Luke, while he does not state the particular year, nor furnish data

for determining it, is more definite. He says that Jesus began his

ministry in "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,"

and his narrative clearly implies that he was crucified at the

following Passover. Tiberius commenced his reign in August, 14

A. D. The fifteenth year of his reign, then, extended from August,

28 A. D., to August, 29 A. D. If Jesus began his ministry during the

first months of this year, he might have been crucified as early as

the spring of 29. But it is generally conceded that the time which

this would allow for his ministry was far too brief, and that he

could not have been crucified before 30 A. D.

The Christian Fathers who, for the most part, accepted the tradition

of Luke and affirmed that his ministry lasted but one year, or less,

held that the crucifixion occurred in 29 A. D.

Scribner's "Bible Dictionary" gives preference to 29 A. D. Cuthbert

Hamilton Turner, M.A., Oxford, the New Testament chronologist of

that work, after a lengthy review of the subject, says: "To sum up

briefly, the separate results of five lines of enquiry harmonize with

one another beyond expectation, so that each in turn supplies fresh

security for the rest. The nativity in B. C. 7-6; the age of our

Lord at the baptism, 30 years, more or less; the baptism in A. D. 26

(26-27); the duration of the ministry between two and three years;

the crucifixion in A. D. 29."

This authority states that his ministry lasted two or three years. It

was necessary to do this or reject John. By taking a year or more from

John's ministry of Jesus and adding it to the one year ministry of the

Synoptics--by assuming that the Synoptics omit to mention one or more

Passovers, and that one of the Passovers mentioned by John was some

other feast--it pretends to have reconciled the discrepancy regarding

the length of Christ's ministry. But if his ministry lasted two or

three years, as affirmed, he could not have been crucified in 29 A. D.

With orthodox commentators, a favorite method of reconciling Old

Testament dates, as I have noted in a previous work, is to assume that

a king, concerning the date of whose accession, or length of reign,

a discrepancy appears, reigned in consort with his predecessor for a

number of years sufficient to cover the discrepancy. This dishonest

method of explanation--for it is a dishonest trick, intended to

deceive the reader and hide from him an error--has been employed

to reconcile Luke and John. By assuming that Tiberius divided the

government with Augustus for two years preceding his accession to

the throne, an assumption for which there is no credible authority,

and that Luke accordingly reckons the fifteenth year from 12 A. D.,

instead of 14 A. D., when he really became emperor, it is possible

to give Jesus a ministry of two or three years and still have

him crucified in 29 A. D. But another irreconcilable difficulty

remains. The Synoptics state that he was crucified on the Passover

and on the day preceding the Sabbath, that is, on Friday. If so,

he could not have been crucified in 29 A. D., for the Passover did

not fall on Friday that year.

Dr. Farrar says it is "highly probable that the crucifixion took

place at the passover of March, 30 A. D."

Justice Bradley of the United States Supreme Court, who made an

exhaustive examination of all the evidence and arguments bearing on

the question, decided in favor of 30 A. D. He says: "There were only

three years from A. D. 27 to A. D. 36, inclusive, in which the 1st

of Nisan, and consequently the 15th of Nisan, happened on Friday, and

these were A. D. 27, 30 and 33, the last of which is very doubtful. But

the crucifixion could not have happened before A. D. 28, and probably

not later than A. D. 31. Therefore the year 30 is the only one which

satisfies all the conditions of the problem.... Now, since in A. D. 30,

the 1st of Nisan fell on Friday, the 24th of March, the 15th fell on

Friday, the 7th of April, which was the day of the crucifixion."

Dr. Farrar and Justice Bradley are agreed in regard to the year of

the crucifixion, but they are not agreed in regard to the calendar

month in which it occurred. Dr. Farrar says it occurred in March;

Justice Bradley says it occurred in April.

Justice Bradley says that 30 A. D. satisfies all the conditions. It

does satisfy the conditions of the Synoptics, but it does not satisfy

the conditions of John, as claimed. To satisfy the conditions of John

it is necessary to adopt the untenable hypothesis of 12 A. D. as

the date of Tiberius Caesar's accession. But whatever satisfies

the conditions of John must necessarily conflict with those of the

Synoptics.

Some Christian scholars place the crucifixion in 31 A. D., others in 32

A. D. But neither year can be harmonized with the Synoptics' statement

that he was put to death on the Passover, or with John's that he

suffered on the day of Preparation. Neither can they be harmonized with

either the Synoptics or John in regard to the duration of his ministry.

It is probable that a majority of Christian scholars today believe

that Jesus was crucified in 33. Renan accepted this date. He says:

"According to the calculation we adopt, the death of Jesus happened in

the year 33 of our era. It could not, at all events, be either before

the year 29, the preaching of John and Jesus having commenced in the

year 28, or after 35, since in the year 36, and probably before the

Passover, Pilate and Kaiapha both lost their offices."

The adoption of 33 allows for the four years' ministry ascribed to

Jesus by John, but it cannot be reconciled with the brief ministry

ascribed to him by the Synoptics. As for Renan, who in the first

edition of his "Jesus" accepted the authenticity of John, but

subsequently rejected it and accepted only the Synoptics, he has no

Evangelistic authority for 33.

The Dutch theologians, Kuenen, Oort and Hooykaas, and many other

Rationalists, give 35 A. D. the preference. To accept this year,

however, it is necessary to reject the Passover crucifixion, and to

assign to Jesus a much longer ministry than even John assigns.

Of one hundred Christian authorities who attempt to name the year in

which Christ was crucified, twenty-three say 29, eighteen 30, nine 31,

seven 32, thirty-seven 33, and six 35 A. D.

Thus it will be seen that not a year that can be named can be

harmonized with the accounts of the crucifixion given in the four

gospels. The result is that there is as great a lack of agreement

in regard to the time of Christ's death as there is in regard to the

time of his birth. Christians do not know when he was born, they do

not know when he died, they cannot prove that he lived.

393

On what day of the month was he crucified?

Synoptics: On the 15th of Nisan.

John: On the 14th of Nisan.

This discrepancy is conceded by Scribner's "Bible Dictionary." It says:

"It is the Last Supper which the Synoptics appear to fix by identifying

it with the Passover. They say expressly that on the morning of the

'first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover'

(Mk. xiv, 12), the disciples asked where the Passover was to be

eaten. This would be on the morning of Nisan 14. In the evening,

which from twilight onwards would belong to Nisan 15, would follow

the Last Supper, and on the next afternoon (still, on the Jewish

reckoning, Nisan 15) the crucifixion. St. John, on the other hand, by

a number of clear indications (John xiii, 1, xviii, 28, xix, 14, 31)

implies that the Last Supper was eaten before the time of the regular

Passover, and that the Lord suffered on the afternoon of Nisan 14,

about the time of the slaying of the Paschal lamb. We are thus left

with a conflict of testimony."

394

On what day of the week was he crucified?

Synoptics: On Friday.

John: On Thursday.

The Synoptics agree that he was crucified on the day following the

Preparation, that is, on the day of the Passover, and the day preceding

the Sabbath. As the Jewish Sabbath fell on Saturday, he was, therefore,

crucified on Friday.

John repeatedly declares that his trial and crucifixion occurred on

"the preparation of the passover." If the Passover occurred on Friday,

as the Synoptics state, he was crucified on the preceding day, or

Thursday. It is claimed by some, though the claim is disputed, that

the Synoptics are in error, that the Passover was never held on Friday.

395

On what day of the feast did the crucifixion occur?

Synoptics: On the Passover.

John: On the day of Preparation.

It is expressly stated in the Synoptics that he celebrated the

Passover before his death. "Then came the day of unleavened bread,

when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying,

Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.... And they made

ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the

twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have

desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer" (Luke xxii,

7-15; Matt. xxvi, 17-20; Mark xiv, 12-18).

The author of the Fourth Gospel declares that the Last Supper was not

the Paschal meal, and that Jesus was crucified on the day preceding

the Passover, that is, on the day of Preparation. He refers to the

events connected with the Last Supper as having taken place "before

the passover" (xiii, 1); after supper, when Jesus bade Judas do quickly

what he proposed to do, he states that the disciples "thought because

Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that

we have need of against the feast" (xiii, 29); at the trial, he says,

the Jews "themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they might

be defiled, but that they might eat the passover" (xviii, 28); when

Pilate is about to deliver him up to be crucified, he even goes out

of the way to repeat that "It was the preparation of the passover"

(xix, 14).

This discrepancy is not, like many other Bible discrepancies, an

unintentional error. It represents a conflict between two dogmas. The

primitive church was rent with dissensions regarding this question,

some contending that Christ suffered on the 14th Nisan, others that

it was on the 15th. During the second century--the century in which

our gospels appeared--this controversy was especially bitter.

According to John (i, 29, xix, 33, 36) Jesus was the Paschal Lamb, and

as such, must be slain on the day of Preparation. The slaying of the

lambs began at three o'clock in the afternoon, the hour at which Jesus

is said to have expired. The Synoptics, on the other hand, in order to

enable him to partake of the Paschal meal and institute the Eucharist,

which is a survival and perpetuation of the Passover, must prolong

his existence until after this meal, and consequently his crucifixion

cannot take place until the following day. It was impossible for him

to be the Paschal Lamb and at the same time partake of the Paschal

meal. This necessarily produced a schism. The Fourth Gospel was written

in support of the one side, the Synoptics in support of the other.

It is declared by the most eminent fathers of the second century

that the Apostle John, whom some of them had known, was accustomed

to observe the Paschal meal. This is another argument against the

Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel.

Referring to the Lord's Supper, as recorded in John, the "Bible for

Learners" says: "It was not the Paschal meal. The Passover did not

begin until the following evening; for he himself who was the true

Paschal Lamb, and as such made an end of all sacrifices, must be

put to death at the very day and hour ordained for the slaughter of

the lamb--not twenty-four hours later as the Synoptic Gospels say"

(Vol. iii, p. 684).

Admitting the discrepancy, but without determining which is correct,

Smith's "Bible Dictionary" says: "The crowning application of the

Paschal rites to the truths of which they were the shadowy promises

appears to be that which is afforded by the fact that our Lord's

death occurred during the festival. According to the Divine purpose,

the true Lamb of God was slain at nearly the same time as 'the Lord's

Passover,' in obedience to the letter of the law."

It was not "according to the Divine purpose" that Jesus was slain at

the Passover, but it was according to a human invention that he is

declared to have been slain at this time. These attempts to connect

the crucifixion with the Passover afford the strongest proof that it

is a myth.

396

What led to the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus?

John: His miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead. On learning of

it the Jewish council met, and "from that day forth they took counsel

together for to put him to death" (xi, 47, 53).

This is more difficult to believe than the miracle itself. It is the

most improbable statement ever penned--the one that does most violence

to human reason. The crudest savages on earth would not have slain

nor even harmed a man who had proved himself the Conqueror and King

of Death.

397

What did Christ say during his ministry concerning the cross?

"He that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me is not worthy

of me" (Matthew x, 38; Luke xiv, 27).

"Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his

cross, and follow me" (Mark viii, 34).

"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up

his cross daily and follow me" (Luke ix, 23).

These utterances are alleged to have been made early in his

ministry. Now, the cross as a Christian symbol is supposed to have

been adopted after, and not until after, the crucifixion. Its

introduction in the passages quoted suggests one of two things:

either that the Synoptics put into the mouth of Jesus words that he

never uttered, or that the cross, as a religious symbol, was used

before the crucifixion, in which case its adoption by the church is

no proof of the crucifixion.

398

The so-called historical books of the New Testament, the Four Gospels

and the Acts of the Apostles, declare that Christ was crucified. Do

the remaining books of the New Testament confirm it?

In the first four Pauline Epistles, known as the genuine Epistles

of Paul, the verb crucify--crucified appears in ten different texts,

as follows:

"Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body

of sin might be destroyed" (Romans vi, 6).

"Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?" (1 Corinthians,

i, 13.)

"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block,

and unto the Greeks foolishness" (23).

"For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ,

and him crucified" (ii, 2).

"For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of

glory" (8).

"For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the

power of God" (2 Corinthians xiii, 4).

"I am crucified with Christ" (Galatians ii, 20).

"O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not

obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently

set forth, crucified among you?" (iii, 1.)

"And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the

affections and lusts" (v, 24).

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord

Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the

world" (vi, 14).

Webster defines this word as follows: "1. To nail to a cross; to put to

death by nailing the hands and feet to a cross or gibbet, sometimes,

anciently, by fastening a criminal to a tree with cords. 2. In

scriptural language, to subdue; to mortify; to destroy the power or

ruling influence of. 3. To reject and despise. 4. To vex or torment."

The first, only, denotes a physical crucifixion, which, it is claimed,

Christ suffered. The word, as used by Paul, in most instances, clearly

denotes a crucifying of the passions and carnal pleasures, and the

exceptions, when taken in connection with Paul's well known teachings,

and allowing for the probable corruption of the original text, do

not confirm the Evangelistic accounts of the crucifixion. Besides

this it is admitted that Paul did not witness the crucifixion, and

that these Epistles, even if authentic, were not written until nearly

thirty years after it is said to have occurred.

In the eighteen books which follow, the word crucify appears but

twice--in Hebrews (vi, 6) and in Revelation (xi, 8). The word

crucifixion does not appear once in the Bible.

Concerning the books we have been considering in this criticism,

Paine writes as follows: "Whether the fourteen epistles ascribed to

Paul were written by him or not, is a matter of indifference; they are

either argumentative or dogmatical; and as the argument is defective

and the dogmatical part is merely presumptive, it signifies not who

wrote them. And the same may be said for the remaining parts of the

Testament. It is not upon the Epistles, but upon what is called the

Gospel, contained in the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke,

and John, and upon the pretended prophecies, that the theory of the

church calling itself the Christian Church is founded. The Epistles

are dependent upon those, and must follow their fate; for if the

story of Jesus Christ be fabulous, all reasoning founded upon it as

a supposed truth must fall with it" (Age of Reason).

399

How old was Jesus at the time of his death?

Luke: He was but little more than thirty years old.

John: He was nearly fifty. In a controversy with the Jews, during

his ministry, he said: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day:

and he saw, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art

not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" (viii, 56,

57.) This implies that he was nearly fifty at this time.

Discussing the question of Jesus' age, St. Irenaeus, the most renowned

of the early Christian Fathers, and the founder of the New Testament

canon, who lived in the century immediately following Jesus, says:

"He [Christ] came to save all through means of himself--all I say,

who through him are born again to God--infants and children, and

boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age;

becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child

for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at

the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness and

submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and

thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise, he was an old man

for old men, that he might be a perfect master for all; not merely

as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age;

sanctifying at the same time, the aged also, and becoming an example

to them likewise. Then, at last, he came on to death itself, that he

might be the first born from the dead, that in all things he might

have the pre-eminence; the Prince of Life, existing before all,

and going before all" (Against Heresies, Book iv, ch. xxii, sec. 4).

Commenting on the passage quoted from John, Irenaeus says: "But besides

this, those very Jews who thus disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ,

have most closely indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said

to them, 'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it,

and was glad;' they answered him, 'Thou art not yet fifty years old;

and hast thou seen Abraham?' Now, such language is fittingly applied

to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having yet

reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But

to one who is only thirty years old, it would unquestionably be said,

'Thou art not yet forty years old.' For those who wished to convict

him of falsehood, would certainly not extend the number of his years

far beyond the age which they saw he had attained.... It is altogether

unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when

they wished to prove him younger than the times of Abraham.... He

did not then want much of being fifty years old" (Ibid. sec. 6).

Nor did Irenaeus depend upon the Fourth Gospel alone for his

authority. He was the companion of the aged Polycarp, whom Christians

claim to have been the companion of the Apostle John. Concerning

the testimony of Polycarp and others, he writes: "Those who were

conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [testify]

that John conveyed to them that information. And he (John) remained

among them up to the times of Tragan. Some of them, moreover, saw not

only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the same account

from them, and bear testimony to the statement" (Ib., sec. 5).

In regard to this testimony of the "divine Irenaeus," as he is called,

Godfrey Higgins says: "The church has been guilty of the oversight of

letting this passage from Irenaeus escape. One of the earliest, most

respected, and most quoted of its ancient bishops, saints and martyrs,

tells us in distinct words that Jesus was not crucified under Herod

and Pontius Pilate, but that he lived to be turned fifty years of

age. This he tells us on the authority of his master, St. Polycarp,

also a martyr, who had it from St. John himself, and from all the

old people of Asia" (Anacalypsis).

Of this testimony and its consequences, Judge Waite, in his "History of

Christianity" (pp. 329, 330) says: "It must be remembered that Irenaeus

had been a companion of Polycarp and others who had seen John, and

that he was speaking of what had come to his personal knowledge from

the elders in Asia. If, then, Irenaeus tells the truth, the evidence

in favor of the fact is almost overwhelming. If, on the other hand,

he would deliberately falsify in a matter of this importance, what is

his testimony worth as to the origin of the four gospels? Against this

evidence, we have only the silence of the gospels. But if the silence

of the Synoptics is consistent with a ministry of three or four years,

why is not the further silence of all the gospels consistent with a

ministry of twenty years?

"How would such a theory affect the received chronology concerning

Christ? The date of the crucifixion at not later than A. D. 36,

or when Christ was, by the received chronology, forty years old, is

settled by the fact, that in that year, Pontius Pilate was removed

from his government.... If, then, it be accepted as a historical fact

that Christ was about fifty years old at this crucifixion, the date

of his birth would have to be set back at least ten years."

Every line of these accounts of the trial and crucifixion of Christ

bears the ineffaceable stamp of fiction. There was no Christ to

crucify, and Jesus of Nazareth, if he existed, was not crucified

as claimed.

For more than fifteen centuries an inoffensive, industrious and moral

people have been persecuted, robbed and butchered by Christians,

because their forefathers are said to have slain a mythical God.

Supposing that from the myth of Prometheus had sprung a popular

religion, which, in its day, had, like the religions of Osiris,

Bacchus, Krishna and Christ, overspread the earth. Then think of

the devotees of this religion massacring the Hellenists because Zeus

had crucified Prometheus! How long must our mythology, with all its

attendant evils, rule and curse the world? How long must an innocent

people suffer for an alleged crime that was never committed?

CHAPTER VII.

THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.

400

How long did Jesus say he would remain in the grave?

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly;

so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart

of the earth" (Matthew xii, 40).

How long did he remain in the grave?

Synoptics: Being buried on Friday evening, and having risen on or

before Sunday morning, he was in the grave, at the most, but two

nights and one day.

401

What occurred on the morning of the resurrection?

Matthew: "There was a great earthquake" (xxviii, 2).

The other Evangelists know nothing of this earthquake. They not

only omit it, but their accounts of the resurrection preclude the

possibility of its occurrence.

402

Who were the first to visit the tomb on the morning of the

resurrection?

John: "Mary Magdalene" (xx, 1).

Matthew: "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" (xxviii, 1).

Mark: "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome"

(xvi, 1, 2).

Luke: "Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James,

and other women" (xxiv, 1-10).

403

Who was Salome?

"The wife of Zebedee, as appears from comparing Matt. xxvii, 56,

with Mark xv, 40."--Smith's Bible Dictionary.

Matthew says that the women who witnessed the crucifixion were "Mary

Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of

Zebedee's children." Mark says the women were "Mary Magdalene, and

Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome." This is a

discrepancy that can be reconciled only by supposing that the mother

of Zebedee's children (James and John) was Salome. But the Gospel

of the Egyptians, older than either Matthew or Mark, and accepted by

early Christians as authentic, states that Salome was a single woman.

404

At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?

Mark: "At the rising of the sun" (xvi, 2).

John: "When it was yet dark" (xx, 1).

If they came "at the rising of the sun," or "when the sun was risen"

(New Ver.), it was not yet dark.

405

When does Matthew say they came?

"In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day

of the week" (xxviii, 1).

If they came "in the end of the Sabbath," and Jesus had already risen,

then his resurrection took place, not on the first day of the week, as

claimed, but on the seventh day. Matthew was a Jew; yet the author of

this Gospel was seemingly ignorant of the Jewish method of computing

time, according to which the Sabbath began and ended at sunset. He

evidently supposed that the night preceding their visit to the tomb

belonged to the seventh day, whereas it belonged to the first day.

406

Was the tomb open, or closed, when they came?

Luke: "They found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre" (xxiv, 2).

Matthew: The tomb was closed. The stone was not rolled from the door

until after they came (xxviii, 1, 2).

This, in the opinion of most critics, is the meaning of Matthew's

language.

407

Whom did they meet at the tomb?

Matthew: "The angel" (xxviii, 2-5).

Mark: "A young man" (xvi, 5).

Luke: "Two men" (xxiv, 4).

John: "Two angels" (xx, 12).

408

Were these men or angels in the sepulchre or outside of it?

Matthew: Outside of it (xxviii, 2).

Mark, Luke and John: Inside of it (Mark xvi, 5; Luke xxiv, 3, 4;

John xx, 11, 12).

409

Were they sitting or standing?

Luke: Standing (xxiv, 4).

Matthew, Mark and John: Sitting (Matt. xxviii, 2; Mark xvi, 1; John

xx, 12).

410

What were the first words they spoke to the women?

Matthew and Mark: "Be not affrighted" (Mark xvi, 6; Matt. xxviii, 5).

Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead?" (xxiv, 5.)

John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (xx, 13.)

411

Did Mary Magdalene observe the divine messengers when she first came

to the tomb?

Synoptics: She did (Matt. xxviii, 1-5; Mark xvi, 1-5; Luke xxiv, 1-4).

John: She did not (xx, 1, 2, 11, 12).

412

Who became frightened at the messengers?

Matthew: "The keepers did shake, and became as dead men" (xxviii, 4).

Mark and Luke: "They [the women] were affrighted" (Mark xvi, 5;

Luke xxiv, 5).

413

What did the women do when they became frightened?

Mark: "They went out quickly and fled" (xvi, 8).

Luke: "They bowed down their faces to the earth" (xxiv, 5).

414

Did the women see Jesus?

Matthew: They did. "As they went to tell his disciples, behold,

Jesus met them" (xxviii, 9).

Luke: They did not see him (xxiv).

415

Did the women tell the disciples what they had seen?

Luke: They "returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things

unto the eleven, and to all the rest" (xxiv, 9).

Mark: "Neither said they anything to any man; for they were afraid"

(xvi, 8).

With these words the Gospel of Mark ends, the words that follow being

an interpolation. In this appended passage Mary Magdalene is declared

to have seen Jesus and informed them of it, but they "believed not."

416

How many disciples visited the tomb?

Luke: But one, Peter (xxiv, 12).

John: Two, Peter and John (xx, 3).

417

Who looked into the sepulchre and beheld the linen clothes?

Luke: "Then arose Peter, and ran into the sepulchre; and stooping down,

he beheld the linen clothes" (xxiv, 12).

John: "So they ran both together; and the other disciple [John] did

outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down,

and looking in, saw the linen clothes" (xx, 4, 5).

418

Did Peter enter into the sepulchre?

John: He did. "Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into

the sepulchre" (xx, 6).

Luke: He did not. He looked into the sepulchre "and departed"

(xxiv, 12).

419

State all of the appearances of Jesus mentioned by the Evangelists.

Matthew.

1. To the two Marys (xxviii, 9).

2. To the eleven in Galilee (17).

Mark.

1. To Mary Magdalene (xvi, 9).

2. To two of his disciples (12).

3. To the eleven at meat (14).

The appearances of Jesus mentioned in Mark are all in the apocryphal

supplement. The Gospel of Mark proper does not record a single

appearance of Jesus.

Luke.

1. To Cleopas and his companion (xxiv, 13-31).

2. To Simon (Peter) (34).

3. To the eleven and others (36).

John.

1. To Mary Magdalene (xx, 14-18).

2. To ten (?) disciples (19-24).

3. To the eleven (26-29).

4. To Peter, John and others (xxi).

The last chapter of this Gospel which contains the account of his

fourth appearance, and which ascribes the authorship of the Gospel

to the "beloved disciple" (John), is a forgery.

No two of the Evangelists agree. No two of them are fully agreed in

regard to a single appearance. Each not only omits the appearances

mentioned by the others, but his narrative in nearly every instance

excludes them. As Strauss says, "The designation of the locality in

one excludes the appearances narrated by the rest; the determination

of time in another leaves no space for the narratives of his

fellow-evangelists; the enumeration of a third is given without any

regard to the events reported by his predecessors; lastly, among

several appearances recounted by various narrators, each claims to

be the last, and yet has nothing in common with the others. Hence

nothing but wilful blindness can prevent the perception that no one

of the narrators knew and presupposed what another records."

Referring to the different accounts of the resurrection given by the

Evangelists, Dr. Westcott says: "They contain difficulties which it

is impossible to explain with certainty" (Introduction to Study of

Gospels, p. 329).

Dr. Farrar makes the following admission: "Any one who will attentively

read side by side the narratives of these appearances on the first day

of the resurrection, will see that they have only been preserved for

us in general, interblended, and scattered notices, which, in strict

exactness, render it impossible, without many arbitrary suppositions,

to produce from them a certain narrative of the order of events. The

lacunae, the compressions, the variations, the actual differences,

the subjectivity of the narrators as affected by spiritual revelations,

render all harmonies at the best uncertain" (Life of Christ, vol. ii,

p. 432, note).

420

State the appearances mentioned by Paul.

1. "He was seen of Cephas."

2. "Then of the twelve."

3. "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once."

4. "After that he was seen of James."

5. "Then of all the apostles."

6. "And last of all he was seen of me also."

Paul says that his first appearance was to Peter. This contradicts

all of the Evangelists. His next appearance, Paul declares, was to

the twelve. But there were no twelve at this time; for Judas had

deserted them and his successor had not been elected. Paul evidently

knew nothing of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. He says Jesus was seen

by five hundred brethren at once. The Evangelists are all ignorant

of this appearance, while the author of Acts states that there were

but one hundred and twenty "brethren" in all, and even this number is

considered too large by critics. He says that he appeared to James,

an appearance of which the Evangelists know nothing. After this

he states that he was seen of all the apostles. This is the only

appearance mentioned by Paul which can be reconciled with any of the

Evangelists, and this cannot be reconciled with all of them.

"Last of all he was seen of me also." Paul's belief in the resurrection

was based solely upon Jesus' supposed appearance to him; for the other

alleged appearances he had rejected. Not until he imagined that he

had seen Jesus did he believe that the disciples had seen him, and

the appearance of Jesus to him, which occurred several years after the

resurrection and ascension, is represented as an occurrence of exactly

the same character as his appearances to the disciples. Paul's vision

was clearly a delusion, and if so the other appearances, measured by

Paul's criterion, were delusions also. The Rev. John W. Chadwick truly

says: "Paul's witness to the resurrection is the ruin of the argument."

421

To whom did Jesus first appear?

Matthew: To Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (xxviii, 1, 9).

Mark and John: To Mary Magdalene alone (Mark xvi, 9; John xx, 14-18).

Luke: To Cleopas and his companion (xxiv, 13-31).

Paul: To Cephas (Peter) (1 Cor. xv, 5).

422

Where was Mary Magdalene when Jesus first appeared to her?

John: At the sepulchre (xx, 11-14).

Matthew: On her way home from the sepulchre (xxviii, 8, 9).

423

Did Mary know Jesus when he first appeared to her?

Matthew: She did (xxviii, 9).

John: "She ... knew not that it was Jesus" (xx, 14).

424

Was she permitted to touch him?

Matthew: "They [Mary Magdalene and her companion] came and held him

by the feet" (xxviii, 9).

John: "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not" (xx, 17).

425

Where did he appear to his disciples?

Matthew: In Galilee.

Luke: In Jerusalem.

Matthew says that when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary visited the

tomb an angel appeared to them and said: "Go quickly, and tell his

disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before

you into Galilee; there shall ye see him" (xxviii, 7). As they ran

to convey this intelligence, Jesus himself met them and repeated the

command: "Go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there

shall they see me" (10). "Then the eleven disciples went away into

Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when

they saw him they worshiped him" (16, 17).

Luke (xxiv, 13-35) states that on the day of the resurrection Jesus

journeyed to Emmaus, a village some distance from Jerusalem, with

Cleopas and his companion. They did not recognize him until after

their arrival there, when they returned at once to Jerusalem and

informed the disciples. "As they thus spake Jesus himself stood in the

midst of them" (36). He conversed with them for a time, after which

"he led them out as far as to Bethany" where he took his final leave

of them and ascended to heaven (38-51). Instead of bidding them go

to Galilee, a three days journey from Jerusalem, as Matthew states,

his command was "Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued

with power from on high," which, according to Acts (ii, 1-13), was

not until the day of Pentecost, seven weeks later.

Matthew's narrative forbids the supposition of any meeting in Judea,

while Luke's precludes the possibility of a meeting in Galilee.

Regarding this discrepancy Dean Alford says: "We must be content to

walk by faith, and not by sight" (Greek Testament, p. 905).

426

How far from Jerusalem was Emmaus, where Jesus made his first

appearance?

Luke: "Which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs" (xxiv, 13).

Threescore furlongs was seven and one-half Roman, or about seven

American miles. Emmaus of Judea was about twenty-five miles, or two

hundred furlongs from Jerusalem. There was an Emmaus in Galilee,

about seventy miles from Jerusalem. It is believed by some that the

legend related to the latter place and was subsequently transferred

by Luke to Judea.

427

How many disciples were present when he first appeared to them?

Matthew and Luke: Eleven (Matt. xxviii, 16, 17; Luke xxiv, 33-36).

John: But ten, Thomas being absent (xx, 19-24).

Paul: Twelve (1 Cor. xv, 5).

428

What effect had his presence when he first appeared to them?

Luke: "They were terrified and affrighted" (xxiv, 36, 37).

John: "Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord" (xx, 20).

429

How many of the disciples doubted the reality of his appearance?

Matthew: "Some doubted" (xxviii, 17).

John: But one doubted--Thomas (xx, 24, 25).

430

Were they all finally convinced of his resurrection?

John: They were.

Matthew: They were not.

431

When he appeared to them did they know that he must rise from the dead?

John: "For as yet they knew not that he must rise from the dead"

(xx, 9).

This cannot be reconciled with the Synoptics, who state that during his

ministry he had acquainted them with it. "From that time forth began

Jesus to shew unto his disciples how that he must go unto Jerusalem,

and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes,

and be killed, and be raised again the third day" (Matthew xvi, 21;

Mark viii, 31; Luke ix, 22).

432

Paul says that the last appearance of Jesus was to him. What did his

companions do when they saw the light which attended the appearance?

Acts: "The men which journeyed with him stood speechless" (ix, 7).

Paul: "We were all fallen to the earth" (Acts xxvi, 14).

433

Did Paul's companions see Jesus?

Acts: They did not. "The men which journeyed with him stood speechless,

hearing a voice, but seeing no man" (ix, 7).

This shows that Jesus' alleged appearance to Paul was an imaginary

and not a real appearance.

434

The author of Acts says that his companions heard a voice. Is this

true?

Paul: "They that were with me ... heard not the voice" (Acts xxii, 9).

435

Was Jesus seen by woman after his resurrection?

Matthew, Mark and John: He was.

Luke and Paul: He was not.

According to Luke and Paul his most faithful followers were not honored

by a visit from their Lord, but were neglected and ignored. The

resurrection was not for woman. Nowhere is sex prejudice more

conspicuous than in the accounts of the resurrection written by Paul

and the Pauline Evangelist. To ignore the testimony of Mary Magdalene

is to ignore the testimony of the chief witness for the resurrection.

436

From where did Jesus rise?

All: From the dead. "He is risen from the dead" (Matt. xxviii, 7). "It

behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead" (Luke xxiv,

46). "He was risen from the dead" (John xxi, 14).

According to the Evangelists Jesus rose, not from the grave--not

from the place where the bodies of the dead were deposited--but from

the lower world--from the realm of the dead--where the shades of the

departed were supposed to repose. Regarding this Dr. Hooykaas says:

"Let us begin by considering what that word 'resurrection' really

meant, whether applied to Jesus or to others. Later representations,

down to our own times, have regarded it as equivalent to a rising

from the grave; but the question is, what it meant in the faith

and preaching of the Apostles, in the genuine, original, primitive

tradition that Jesus had risen. Now, 'resurrection' means elsewhere

a return from the realm of shades to the human life on earth; and

Jesus too had left the underworld, but not, in this case, to return

at once to life upon the earth, but to be taken up provisionally

into heaven. Originally the resurrection and ascension of Jesus were

one. It was only later that the conception sprang up of his having

paused upon earth, whether for a single day or for several weeks,

on his journey from the abyss to the height.

"We may, therefore, safely assert that if the friends of Jesus had

thought as we do of the lot of those that die, they would never have

so much as dreamed of their Master's resurrection or ascension. For

to the Christian belief of today it would be, so to speak, a matter

of course that Jesus, like all good and noble souls--and indeed above

all others--would go straight 'to a better world,' 'to heaven,' 'to

God,' at the instant of his death; but in the conception of the Jews,

including the Apostles, this was impossible. Heaven was the abode

of the Lord and his angels only; and if an Enoch or an Elijah had

been caught up there alive, to dwell there for a time, it was certain

that all who died, without exception, even the purest and most holy,

must go down as shades into the realms of the dead in the bowels of

the earth--and thence, of course, they would not issue excepting by

'rising again.' And this is why we are never told that Jesus rose

'from death,' far less 'from the grave,' but always 'from the dead'"

(Bible for Learners, vol. iii, p. 463).

437

Was he readily recognized by his friends?

Matthew, Luke and John: He was not.

Matthew says that when his disciples met him in Galilee, after having

gone there for the express purpose of meeting him, "some doubted"

(xxviii, 17). Luke says that two of his friends journeyed with

him from Jerusalem to Emmaus, conversing with him on the way, and

notwithstanding they had been informed of his resurrection, they did

not recognize him until after they had reached the village. John says

that when Mary Magdalene met him she "knew not that it was Jesus,

... supposing him to be the gardener" (xx, 14, 15); and when he met

his disciples at the Lake of Tiberius they "knew not that it was Jesus"

(xxi, 4).

438

Did his appearances indicate a corporeal, or merely a spiritual

existence?

The Evangelists declare that he was not only seen by his disciples and

others, but that he conversed with them. Matthew says the two Marys

held him by the feet, Luke says he invited the disciples to handle

him, and John says that Thomas examined his wounds; while both Luke

and John state that he partook of nourishment.

On the other hand, Luke says that while he sat at meat with Cleopas

and his companion at Emmaus "He vanished out of their sight" (xxiv,

31). John says that while the disciples were assembled in a room

in Jerusalem, "when the doors were shut," Jesus came "and stood in

the midst" (xx, 19). Eight days later the appearance was repeated:

"Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst"

(26). Mark says that after he appeared to Mary Magdalene "he appeared

in another form" to two of his disciples (xvi, 12).

While the first named appearances can be reconciled with so-called

spiritual manifestations, the latter cannot be reconciled with a

corporeal existence.

In the preceding chapter we have shown that the alleged crucifixion

of Jesus is unworthy of belief. If he was not crucified the story of

his resurrection is, of course, a fiction. But conceding, for the sake

of argument, that he was crucified; does this make his resurrection

probable, or even possible? The crucifixion of a man is a possible

occurrence; but the corporeal resurrection of a man who has suffered

death is impossible. These reputed appearances of Jesus, if they have

a historical foundation, were evidently mere subjective impressions

or apparitions. Although he is declared to have remained on earth

forty days, he made, at the most, but two or three brief visits to

his disciples, appearing and disappearing like a phantom. Instead of

abiding with them, teaching them the doctrines of his religion--of

which they professed to be ignorant--and preparing them for their

coming ministry he is represented as keeping in seclusion, or

roaming aimlessly along the country highways, like some demented

creature. Referring to his appearance to his disciples, Jerome says:

"The apostles supposed him to be a spirit, or according to the

Gospel which the Nazarenes receive [the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew]

an incorporeal demon."

The possibility, and even prevalency, of apparitions similar to those

related of Jesus are recognized by every student of psychology. Sir

Benjamin Brodie, in his "Psychological Inquiries" (p. 78), says:

"There are abundant proofs that impressions may be made in the brain

by other causes simulating those which are made on it by external

objects through the medium of the organs of sense, thus producing

false perceptions, which may, in the first instance, and before we

have had time to reflect on the subject, be mistaken for realities."

The appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene was not believed even by

the disciples. If the disciples believed that Mary was deluded, is it

unreasonable to believe that they were deluded also? Illusions are

contagious and may affect many minds as well as one. Dr. Carpenter,

one of the highest English authorities on mental science, says: "If not

only a single individual, but several persons should be 'possessed'

by one and the same idea or feeling, the same misinterpretation

may be made by all of them; and in such a case the concurrence of

their testimony does not add the least strength to it" (Principles

of Mental Physiology, p. 208). In confirmation of this is cited

the following from a work on "The Philosophy of Apparitions," by

Dr. Hibbert, F.R.S.E.: "A whole ship's company was thrown into the

utmost consternation by the apparition of a cook who had died a few

days before. He was distinctly seen walking ahead of the ship, with

a peculiar gait by which he was distinguished when alive, through

having one of his legs shorter than the other. On steering the ship

towards the object, it was found to be a piece of floating wreck."

These supposed appearances of Jesus were, at the most, only

apparitions, and "Apparitions," to quote Dr. Hibbert again, "are

nothing more than morbid symptoms, which are indicative of an intense

excitement of the renovated feelings of the mind" (Philosophy of

Apparitions, p. 375).

Lord Amberley advances a psychological explanation of the reputed

appearances of Jesus from which I quote the following: "Whatever other

qualities Jesus may have possessed or lacked, there can be no question

that he had one--that of inspiring in others a strong attachment to

himself. He had in his brief career surrounded himself with devoted

disciples; and he was taken from their midst in the full bloom of

his powers by a violent and early death. Now there are some who have

been taught by the bitter experience of their lives how difficult,

nay, how impossible it is to realize in imagination the fact that a

beloved companion is in truth gone from them forever.... We fondly

conceive that in some way the dead must still exist; and if so, can

one, who was so tender before, listen to our cry of pain and refuse

to come? Can one, who soothed us in the lesser troubles of our lives,

look on while we are suffering the greatest agony of all and fail to

comfort? It cannot be. Imagination declines to picture the long future

that lies before us. We cannot understand that we shall never again

listen to the tones of the familiar voice; never feel the touch of

the gentle hand; never be encouraged by the warm embrace that tells

us we are loved, or find a refuge from miserable thoughts and the

vexations of the world in the affectionate and ever-open heart. All

this is too hard for us. We long for a resurrection; we should believe

in it if we could; we do believe in it in sleep, when our feelings

are free to roam at pleasure, unrestrained by the chilling presence

of the material world. In dreams the old life is repeated again and

again. Sometimes the lost one is beside us as of old and we are quite

untroubled by the thought of parting. Sometimes there is a strange and

confusing consciousness that the great calamity has happened, or has

been thought to happen, but that now we are again together, and that

a new life has succeeded upon death.... Granting only a strong emotion

and a lively phantasy, we may comprehend at once how, in many lands, to

many mourners, the images of their dreams may also become the visions

of their waking hours" (Analysis of Religious Belief, pp. 275, 276).

Renan says: "For the historian, the life of Jesus finishes with his

last sigh. But such was the impression he had left in the heart of his

disciples, and of a few devoted women, that during some weeks more

it was as if he were living and consoling them. Had his body been

taken away, or did enthusiasm, always credulous, create afterwards

the group of narratives by which it was sought to establish faith in

the resurrection? In the absence of opposing documents this can never

be ascertained. Let us say, however, that the strong imagination of

Mary Magdalene played an important part in the circumstance. Divine

power of love! Sacred moments in which the passion of one possessed

gave to the world a resuscitated God" (Life of Jesus, p. 296).

439

If Jesus appeared in a material body, was he naked, or clothed?

This is not a vital, but it is a pertinent question. It is stated that

he appeared to Mary Magdalene immediately after the resurrection. Did

he appear to her naked, or was he clothed? As she mistook him for

the gardener, and as the gardener undoubtedly went clad, it may be

presumed that Jesus was clad also. If so, where did he procure his

clothes? His own garments were divided among the soldiers, and his

grave clothes were left in the sepulchre. If it be assumed that he

was taken from the tomb by his friends, as some critics believe,

the difficulty vanishes.

440

What is said of the saints who arose on the day of the crucifixion?

Matthew: They "came out of the graves after the resurrection, and

went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (xxvii, 53).

Before Matthew's wholesale resurrection of the saints the

resurrection of Jesus pales into insignificance. In the opinion

of many supernaturalists Matthew has mixed too large a dose of the

miraculous for even Christian credulity to swallow, and they would

gladly omit this portion of it. Regarding this story Dr. Farrar says:

"An earthquake shook the earth and split the rocks, and as it rolled

away from their places the great stones which closed and covered the

cavern sepulchres of the Jews, so it seemed to the imaginations of

many to have disimprisoned the spirits of the dead, and to have filled

the air with ghostly visitants, who after Christ had risen appeared

to linger in the Holy City" (Life of Christ, vol. ii, p. 419). Dean

Milman dismisses it in much the same way. Referring to the earthquake,

he says: "The same convulsion would displace the stones which covered

the ancient tombs and lay open many of the innumerable rock-hewn

sepulchres which perforated the hills on every side of the city, and

expose the dead to public view. To the awe-struck and depressed minds

of the followers of Jesus, no doubt, were confined these visionary

appearances of the spirits of their deceased brethren" (History of

Christianity, vol. i, p. 336).

If the minds of the disciples were so greatly affected that they

imagined they beheld the resurrected bodies of strangers whom they

had never met and of whom they had probably never heard--for they

were nearly a hundred miles from the graves of their own kindred--is

it strange that they should imagine they saw the resurrected Master

with whom they had daily associated for months and perhaps years? To

characterize these resurrected saints as "ghostly visitants" and

"visionary appearances," and the resurrected Christ as a real being,

is a distinction without a scintilla of evidence to support it. Both

appearances, if they be historical, belong to the same class of mental

phenomena; and are, indeed, the offspring of the same minds.

441

When did the resurrection take place?

All: In the night.

Who witnessed it?

All: No one.

The author of "Supernatural Religion" says: "The remarkable fact is,

therefore, absolutely undeniable, that there was not, and that it is

not even pretended that there was, a single eye-witness to the actual

Resurrection. The empty grave, coupled with the supposed subsequent

appearances of Jesus, is the only evidence of the Resurrection"

(p. 1004).

442

It is said that a guard was stationed at the tomb. Why was this done?

Matthew: "The chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,

saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet

alive, After three days I will rise again. Command, therefore, that

the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples

come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is

risen from the dead" (xxvii, 62-64).

Is it not strange that his enemies should be cognizant of this when

his disciples "knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from

the dead?" (John xx, 9.)

Regarding this the "Bible for Learners" says: "Was such a foolish

report really circulated among the Jews? In any case this story,

which is worked out elaborately in the Gospel of Nicodemus, is quite

absurd. Is it likely that the enemies of Jesus would have heard a

prophecy of his rising again when his very friends never dreamed of it

for a moment, and when he had never once spoken of his 'resurrection'

in public?" (Vol. iii, p. 480.)

443

On what day did the Sanhedrim visit Pilate for the purpose of obtaining

a guard?

Matthew: On the Sabbath (xxvii, 62).

Matthew, after describing the death and burial of Jesus, says: "Now the

next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests

and Pharisees came together unto Pilate." It is generally conceded by

Christian commentators that by "the next day" Matthew refers to the

Sabbath, for if Jesus was crucified and buried on Friday, no other

day can be meant. To avoid the disagreeable consequences of such an

admission a few have contended that by "the day of preparation" is

meant the Preparation of the Passover. But this renders the passage

unintelligible. By "preparation" Matthew means, not the Preparation of

the Passover, but the preparation of the Sabbath. This is made clear

by the other Synoptics. After relating the events of the crucifixion,

Mark begins his account of the burial with these words: "And now when

the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day

before the Sabbath" (xv, 42). Luke, after giving an account of the

crucifixion and burial, says: "And that day was the preparation and

the Sabbath drew on" (xxiii, 54).

It is claimed by the Evangelists that the Jewish priests of that

period were such rigid observers of the Sabbath that they sought to

put Jesus to death for simply healing the sick on that day. That the

Sanhedrim desecrated the Sabbath, and especially the Passover Sabbath,

by visiting and transacting business with a heathen ruler cannot be

accepted as possible.

444

When was the guard placed at the tomb?

Matthew: Not until the second night.

It is argued that Jesus must have risen because a guard was placed

at his tomb so that it was impossible for his disciples to "come

by night, and steal him away." But had his body really been left in

the tomb, as claimed, they would have taken it the first night had

they desired it. The passage cited from Matthew in the preceding

criticism declares that a guard was not requested of Pilate until

the day following the crucifixion, so that the tomb was without a

guard the first night. The sepulchre was not opened and examined

when the guard was placed there on the following day. "So they went

and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch"

(Matt. xxvii, 66). Had the seal been found unbroken at the end of

three days it would not have proved that Jesus' body still remained

in the tomb. It would merely have proved that the body had not been

removed after the seal was placed on it.

It may be urged that Jesus had prophesied that he would not rise until

the third day, and that an earlier disappearance of the body could

not be harmonized with a strict fulfillment of the prophecy. But of

this prophecy the disciples, we have seen, were ignorant.

445

What is said in regard to the opening of the tomb?

Matthew: "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the

first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see

the sepulchre. And behold there was a great earthquake; for the angel

of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone

from the door, and sat upon it.... And the angel answered and said

unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which

was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come,

see the place where the Lord lay" (xxviii, 1-6).

Matthew's story of the guard was evidently inserted for the express

purpose of establishing a belief in the resurrection by making it

appear impossible for his friends to have removed the body from the

sepulchre. Yet this story suggests, if it does not prove, the very

thing that he attempts to prove impossible. The sepulchre was opened

in the presence of witnesses--the guards and the women. Jesus did

not emerge from it, nor did it contain his body. It was empty when

opened. This renders probable, if not certain, one of two things:

either his body was not deposited there, or it was removed before

the watch was set.

Commenting on the empty tomb L. K. Washburn says: "If Jesus got out of

the grave alive, he was put into it alive. If he was put into it dead,

he was taken out dead. A depopulated sepulchre is not proof that its

former tenant has moved to heaven. It is merely proof that somebody

has stolen a dead body."

446

What did the guards do when they left the tomb?

Matthew: "Some of the watch came into the city, and showed unto the

chief priests all the things that were done" (xxviii, 11).

To one acquainted with the discipline of the Roman army this story of

the soldiers leaving their post thirty-six hours before the expiration

of the watch assigned and going into the city and telling the Jews

what had transpired is incredible.

447

What did the chief priests do?

Matthew: "They gave large sums of money unto the soldiers, saying,

Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept"

(12, 13).

The penalty for sleeping while on duty was death, and no bribe could

have induced them to declare that they were guilty of this offense

even if the priests had promised to intercede for them. Again, had

this transaction really occurred it would have been known only by

the parties concerned in it, and when disclosure meant the direst

punishment to both the bribe-givers and the bribe-takers, neither

would have divulged the crime.

Strauss, criticising the alleged action of the Jewish priests, says:

"Their conduct, when the guards returning from the grave apprised them

of the resurrection of Jesus, is truly impossible. They believe the

assertion of the soldiers that Jesus had arisen out of his grave in

a miraculous manner. How could the council, many of whose members

were Sadducees, receive this as credible? Even the Pharisees in

the Sanhedrim, though they held in theory the possibility of a

resurrection, would not, with the mean opinion they entertained

of Jesus, be inclined to believe in his resurrection, especially

as the assertion in the mouth of the guards sounded just like a

falsehood invented to screen a failure in duty. The real Sanhedrists,

on hearing such an assertion from the soldiers, would have replied

with exasperation: You lie! you have slept and allowed him to be

stolen; but you will have to pay dearly for this, when it comes to be

investigated by the procurator. But instead of this, the Sanhedrists

in our gospel speak them fair, and entreat them thus: Tell a lie,

say that you have slept and allowed him to be stolen; moreover,

they pay them richly for the falsehood, and promise to exculpate

them to the procurator. This is evidently spoken entirely on the

Christian presupposition of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus;

a presupposition, however, which is quite incorrectly attributed to

the Sanhedrim" (Leben Jesu, pp. 806, 807).

448

What is said of the resurrection by Peter?

"Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; not to all the

people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did

eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead" (Acts x, 40, 41).

If God really wished to convince all the people why did he not show

him to all the people? It is said that more than two millions of Jews

attended the Passover. Had he desired to prove to them that Jesus was

the Christ he would have assembled this multitude at midday and in

their presence raised his crucified and buried Son. Yet not a single

human being witnessed the resurrection, and not a single disinterested

witness is said to have seen him after his death. Like a thief he

escapes from his prison in the night and avoids publicity. This story

of the resurrection is clearly a priestly invention and the composer

of the speech ascribed to Peter was conscious of the fact.

449

What did Paul teach regarding the resurrection of Christ?

"That Christ should suffer and that he should be the first that should

rise from the dead" (Acts xxvi, 23).

If Christ was the first to rise from the dead what becomes of the

miracles of Lazarus, of the widow of Nain's son, and of the daughter

of Jairus? What becomes of Matthew's saints who rose from the dead

on the day of the crucifixion, two days before Christ rose?

450

What did Paul teach regarding the resurrection of the dead in general?

"If the dead rise not, then is Christ not raised" (1 Corinthians

xv, 16).

"He that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more" (Job vii, 9).

451

When did the disciples receive the Holy Ghost?

John: "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto

them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost" (xx, 22).

This was on the evening of the resurrection. Forty days after this

he said to them: "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many

days hence" (Acts i, 5).

Acts: "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come ... they were

all filled with the Holy Ghost" (ii, 1-4).

This was seven weeks after the resurrection.

452

On what day of the week did it occur?

John: "The first day of the week" (xx, 19).

John, like the author of the first Gospel, is evidently ignorant of the

Jewish method of reckoning time. He makes the evening (it was night)

following the first day a part of that day instead of the next day

to which it belonged.

453

Did Thomas receive the Holy Ghost?

John: He did not. He was absent when the disciples received it

(xx, 19-25).

454

Who had Jesus said would send the Holy Ghost to his disciples?

"The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send"

(John xiv, 26).

"I [Jesus] will send him unto you" (xvi, 7).

455

What effect had the Holy Ghost upon them?

Acts: They "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave

them utterance" (ii, 4).

Concerning this "gift" Greg says: "Ignorance and folly too often became

the arbiters of wisdom--and the ravings of delirium were listened to

as the words of inspiration, and of God. If Jesus could have returned

to earth thirty years after his death, and sat in the midst of an

assembly of his followers, who were listening in hushed and wondering

prostration of mind to a speaker in the 'unknown tongue,' how would

he have wept over the humiliating and disappointing spectacle! how

would he have grieved to think that the incoherent jargon of delirium

or hysteria should be mistaken for the promptings of his Father's

spirit!" (Creed of Christendom, p. 250.)

456

Who heard them speak in new tongues?

Acts: "Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in

Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia

and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene,

and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians"

(ii, 9-11).

Did representatives of all these nations really assemble to hear

the disciples, or was this merely an imaginary gathering of the

writer? Evidently the latter.

457

To the charge of drunkenness what reply did Peter make?

"These are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third

hour of the day" (Acts ii, 15).

A profane mind, unacquainted with Jewish customs, might infer from

this that the disciples were not in the habit of becoming intoxicated

before nine o'clock in the morning.

458

What inquiry did Paul make of John's disciples?

"Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?"

What did they say in reply?

"We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost"

(Acts xix, 2).

This was many years after the death of Jesus. Either this colloquy

is false, or the story of John the Baptist is false. If John was the

forerunner of Christ, as claimed, his disciples became followers of

Christ; and if they became followers of Christ they were acquainted

with the doctrine of the Holy Ghost--if it existed at this time.

459

When did Jesus' disciples begin to baptize?

Matthew and Mark: Not until after his resurrection (Matt. xxviii,

18, 19; Mark xvi, 15, 16).

John: At the beginning of his ministry. "After these things came Jesus

and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with

them, and baptized" (iii, 22). "The Pharisees had heard that Jesus

made and baptized more disciples than John. (Though Jesus himself

baptized not, but his disciples.)" (iv, 1, 2).

460

What form of baptism is Jesus said to have prescribed for the use of

his apostles?

"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

(Matthew xxviii, 19).

The apostles did not baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son,

and of the Holy Ghost, but in the name of Christ alone.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you

in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts ii, 38).

"They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (viii, 16).

"He commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (x, 48).

"They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (xix, 5).

Concerning this Greg says: "That this definite form of baptism

proceeded from Jesus, is opposed by the fact that such an allocation

of the Father, Son, and Spirit, does not elsewhere appear, except

as a form of salutation in the epistles; while as a definite form of

baptism it is nowhere met with throughout the New Testament. Moreover,

it was not the form used, and could scarcely, therefore, have been the

form commanded; for in the apostolic epistles, and even in the Acts,

the form always is 'baptizing into Christ Jesus,' or, 'into the name

of the Lord Jesus'" (Creed of Christendom, p. 191).

This ecclesiastical formula was not adopted by the church until late in

the second century, and then, not for baptism, but for admission into

the church. In regard to this the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: "Baptism into

the name of God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy

Spirit, means baptism into the confession of or faith in these three,

and is a short epitome of Christian doctrine of which Jesus certainly

never dreamed; nay, it is obvious from all accounts that, even in

the apostolic age, it was as yet quite unknown; and the still later

age which drew up the words by no means intended them as a baptismal

formula, but rather as a statement of the conditions of admission

into the community. In making the utterance of these words, instead

of the imposition of these conditions, the first act of admission into

the community of Christ, the Church has confounded words with things"

(Bible for Learners, vol. iii, pp. 472, 473).

461

What was his final command to the apostles?

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature"

(Mark xvi, 15).

This is utterly irreconcilable with Acts (xi, 1-18). Eight years

after the death of Jesus, Peter is condemned for preaching to the

Gentiles. "And the apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that

the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come

to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him"

(1, 2). How does he meet the accusation and justify his conduct? By

reminding them that it was the express will of their Master? No; he

tells them that while in a trance at Joppa he had a vision instructing

him to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. "When they heard these things,

they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also

to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (18).

462

How long did Jesus remain on earth?

Luke: One day (xxiv).

John: At least ten days (xx, xxi).

Acts: He was "seen of them forty days" (i, 3).

The greatest discrepancy is between Luke and Acts, two books which

it is claimed were written by the same author.

463

Where did the ascension take place?

Mark: In Jerusalem (xvi, 14, com. Luke xxiv, 33).

Luke: At Bethany (xxiv, 50, 51).

Acts: At Mount Olivet (i, 9-12).

464

Describe the ascension.

Luke: "And it came to pass while he blessed them he was parted from

them and carried up into heaven" (xxiv, 51).

The ascension of Romulus doubtless suggested the story of the ascension

of Jesus.

465

What occurred at the ascension?

Acts: "While they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up,

behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye

men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus,

which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner

as ye have seen him go into heaven" (i, 10, 11).

It is remarkable that the Evangelists who find space to record the

sayings of lunatics and devils, have not room to record the words of

angels, or even note their presence.

466

For what purpose did Jesus ascend to heaven?

"I go to prepare a place for you" (John xiv, 2).

What was the need of this when the place had already been "prepared

... from the foundation of the world" (Matthew xxv, 34)?

467

Did Jesus ascend bodily into heaven?

Luke: He ascended to heaven in a body of flesh and blood (xxiv, 36-43,

50, 51).

Paul: "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with

what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not

quickened except it die; and that which thou sowest thou sowest not

that body that shall be" (1 Corinthians xv, 35-37).

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is

a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (44).

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the

Kingdom of God" (50).

The whole theology of Paul is opposed to the bodily resurrection

and ascension of Jesus. The "Bible for Learners" says: "In speaking

of the resurrection, he [Paul] does not mean the reanimation of the

body of Jesus; and indeed he expressly excludes such a thought by

ascribing to the Christ a glorified and spiritual body not made of

flesh and blood. It is equally certain that he thinks of the Christ

as having appeared from heaven; and his ranking the appearance to

himself--unquestionably the product of his own fervid imagination--as

parallel with those which preceded it [his appearances to the

disciples], seems to indicate that they were all visions alike"

(Vol. iii, p. 467).

468

Do all the Evangelists record the ascension?

Matthew and John, both of whom are declared to have been apostles,

and the only Evangelists who are supposed to have witnessed the

ascension, know nothing of it. The last twelve verses of Mark, it is

admitted, are spurious; while the words, "carried up into heaven,"

of Luke do not appear in the Sinaitic version, the oldest version of

the New Testament extant. With this forged appendix to Mark and this

interpolated passage in Luke eliminated, the Four Gospels contain no

mention of the ascension.

469

Had any man ever ascended to heaven before Jesus?

Jesus: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from

heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (John iii, 13).

Then that story about Elijah is a fiction, is it?

In regard to the resurrection and ascension Thomas Paine says:

"As to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was

the necessary counterpart of his birth. His historians having brought

him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him

out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have

fallen to the ground. The wretched contrivance with which this latter

part is told exceeds every thing that went before it. The first part,

that of the miraculous conception, was not a thing that admitted of

publicity; and therefore the tellers of this part of the story had this

advantage, that though they might not be credited, they could not be

detected.... But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave,

and his ascension through the air, is a thing very different as to

the evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in

the womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken

place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the

ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon-day, to all Jerusalem at

least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that

the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal;

and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only

evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it

falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given.... It is

in vain to attempt to palliate or disguise this matter. The story,

so far as relates to the supernatural part, has every mark of fraud

and imposition stamped upon the face of it. Who were the authors of

it is as impossible for us now to know, as it is for us to be assured

that the books in which the account is related were written by the

persons whose names they bear; the best surviving evidence we now have

respecting this affair is the Jews. They are regularly descended from

the people who lived in the times this resurrection and ascension

is said to have happened, and they say, it is not true. It has long

appeared to me a strange inconsistency to cite the Jews as a proof of

the truth of the story. It is just the same as if a man were to say,

I will prove the truth of what I have told you by producing the people

who say it is false" (Age of Reason, pp. 10, 11).

"The story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of

an apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision,

and credulity believe" (Ibid, 161).

"Supernatural Religion" says: "The whole of the evidence for the

Resurrection reduces itself to an undefined belief on the part of

a few persons, in a notoriously superstitious age, that after Jesus

had died and been buried they had seen him alive. These visions, it is

admitted, occurred at a time of the most intense religious excitement,

and under circumstances of wholly exceptional mental agitation and

distress. The wildest alternations of fear, doubt, hope and indefinite

expectation, added their effects to oriental imaginations already

excited by indignation at the fate of their Master, and sorrow or

despair at such a dissipation of their Messianic dreams. There was

present every element of intellectual and moral disturbance. Now

must we seriously ask again whether this bare and wholly unjustified

belief can be accepted as satisfactory evidence for so astounding

a miracle as the Resurrection? Can the belief of such men, in such

an age, establish the reality of a phenomenon which is contradicted

by universal experience? We have no evidence as to what actually

occurred. We do not even know the facts upon which they based their

inferences. We only know that they thought they had seen Jesus and that

they, therefore, concluded that he had risen from the dead. It comes

to us as bare belief from the Age of Miracles, unsupported by facts,

uncorroborated by evidence, unaccompanied by proof of investigation,

and unprovided with material for examination. What is such belief

worth? We have no hesitation in saying that it is absolutely worth

nothing" (pp. 1048, 1049).

The Rev. Dr. Phillip Schaff, one of the most eminent evangelical

Christian scholars of this country, in his "History of the Christian

Church," makes this candid admission regarding the resurrection and

ascension of Christ:

"Truth compels us to admit that there are serious difficulties

in harmonizing the accounts of the Evangelists, and in forming a

consistent conception of Christ's resurrection body hovering as it

were between heaven and earth, and a supernatural state, of a body

clothed with flesh and blood and bearing the wound prints, and yet

so spiritual as to appear and disappear through closed doors and to

ascend visibly to heaven."

CHAPTER VIII.

CHARACTER AND TEACHINGS.

470

Who was Jesus Christ?

Mark: He was the son of man.

Matthew and Luke: He was the Son of God.

John: He was God himself.

In the Four Gospels are presented three entirely different

conceptions of the Christ. In Mark he is represented as the son of

human parents--the Messiah--but simply a man. In Matthew and Luke we

have the story of the miraculous conception--he is represented as the

Son of God. In John he is declared to be God himself. "In the beginning

was the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

(i, 1).

According to Mark Christ is a man; according to Matthew and Luke,

a demi-god; according to John, a God.

Voltaire thus harmonizes these discordant conceptions: "The son of

God is the same as the son of man; the son of man is the same as the

son of God. God, the father, is the same as Christ, the son; Christ,

the son, is the same as God, the father. This language may appear

confused to unbelievers, but Christians will readily understand it."

This is quite as intelligible as the Christian Confession of Faith,

Article II of which reads as follows: "The Son, which is the Word

of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and

eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man's nature

in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two

whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood,

were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is

one Christ, very God, and very Man."

"The theological Christ is the impossible union of the human and

divine--man with the attributes of God, and God with the limitations

and weaknesses of man."--Ingersoll.

471

Is God a visible Being?

Jacob: "I have seen God face to face" (Genesis xxxii, 30).

John: "No man hath seen God at any time" (i, 18).

472

How many Gods are there?

Mark: One.

John: Three.

Mark teaches the doctrine of Unitarianism (Monotheism), or one

God. John teaches, not the doctrine of Unitarianism or one God,

nor yet the doctrine of Trinitarianism or three Gods in one, but the

doctrine of Tritheism or three distinct Gods, separate and independent

of each other.

473

Is the doctrine of the Trinity taught in the New Testament?

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,

and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 John v, 7).

This is the only passage in the New Testament which clearly teaches

the doctrine of the Trinity, and this passage is admitted by all

Christian scholars to be an interpolation.

When the modern version of the New Testament was first published

by Erasmus it was criticised because it contained no text teaching

the doctrine of the Trinity. Erasmus promised his critics that if

a manuscript could be found containing such a text he would insert

it. The manuscript was "found," and the text quoted appeared in a later

edition. Concerning this interpolation Sir Isaac Newton, in a letter

to a friend, which was afterward published by Bishop Horsley, says:

"When the adversaries of Erasmus had got the Trinity into his edition,

they threw by their manuscript as an old almanac out of date."

Alluding to the doctrine of the Trinity, Thomas Jefferson says: "It is

too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the

Platonic mysticism that three are one and one is three, and yet, that

the one is not three, and the three not one.... But this constitutes

the craft, the power, and profits of the priests. Sweep away their

gossamer fabrics of fictitious religion, and they would catch no more

flies" (Jefferson's Works, vol. iv, p. 205, Randolph's ed.).

Again Jefferson says: "The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another

Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in

the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs" (Ibid, p. 360).

474

Was Christ the only begotten Son of God?

John: He was "the only begotten Son of God" (iii, 18).

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,

when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare

children unto them" (Genesis vi, 4).

475

By what agency and when was the Christ begotten?

Matthew and Luke: By the Holy Ghost at the time of his conception by

the Virgin Mary.

According to Justin the Holy Ghost begat the Christ, not at the

conception of Jesus, as claimed by these Evangelists, but at his

baptism. At his baptism the voice from heaven said: "Thou art my son;

this day have I begotten thee" (Dialogues 88).

The correctness of Justin's statement is corroborated by Hebrews:

"Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he

that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee"

(v, 5). Christ's priesthood began at his baptism.

476

Of what gender is the Holy Ghost?

Matthew (Greek Ver.): Masculine gender.

Matthew (Hebrew Ver.): Feminine gender.

The Holy Ghost (Spirit), as was noted in a previous chapter, was

with the Greeks of masculine gender, with the Jews of feminine

gender. The Gospel According to the Hebrews, which, it is claimed,

was the original Gospel of Matthew, represented Jesus as saying,

"Just now my mother, the Holy Ghost, laid hold on me."

If the Holy Ghost was the mother of Jesus did he have two

mothers? According to our Greek version of Matthew, as well as that

of Luke, he had one mother and three reputed fathers--God, the Holy

Ghost, and Joseph.

477

Christ, it is affirmed, was born of Mary. If so, what relation did

she bear to him?

1. If he was born of Mary she was his mother.

2. She "being with child by the Holy Ghost," and Father, Son and Holy

Ghost being one, she bore to him the relation of wife.

3. God being the Father of all mankind, and God and Christ being one,

she was his daughter.

4. She being the daughter of God, and Christ being the Son of God,

she was therefore his sister.

Consequently Mary bore to him the relation of mother, wife, daughter

and sister.

478

The greater portion of the Christian church affirms the perpetual

virginity of Mary. It is claimed that Jesus was her only child and

that the conception and birth of him did not destroy her virginity. Is

this confirmed by the Evangelists?

It is not. Matthew and Mark say: "Is not his mother called Mary? and

his brethren, James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? and his sisters,

are they not all with us?" (Matt. xiii, 55, 56; Mark vi, 3). Luke

(viii, 19) and John (vii, 3) both declare that he had brothers.

To maintain this dogma it is affirmed that by "brethren and sisters"

is meant cousins. Dr. Farrar, who in regard to this as in regard

to most disputed points, assumes a non-committal or conciliatory

attitude, concedes that "the natural supposition that, after the

miraculous conception of our Lord, Joseph and Mary lived together in

the married state, and that James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon,

with daughters, whose names are not recorded, were subsequently born

to them," is "in accordance certainly with the prima facie evidence

of the Gospels" (Life of Christ, p. 51).

479

Who did Mary say was the father of Jesus?

Luke: When he remained behind in Jerusalem, and they found him in the

temple, "his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with

us? behold, thy father [Joseph] and I have sought thee sorrowing"

(ii, 48).

To believe that a Jewish virgin was overshadowed by a spirit, and

miraculously conceived and bore a child, requires more convincing

proof than the dream of a credulous lover. We ought at least to have

the testimony of the mother. But we have it not. She testifies that

Joseph is his father.

480

What did Jesus' neighbors say regarding his paternity?

Matthew: They said, "Is not this the carpenter's [Joseph's]

son?" (xiii, 55.)

Luke: "They said, Is not this Joseph's son?" (iv, 22.)

John: "They said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph?" (vi, 42.)

The Rev. Dr. Crapsey, of the Episcopal church, in his work on "Religion

and Politics" (p. 289), makes this significant admission regarding

the divine origin of Jesus: "The fact of his miraculous birth was

unknown to himself, unknown to his mother, and unknown to the whole

Christian community of the first generations."

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, wrote: "The day will come

when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his

father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of

the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (Jefferson Works,

vol. iv, p. 365, Randolph's ed.).

481

Who did Peter declare him to be?

"Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God" (Acts ii, 22).

Who did Paul declare him to be?

"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man

Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy ii, 5).

The Christ of Peter and Paul was not a God, but a man--a man upon

whom had been bestowed divine gifts--but yet a man.

482

What testimony is ascribed to Paul?

"Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh"

(1 Timothy iii, 16).

This is a gross perversion of Scripture for the purpose of making

Paul a witness to Christ's divinity. Regarding this text and the

Trinitarian text inserted in 1 John, Sir Isaac Newton, in his letter

previously quoted from, says:

"What the Latins have done in this text (1 John v, 7) the Greeks

have done to Paul (1 Tim. iii, 16). They now read, 'Great is the

mystery of godliness; God manifest in the flesh'; whereas all the

churches for the first four or five hundred years, and the authors of

all the ancient versions, Jerome as well as the rest, read, 'Great

is the mystery of godliness, which was manifest in the flesh.' Our

English version makes it yet a little stronger. It reads, 'Great is

the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.'"

In conclusion Newton says: "If the ancient churches, in debating and

deciding the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these

two texts, I understand not why we should be so fond of them now the

debate is over."

483

Christ is declared by the Christian creed to be "the very and eternal

God." God, it is claimed, is omnipotent. Was Christ omnipotent?

"The Son can do nothing of himself" (John v, 19).

"I can of mine own self do nothing" (30).

484

God is omniscient. Was Christ omniscient?

Referring to his second advent he says: "Of that day and hour knoweth

no man, ... neither the Son" (Mark xiii, 32).

485

God is omnipresent. Was Christ omnipresent?

"I am glad for your sakes that I was not there" (John xi, 15).

"Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye

cannot come" (vii, 36).

"And now I am no more in the world" (xvii, 11).

486

God is self-existent. Was Christ self-existent?

"I live by the Father" (John vi, 57).

"He liveth by the power of God" (2 Corinthians xiii, 4).

487

Did Christ have a preexistence?

"Before Abraham was, I am" (John viii, 58).

According to the Synoptics his existence began with his life on earth.

488

Was he infinite in wisdom?

Luke: He "increased in wisdom" (ii, 52).

If he increased in wisdom his knowledge was limited, and limitation

of knowledge is not an attribute of an infinite God.

489

Was he infinite in goodness?

"Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God"

(Mark x, 18).

490

Was he infinite in mercy?

"He that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark xvi, 16).

"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire" (Matthew xxv, 41).

"Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works

were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe

unto thee, Bethsaida!... It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and

Sidon at the day of Judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum,

which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell"

(Matthew xi, 20-23).

491

His resurrection is adduced as the chief argument in proof of his

divinity. Did he raise himself from the dead?

Peter: He did not. God raised him. "Jesus Christ of Nazareth, ... whom

God raised from the dead" (Acts iv, 10).

If Christ, then, did not rise from the dead by his own volition,

was his resurrection any proof of his divinity? No more than the

resurrection of Lazarus was proof of Lazarus's divinity.

492

His miraculous conception is adduced as another proof of his

divinity. Is this the only miraculous conception claimed in the Bible?

It is not. Isaac, Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist are all claimed

to have been miraculously conceived (Genesis xviii, 10, 11; xxi, 1-3;

Judges xiii, 2, 3, 24; 1 Samuel i, 9-11, 20; Luke i, 7-13).

493

His miracles, it is claimed, attest his divinity. Were he and his

disciples the only ones who performed miracles?

These alleged miracles were performed before his time--the Old

Testament abounds with them--and they have been performed since his

time. They were performed by others in his own time--were performed by

those who ignored and rejected him--were performed by the disciples

of Satan himself (Matthew vii, 22; xii, 27; Mark ix, 38; xiii, 22;

Luke ix, 49).

"Supernatural Religion" says: "The supposed miraculous evidence for the

divine revelation, moreover, is without any special divine character,

being avowedly common also to Satanic agency, but it is not original

either in conception or details. Similar miracles to those which are

supposed to attest it are reported long antecedent to the promulgation

of Christianity, and continued to be performed for centuries after

it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has flowed through

all human history, deep and broad as it has passed through the

darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has entered days

of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and commonplace to

make any impression upon those before whom the Christian miracles are

said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to convince the

people to whom the revelation was primarily addressed. The selection

of such evidence, for such a purpose, is much more characteristic of

human weakness than of divine power" (p. 699).

Archbishop Trench says: "Side by side with the miracles which

serve for the furthering of the kingdom of God runs another line of

wonders, the counter-workings of him who is ever the ape of the Most

High.... This fact that the kingdom of lies has its wonders no less

than the kingdom of truth, is itself sufficient evidence that miracles

cannot be appealed to absolutely and finally, in proof of the doctrine

which the worker of them proclaims" (Miracles of Our Lord, p. 22).

The miracles of Christ, like the miracles of Satan, existed only in

the minds of his credulous and deluded followers.

"Ye shall have miracles, aye, sound ones too,

Seen, heard, attested, everything but true."

--Thomas Moore.

494

Prophecy is appealed to in support of his divinity. It is claimed

that the writers of the Old Testament predicted his coming. Do such

predictions exist?

In his work on "The Bible," as well as in a previous chapter of this

work, the writer has shown that there is not a single passage in

the Old Testament that, in the original text, refers in the remotest

degree to Jesus Christ.

Greg shows that much of Old Testament history, like Deuteronomy, is

presented in the form of anticipatory narrative. To the Christian

argument that the Messianic predictions, at least, were written

long anterior to the time of Christ, he replies: "This is true,

and the argument would have all the force which is attributed to it,

were the objectors able to lay their fingers on a single Old Testament

prediction clearly referring to Jesus Christ, intended by the utterers

of it to relate to him, prefiguring his character and career, and

manifestly fulfilled in his appearance on earth. This they cannot

do. Most of the passages usually adduced as complying with these

conditions, referred, and were clearly intended to refer, to eminent

individuals in Israelitish history; many are not prophecies at all;

the Messiah, the anointed deliverer, expected by the Jews, hoped

for and called for by their poets and prophets, was of a character

so different, and a career so opposite, to those of the meek, lowly,

long-suffering Jesus, that the passages describing the one never could

have been applied to the other, without a perversion of ingenuity,

and a disloyal treatment of their obvious signification, which, if

employed in any other field than that of theology, would have met with

the prompt discredit and derision they deserve" (Creed of Christendom,

pp. 135, 136).

495

His own prescience is cited in proof of his divinity. The destruction

of the temple by the Romans, it is claimed, was a wonderful instance

of the fulfillment of prophecy. But did his so-called prophecy have

reference to this event?

No one can read this prophecy (Matthew xxiv, 1-3) and then honestly

contend that it did. He clearly refers to his second coming and the

end of the world when the temple, in common with all sublunary things,

shall be destroyed. In the verse immediately following this prediction,

his disciples say: "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what

shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

But even if this so-called prophecy had referred to this event it

is rendered nugatory by the fact that the book containing it was not

composed until a hundred years after the destruction of the temple.

496

When was Christ's second coming and the end of terrestrial things to

take place?

"There be some standing here that shall not taste of death till they

see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew xvi, 28).

"This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled" (Luke

xxi, 32).

Seventy-five generations have passed, and still the world rolls on,

unmoved by Christ's and Mother Shipton's prophecies.

497

Did the Apostles believe that the second coming of Christ and the

end of the world were at hand?

Peter: "The end of all things is at hand" (1 Peter iv, 7).

James: "The coming of the Lord draweth nigh" (James v, 8).

John: "Ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there

many antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last time" (1 John

ii, 18).

Paul: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,

with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the

dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain

shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord

in the air" (1 Thessalonians iv, 16, 17).

Renan, ever ready to palliate or overlook the errors of his hero,

frankly admits that the predictions concerning his second advent and

the end of the world were a dismal failure. "It is evident, indeed," he

says, "that such a doctrine, taken by itself in a literal manner, had

no future. The world, in continuing to exist, caused it to crumble. One

generation of man at the most was the limit of its endurance. The

faith of the first Christian generation is intelligible, but the faith

of the second generation is no longer so. After the death of John,

or of the last survivor, whoever he might be, of the group which

had seen the master, the word of Jesus was convicted of falsehood"

(Life of Jesus, pp. 203, 204).

498

To what extent was the gospel to be preached before his second coming?

"Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of

man be come" (Matthew x, 23).

"The gospel must first be published among all nations" (Mark xiii, 10).

499

Did Jesus claim to be the Christ or Messiah from the first?

John: He did. Early in his ministry "The woman [of Samaria] saith

unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when

he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that

speak unto thee am he" (iv, 25, 26).

Synoptics: He did not announce his Messiahship until late in his

ministry.

500

Who where the first to recognize his divinity?

Synoptics: Devils and unclean spirits (Matthew viii, 28, 29; Mark iii,

11, 12; Luke iv, 41).

501

What is said of Jesus in Hebrews?

"Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels" (ii, 9).

"Being made so much better than the angels" (i, 4).

502

What did he say respecting his identity with God?

"My Father and I are one" (John x, 30).

"My Father is greater than I" (xiv, 28).

503

How did he attempt to establish his claims?

"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is

true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent

me beareth witness of me" (John viii, 17, 18).

But if "I and my Father are one," how does that fulfill the law?

504

What did he say regarding the truthfulness of his testimony concerning

himself?

"Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true" (John viii,

14).

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (v. 31).

505

Did Jesus' neighbors believe in his divinity?

Matthew: "When he was come into his own country," and to his own home,

"He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief" (xiii,

54, 58).

506

What opinion did his friends entertain of him?

Mark: "And when his friends heard of it [his work], they went out to

lay hold on him; for they said, He is beside himself" (iii, 21).

507

Did even his brothers believe in him?

John: "Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren

therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judea, that thy

disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no

man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be

known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For

neither did his brethren believe in him" (vii, 2-5).

These three passages are fatal to the claim of Christ's divinity. If

he was unable to convince his neighbors, his friends, or even his

own family of his divinity he was not divine. Much less was he the

"very God," as claimed.

According to the Christian scheme, man by his disobedience fell--was

lost. God desired to save him. Christ--God manifest in the flesh--came

on earth for this purpose. What was required of man to secure

salvation? Simply to believe that Jesus was the Christ. In order for

him to believe this what was necessary? That Jesus should convince him

that he was divine. If he was all-powerful he could have done this; if

he was all-just he would have done this. Did he do this? His own race

rejected him. Disbelief in Christ's divinity disproves his divinity.

508

The writings of the New Testament are adduced as the evidences of

Christ's divinity and the divine character of Christianity. Do the

writers of the New Testament claim to be inspired?

With the possible exception of the author of Revelation, they do

not. Paul says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." But

the "scripture" of Paul was the scripture of the Old Testament. His

words have no reference whatever to the writings of the New which

did not exist in his time.

If the New Testament is not inspired and infallible, what follows?

"If the New Testament is defective the church itself is in error,

and must be given up as a deception."--Dr. Tischendorf.

"It is not a word too much to say that the New Testament abounds with

errors."--Dean Alford.

509

What is said of the Apocryphal Gospels which appeared in the early

ages of the church?

"Several histories of his [Christ's] life and doctrines, full of

pious frauds and fabulous wonders, were composed by persons whose

intentions perhaps were not bad, but whose writings discovered the

greatest superstition and ignorance. Nor was this all; productions

appeared which were imposed upon the world by fraudulent men, as the

writings of the holy Apostles."--Mosheim.

Is the above less true of the books we are reviewing? Are not these

writings "full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders"? Do not these

writings display "the greatest superstition and ignorance"? Have

not these writings been "imposed upon the world by fraudulent men,

as the writings of the holy (?) Apostles"?

If some of these apocryphal Gospels had been accepted as canonical,

and the canonical Gospels had been rejected as apocryphal, these

canonical Gospels would appear as untruthful and foolish to Christians

as the apocryphal Gospels do.

510

Let us examine the religious teachings ascribed to Christ. For what

purpose was his blood shed?

"This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many"

(Mark xiv, 24).

"This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you"

(Luke xxii, 20).

"This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many FOR

THE REMISSION OF SINS" (Matthew xxvi, 28).

The above is one of the most significant discrepancies in the

Bible. The Atonement is the chief doctrine connected with Christ

and orthodox Christianity. The text quoted from Matthew is the only

text in the Four Gospels which clearly teaches this doctrine. Two

other texts (Matthew xx, 28; John i, 29) are adduced in support of

it, but do not clearly teach it. Now Matthew has falsely ascribed

to Jesus the revelation of the Atonement, or Mark and Luke have

either ignorantly or intentionally omitted this greatest of Christian

doctrines. They contain no mention of the Atonement as understood by

orthodox Christians.

511

For whom did he say his blood was shed?

"This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many

[interpreted by the church to mean all mankind]" (Mark xiv, 24).

"This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you

[addressed to his disciples alone]" (Luke xxii, 20).

512

Was his blood really shed?

The crucifixion was not a bloody death, and aside from the

self-confuted story of John about blood and water flowing from his

corpse, the Evangelists do not state that a drop of blood was shed.

513

Christ, it is affirmed, was both God and man. Was it the human,

or the divine part of him that suffered death?

If only the human, this sacrifice was not an exceptional one, for

thousands have died for their fellow men. If the divine part was

sacrificed does God cease to exist?

514

His death is called an infinite sacrifice. If only the man died can

this be true?

The offering of a finite being, it must be admitted, would not

constitute an infinite sacrifice.

515

If the God was crucified does he suffer endless pain?

If not, then his suffering was not infinite, and the sacrifice in

this case was not an infinite one.

516

If God died, but subsequently rose from the dead, was there not an

interregnum when the universe was without a ruler?

If so, then it must be conceded that the existence of the universe

is not dependent upon the existence of God.

517

Are all mankind to be saved by Christ?

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me"

(John xii, 32).

"Many be called but few chosen" (Matthew xx, 16).

518

What does Paul affirm concerning the Atonement?

"Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians

xv, 3).

By "scriptures" Paul means the Old Testament, and according to the

scriptures of the Old Testament, "Every man shall be put to death

for his own sins" (Deuteronomy xxiv, 16).

Like nearly all the doctrines ascribed to Christ, the atonement is

in the highest degree unjust and absurd. Referring to this doctrine,

Lord Byron says: "The basis of your religion is injustice. The Son of

God, the pure, the immaculate, the innocent, is sacrificed for the

guilty. This proves his heroism, but no more does away with man's

sin than a schoolboy's volunteering to be flogged for another would

exculpate a dunce from negligence."

Greg justly charges Christians with "holding the strangely

inconsistent doctrine that God is so just that he could not let sin

go unpunished, yet so unjust that he could punish it in the person

of the innocent." "It is for orthodox dialectics," he says, "to

explain how Divine Justice can be impugned by pardoning the guilty,

and yet vindicated by punishing the innocent!" (Creed of Christendom,

pp. 338, 339.)

519

It is claimed that the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for our

salvation. Through whom was this sacrifice secured?

All: Judas Iscariot procured it, and Pilate and the Jews offered it.

Are not Christians, then, in condemning these men, ungrateful to their

greatest benefactors? A man is dangerously ill. The druggist provides a

remedy, the physician administers it and saves his life. When restored

does he show his gratitude by praising the drug and damning the doctor?

520

In permitting the crucifixion of Jesus, who committed the greater sin,

Pilate or God?

John: "Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me,

except it were given thee from above: therefore he [God] that delivered

me unto thee hath the greater sin" (xix, 11).

Hon. Allan L. McDermott, in his memorable speech in Congress, in

1906, protesting against the persecution of Jews by Christians, said:

"If an omnipotent God orders anything done, the human instruments

selected to carry out his orders cannot be charged with the acts

commanded. The doctrine of repondeat superior applies. If what

happened could have been prevented by the Romans or by the Jews,

then the New Testament is worthless. Let us assume that the Jews

crucified Christ. Could they have done otherwise? Were they greater

than God? According to the Bible, the crucifixion was arranged for by

the Father. Why blame the Jews or the Romans or any other mortals? They

did not know what they were doing. The Roman soldiers did not believe

that they were crucifying the son of God; they did not know they were

crucifying God himself. Why blame the instruments? Why persecute the

descendants? According to the Synoptic Gospels and according to John,

the arrangements for the crucifixion--every detail--were made by

Almighty God, and were known to Christ."

521

What was the character of his death?

Homicide. "Jesus of Nazareth, a man ... ye have taken, and by wicked

hands have crucified and slain" (Acts ii, 22, 23).

Regicide. "The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father

David" (Luke i, 32). "This is the King of the Jews" (xxiii, 38). "There

they crucified him" (33).

Deicide. "The Word [Christ] was God" (John i, 1). "I and my Father

are one" (x, 30). "They crucified him" (xix, 18).

Suicide. "I [Christ] lay down my life, that I might take it again. No

man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself" (John x, 17, 18).

522

What did Jesus teach respecting the resurrection of the dead and the

doctrine of immortality?

"For the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall

hear his voice, and shall come forth" (John v, 28, 29).

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life"

(39).

"As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down

to the grave shall come up no more."--Job (vii, 9).

"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day

his thoughts perish."--Psalms (cxlvi, 4).

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts.... As

one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath, so that

man hath no preeminence over a beast."--Ecclesiastes (iii, 19).

523

His resurrection is accepted by Christians as a proof and type of man's

resurrection and immortality. What was the nature of his resurrection?

According to all of the Evangelists it was merely a reanimation of

his undecayed body. Other bodies supposedly dead have been revived,

but neither these resuscitations nor the supposed reanimation of Jesus'

corpse affords proof that bodies which ages ago crumbled into dust and

whose particles subsequently entered into the composition of myriads

of other bodies will be reunited into the original beings. And as

Jesus almost immediately disappeared after his alleged resurrection

and has never since been seen this resurrection did not evince his

own immortality, much less that of mankind in general.

524

Did Christ descend into hell?

Peter: He did (Acts ii, 31; 1 Peter iii, 19).

Peter states that "his soul was not left in hell," which necessitates

the assumption of his having gone there. He also declares that after

his death he "went and preached unto the spirits in prison [hell]."

The Confession of Faith (Art. III) says: "As Christ died for us, and

was buried; so also is it to be believed that he went down into hell."

For what purpose did Christ descend into hell and preach to its

inhabitants? If it was to redeem them his mission was fruitless;

if it was not to redeem them his mission was useless.

Early Christian writers almost uniformly spelled the name of Christ,

not "Christos" (the Anointed), but "Chrestos." Chrestos was a Pagan

name given to the judge of Hades in the lower world.

525

What is taught regarding justification by faith and justification

by works?