciples
came by night, and stole him away while we slept; and if this
come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure
you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught; and
this saying [that his disciples stole him away] is commonly
reported among the Jews until this day."
The expression, until this day, is an evidence that the book
ascribed to Matthew was not written by Matthew, and that it had
been manufactured long after the time and things of which it
pretends to treat; for the expression implies a great length of
intervening time. It would be inconsistent in us to speak in
this manner of anything happening in our own time. To give
therefore, intelligible meaning to the expression, we must
suppose a lapse of some generations at least, for this manner
of speaking carries the mind back to ancient time.
The absurdity also of the story is worth noticing; for it shows
the writer of the book of Matthew to have been an exceedingly
weak and foolish man. He tells a story that contradicts itself
in point of possibility; for through the guard, if there were
any, might be made to say that the body was taken away while
they were asleep, and to give that as a reason for their not
having prevented it, that same sleep must also have prevented
their knowing how and by whom it was done, and yet they are
made to say, that it was the disciples who did it. Were a man
to tender his evidence of something that he should say was
done, and of the manner of doing it, and of the person who did
it, while he was asleep, and could know nothing of the matter,
such evidence could not be received; it will do well enough for
Testament evidence, but not for anything where truth is
concerned.
I come now to that part of the evidence in those books, that
respects the pretended appearance of Christ after this
pretended resurrection.
The writer of the book of Matthew relates, that the angel that
was sitting on the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre, said to
the two Marys, chap. xxviii., ver. 7, "Behold Christ has gone
before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him; lo, I have
told you." And the same writer at the next two verses (8, 9),
makes Christ himself to speak to the same purpose to these
women immediately after the angel had told it to them, and that
they ran quickly to tell it to the disciples; and at the 16th
verse it is said, "Then the eleven disciples went away into
Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them; and
when they saw him, they worshiped him."
But the writer of the book of John tells us a story very
different to this; for he says, chap. xx., ver. 19, "Then the
same day at evening, being the first day of the week [that is,
the same day that Christ is said to have risen,] when the doors
were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the
Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst of them."
According to Matthew the eleven were marching to Galilee to
meet Jesus in a mountain, by his own appointment, at the very
time when, according to John, they were assembled in another
place, and that not by appointment, but in secret, for fear of
the Jews.
The writer of the book of Luke contradicts that of Matthew more
pointedly than John does; for he says expressly that the
meeting was in Jerusalem the evening of the same day that he
[Christ] rose, and that the eleven were there. See Luke, chap.
xxiv, ver. 13, 33.
Now, it is not possible, unless we admit these supposed
disciples the right of willful lying, that the writer of those
books could be any of the eleven persons called disciples; for
if, according to Matthew, the eleven went into Galilee to meet
Jesus in a mountain by his own appointment on the same day that
he is said to have risen, Luke and John must have been two of
that eleven; yet the writer of Luke says expressly, and John
implies as much, that the meeting was that same day, in a house
in Jerusalem; and, on the other hand, if, according to Luke and
John, the eleven were assembled in a house in Jerusalem,
Matthew must have been one of that eleven; yet Matthew says the
meeting was in a mountain in Galilee, and consequently the
evidence given in those books destroys each other.
The writer of the book of Mark says nothing about any meeting
in Galilee; but he says, chap. xvi, ver. 12, that Christ, after
his resurrection, appeared in another form to two of them as
they walked into the country, and that these two told it to the
residue, who would not believe them. Luke also tells a story in
which he keeps Christ employed the whole day of this pretended
resurrection, until the evening, and which totally invalidates
the account of going to the mountain in Galilee. He says that
two of them, without saying which two, went that same day to a
village call Emmaus, three score furlongs (seven miles and a
half) from Jerusalem, and that Christ, in disguise, went with
them, and stayed with them unto the evening, and supped with
them, and then vanished out of their sight, and re-appeared
that same evening at the meeting of the eleven in Jerusalem.
This is the contradictory manner in which the evidence of this
pretended re-appearance of Christ is stated; the only point in
which the writers agree, is the skulking privacy of that
re-appearance; for whether it was in the recess of a mountain
in Galilee, or a shut-up house in Jerusalem, it was still
skulking. To what cause, then, are we to assign this skulking?
On the one hand it is directly repugnant to the supposed or
pretended end- that of convincing the world that Christ had
risen; and on the other hand, to have asserted the publicity of
it would have exposed the writers of those books to public
detection, and, therefore, they have been under the necessity
of making it a private affair.
As to the account of Christ being seen by more than five
hundred at once, it is Paul only who says it, and not the five
hundred who say it for themselves. It is, therefore, the
testimony of but one man, and that, too, of a man who did not,
according to the same account, believe a word of the matter
himself at the time it is said to have happened. His evidence,
supposing him to have been the writer of the 15th chapter of
Corinthians, where this account is given, is like that of a man
who comes into a court of Justice to swear that what he had
sworn before is false. A man may often see reason, and he has,
too, always the right of changing his opinion; but this liberty
does not extend to matters of fact.
