|
Home
Store
CHAPTER XIX.
RESURRECTION OF THE SAVIORS
WE find presented in the canonized histories of several of the demigod
Saviors the following remarkable coincidences appertaining to their
death:—
1. Their resurrection from the dead.
2. Their lying in the tomb just three days.
3. The resurrection of several of them about the time of the vernal
equinox.
The twenty-fifth of March is the period assigned by the Christian world
generally for the resurrection of Christ, though some Christian writers
have assigned other dates for this event. They all agree, however, that
Christ rose from the dead, and that this occurred three days after the
entombment. Bishop Theophilus of Cesarea remarks, relative to this
event, "Since the birth of Christ is celebrated on the twenty-fifth of
December, . . . so also should the resurrection of Jesus be celebrated
on the twenty-fifth of March, on whatever day of the week it may fall,
the Lord having risen again on that day." (Cent. ii. Call. p. 118.) "All
the ancient Christians," says a writer, "were persuaded that Christ was
crucified on the twenty-third of March, and rose from the dead on the
twenty-fifth." And accordingly Constantine and contemporary Christians
celebrated the twenty-fifth of March with great eclat as the date of the
resurrection. The twenty-third and twenty-fifth, including the
twenty-fourth, would comprise a period of three days, the time of the
entombment.
p. 145
Now mark, Quexalcote of Mexico, Chris of Chaldea, Quirinus of Rome,
Prometheus of Caucasus, Osiris of Egypt, Atys of Phrygia, and "Mithra
the Mediator" of Persia did, according to their respective histories,
rise from the dead after three days' burial, and the time of their
resurrection is in several cases fixed for the twenty-fifth of March.
And there is an account more than three thousand years old of the Hindoo
crucified Savior Chrishna, three days after his interment, forsaking
"the silent bourn, whence (as we are told) no traveler ever returns,"
and laying aside the moldy cerements of the dead, again walking forth to
mortal life, to be again seen, recognized, admired, and adored by his
pious, devout and awe-stricken followers, and thus present to the gaze
of a hoping yet doubting world "the first fruits of the resurrection."
At the annual celebration of the resurrection of the Persian Savior "Mithra
the Mediator," more than three thousand years ago, the priests were in
the habit of exclaiming in a solemn and loud voice, "Cheer up, holy
mourners; your God has come again to life; his sorrows and his
sufferings will save you." (See Pitrat, p. 105.) The twenty-fifth of
March was with the ancient Persians the commencement of a new year, and
on that day was celebrated "the feast of the Neurone" and by the ancient
Romans "the festival of the Hilaria." And we find the ancients had both
the crucifixion and resurrection of a God symbolically and
astronomically represented among the plants. "Their foundation," says
Clement of Alexandria, "was the fictitious death and resurrection of the
sun, the soul of the world, the principle of life and motion." The
inauguration of spring (the twenty-fifth of March), and the summer
solstice (the twenty-fifth of June), were both important periods with
the ancients.
Hence, the latter period was fixed on as the birthday of John the
Baptist (as marked in the almanacs), when the
p. 146
sun begins to decline southward—that is, decrease. How appropriately,
therefore, John is made to say, "I shall decrease, but he shall
increase." And the consecrated twenty-fifth of March is also the day
marked in our calendars as the date of the conception and annunciation
of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And it was likewise the period of the
conception of the ancient Roman Virgin Asteria, and of the ever-chaste
and holy virgin Iris, as well as the time of the conjugal embrace of the
solar and lunar potentates of the visible universe. May we not, then,
very appropriately exclaim of religion and astronomy, "what God hath
joined together, let no man put asunder."
RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST
With respect to the physical resurrection of the Christian Savior, it
may be observed that, aside from. the physical impossibility of such an
occurrence, the account, as reported to us by his four "inspired" Gospel
biographers, are so palpably at variance with each other, so entirely
contradictory in their reports, as to render their testimony as
infallible writers utterly unworthy of credence, and impels us to the
conclusion that the event is both physically and historically
incredible. There is scarcely one incident or particular in which they
all agree. They are at loggerheads,—1. With respect to the time of its
discovery. 2. The persons who made the discovery (for no witness claims
to have seen it). 3. With respect to what took place at the sepulchre.
4. What Peter saw and did there. 5. And as to what occurred afterward,
having a relation to that event.
1. Relative to the time the witness or witnesses visited the sepulchre
and learned of the resurrection, Matthew (chap. xxviii.) tells us, "It
was at the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn;" but according to
Mark (xvi.), the
p. 147
[paragraph continues] "Sabbath was past, and the sun was rising;" while
John (chap. xx) declares "it was yet dark." Now there is certainly some
difference between the three periods, "the dawning of the day," "the
rising of the Sun," and "the darkness of night." If the writers were
divinely inspired, there would be a perfect agreement.
2. With respect to the persons who first visited the sepulchre, Matthew
states that it was Mary Magdalene and another Mary; but Luke says it was
"Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other
women;" while, according to John (and he virtually reiterates it), Mary
Magdalene went alone. It will be observed, then, that the first
"inspired" and "infallible" witness testifies there were two women; the
second that there were four; and the third witness declares there was
but one. What beautiful harmony! No court in the civilized world would
accept such discordant testimony!
3. And in relation to what took place at the tomb, Matthew testifies
that "the angel of the Lord" sat upon a stone at the door of the
sepulchre, and told the women their Lord was risen. But Luke steps
forward here, and avers that instead of an angel they found two men
there, not outside, but inside, and not sitting, but standing. But Mark
sets the testimony of both these "inspired" witnesses aside by affirming
there was but one man there, and he was sitting. While Matthew says
"they," St. John says "she" (speaking of the person or persons who left
the sepulchre). According to Matthew the angel who rolled away the stone
from the sepulchre sent a message to the disciples. But Mark affirms
that it was not an "angel" outside, but a "young man" inside, who did
this. And here the question naturally arises: Why was it necessary for a
being who could say, "I have power to lay down my life and take it up
again" (John), to have an angel to roll away the stone from the
sepulchre, Certainly, if he possessed
p. 148
such omnipotent power, he needed no aid from any being to perform such
an act.
4. And relative to Peter's visit to the tomb, there is a total disparity
in the testimony of the witnesses. According to Luke, he did not go into
the sepulchre, but only stooped down and looked in. But Mark affirms he
did go in, and that it was the disciple who went with him who stooped
down.
5. And with respect to the events which occurred immediately subsequent
to the resurrection, there is no less discrepancy, no nearer agreement,
in the testimony of the evangelical witnesses. Matthew says that when
Christ's disciples first met him after the resurrection, they worshiped
him, and held him by the feet. (Matt. xxviii. 9) Strange, indeed, and
wholly incredible, if John is a reliable witness, for he affirms he did
not allow even his best and dearest friend (Mary) to touch him. And then
John combats this testimony of his by declaring he invited the skeptical
Thomas, not only to touch him, but to thrust his hand into his side for
tangible proof of his identity.
6. And why, let us ask here, was not the skeptical Thomas damned for his
doubting, when we, who live thousands of miles from the place, and
nearly two thousand years from the time, are often told by the
priesthood we must "believe or be damned?"
7. And if Thomas was really convinced by this occurrence, or if it ever
took place, why have we no account of his subsequent life? What good was
effected by his convincement if he never said or did anything afterward?
8. John tells us Mary first saw Christ, after his resurrection, at the
tomb, but Matthew says it was on her way home she first saw him.
9. We are told by Luke (xxiv. 36) that when Christ appeared to his
disciples on a certain occasion, they were
p. 149
frightened, supposing it to be a spirit. But John (XX. 20) says they
were glad. Which must we believe?
10. According to Matthew, the disciples were all present on this
occasion; but according to John, Thomas was not there.
11. Here let it be noted that none of the narrators claim to have seen
Christ rise from the tomb, nor to have got it from anybody who did see
it. The only proof in this case is their declaration, "It came to pass."
12. And we are prompted to ask here, how "it came to pass" that the
chief priests and pharisees cherished sufficient faith in Christ's
resurrection to set a watch for it, as Matthew reports, when his own
disciples were too faithless in such an event to be present, or to
believe he had risen after the report reached their ears; for we are
told some doubted. (See Matt. xxiii.)
13. And how came Matthew to know the soldiers were bribed to say
Christ's body was stolen away by his disciples, when the disclosures of
such a secret would have been death under the Roman government.
14. And their confession of being asleep, as related by Matthew, would
have subjected them to the same fatal penalty by the civil rulers of
Rome.
15. And if the soldiers were all asleep, can we not suggest several ways
the body may have disappeared without being restored to life?
16. And here we would ask if Christ rose from the dead in order to
convince the world of his divine power, why did not the event take place
in public? Why was it seen only by a few credulous and interested
disciples?
17. And if such an astonishing and miraculous event did occur, why does
not one of the numerous contemporary writers of those times make any
allusion to it? Neither Pliny, Tacitus, nor Josephus, who detail the
events very minutely, not only of those times, but of that very country,
p. 150
says a word about such a wonder-exciting occurrence. This fact of itself
entirely overthrows the credibility of the story.
18. And the fact that several Christian sects, which flourished near
those times, as the Corinthians and Carpocratians, etc., rejected the
story in toto, furnishes another powerful argument for discrediting it.
19. And then add to this fact that his own chosen followers were
upbraided for their unbelief in the matter.
20. And what was Christ doing during the forty days between his
resurrection and ascension, that he should only be seen a few times, and
but a few minutes at a time, and by but a few persons, and those
interested?
21. And we would ask, likewise,—What more can be proved by Christ's
physical resurrection than that of the resurrection of Lazarus, the
widow's son, and several cases related in the Old Testament, or the
numerous cases reported in oriental history?
22. And what analogy is there in the resurrection of the dead body of a
perfect and self-existent God and that of vile man?
23. And why should Christ be called "the first fruits of the
resurrection," when so many cases are reported as occurring before his?
24. And why do Christians build their hopes of immortality almost
entirely upon Christ's alleged resurrection, in view of the numerous
facts we have cited showing it to be a mere sandy foundation?
25. Of course no person who believes in modern spiritualism will
discredit the story of Christ being visually recognized after his death
as a spirit—for they have ocular proof that many such cases have
occurred within the last decade of years. But it is the story of his
physical resurrection we are combating—the reanimation of his flesh and
bones after having been subjected three days to the laws of
p. 151
decomposition. Neither science nor sense can indorse such a story.
26. It was a very easy matter, and very natural to mistake Christ's
spiritual body for his physical body; for such mistakes have been made a
thousand times in the world's history.
27. Is it not strange, in view of the countless defects in the story of
Christ's physical resurrection as enumerated above, that the orthodox
Christian world should rely upon it as the great sheet anchor of their
faith, and as their chief and almost their only hope of immortal life?
from Crucified Saviors
|