The Best Evidence That the Resurrection is Fiction: The Overwhelming Majority of Jews Say It’s Nonsense

When men and women prayed together at the Western Wall | The Times of Israel

Excerpt from Outreach Judaism: [W]hen various individuals witness a traffic accident and then attempt to clearly transmit the information they saw, errors will be made. This is what we expect from imperfect humans!

The Church, however, does not make this claim. Its authors and those who promoted the Christian religion claim that its content was divinely inspired, i.e. every word is from God! Christendom insists that the authors of the Christian Bible were inspired by the Holy Ghost. With this assertion, we must hold the Gospels to an entirely different standard of accuracy – that of perfection. Well over a half century passed from the time that Paul wrote his first letters until the last words of the Book of Revelations were penned. Moreover, these books were written from one end of the Roman Empire to the other. Thus, if we are to assume they were written by mere mortals, without Heavenly inspiration, mistakes and inconsistencies are expected. God, however, is inerrant.

There is another significant difference between conflicting accounts of a traffic accident and contradictory stories of the resurrection narratives. The testimonies of a traffic accident are believable because they are likely to have occurred, and make sense in our world. The resurrection story, on the other hand, is a biological and scientific impossibility. Thus, the only reason for believing the numerous fantastic claims of miraculous occurrences in the New Testament – defying all natural laws – is the believer’s total reliance on the credibility of the divine author. Since the stunning contradictions clearly establish the human origins of the resurrection stories, we can no more accept their testimony than we can that of the Book of Mormon. Moreover, the resurrection story is a self-serving rationalization to account for a messianic failure.

I know that many frantic attempts have been made to explain away some of the countless inconsistencies that exist in the four canonical Gospels. These answers, however, are so plainly contrived that even a perfunctory examination of these rationalizations cast serious doubt on the claim that they were divinely inspired. God doesn’t suffer from human fallibility and certainly wouldn’t present such a garbled account of what Christians consider the most crucial event in world history.

Best regards for a happy Passover.

Very truly yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

.

.

.

.

End of post.

6 thoughts on “The Best Evidence That the Resurrection is Fiction: The Overwhelming Majority of Jews Say It’s Nonsense

  1. Wow. If the Gospels are contrived, so are the sources of Attilla the Hun and Genghis Kahn.

    As I have posted before – but you keep making the same inane statements that mean you haven’t listened to the arguments presented.

    Let’s see what historians tell us about the sources of other ancient persons and events.
    “The sources [for Genghis Khan] contain contradictory statements, their individual biases springing from the subjective attitude of the authors towards the world conqueror, the aim of the work and the dependent relationship of each author on those for whom the work was written.” Preface, pg xiii
    “The history of Genghis Khan’s life thus contains many unresolved questions.” pg xvi
    From ‘Genghis Khan His Life and Legacy’ by Paul Ratchnevsky. Ratchnevsky was Emeritus Professor of Sinology at Humboldt University, Berlin.
    “Principle sources for Genghis Khan are the ‘Secret History of the Mongols’, a court history by an unknown author, the ‘History of the World Conqueror’ by the Persian historian Ata-Malik Juvaini (written in the 1250’s), and two other key Persian works: Rashid al-din’s Compendium of Chronicles (completed in 1307) and the Tabaqat-i Nasiri by Minhaj al-Din Jazjoni (completed 1260).” pg xxv-xxvi
    From ‘Genghis Khan – His Conquests, His Empire, his Legacy by Frank McLynn. British author, biographer, historian, journalist. He was Alistair Horne Research Fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford (1987–88) and was visiting professor in the Department of Literature at the University of Strathclyde (1996–2001) and professorial fellow at Goldsmiths College London (2000–2002) before becoming a full-time writer.
    He points out that Rashid Al-din is often preferred.
    Notice that the works are all comparative to the dating of Paul’s letters and the Gospels. In fact the preferred source is the one completed 80 years after Genghis Khan’s death (he died 18 August 1227). So there’s no issue if the author of a source never met the person about whom they are writing. They also don’t dismiss the Secret History of the Mongols just because they don’t know who wrote it.
    The sources aren’t dismissed because of the biases of the authors either.
    And of course notice Ratchnevsky’s assessment of the source’s contradictions and biases. None of these are reasons to now assert that they are fabrications.
    ” Caesar in particular wrote to celebrate his deeds and win support for his continuing career. Neither he nor the other [historians/sources] were dispassionate observers keen only to report unvarnished fact.”
    “[A] good deal of our evidence for Caesar was not written until the early second century AD, over one hundred and fifty years after the dictator’s murder.”
    “There are notable gaps in our evidence.”
    “Each author had his own biases, interests or viewpoint, and made use of sources that were in turn prejudiced and often open propaganda.”
    “[A]ncient historians often had to make the best of limited and possibly unreliable sources, as well as balancing apparently contradictory accounts.”
    From Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy, pages 5 -7. Goldsworthy studied ancient and modern history at St John’s College, Oxford,and completed a D.Phil in ancient military history from Oxford University.
    Andrew M Riggsby gives an example of a “prima facie contradiction” in Caesar’s own writing and immediately points out that it might be “hyperbole for political or literary reasons.” page 9 of his Caesar in Gaul and Rome: War in Words.
    He also deals with interpolations in the surviving sources on page 11. Riggsby is a Ph.D., UC Berkeley
    He is Professor and Graduate Adviser in Classics and Professor of Art History.

    Like

    1. @ Liam
      So, as we know that the writers of gMatt and gLuke copied extensively from gMark, and that the long ending of gMark is a likely fraud, we can agree then that, the gospels are historically unreliable,
      Purely on this basis and in the interest of open and honest discussion you will surelçy agree, all that can be said about the gospels is they are historical fiction, and all things pertaining to beliefs in miracles and resurrection are based solely on faith, and not evidence.

      Like

    2. I don’t question the existence of Genghis Khan or Jesus of Nazareth. I question the historicity of the detailed stories about them, in particular, when they include claims of feats which defy the laws of physics.

      I make this assessment using “critical thinking skills”, which you quite clearly lack.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s