Christ is Risen…?

“And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” — 1 Corinthians 15:14

The Christian religion, at least for the sects that claim that Jesus is God, hinges upon the resurrection, which is what is being celebrated today amidst egg hunts and two hour long Masses. The resurrection represents Christ’s triumph over death and is the proof of his divine nature and the truthfulness of life after death. It appears, however, that even the people at the time of the Bible weren’t very interested in the raising of the dead.

Two people were raised from the dead by Jesus — his friend Lazarus (John 11:1–44) and the daughter of Jairus (Matthew 9:18–26, Mark 5:21–43, and Luke 8:40–56). Nowhere in the accounts regarding these miracles were they even asked what it was like to have come back to life. Saints Peter and Paul were both allegedly able to raise people from the dead (Acts 9:36–42 and Acts 20 9:12, respectively). Again, in these two cases, no one seemed intrigued by people surviving death, beyond the initial shock.

Jesus was crucified after the Passover meal at nine in the morning, according to Mark, but it was before the Passover meal at twelve noon, according to John. And, when Jesus had expired on the cross, Matthew relays that, “the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split…” (Matthew 27:51).

You may remember that scene in The Passion of the Christ. What may have been left on the cutting room floor, however, was the sequence for the following verses, “…the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” (Matthew 27:52–53)

I would think that these ‘saints’ might have included Moses, Abraham, Elijah, and other great leaders of the Jewish people, but Matthew doesn’t say who they were. I wonder, when they came to the city, did they go back to their old homes? Did the headless John the Baptist resurrect and start preaching again? Why didn’t the resurrected saints play a role in the Christian Church (and this should, at least, be evident in Church records)? Wouldn’t the apostles give special positions to the patriarchs of the Jewish faith? Having Abraham on your side would have been definitive proof to convert all the Jews to the Christian faith. Unfortunately, Matthew is alone in his assertions, as the other evangelists didn’t even write about an earthquake.

Did the resurrected people die again? What did the Romans think of these events? Surely something as extraordinary as a dead person coming back to life is deserving of inquiry by the Roman scientists and philosophers. What more for a legion of people breaking out of their graves? The lack of curiosity or further commentary on these astonishing incidents belies Christianity’s claims to authenticity. With regards to the greatest miracle possible, all Biblical characters appear decidedly indifferent.

To further reveal that the evangelists were either lying or didn’t care enough to pay attention during the resurrection, they wrote contradicting reports as to what had happened after Jesus rose from the dead. Matthew says that it was dawn when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to visit Jesus’ tomb. Mark says it was sunrise, while John says it was dark and it was only Mary Magdalene. Luke, however, says that Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary, the mother of James, along with other women were there.  How can we come to believe these writers when they couldn’t even get the facts of their religion’s most important story right? Even the most pathological of liars try to have a modicum of consistency.

Matthew tells us that an angel said to the two Marys, “…behold, he goeth before you into Galilee.” So, they told the disciples who went to a mountain in Galilee “which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.”

Now, John tells us that Jesus showed himself to the disciples when they had assembled in a house, not at the mountain in Galilee. The disciples weren’t looking for Jesus because they were hiding from the Jews. So, which version is right?

These are historical accounts and only one timeline of events can be true. The only refuge left for apologists to take, when factual inconsistencies are so glaring as these, is the dishonest safe harbor of metaphor. At this point, all rational discussions end, with the details of the reports twisted with hermeneutical nonsense.

It is too much to ask for people to give these mutually opposed narrations the benefit of the doubt. If this were a court case and these were the kinds of testimonies given by the accused, they would be imprisoned, after adding perjury to their crimes. For questions pertaining to whether there is a God, and if he is the Christian God, we must have a standard for evidence befitting such an important and life-altering proposition. If even the evangelists couldn’t take this savage doctrine of human sacrifice seriously enough to write congruously, why should we give them a moment’s notice?

13 comments

  1. "There’s the rub, friend. You’d rather see past the inconsistencies and continue to believe, in good faith. You’d rather believe in these things instead of having a worthy standard for evidence for this entire concept that you have organized your life around." – Garrick

    the inconsistencies you just mentioned are not enough to not believe. you'd rather not believe instead of having a worthy standard for evidence for this entire concept that you have organized your life around.

    • Liars can tell completely consistent untruths and this wouldn't be proof of their honesty. In the same way, the Bible can be entirely consistent and it wouldn't suggest that it was truthful. If a liar's story has tiny cracks in its details, however, this can be taken as evidence against his honesty. The same goes for the Bible. Even more so, in fact, because it is written by a God who is infallible. If the Bible has the smallest bit of inconsistency, it is enough to tear down the entire house of cards.

      If you mean atheism, this is not a concept to organize your life around, as much as you can organize your life around not collecting stamps or not practicing astrology. I rather not believe because there is no evidence for any of the Christian assertions on the nature of the universe. If there were anything shown in scientific discourse to support the idea of apparitions, the effectivity of prayer, and the falsity of evolution by means of natural selection, then Christianity would have at least some merit to it. If reincarnation were to be shown true, then Buddhism would have some merit to it and this would effectively disprove the Christian concept of an afterlife. I am simply waiting on evidence instead of taking unverified claims on face value. To believe in Catholicism or Jesus is to take details on faith. To take the virgin birth of Jesus on faith is as valid as taking the birth of Buddha from a lotus flower on faith.

  2. Garrick, you're reading too much into a book that's steeped in poetic prose and metaphor rather than hard data. Of course the bible is inconsistent – all fairy tales are 😉

  3. @Thor

    How can the bible be the strongest evidence? can you tell us why? it is full of errors, inconsistencies (scientifically and historically), contradiction, absurdities. It is very vague. We don't even know if we take a certain verse metaphorically or not. It leads to circular reasoning. Plus we don't know some of its authors. And you tell us that it is the strongest evidence? (I hope that was sarcasm).

    Lastly, reading the works of dawkins or any other freethinker author does not make him the author's or our idol.

  4. that's exactly what the devil will do. Rob you of your rational thinking. Even the devil quoted scriptures to persuade Jesus. I'm not sure you believe in the devil? The Bible is the strongest evidence ever. It can never be denied that it has existed. But if you believe the lonely Richard Dawkins and make him your idol, you have that freedom to do it.

    • The very fact that the Bible is so inconsistent that it can be used by Satan himself to speak against the will of God is proof enough that the Bible is not the single-minded work of a divine being, but a hodgepodge of numerous contradictory writings of violent and fallible men throughout the ages.

      The essence of rational thought is being open to changing your mind when presented with reproducible, tangible, and incontrovertible evidence that goes against your preconceived conclusions. If you did this when you decided to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, then I commend your honesty and I hope to find the evidence you have seen.

    • Thor, the Bible has been used as an excuse by bigots, zealots, and murderers to justify their actions and their fears.

      Homophobes and the Klu Klux Klan have used it as a justification for segregation and violence against gays and people of color…
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_baptist_chu

      overly religious parents have used it as an excuse for not seeking treatment for their terminally ill children..
      http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/03/10/faith-heali

      those who would commit murder in the name of the pro-life movement…
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Terry

      And your evidence of the devil is the bible itself, for its says so? That's called circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.

      And furthermore, I am insulted that you assume that we freethinkers are all Dawkins fans. I have read Dawkins, and while I do respect his teachings, I doubt I'd ever allow my admiration of his knowledge to escalate to idol worship.

      We are not that fickle or simple-minded, and I am offended that you think of us that way.

      • On an off-topic note, I'm rather amused that you'd use the moniker "Thor."

        The god your worship was nailed to a cross, while you're using the name of a god that carries a hammer.

  5. Great observation. Have you listen to various testimonies in a court or any hearing? Witnesses accounts are not exactly the same but totally relevant. Men often see the same subject in different lights. You are relying on the minor inconsistencies but not the big picture enough to get a "guilty" verdict. I'd rather have a HOPE and a FUTURE of living a perfect life in eternity with Jesus Christ than to heed to men's limited and narrow thinking. I hope the truth shall set you free. P.S. I'm not religious. I have freedom in Christ (Galatians 5:1)and no longer in the bondage of religion. Mabuhay! Thor, <a href="http://www.behindcrossroads.blogspot.com” target=”_blank”>www.behindcrossroads.blogspot.com

    • There's the rub, friend. You'd rather see past the inconsistencies and continue to believe, in good faith. You'd rather believe in these things instead of having a worthy standard for evidence for this entire concept that you have organized your life around. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Simple narrative errors, in what is supposedly the greatest book in all of existence, just won't do. I would think that if there is a God, he would appreciate honest skepticism through the rational mind he's given us rather than belief in the face of evidence.

      If a friend had told you that his wife had given birth without intercourse and this was because of her talking to an angel, you'd think he'd simply been cuckold and not the stepfather to the King of Kings. The same doubt should be employed here, for something that is not even a secondhand account from a friend but hearsay upon hearsay, separated from us by two thousand years.

      Thanks for reading! 🙂

    • Who doesn't want to live in hope for the future?

      And furthermore, Garrick hit the nail on the head with attempts at cognitive dissonance just to andhere to your beliefs.

      It's your viewpoint that I find narrow-minded and limited.
      Not to mention retarded.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here