Michael A. Dingwall, Contributor
PERHAPS MORE than any other time, with the possible exception of Easter, Christians around the world celebrate the life of Jesus, the proclaimed saviour of the world. It is claimed by Bible, Christian scholars and many others that the story of Jesus, as fed to us for many centuries, is factual. He was born of a virgin, he performed miracles that were well known, he was crucified for our sins and best of all he rose from the dead. However, how true are these claims? Can there be any doubt?
The primary source for the life, death and resurrection of 'the good Lord' comes from the Bible. In particular, the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as we know them today are said to be God's divine word. The writings of St. Paul are also said to be important. However, are these writings really reliable? Are they even true?
ATTRIBUTED TO PAUL
Scholars generally agree that the earliest writings of the life of Jesus are those attributed to Paul. He is said to have written his accounts within some 20 years of Jesus' death. However, most scholars now agree that not all of the books, letters and other documents that have been credited to Paul were really written by him. We are only certain that he wrote Romans, Corinthians and Galatians; we are not certain of the others. Yet, even with these documents, can Paul be cited as someone reliable? I don't think so.
In Romans 3:7, we read how Paul himself is admitting to lying to spread the "word of God". This very admission of Paul, I think, should render anything that he says as at least suspect and at most baseless. Also, his admission to lying goes to the root of another fact that of the founders' main aim in preaching the gospel. This main aim was to win as many converts as possible, not necessarily to tell the truth. Certainly, I would not bet my money on anything Paul says.
However, there is more to Paul's documents, or should I say less. It is rather very strange that Paul, whose writings are generally accepted as the earliest, mentions nothing about a virgin birth or Jesus' trial by Roman officials. He never explicitly mentions Jesus' resurrection either. What strikes me most is the fact that Paul mentions nothing of the miracles that Jesus is supposed to have performed. This was despite the claim that Jesus was well known throughout the land because of these miracles. How come?
THE DUBIOUS GOSPELS
The four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are also very doubtful. First of all, we don't even know who wrote these books. For about 150 years after the death of Jesus, these books had anonymous authors. It wasn't until some 150 years after Jesus' death that some bright spark decided to assign the names 'Matthew', 'Mark', 'Luke' and 'John' to these books. The first three, as stated by scholars, can be said to be one based on Mark. The book of Mark is itself quite interesting. For one thing, it is said to be the first of the gospels. Yet, this book says nothing of a virgin birth nor does it explicitly mention the resurrection. The original book of Mark actually ends at Chapter 16:8 and even verses 5, 6 and 7 are doubtful. All the other passages that follow are later additions.
The other 'true' gospels also leave much to be desired. Both Matthew and Luke mention genealogies of Jesus that don't agree. Matthew would have us believe that at Jesus' birth a 'bright star' was over where Jesus was and when he died, many of the Saints rose from the dead and were seen by 'many'. It seems very odd that these events are only recorded in the Bible, doesn't it?
One would have thought that the witnessing of so many previously dead people roaming the place would be very big news at the time, yet only the bible has it!
Luke is also suspect. The author borrowed some 60 per cent of Mark for his own work, even though he was supposed to have been a witness himself. Notice how Luke chapter 7 is very similar to 1 Kings Chapter 17. This is the story of Jesus raising the son of a widow. A borrowed story perhaps? Luke would have us believe that Annas and Caiaphas were both high priests at the same time, Luke 3:2. However, this is not so.
While the writer of Matthew says that Jesus was born "in the days of Herod the King", Luke says that he was born "when Cyrenius [Quirinius] was governor of Syria". Herod died in 4BC and Cyrenius become governor in 6AD, a difference of almost 10 years. Clearly, somebody is wrong here.
PROOFS
Seeing that the New Testament accounts of Jesus cannot be trusted, why is it that Christian apologists and others continue to beat a dead horse? One way that they try to get around the problem is to attempt to compliment the Bible with 'intelligent' reasoning and 'proofs'. But what are they? Let's look at a few of them.
One of the central arguments presented by Christians in their attempts to authenticate the Jesus story is based on the 'empty tomb'. It is claimed that the finding of Jesus' empty tomb proves that he indeed rose from the dead, thereby establishing without a doubt that he is God. I am yet to see why this should be the case and why a rational explanation could not do.
Christian apologists, and others, would want us to believe that Jesus was treated differently from the others on the cross. The truth is simple - it is very unlikely that he was even buried in any tomb. During the Roman occupation, convicted criminals (Jesus was a convicted criminal by the way) were nailed to the cross and left to die. After they died, they would normally be buried (rather, it was dumped) in a common grave. What made Jesus so special is still a mystery to me. Yet, even if we take it for granted that Jesus was given an exception, look at whose tomb we are expected to accept as Jesus' - one belonging to one who helped to convict him!
It is said that one Joseph of Arimathea provided Jesus' tomb. But who was this man? We are told that he was one of the very people who not only tried Jesus, but also helped to convict and sentence him to death. Now really, are we to believe that a highly respected Jewish official would want to have a convicted criminal in his expensive family crypt? The criminal he helped to convict? I really would think not! It seems clear that the odds of Jesus being given a decent funeral is extremely low, if not zero.
Christian apologists also claim that if they wanted, the Jewish authorities could have killed the new religion there and then by simply showing Jesus' corpse as proof that he did not rise from the dead. However, this is not as simple as it looks. From the bible, we are made to understand that the disciples did not start preaching about Jesus until about some seven weeks after his death. In addition to the fact that most people ignored these disciples anyway (they were seen as cultists and social deviants), who could have recognised Jesus' corpse after seven weeks? He would be in such an advanced state of decomposition that, even if his very disciples could have recognised him, they could have always denied that the corpse belonged to Jesus.
However, the Christian will pull other cards out of his hat. He will claim that the bible claims that at one time over 500 people saw Jesus after he rose from the dead. However, as I said before, the bible is known to make some outrageous claims. In addition to the claim by Matthew that dead people were seen by 'many', the Bible also claims that one man parted the Red Sea, another went up to heaven "in a chariot of fire", Jesus ascended to heaven (from two different locations, I might add) and one man commanded the Earth to stop rotating, among others. I could go on and on. Who in their right mind really believe these claims? Also, look at who is claiming that there were 500 witnesses - Paul, the self confessed liar.
THE INTRIGUE CONTINUES
Even if we were to grant the Christian the benefit of the doubt and accept their claim that Jesus was killed for our 'sins' and that he rose from the dead, we would still have some very serious ethical problems on our hands.
Take the case of Judas Jesus' betrayer. Under whose influence was Judas acting when he betrayed the 'good lord'? Here we have the most important event of all time Jesus dying for our sins and saving mankind.
Certainly, the devil would not just ignore the event. Indeed, he would do all he could to stop it, wouldn't he? Seeing that the devil is much stronger than Judas and God is supposed to be stronger than the devil, Judas could not have acted independently.
The devil must have done all he could to stop Judas from betraying Jesus. Indeed, if it were up to the devil alone, Jesus would have lived to a ripe old age. So who was influencing Judas to betray Jesus?
God, of course! It was God's plan that mankind should be saved. What better way to ensure that it happens than to make one of Jesus' very disciples stab him in the back? However, isn't it odd that God was making sure that his son is killed? Isn't it odder, if we can accept the claim of some Christians that Jesus is God, that God was ensuring his own death, or is it God fighting against himself?
It seems clear to me that if we are to really give Jesus any serious thought, it would become clear that he is not the person who we have been led to believe. They say that this holiday season should be one of reflection. I hope we begin to seriously and objectively reflect on the whole truth and nothing but the truth as far as Jesus is concerned. Have a very thoughtful holiday season.
You can contact Michael A. Dingwall at michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com or infocus@gleanerjm.com
