This is a continuation of my compiled writings against
Christianity. If you wish to return to the Introduction, Complete table of
contents or somewhere else, surely there’s a link for them somewhere
on this page. If you’re here by accident and don’t wish to stay
– then I didn’t want you here anyway and you now have a new
computer virus….
. 1
Resurrection
and NT Flaws. 1
The
Mathew Prophecies. 12
Resurrection
and NT Flaws
As well as the
historical accounts, the evolution of a myth and the increase in
embellishments can be seen in the gospels themselves:
The earliest
Christian community did write that Jesus Christ rose from the dead
“spiritually”. The earliest Christian community did not,
however, believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead “bodily”.
This is supported by the facts. The Christian community then went through
an evolutionary process of thought regarding the resurrection of Jesus
until about a half century had passed, at which point, and only then, do we
find the fantastic embellishments and exaggerations in the thoughts of the
early Christians of a “bodily” resurrected Jesus.
The first
biblical account of the resurrection is found in I Corinthians 15. A widely
excepted date for Paul writing his epistles is sometime in the mid-50s,
which is about 20 years after the events supposedly
happened. Paul is quoting a song or hymn. Paul’s message is aimed at
the Corinthians, and his agenda is one of self-promotion. He is trying to
establish his apostolic position and authority. I Corinthians 15:3-8:
“Christ
died for our sins
in accordance with the Scriptures,
and was buried.
“And he was raised
on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures
and he appeared to Cephas,” which is Peter,
“and then to the twelve.”
“Afterward,
he appeared to more than 500 brethren, most of whom are still alive, though
some have fallen asleep.
“Afterward
he appeared to James,
and then to all the missionaries.”
“Last of all, as to
one untimely born,
he appeared also to me.”
Paul
is trying to impart his worth and trustworthiness by stating that he also
has seen him. Notice that there are no earthquakes, eclipses or
astronomical events associated with the resurrection events. There are
neither angels nor women telling stories. There is, however, a simple
recognition of what the early Christians believed and Paul is passing this
on to the newly formed church.
If Jesus was
truly crucified by the Roman authorities, it was their practice in those
days to throw the decayed corpses of the crucified people into a common
grave. In this passage, the phraseology is paramount, and the first word of
interest is the word “buried”. The word used is “etaphe,” which is from the Greek word for
“taphos,” meaning
“burial.” It does not mean “tomb,” nor does it not
mean “sepulchre.” (The word for tomb
is “mnema,” and that for sepulchre is “mnemeion”.)
The reason this word, etaphe, is used is
because Paul is not talking about a tomb, but, rightly, a burial. As when
Moses died in Deuteronomy, he was buried in an indefinite location; yet
later, Moses was seen resurrected bodily from the dead. (Recalling the
story in Matthew 17, as Peter ascends the mountain with Jesus, James, and
John, then Jesus is transfigured. Subsequently, Moses and Elijah appear
before them.) Are we to then assume that there is an empty tomb of
Moses? And that Moses resurrected bodily centuries before Jesus? Or that
Moses was an apparition or vision rather than a bodily resurrected entity?
Paul did not
have a belief in an empty tomb, as he doesn't say that he did. Many claim
that he did because of what the later Gospel writers in the 80s and 90s
wrote about a bodily resurrection. They thereby impress that onto Paul's
mind and writings. Yet, the earliest Christians, like Paul, didn't mention
any of these exaggerated things. And it is a fault for people to
attribute thoughts to Paul due to the writings of later individuals, rather
than taking his own writings for what they read.
Returning to
the passage in I Corinthians, the next word of interest is
“raised”, as in the segment “he was buried. And he was
raised on the third day.” That's not the word
“resurrected.” The word resurrected is “anastasis [noun],” or “anistimi [verb].” The word that Paul used
here for “raised” is the word “egeiro”,
from “egergetai”, which is the
same word that is used throughout the New Testament for the word “to
wake up,” or to “awaken”. Remember the tale in Matthew 8,
when the disciples were on a boat during a storm as Jesus slept? They were
scared, so they went down below and woke him up? The word used is “egeiro”, as they woke him up. Throughout the New
Testament, the word “egeiro” is used
not for a bodily resurrection, but for a spiritual awakening, or for just
plain waking up.
In Romans
13:11, Paul said, “Now it is high time to awaken out of sleep”,
that is “egeiro.” In Ephesians 5:14,
we have “Awake thou that sleepest, and
arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee
light.” “Egeiro” is again
the word used, yet do we believe we are being commanded to rise from the
dead bodily? Can you command a living, breathing person to rise from the
dead? Paul doesn't think that that word has anything to do with a
bodily resurrection but awakening spiritually or just for awareness and
consciousness.
The third word
in the passage is the word “appear” or “seen,”
depending on the translation, which is the word “ophthe”.
Paul used the word “ophthe” in a few
instances. This is from the Greek word “horao”
which is used for both physical vision and of a vision, as in “to
have a vision.” In fact, Paul had a number of visions in the bible,
and he used the same word when describing the experiences. In Acts 16:9,
the Macedonian comes to him in a vision and says “Please come preach
to us”. It wasn't in a bodily form; it was a
“vision,” the same word “ophthe”.
When he had a vision of Ananias in Acts 9:12, it was “ophthe”. He didn't see Ananias
physically.
“Ophthe” is used in the previously cited Matthew
17, as Peter went up the mountain and saw Moses. Moses
“appeared” to Peter. Did Moses bodily resurrect from the dead
before Jesus had died for our sins? You have to believe that if you use
these words consistently. They are talking about a visionary experience
here. And in First Corinthians 15, Jesus “appeared” to Peter
and to James using that same word: “ophthe.”
Jesus did not
physically appear to Paul. Paul was blinded, as he was knocked off his
horse. The people that were with Paul didn't see anyone. The people that
were with Paul didn't hear anyone. (or did they?
According to Acts 9:7 the men heard a voice, but Acts 22:9 states that
didn’t – but either way, they saw no one.) What kind of a
“physical” appearance is this? A bodily Christ appears before
men that cannot see him nor hear him, except for Paul? The fact that Paul
says that Jesus “ophthe” to him makes
it clear this was not a physical appearance. He does not intend for us to
believe that the appearances to the others were also physical. They
believed these appearances to be spiritual experiences.
Lastly, Paul
details what the Resurrection means in I Corinthians 15. The fiftieth verse
gives us “Now, I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God.” So, how could he be talking about a
physical resurrection and turn right around and say “flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God”? He obviously intends this to mean that
Jesus resurrected, but in a spiritual way, not physically, not bodily.
The earliest
Christian view of Jesus’ resurrection is spiritual, not physical, and
doesn’t contain the incredible events of earthquakes, eclipses, and
so on. Moving forward 20 years, the next written account of the
Resurrection develops. Mark 16:5-8 “And entering into the sepulchre (now they're using the word “sepulchre”) they saw a young man sitting on the
right side . . . and he saith unto them, Be not
afraid: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; (still
“egeiro”) he is not here: behold the
place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter
that he goeth before you into Galilee . .
. they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre;
for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man;
for they were afraid.”
There are no
appearances of Jesus in the earliest Gospel. There is no post-resurrection
of Jesus anywhere in this first, earliest Gospel. Yet, you do have the
phrase “he is risen” with the word “egeiro”
again, not “resurrection.” Why didn't they use the word “anastasis,” a physical resurrection? Resurrected
and risen are two distinct words with distinct and dramatic differences.
There is no
angel in this account, but Mark's account has just a “man.” The
further back in history you go, the simpler and less embellished things
are, which is characteristic of myths and legends. The later you go in
history, the more embellishments you start to add on to the story. There is
no earthquake, opening of graves in Jerusalem, eclipse and darkness of sun. The women did not
rejoice or proclaim the resurrection of Jesus when they saw the empty tomb.
This didn't lead them to a belief in the Resurrection, until we move ten to
twenty years further in depictions of the event. Half a century later, we
get Matthew and Luke, along with the bodily resurrection, the earthquake
and the increase in sensation.
Let’s
assume that Peter and the apostles did follow Jesus, as delineated in the
stories up to the death of Jesus. What happened to produce such a belief in
physical resurrection and the tendency to add phenomenal events to the
account?
Peter and the
disciples had given up everything to follow Jesus. They expected their
Messiah to set up a kingdom on earth, which did not happen as Jesus died.
This created a cognitive dissonance. Add to this the guilt that Peter had
after he denied Jesus, particularly considering he
claiming that he would never do such a thing. Not only did he have the
trauma of the death of someone very important to him, but the impending
change in his entire future compounded with the guilt. Peter certainly felt
the need to make amends, but how with someone perished? Perhaps he prayed
to Jesus and felt that he had received forgiveness, and later told this to
his friends. Perhaps he “saw” Jesus in an agonizing vision, and
told this to his friends. The misinterpretation in that he had really seen
the physical Jesus, whether accidental or intentional, is easily plausible.
Undoubtedly, they were eager to believe that their years of following the
Messiah had not been wasted. We don't need an actual historical event in
order to produce a belief in credulous, hurting people.
This
has happened through history and religion. The Millerites,
for example, in the 1800s predicted the end of the world. When it didn't
happen as they had predicted, they lost some members. The faithful
regrouped, however, and tweaked their theology. They started
proselytizing even stronger in order to correct the disconfirmation of
their beliefs. Today, we have the Seventh Day Adventist religion as a
result of that failure. The Jehovah's Witnesses also predicted the end of
the world but theirs was to occur in 1914. When that didn't happen,
they changed it to 1925. When that failure occurred, they did the same
thing as the Millerites. They lost some members,
but they adjusted their theology, claiming that the Second Coming had
happened as they predicted, but in heaven, not on earth. They simply
altered their theology and went out and proselytized.
Robert
Price in Beyond Born Again:
“When a
group has staked everything on a religious belief, and 'burned their
bridges behind them,' only to find this belief disconfirmed by events, they
may find disillusionment too painful to endure. They soon come up with some
explanatory rationalization, the plausibility of which will be reinforced
by the mutual encouragement of fellow-believers in the group. In order to
increase further the plausibility of their threatened belief, they may
engage in a massive new effort at proselytizing. The more people who can be
convinced, the truer it will seem,” right? “In the final
analysis, then, a radical disconfirmation of belief might [may] be just
what a religious movement needs to get off the ground!”
What makes the
early Christians exempt from this? Were they special in some way? Weren't
they just human beings? Weren't they subject to the same tendencies, the
same foibles that we all have?
Good evidence
would be some historical corroboration, if there could have been some other
historians somewhere in the first century who could have written something
about the Resurrection. There is none. The Gospels are all anonymous. We
don't know who wrote them. We can't cross examine them. We can't find out
who they were, where they lived. It was only in the end of the second
century when the names were assigned to the Gospels. The Gospels are
written in a propagandistic style. John said, “These things are
written in order that you might believe.” He's not just telling us
history, he has an agenda here. He's preaching and he wants you to believe.
Examining the
gospels, you find interesting conflicts in details. For instance, what time
did the women visit the tomb? Matthew said “as it began to
dawn.” Mark said “when the sun had risen.” Luke said
“at early dawn.” John said, “When it was yet dark.”
Of course, apologists like John Wenham, a promoted harmonizer of the New
Testament, states that it could mean that even though John says that it was
dark when the women “came to” the tomb, it could mean that it
was dark when they “left for” the tomb. You see, it took them a
while to get there, and then the sun came up. But that's overly
speculative, and obviously a defensive, ad hoc rationalization to conflicts
in the accounts.
Who were the
women who came to the tomb? Matthew said it was Mary Magdalen
and the other Mary (Matthew 28:1). Mark said it was Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark
16:1). Luke said it was Mary Magdalen, Joanna,
Mary the mother of James, and other women (Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10). John said
Mary Magdalen (John 20:1-4).
What was their
purpose? Matthew said it was “to see the tomb.” Mark states
that they had already seen the tomb; their purpose was to bring spices to anoint
the body. Luke agrees with Mark, however, John said the body had already
been spiced, before they arrived.
Was the tomb
open when they arrived? According to Matthew, it was not. The tomb was
opened in their presence. But Mark, Luke, and John write that the tomb was
open when they arrived.
Who was at the
tomb when they arrived? Observe the evolution of the story as the later
gospels account for the event. Mark states that there was one “young
man.” Luke said there were two men. Matthew has one angel (Matthew
28:2-4), and John, the last writer, outdoes Mathew with two angels. The
embellishment increases with the time in which it was written.
Where were
these messengers situated? Matthew states there was an angel sitting on the
stone. Mark said there was a young man sitting inside, on the right. Luke
testifies that there were two men standing inside. John, being the
consummate over-achiever, alleged there were two angels, one sitting on
each end of the bed.
What did the
messengers say? In Matthew, the angel said “Go quickly, tell his
disciples that he has risen from the dead. Behold
he goeth before you into Galilee,
there shall ye see him.” Mark generally says the same thing, but Luke
wanted the center of Christianity to be Jerusalem, so he changed the phrasing concerning Galilee.
“Remember how he spake unto you when he was
yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of Man must be delivered into
the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise
again?” John had the message “Woman, why weepest
thou?”
Did the women
tell what happened after they left? Matthew in 28:8 states that they did.
Luke 24, verse 9, is clear: “They returned from the tomb and told all
these things to the eleven and to all the rest.” Yet in Mark 16:8, we
find an emphatic no: “And they went quickly and fled from the sepulchre, for they trembled and were amazed. Neither
said they anything to any man, for they were afraid.” So they told
the eleven and all the rest, but not anything to any man?
When Mary
returned, did she know that Jesus had been resurrected? According to
Matthew, Mark and Luke, yes; but according to John, she did not know that
Jesus had been resurrected.
Did Mary first
see Jesus before or after she returned to the disciples? Matthew and Mark
have it before, but that trickster John states that it was after.
After the
women, to which disciples did Jesus first appear? Matthew says to eleven
disciples. Mark says it was to two disciples in the country, later to the
eleven. Luke said it was to two disciples in Emmaus, and later to the
eleven. John said it was to ten or eleven disciples. Paul said it was first
to Peter, and then to the twelve.
Where did
Jesus first appear to the disciples? If you read Matthew, it's on a
mountain in Galilee, 60-100 miles from Jerusalem. In fact, Jesus
made a point of predicting this at his Last Supper, and it is confirmed in
the message that the angel gave to the women. But according to Mark, Jesus
first appeared to two men strolling in the country. According to Luke, it
was to two men at Emmaus at evening, and then later to the rest in a room
in Jerusalem. In John, it was just in a room at evening.
Did the
disciples believe the report of those two men? According
to Mark, no. But according to Luke, yes, they believe the report.
(It's the group that is speaking here.) Now, John Wenham says, well, this
looks contradictory: Mark says no and Luke says yes, but the answer her is
that they must have been in “various stages of belief and
disbelief.” That's the kind of argumentation that your great scholars
give us to try to harmonize these contradictions. When two things are
contradictory, they both can't stand. If Wenham's rationalizations and
speculations are allowed to stand, we're going to have to take the word
“contradiction” out of the bible [dictionary], nothing could
ever be contradictory because you can always find some creative,
speculative way -- I would challenge any of you to come up with two
contradictory statements that I couldn't kind of figure out something, and
you could probably do it just as well as I can.
What happened
at the appearances? Matthew said the disciples worshipped, but some
doubted. (Though if this wasn't the first appearance then why would some have doubted if they had already seen Jesus?
Clearly, Matthew intended the Galilee appearance to be the first one.) In Mark, Jesus
reprimanded them, and said “Go preach.” Luke decides to add
some flair and has Jesus materializing out of thin air, reprimanding the
disciples and then having dinner. Not to be outdone, John has Jesus passing
through a solid door and the disciples were happy. There is no reprimand;
Jesus blesses them.
Did Jesus stay
on the earth for a while after his resurrection? According to Mark and
John, Jesus ascended that day. (Mark 16:14 with John 20:19). Luke 24:51, it all happened on
Sunday and Jesus left. According to Acts, he stayed at least 40 days (Acts
1:9-12).
Where did the
ascension take place? Matthew has no ascension, it ends in Galilee.
Mark has the end in or near Jerusalem. In Luke, he ascended from Bethany,
close to Jerusalem. In Acts, he ascended from the Mount of Olives.
Christian
scholar and believer A. E. Harvey, writes “All the Gospels, after
having run closely together in their accounts of the trial and execution,
diverge markedly when they come to the circumstance of the Resurrection.
It's impossible to fit their accounts together into a single coherent
scheme.” Albert Schweitzer says “there's nothing more negative
than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus.” A modern
believing Christian, Thomas Sheehan, who wrote The First Coming, states
“Despite our best efforts, the Gospel accounts of Jesus' post-mortem
activities, in fact, cannot be harmonized into a consistent Easter
chronology.”
Much of the
bible cannot be harmonized, yet I am to believe it? Luke had Jesus born in
the year 6 AD, under the reign of King Herod. Yet, we know from
history that King Herod died in 4 BC. So how could Jesus be nine years old
when he was born?
Often
Christians will implore that the writers of the gospels had nothing to
gain, and would remain honest in their depictions. But they certainly
had much to gain. They devoted their lives to something that
apparently fell apart, so they turn the tide with miraculous bodily
resurrections and planned second comings. What do writers of the bible say
about honesty in their persuasion? Paul writes in Roman's 3:7: “For
if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto God's glory, why
yet am I also judged a sinner?”
The Mathew Prophecies
But
what about the prophecies fulfilled in the NT? The prophecies most like to
revel in about Jesus are found in the first book of the NT. Mathew
cites the following prophecies that were “fulfilled” as written
in the OT:
-1-
Jesus would be born of a virgin
-2- His birth place would
be Bethlehem
-3- Jesus
would flee to Egypt as a baby.
-4- Herod would murder
all babies, in hope of getting Jesus.
-5- Jesus would live in Nazareth.
Pretty
impressive, eh – let’s look at the first
“fulfillment”. Mathew quotes Isaiah as the prophecy (Mat
1 verses 22-23) “Now all of this was done that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying, Behold a virgin shall
be with child and shall bring forth a son and they shall call his name
Emmanuel.” Now let’s compare that with what Isaiah
actually said (Isaiah 7 verse 14) “Therefore the Lord himself shall
give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall
call his name Emmanuel.” OK, seems fairly congruent
right? But this scripture is taken and made to fit Mathew’s
pretenses. Reading the seventh chapter of Isaiah, it has nothing to
do with a prophecy about a messiah but is talking about a civil war between
Israel and Judah. The baby in question is a
“sign” or confirmation that a planned siege of Jerusalem
would fail. Verse 16 writes that “For before the child shall
know to refuse evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.”
The subsequent verses (nine of them) continue with the prophecy stating
that the land will become “briars and thorns”, which certainly
didn’t happen in Mathew’s time. Then in chapter 8, Isaiah
returns to the prophecy made in chapter 7 in verses 3 and 4 “And I
went unto the prophetess and she conceived and bore a son… For before
the child shall have knowledge to cry.. the spoil of Samaria will be taken away before the
king.” This prophecy was never fulfilled, and it’s a rash
and venal attempt on Mathew’s part to try and make the verse about
Jesus.
But the
falsification doesn’t end there, Mathew using Greek Septuagint
translation of the Hebrew writing has the word parthenos,
which does indeed mean virgin. But the Hebrew word used in Isaiah is almah, which is “young woman”, the
feminine form of elem (young man) –
not necessarily a virgin. The Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah and would have certainly been used if virgin
was the intended word and meaning. Whether innocently, or
deliberately, this verse was incorrectly translated. If you take a
look at the Jewish, they correctly have Isaiah 7 verse 14 reading
“young women” not virgin, but since it suits Christians –
they have it “virgin”. Though, some of the
more scholarly and honest translations (such as RSV, NRSV, Scholar’s)
have it correctly as “young woman”. Interestingly,
neither supposed child (Jesus or Maher-shalah-hasbar,
the child in the context of Isaiah chapters seven and eight) were named
Emmanuel. This is characteristic of the “fulfilled prophecies”
in Mathew and the NT.
EMAIL ME:
orcinus06@yahoo.com but not hate mail… broken
links/discussion=GOOD, “You’re going to hell”, “I rebuke you, Satan…”=BAD
To the Entire Table Of Contents
|
|
|
