Click here for previous session

 

 

 

Exhibit #9 — The Resurrection 

Some attribute divinity to Jesus based upon his alleged resurrection. This subject
is critical, for the keystone of orthodox Christianity is the belief that Jesus died for the
sins of mankind. The concepts of the crucifixion, resurrection and atonement are discussed later in depth. For now, the important point is that many early Christians
doubted the crucifixion, for none of the gospels is an eyewitness account. In the words of Joel Carmichael, author of The Death of Jesus, “Who could the witnesses have been? ….
Not only do [the disciples] ‘all forsake’ Jesus and flee; they do not—even more
surprisingly—reappear during Jesus’ trial nor are they present at his execution, nor are
they the ones who bury him.”158 Nor, for that matter, are they the authors of the gospels
in the first place, but we’ll come to that point later.  Most scholars agree that the gospel writers worked off nothing but hearsay in
recording the alleged crucifixion. Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits, “The four
Evangelists differ slightly in the wording of the inscription (on top of the cross), which
shows that they were citing from memory and hearsay evidence.”
159
This fact has been well recognized since the time of Jesus, but thoroughly covered
up by those who would have mankind believe the authors of the gospels had front row
seats and photographic memories. In reality, all of the disciples deserted Jesus at the
garden of Gethsemane, as recorded in Mark 14:50: “Then they all forsook him and fled.”
Peter may have followed Jesus at a distance, but only as far as the courtyard of the high
priest Caiaphas. Here the “Rock” (on which Jesus promised to build his church—  Matthew 16:18­19) thrice denied having known Jesus. (Did Jesus say “rock”? Perhaps
what he really meant to say was “Satan” and “an offense,” as he declared a scant five
verses later.) Anyway, Peter wasn’t one of the gospel authors. So where were they?
Matthew 27:55 and Luke 23:49 tell us the “observers” were not present at the crucifixion,
so we can only guess.
Regarding the alleged resurrection, the four gospels (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke
24, and John 20) don’t agree on what happened following the crucifixion.

 

For example:

Who went to the tomb?
Matthew: “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” Mark: “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome”
Luke: “The women who had come with him from Galilee” and
“certain other women”
John: “Mary Magdalene”
Why did they go to the tomb?
Matthew: “To see the tomb”
Mark: They “brought spices, that they might come and anoint him”
Luke: They “brought spices”
John: no reason given.
Was there an earthquake (something that would not easily go unnoticed)?
Matthew: Yes
Mark: no mention
Luke: no mention
John: no mention
Did an angel descend (again, would any self­respecting gospel author have failed
to mention this)?
Matthew: Yes

Mark: no mention
Luke: no mention
John: no mention
Who rolled back the stone?
Matthew: The angel
Mark: unknown
Luke: unknown
John: unknown
Who was at the tomb?
Matthew: “an angel” Mark: “a young man”
Luke: “two men”
John: “two angels”
Where were they?
Matthew: The angel was sitting on the stone, outside the tomb. Mark: The young man was in the tomb, “sitting on the right side.”
Luke: The two men were inside the tomb, standing beside them.
John: The two angels were “sitting, one at the head and the other at
the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.”

By whom and where was Jesus first seen?
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary,” on the road to
tell the disciples. Mark: Mary Magdalene only, no mention where.
Luke: Two of the disciples, en route to “a village called Emmaus,
which was about seven miles from Jerusalem.”
John: Mary Magdalene, outside the tomb.
There is depressingly little or no consistency to the stories, which leads one to ask
whether the Bible is a book of viewpoints or a book of God. Ehrman concludes the Bible
is a very human book, riddled with errors, of which the most egregious are scriptural
additions and deletions (both intentional and not). 160 Heinz Zahrnt agrees as follows:

 

 

.……continue reading……