FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99  
100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   >>   >|  
documents had ever been heard of until long after the authors were dead. JUDGE: I never heard of such a case. I cannot allow you to quote these papers. They are not evidence. Have you _any_ witnesses? COUNSEL: No, m'lud. That fancy dialogue about expresses the legal value of the evidence for this important miracle. But, legal value not being the only value, let us now consider the evidence as mere laymen. THE GOSPEL WITNESSES As men of the world, with some experience in sifting and weighing evidence, what can we say about the evidence for the Resurrection? In the first place, there is no acceptable evidence outside the New Testament, and the New Testament is the authority of the Christian Church. In the second place, there is nothing to show that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses of the alleged fact. In the third place, the Apostle Paul was not an eye-witness of the alleged fact. In the fourth place, although there is some evidence that some Gospels were known in the first century, there is no evidence that the Gospels as we know them were then in existence. In the fifth place, even supposing that the existing Gospels and the Epistles of Paul were originally composed by men who knew Christ, and that these men were entirely honest and capable witnesses, there is no certainty that what they wrote has come down to us unaltered. The only serious evidence of the Resurrection being in the books of the New Testament, we are bound to scrutinise those books closely, as on their testimony the case for Christianity entirely depends. Who, then, are the witnesses? They are the authors of the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles of Peter and of Paul. Who were these authors? Matthew and John are "supposed" to have been disciples of Christ; but were they? I should say Matthew certainly was not contemporary with Jesus, for in the last chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew we read as follows: Now while they were going behold some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that were come to pass. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say yet his disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care. So they took the money, and did as they
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99  
100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
evidence
 
Gospels
 
witnesses
 
Matthew
 

Testament

 

authors

 

Epistles

 

disciples

 

alleged

 

Christ


Resurrection

 

chapter

 

contemporary

 

closely

 

scrutinise

 

testimony

 

Christianity

 
supposed
 
depends
 

assembled


elders

 

priests

 
things
 

counsel

 

soldiers

 

behold

 
persuade
 

governor

 

Gospel

 
important

miracle

 
expresses
 

dialogue

 

WITNESSES

 
GOSPEL
 

laymen

 

documents

 

COUNSEL

 

papers

 

experience


sifting

 
supposing
 
existing
 

originally

 

existence

 

composed

 

certainty

 

capable

 

honest

 
century