Dear Editor,
Perhaps the best evidence against the resurrection of Jesus is the Bible itself. A careful reading of it should be enough to convince anybody that the claim that Jesus came back to life after his crucifixion is false.
There are clear indications that the early Christian fathers were prepared to go to great lengths in their attempts to convince people that Jesus was a god. The book of Mathew would have us believe that at the point of Jesus' death, many people who were dead came back to like and roamed the city of Jerusalem in full public view.
The fact that nobody else reported this, despite the city being packed with both Jews and Gentiles on account of Passover celebrations, is proof enough that the event did not happen. However, some early Christian fathers, realising that outright lies won't last forever, decided to stretch the truth to the point where it seems to confirm the resurrection.
Take the claim that Joseph of Arimathea, the supposed closet Christian, provided a tomb for Jesus. Now, the fact that this man was also one who helped to convict Jesus to death should raise a red flag? However, the fact that he was made out to be a closet Christian alone shows that he wanted to remain so. He would not have shown his support of Jesus so publicly.
However, if Joseph was placing Jesus' corpse in the tomb for another reason — say on account of his responsibilities — then that would make sense.
Not many of us realise that because Jesus was executed very near the Sabbath, there wasn't enough time to bury Jesus in the criminals' graveyard according to law. As such, Joseph had to put Jesus' corpse somewhere until the Sabbath had passed. That somewhere was that tomb — actually a morgue in those days.
One reason to believe that Joseph's action was consistent with him placing Jesus' body in that tomb which was a morgue was what the author of the book of Mark reported about the women who came to it about three days later.
According to Mark, the first gospel that originally ended at chapter 16 verse 8, the women who came to the tomb (or morgue) came with preservatives and other materials to properly process Jesus' corpse. If Jesus was placed in that tomb as an act of permanent burial why would the women have gone there, clearly expecting to get the body? If, on the other hand, there were expecting to complete the burial, then them carrying those preservatives and other materials would make much sense.
It is clear that after Joseph had placed Jesus' corpse in that tomb for temporary storage, Jesus' corpse was removed — most likely by the court — before the women got there and permanently reburied in the criminals' graveyard. A blasphemer being given such an honourable burial, as implied, is totally ridiculous.
Jesus coming back to life is even more laughable.
Michael A Dingwall,
michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com
The Bible proves there was no resurrection
-->
Perhaps the best evidence against the resurrection of Jesus is the Bible itself. A careful reading of it should be enough to convince anybody that the claim that Jesus came back to life after his crucifixion is false.
There are clear indications that the early Christian fathers were prepared to go to great lengths in their attempts to convince people that Jesus was a god. The book of Mathew would have us believe that at the point of Jesus' death, many people who were dead came back to like and roamed the city of Jerusalem in full public view.
The fact that nobody else reported this, despite the city being packed with both Jews and Gentiles on account of Passover celebrations, is proof enough that the event did not happen. However, some early Christian fathers, realising that outright lies won't last forever, decided to stretch the truth to the point where it seems to confirm the resurrection.
Take the claim that Joseph of Arimathea, the supposed closet Christian, provided a tomb for Jesus. Now, the fact that this man was also one who helped to convict Jesus to death should raise a red flag? However, the fact that he was made out to be a closet Christian alone shows that he wanted to remain so. He would not have shown his support of Jesus so publicly.
However, if Joseph was placing Jesus' corpse in the tomb for another reason — say on account of his responsibilities — then that would make sense.
Not many of us realise that because Jesus was executed very near the Sabbath, there wasn't enough time to bury Jesus in the criminals' graveyard according to law. As such, Joseph had to put Jesus' corpse somewhere until the Sabbath had passed. That somewhere was that tomb — actually a morgue in those days.
One reason to believe that Joseph's action was consistent with him placing Jesus' body in that tomb which was a morgue was what the author of the book of Mark reported about the women who came to it about three days later.
According to Mark, the first gospel that originally ended at chapter 16 verse 8, the women who came to the tomb (or morgue) came with preservatives and other materials to properly process Jesus' corpse. If Jesus was placed in that tomb as an act of permanent burial why would the women have gone there, clearly expecting to get the body? If, on the other hand, there were expecting to complete the burial, then them carrying those preservatives and other materials would make much sense.
It is clear that after Joseph had placed Jesus' corpse in that tomb for temporary storage, Jesus' corpse was removed — most likely by the court — before the women got there and permanently reburied in the criminals' graveyard. A blasphemer being given such an honourable burial, as implied, is totally ridiculous.
Jesus coming back to life is even more laughable.
Michael A Dingwall,
michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com
The Bible proves there was no resurrection
-->