The Commentator www

Reasons why a devine Jesus could not be true

Michael A. Dingwall (michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com)

As we prepare to celebrate the life and death of “the saviour of the world”, serious thought must be given as to whether or not Jesus as a divine being was a historical reality. Most of us Jamaicans have allowed the church to infuse into our minds the concept of Jesus being god and real. However, if we should take a very careful look at history, we will get a very different story.

According to the gospels, Jesus was no ordinary man. We have him curing many people of many ailments – “miraculously”. We even have him raising people from the dead. The gospels tell us that, on account of Jesus’ supernatural abilities, his fame was “spreading throughout the land”.

When one looks at secular history, however, there is no reference to Jesus’ god-like abilities – not a single one. Indeed, there is hardly any reference to him at all and the few that exists are very suspect, circumstantial and too convenient. The first century Jewish historian Josephus readily comes to mind here. History’s silence is very telling. Christians must honestly ask themselves why is it that history is so silent about a man that was busy raising people from the dead and calming storms. How could secular history be so silent about a man whose fame was “spreading throughout the land” on these and other accounts?

Could it be that the historians at that time didn’t record these events because they were accustomed to seeing self-proclaimed messiahs resurrecting people from the dead all the while? I really don’t think so. On history’s silence alone, one can pretty well rest assured that there was simply no person by the name of Jesus who was doing such incredible things. Surely, history would have had more to say. History’s silence is very convincing evidence that the miracle working Jesus as put forward by the gospels could not have existed.

However, many Christians will counter by saying that while Jesus’ life was important, their faith actually rests on the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus’ own resurrection, they may argue, proves that he conquered death. It is this resurrection, claim Christians that assures them that their belief is correct. However, a careful look at the claimed resurrection will show that it did not happen, indeed, that it could not have happened. It would be contrary to everything that is known and expected.

Take the claim, for instance, that one Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus. The gospels tell us that after the ruling council convicted Jesus of blasphemy, Joseph (who was a member of this same council) took pity on Jesus and placed him (Jesus) in his (Joseph’s) tomb. Now, there is simply no way that this could be true.

Joseph was an Orthodox Jew, a member of the Jewish ruling class and a well-respected member of the same Jewish council that convicted Jesus. There is no evidence to support the claim that he was a secret supporter of Jesus, as claimed by the gospels. The crime of blasphemy was very serious. It was the worse crime that a Jew could be convicted of – worse than killing priests. After criminals of the type that Jesus was convicted as were executed, they were to be buried in the criminals’ graveyard. They were not honoured with a decent burial of the type that the gospels tell us that Jesus got. Burying Jesus in the criminal’s graveyard was not a choice to be made – it was a legal obligation that must be done.

Now, Christians must seriously and honestly ask themselves a very logical question. Why would Joseph, a well-respected member of this Jewish council, who no doubt helped to convict Jesus of the worse crime that a Jew could commit, would turn around and offer this despicable convicted criminal his expensive tomb? Why would Joseph break the very laws that he was not only legally obligated to obey but duty bound to help enforce?

The gospels tell us that Joseph gave Jesus his tomb. However, as I said before, this doesn’t make any sense. However, the possibility does exist that Joseph could have placed Jesus in a tomb that belonged to the court, that he was, in some way, responsible for. However, would this constitute an honourable burial? No, it would not.

When Jesus was around, Jewish law allowed for people to be buried temporarily at one location and to be removed to be permanently reburied at another location. When Jesus was executed, it was very near the Sabbath. Jewish law stipulated that no work be done on that day, which starts from sunset and ends on the next sunset. Jewish law also forbade the corpse of executed criminals from being left on the cross at nights. For these two reasons alone, Jesus had to be removed from the cross and placed somewhere until he could be properly buried in the criminals’ graveyard – as required by law. But where could Jesus be temporarily buried? In the court’s tomb, of course, as it was simply impossible to properly bury Jesus in the criminals’ graveyard and not violate the Sabbath at the same time.

Being the detestable criminal that Jesus was, there was no way that the court would allow Jesus’ corpse to remain in that tomb permanently. This would be a very serious offence – as the court would be violating its own laws. As soon as the Sabbath was over, which would have been Saturday evening, the legally obligatory act would have had to be done – the proper disposal of Jesus’ body in the criminals’ graveyard. With this in mind, the tomb that Jesus was placed in would have been empty as soon as possible, which would have been by the end of Saturday. Indeed, under Jewish law – it was expected to be empty.

The gospels tell us that when the disciples came to the tomb Sunday morning (or Sunday evening – no one is really sure as the gospels are very contradictory), or some time after that, they found the tomb empty. In this regard, the gospels are correct. However, the reasons that have been put forward could not be any further from the truth. But why would the disciples claim that Jesus rose from the dead? Why did they believe so strongly? It was because their belief was based on a serious misinterpretation of what Jesus had said before he was killed.

When one looks critically at the gospels, two things stand out: the disciples were not very intelligent and Jesus routinely spoke to them in terms that they did not understand – in parables. There is one case that makes this point very clear. When Jesus was trying to explain how hard it was for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god, he used the parable of the camel and the eye of a needle.

Jesus told his disciples that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god. The disciples clearly did not understand, for they were asking – how could any camel go through the eye of a needle? Jesus had to explain what he really meant. Indeed, time and time again throughout the gospels, we see Jesus rebuking them for lacking faith and for being too naïve.

Remember the parable of Jesus being put to death and rising on the third day? Jesus told his disciples that he would be put to death, but on the third day, he would rise up again. Clearly, like most of the other parables, the disciples took this literally. When Jesus was executed, most of them thought that that was the end of him. However, when they found the tomb empty, they remembered the “prophecy”. One can understand, therefore, why this particular set of disciples would believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. Also, it is this mistaken belief that eventually became the basis of the Christian faith.

Christians must realize that while the very strong belief of the first disciples may have been genuine, albeit based on a mistake, that belief does not make the resurrection true. All claims by modern-day defenders of the faith about the first Christians willing to die for their faith, the inability of early Christianity’s enemies to mount a credible refutation, the anti-Christian rumors and the like are inadequate and cannot prove the resurrection.

Based on all that I have said, the odds against the resurrection are just too high for it to be true. Jesus simply could not have rose from the dead – even if the Christian god, who it is claimed is capable of doing such things, really existed and resurrected the “good lord”. Indeed, I have yet to hear a good case for the truthfulness of the resurrection. Christians can believe it if they want, but they are doing so on faith – the concrete evidence is not only just not there; it actually contracts, very strongly, the resurrection claim. Jesus did not rise from the dead and that’s the truth. Indeed, I am beginning to doubt that the man even existed at all.

[Back to Main Page]