THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.

Freethought Review, Volume II, Issue 18, 1 March 1885, Page 15

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.

I have rejected a belief in the Resurrection of Christ for the following very cogent reasons : " Not a bone of Him was broken," John xix, 23 ; He was taken down from the cross by one of his friends, Matt, xxvii, 57-61 ; and he was laid in the tomb by friends, Ibid ; It was a tomb belonging to friends, Ibid ; there was no watch set by Pilate until sometime of the next day, Ibid, 62 ; His resurrection was testified to only by friends and interested parties, Matt, xxviii, Luke xxiv, John xxi ; that these friends were guilty of falsehood against him when he lived, Lukexxii, 57-60 ; and there is as much reason, therefore, to believe that they would lie after his death, as there is reason to believe that He rose from the dead in the manner stated by them. It will also be remembered that the " tomb " only was watched, and not the " body" ;

and that between the time of the Crucifixion on the Friday evening and the setting of the " watch " next day there was abundance of time (and, I doubt not, opportunity) to make that tomb an " empty " one, and thus enable the few " trustworthy witnesses" to start this new propaganda of a " Risen Saviour." It will be well to observe further that Christ was to have been three days and three nights in the " heart of the earth " (Matt, xii, 40), but that the very " trustworthy witnesses" who testify to His Resurrection also bore testimony to the fact that he was not three days and three nights in the " heart of the earth." Christ was taken down from the Cross on the Friday evening (Matt, xxvii, 58-9) and early in the morning of Sunday, " before the dawn of day," He was out of the tomb (Matt, xxvii, 1), so that he was only one day " and " two nights " in the " heart of the earth." There is also the probability that Christ did not die. The Rev. C. A. Row, in his " Evidences of the Resurrection of Christ," says : " I allow that it was possible for a man who had been suspended for some time on the Cross, if taken down and carefully treated, to recover. Josephus tells us that such an occurrence did really take place in the case of one of his friends." If Christ was seen alive, as stated in Chapter xxiv of Luke, then he could never have died. In any case the empty tomb can be accounted for by the fact that His body was given over to His friends, who would meet

with no great difficulty in removing that body from " their own private sepulchre," and embrace the opportunity of starting the story of Luke xxiv. Against the above views of the case it is urged that there were too many witnesses of His resurrection (Luke xxiv, 36), and that such a body of men could not be unanimous in the carrying out of such a gross fraud. It is not, however, more remarkable that they should be thus guilty than that others preceding them could have related such stories as that of the " Walking in the Garden in the cool of the day," and of the " Translation of Enoch," and of the " Taking up of Elijah in a chariot ' of fire,' " and of the " Passing of the children through the ' fiery furnace,' " and of " God speaking to man out of a ' burning bush,' " and of " God burying Moses," and of " The three angels speaking to Abraham," and of " Elijah calling fire down out of Heaven to destroy his enemies, and to ' lick up' his offering," and last, but not least, " Of a God being born of a woman." It is marvellous that " scholarly and intellectual " men can believe that Christ was born of the Holy Ghost in the face of the statement contained in the 24th verse of the first chapter of Matthew! I take it that no living soul apart from Joseph and Mary themselves could say that the 25th verse of the first chapter of Matthew is true. It requires as much faith to believe in " Joseph " the father of Christ, as to believe in " Christ"' himself. Joseph took " unto him his wife," which is the end of the matter as far as facts are concerned. To believe the 25th verse, after reading the 24th of this first chapter of Matthew, is something which I can only describe as unaccountable."

It is further urged (as proof), that no mortal man could be the author of such pure precepts as are to be discovered in the teaching of Jesus. This, however, can only be urged by those who are ignorant of other systems. What can be purer than the precepts of Confucius : " What ye would not that others should do to you, do ye not to them ?" Christ gave a similar command, the only difference being that while Confucius was negative Christ was positive : " What ye would that men should do unto you do ye even so unto them." Where in the Bible is there anything superior to the following teaching of Confucius : " Man, born in the position intermediate between Heaven and earth, has nothing to attend to but the relationships of society, and the regular constituents of moral worth, which are daily called into exercise. All should observe and pursue these, the wise as well as the simple. The sage and worthies do not approve of the search after what is abstruse, and the practice of what is marvellous." The " fine regular constituents " of our moral nature, referred to in the above quotation, are, " the principles, attributes and faculties of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and sincerity." The duty of the human lot in the five relations as stated by Mencius are: " Between father and son, affection ; between ruler and subject, righteousness ; between husband and wife, attention to the separate functions ; between elders and youngers, a proper distinction ; and between friends, fidelity." Did Christ teach anything better than this ? And what more is necessary to the well-being of individual and collective men ? Christ, we are answered, commanded that " evil should be returned with good," but I reply that Confucius taught the same thing until he found it would not work, when he at once changed the precept into " Recompense injury with justice, and return good for good." It is very easy to give advice but it is very hard to take it." Christ's command to " return good for evil " is no more followed nor obeyed than was the same command or precept when given by the heathen sage Confucius. Does not the history of Christianity prove this to demonstration ? The Divinity of the Bible cannot be proved from or by comparison. It is weak in proof, hence the call for " marvellous faith."

W.M.

" Had Adam freedom of choice ?'

" There can be no absolute freedom where there is a fear of consequences. How can there be a freedom of choice in the doing of that for which we are punished."W.M.