Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Christianity killers 1 & 2

The first two possible explanations for Easter, aside from the events happening in the way they are described in the gospel accounts are these...


The trouble with this as an explanation for the resurrection of Jesus is that myths take time to develop.

The gospel are recorded when eyewitnesses are still living. Second Peter stays that the believers didn't create this tale, with Simon Peter first proclaiming them 50 days after they occurred (at Pentecost), where they occurred.

Furthermore, the biblical accounts at the tomb create problems for this explanation.

If i was making up the resurrection story i wouldn't have used women in my story. In first century Palestine their word was thought as useless and inadmissible in court. If i was creating the resurrection story i would have used more credible witnesses, like Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus.

Finally, and i will touch on this more in the third explanation, the disciples all suffered for their belief that Christ rose from the dead. Aside from John, who was an old man in exile when he died, all the Apostle died a martyrs death. You don't die for a lie... Particularly if you are the ones who crafted it and knew it was a massive deception.


This explanation is a stretch.

First, people of the day knew where Jesus' body was. We are told in Mark 15 that the women knew and the authorities obviously knew since they posted guards at the tomb.

If the ladies were mistaken then the claims of resurrection could easily be quashed by dragging the corpse (which would still be in the correct tomb) down main street.

I reckon we need to keep this last sentence in mind when thinking about the arguments against Easter. Tomorrow I'll have two more...

No comments: