Liar Theory

Option 1: The Liar Theory

HE KNEW his Claims were FALSE

> Deliberate liar à Fool, as he died for it, & Evil as he told others that following him was worth even being killed

For each of the possible explanations regarding Jesus, we will first cover the support for each alternative theory, then will cover reasons against belief in the theory, to display for the reader how solid each theory is to stand upon.

Positive supports for this theory:

+1 Many examples throughout history of people lying about religious issues

+2 The Talmud declared the disciples stole the body

+3 Maybe Jesus just went into a coma, but didn’t die

+4 What’s easier to believe, that they lied, or Jesus actually rose from the dead?

Problems with +1

If you have to discard everything that had a history of people lying in it, then you would lose science, history, politics, family, . . . everything. People lie in every area of life, therefore it is not valid to assume lying occurred regarding this claim just because people have lied before.

When someone 2000 years ago invents a lie, often they have no idea of the investigative abilities that may come to expose the lie. For example, Joseph Smith, founded Mormonism and produced the Book of Mormon a couple hundred years ago. Smith made claims about Jesus coming to America, complete with descriptions of massive civilizations, metal-working, and specific plants, animals, buildings and battles involved. Yet, every single applicable archeological find and historical study disproved his claims. Joseph Smith fabricated history and claimed it was the word of God, that is amazing arrogance. Jesus went even further and claimed he was God, the difference is Jesus backed up his claim with entirely unique and checkable events, which his followers checked to verify his claims, and every generation up to today has also checked using multiple fields of study.

What evidence is there that Jesus and the disciples were lying? All the evidence we have points to their honesty. This was a public execution in Jerusalem and his post-death appearances and empty tomb were first proclaimed right in that same city! The skeptics were challenged from the beginning to prove the claims about Jesus were false, and the Jewish religious leaders (at least the ones who rejected Jesus) and Roman authorities had the motivation and authority to prove the claims false, but provided nothing, there is a silence, except . . .

Problems with +2

The Talmud (early writings of Jewish Rabbis), claimed the disciples stole the body, and in a letter to a skeptic, an early Christian leader remarked that you (the critic) was still claiming the body was stolen. Aside from the phenomenal problems with the idea of anyone stealing the body in that situation, all those critics have done was admit the tomb was empty that third day.

So if the body was stolen, it agrees with and explains the empty tomb (the 5^th minimal fact), but does nothing to explain the other 4 facts, including the disciples sincerely believing they saw Jesus risen from the dead. Very difficult to explain, if they had stolen the body. Early critics’ writings also confirm that Jesus did “wonders,” but explain the miraculous acts away by claiming he must have been demon-possessed.

Problems with +3

The idea that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross, and after recovering, came out of the tomb, has been known as the swoon or coma theory. Anyone, who understands how crucifixions operate, realizes the fantasy of this idea.

Crucifixion is an agonizingly slow death by asphyxiation. The stresses it causes on the muscles and diaphragm force the chest into the inhaled position; basically, in order to exhale, the individual must push up on his feet so the tension on the muscles would be eased for a moment. In doing so, the nail would tear through the foot, eventually locking up against the tarsal bones. After managing to exhale, the person would then be able to relax down and take another breath in. Again, he’d have to push himself up to exhale, scraping his bloodied back against the coarse wood of the cross. This would go on and on until complete exhaustion would take over, and the person wouldn’t be able to push up and breathe anymore.[1]

It’s fairly obvious when they are dead. In addition, the Roman and/or Jewish authorities, who went to the trouble of giving a Roman scourging and then crucifixion, can ensure or speed up death by breaking the legs, or by putting a spear in the heart. When this occurred, the NT writer noted blood and water came out, which modern medicine now knows to happen with pericardial and/or pleural effusion. It takes too much blind faith to believe Jesus survived this, and there are more problems.

The blood loss and trauma would be fatal while in the tomb, and even if he survived and was flown to the best hospital, worked on by the best surgeons of modern times, then flown back so he could appear to his disciples, do you really believe they would buy his story of being God, who is capable of resurrecting us to new life? They would realize he somehow survived, and is a total wreck, not a God who they can trust with their lives. And they claimed he gave them many convincing proofs, for over a month, then rose into Heaven. So we are back to the Lie Theory, and all the problems that come with it.

Islam began around 600 years after Jesus, and accepts much of the NT accounts, with some major exceptions, such as the claim that Jesus was neither crucified, nor killed.[2] Muslim ideas on how to explain this have included: God gave someone else Jesus’ appearance and caused all to believe it was Jesus; a minority claim Jesus wasn’t on the cross long enough to die, or his immortal body couldn’t die on the cross; or that the crucifixion just never happened. All of these claims have obvious problems, no supportive evidence, and are contradicted by all the evidence we do have.

Another theory, is that Jesus had an identical twin, and they were somehow separated at birth. This Jesus-look-alike hears of Jesus’ works, and lurks in the shadows until after the crucifixion. Then he self-inflicts crucifixion wounds, and comes out to present himself as the risen Lord. As is true with all the naturalistic theories: no historical evidence, cannot even explain the minimal facts, excessively strains credibility, and exposes the desparation of people, who really want to avoid the conclusion that naturally follows from the evidence.

Problems with +4

This commits a fault in logic known as a priori reasoning, which means one assumes something is fact prior to any empirical research. Or, a person makes up their mind before (or without) taking in the evidence. Many have decided miracles cannot happen, so it doesn’t matter what the evidence is. Reminds me of people in scary movies that close their eyes tight and hope somehow the danger will go away. Your ignorance or disregarding of information, does not make the consequences of those facts go away.

It is not about what is easier to believe, it is about the facts and what actually did happen. Many things may be dificult to believe, but reality does not care what our preferences or opinions are. Almost everyone rejected the idea that the Universe actually had a beginning, and came up with every possible (and impossible) alternative, but reality is what it is, and exposed the critics’ faulty hold on inaccurate ideas.

Of course, if we didn’t look at any of the evidence, then it is easier to believe they lied. Always check the natural explanation first. But sometimes typical explanations fail, and when the evidence points to something else, it is irrational, wishful thinking to hold onto your belief in the impossibility of miracles, when that is where the evidence points. And as covered in The Beginning section, the greatest miracle has already occurred and comes with scientific proof.

Someone can say in all their experience they never saw a miracle. That may, or may not, be true, but miracles are rare by definition – that is the point! If you do a Bible study, you will find that miracles are clustered around a few individuals or times, in order to establish the authority beyond man’s ability. There is much more to this topic, as people often bring a lot of misunderstandings into their discussions of miracles. Check the article Miraculous Misundersandings in the Frequently Asked Questions folder.

Why the LYING THEORY is not a reasonable option:

− 1 Why would they lie?

Former detective James Warner Wallace, who has been featured on Dateline for his solved crimes more than any other cold case detective, has observed that every crime can be traced back to one or more of these three motives: financial greed, relational lust, or the pursuit of power. If Jesus and the disciples profited and lived like some modern televangelists, that would provide possible motivation, but the contrary is true.

Any disciple could be used as an example, but Paul and James are good as initially both were critics of Jesus’ claims, and had no motivation to lie to support a belief they rejected. Yet, both abruptly changed their belief, and Paul went through every form of punishment imaginable, yet never stopped working for Jesus with total devotion. Among many other recorded punishments, Paul suffered through the forty-minus-one lashes five times, yet even during his sentencing, stated that as soon as he was released he would continue to tell others about the one he had full trust in. The forty-minus-one punishment used a whip with multiple leather strips with battering or shredding material tied at the ends. At the time it was said that 40 lashes would shred a person so badly that the person would likely die, so they gave 39 lashes. Paul not only lacked reasonable motivation to lie, but also had to have absolutely no doubt in the resurrected Jesus to face the abuse he knew he would consistently receive.

− 2 How could they lie?

The claims (including the creeds mentioned earlier) were made to the people living at the same time and place where Jesus was just crucified. They even appealed to the eyewitnesses in that city, empty tomb, and other checkable sources.
How does one convince the skeptics, like Paul & James, to lie with you?
Cold case detective Wallace also makes clear why the conspiracy theory regarding Jesus is irrational to believe, as conspiracy theories do not work unless 5 requirements are met: 1) small number of conspirators, 2) short timespan the conspiracy has to last, 3) excellent communication and 4) strong “familial relationship between the conspirators, and 5) little or no pressure to confess. Wallace explains through decades of experience, and common sense will lead to the same conclusion. For example, when you put someone on the torturer or executioner’s table, you start to hear true confessions. Yet that is precisely what we do not have with Jesus and the disciples. Different groups brought all forms of persecution, yet eventually only silenced them with martyrdom.

− 3 There is no evidence supporting the lie/conspiracy/hoax theory.

If you want to believe a theory, you must have evidence. Otherwise, it is just wishful thinking, or even delusional thinking if there is more/better evidence against your theory.
Why are there no charges of lying? Skeptics of that time admitted a lot of information about Jesus, including performing wonders, but no charge of lies.
All evidence seems to point to strong moral character and honesty of Jesus and the disciples, and the scholars accept this. If they lied they would be hypocrites, fools, and wicked at the highest level, as they were willing to die for their lies, and countless others followed Jesus, even through severe loss and death because of their witness and advice. What evidence is there for Jesus and his ealry followers were fools and wicked to such a remarkable level? There is none.

[1] Metherell, Alexander M.D., Ph.D., as interviewed by Strobel p. 195-9.

[2] Qur’an, sura 4 (An-Nisa) ayat 157-158.

The Bottom-Line

The Liar Theory does not have supportive evidence
Fails miserably in every way we judge theories to provide an explanation of the evidence (even fails to explain the minimal facts)
Requires unrealistic and unsupported beliefs – it does not work – you would be unreasonable and against the scholarship and common sense to believe it.