THE IMPERSONATION THEORY
- THE RISEN "JESUS" WAS AN IMPOSTOR?
The Church says that Jesus was put to death under Pontius Pilate by
crucifixion and rose again. The gospels however leave room for doubt. This
study analyses the data and gives possible explanations. Let us take the
dubious data of the gospels at face value in light of the question: Could
someone pretending to be Jesus have started off the resurrection hoax?
Was the risen Jesus an impostor and not Jesus?
We do not know. But we do know that the early Church was saying Jesus had a change in appearance following the resurrection. If the gospels are reliable, then he probably did change and perhaps more than once. The gospels it seems would not have made that up in case people would say that “it was all a case of mistaken identity unless they were having hallucinations”.
Who was it that said that many would come in his name,
meaning using the name Jesus and pretending to be him? Who was it that said they
would come before the temple was destroyed? See Luke 21. Jesus. He said
elsewhere that these fake Jesuses could deceive even the saints. Yet the only
candidates for fulfilling this prophecy were the guys who seem to have been
masquerading as Jesus after Jesus died. Also, Jesus was saying they would be
very convincing. They would not be unless they assented to his teaching but
added new elements to it. A new Jesus cannot afford to contradict the old one.
What Jesus said then lays an obligation on the gospellers to be totally
convincing that the man who claimed to be the risen Jesus was really him but
they are not.
When the gospels say that people met the risen Jesus and
paid him homage we are not told that they instantly recognised him or that they
were totally sure it was him.
Jesus' appearances describe an entity that didn't say
much and which tended to vanish as soon as he was recognised. That is exactly
what you would expect if somebody was pretending to be the risen Jesus. I
would not read the idea of dissolving into thin air into the vanishing reports.
Acts 8:39 speaking of a non resurrected man says “the Spirit of the Lord caught
away Philip.” We might have a figure of speech there - it may be a
metaphor for Philip vacating rapidly. Don't read a miracle into it.
If it is a miracle then it is a silly one and we have to ask how qualified were
apostles like Philip to judge that Jesus rose from the dead.
Mark 16 tells us that Jesus appeared in another form to
two disciples. The problem with most of Mark 16 is that all scholars agree these
days that it was not part of the original text and that Mark must have ended
with no reference to the appearances of Jesus (page 25, The Metaphor of God
Incarnate). But it still reflects the early Church belief that Jesus didn’t
appear recognisable after his death.
The time the men walked with a man to Emmaus and then
decided it was Jesus is interesting for it means they walked with him for
perhaps hours and still did not realise it was Jesus. See Luke 24. Perhaps
the man had his face well covered up while he walked with two followers to
Emmaus. The men could have thought he was like Jesus and sounded like him which
would not amount to recognising him and he might have looked the same. But when
they did not recognise him until he broke the bread it is clear that he was
facially different. At that moment they decided it was Jesus in a new form. It
could be that they realised that the man was claiming to be Jesus risen when he
had gone to the trouble of convincing them that Jesus rose. Mark was probably on
about the same event when he alluded to Jesus having a different form when he
appeared to two men.
The Bible accidentally informs us that the man was not
Jesus for he lied and the risen Jesus did not lie (1 Peter 2:22). He talked to
the two men about Jesus as if he were not Jesus and he said that Jesus must rise
again according to the Old Testament though it never says that at all.
Magdalene failed to recognise Jesus according to John 20
and thought he was the gardener. Perhaps she did not look properly or was not
thinking straight. But the man said he was not Jesus when he asked her who she
was crying for as if he were not Jesus and did not know her. The Bible says that
Jesus never told lies. Perhaps the man decided to play the role of Jesus after
that. He told her not to touch him for he had not ascended yet to God. This is a
laughable reason. The original Greek shows that she was touching him a lot (note
for John 20:17, NAB, New Testament, page 122). If he was too sacred to touch
then he would not have let her touch him at all. Now he wanted her to stop.
Perhaps if this man was Jesus who survived crucifixion she was hurting him and
he was saying he would ascend to God to be safe from suffering forever. Perhaps
the impostor if that was what he was did not want her to touch him and discover
that he had no crucifixion marks or that he had only superficial marks of
crucifixion that he made himself. He said to her to tell his disciples that he
was ascending to their God and his God as if he believed he would never see them
again. It looks as if he meant he was dying. However, she and Christianity since
have taken a totally wrong meaning of his words.
The disciples did not know Jesus when he stood on the
shore of the Lake of Tiberias even though he was close enough to converse with
them (John 21:4-9). But the voice was different and he must have had a long chat
before he would have succeeded in persuading them to put their net over the
other side of the boat which seemed ridiculous to them when they had caught
nothing. So they still did not know him after all that. Then when they caught
the fish they thought the stranger was the Lord. When they stepped on shore the
Lord had fish cooked for them on a fire. A resurrected being does not need to
cook with a fire. The idea that since all this took place at daybreak they did
not know Jesus for it was darkish is wrong because they had seen Jesus lots of
times in similar conditions and because they had a chat with him. What makes it
more odd is that this was not the first time they had seen the risen Jesus so it
looks like they just assumed that the stranger was Jesus and perhaps he played
along. Christians cannot prove that it was not a case of mistaken identity
fuelled by wishful thinking so they cannot prove that the account is evidence
for the resurrection.
Perhaps when some doubted in Matthew that Jesus rose
though he was in front of them it was because he did not look the same.
The Bible tells us three times that Jesus looked like he
had had radical plastic surgery. It never tells us that he looked the same as
before on any occasion after his death.
Jesus did not need to hide his identity among friends. An
impostor would for he would be testing the water first. Jesus did not need to
alter his face. It scared them and was not very sensitive for they wanted the
Jesus they knew.
The gospels show that the witnesses could have been taken
in by a man impersonating Jesus for they were gullible and fanatical enough. And
the fact that they never unmistakeably say the new Jesus had supernatural powers
makes it worse.
Isaiah 53 allegedly predicts that that Jesus would be facially disfigured and unrecognisable.
Perhaps the impostor used this text to explain why Jesus
would seem to have come back with a head and body transplant. The early Church
might not have been so keen to apply the prediction to Jesus unless Jesus really
had come back all changed.
The risen Jesus was a man and not a supernatural being when he ate fish. He had no need to prove he was flesh and blood to his friends when they had already felt him. He really was hungry.
The gospels claim that the Jews were desperate to scupper
the resurrection story. If so, then why didn’t the Jews get a Jesus look-alike
and lie saying he was the cause of the resurrection rumours and had admitted it?
They would have done this if the gospels are right about their conniving and
dastardly ways. The Christians who were suspicious wouldn’t have mentioned this
in case drawing attention to it would make evidence for an impostor surface. Why
didn’t the Jews and Romans send out a warrant for a man pretending to be Jesus
and claiming in effect to be the new Messiah? The impostor must have told the
deceived to say nothing until he went back to Heaven. He was very afraid for a
man able to return from the dead.
If Jesus planned to die and then make a comeback then it
is plausible that he would have hired somebody to masquerade as him after his
death. He liked to engage in supernatural hoaxes like riding into Jerusalem on a
donkey to fulfil an ancient prophecy that anybody could fulfil.
The new Jesus did not dare show himself in public for he
was not the real Jesus.
We read in the John Gospel, chapter 16 that Jesus told the apostles that it was best if he went away because unless he goes the comforter will not come. The comforter is the spirit of truth.
The John gospel speaks of the Spirit being in people long
before Jesus died. The Spirit could still come without Jesus going away. Jesus
could die and rise again immediately so that he dies but doesn't actually go
away if his death is necessary for the coming of the Spirit. The Spirit knows
that Jesus is going to die anyway so he doesn't need to wait until it actually
happens.
Scholars tell us that the Spirit is another counsellor
meaning another of the same kind as Jesus. The original Greek of Jesus’ promise
to send the Spirit in John infers that this messenger is another of the same
kind as himself (page 57, 398, The New Cults). He used the Greek word allos for
another which means another of the same nature. Christians base an argument for
the deity and personality of the Spirit on this. But Jesus is talking about a
messenger and a comforter. He would have meant that the Spirit would have been
like him in these respects exclusively. When somebody says, “He is the same as
me,” the meaning of this depends on the context. And since the context does not
mention the deity of Jesus it is no proof for the deity of the Holy Spirit. Some
say that Jesus did mean the Spirit was divine and personal for Jesus was not a
messenger or comforter so it was the nature he was referring to and not the
roles. He was a comforter for his message was the gospel or good news and he
sought to heal. And he was a messenger of God. Jesus was not referring to the
nature for the Spirit was unlike him in that it did not come in human form.
So Christians take allos to mean that since Jesus is God,
the Holy Spirit will be God too. The passage makes more sense when taken as
meaning that Jesus will vanish forever and a Spirit will start appearing to
people after he dies. The Spirit cannot come until Jesus goes for there is no
need for him as long as Jesus is here and having the two at the one time would
confuse the bewildered disciples. From this it would follow that the gospels
were wrong to take the visions following the death of Jesus as being appearances
of Jesus himself. They had visions but over time they embellished them and
convinced themselves it was Jesus they saw.
Another of the same kind cannot be taken to be saying that the Spirit is God. The context is about how Jesus is messenger and comforter. The spirit is comforter and messenger of God. He would have to carry out this mission in the same way as Jesus did by being visible and speaking to people which is how he manages to be another of the same kind. Jesus says that when the spirit comes he will convince the world about righteousness for Jesus will be with the Father and seen no more. The Spirit is a total replacement for Jesus and teach the Church. He will remind the Church what Jesus taught and explain it and add to it (verses 13-15).
No wonder most scholars believe the Church not the
eyewitnesses of Jesus created the gospels.
Later in the chapter Jesus says he will go for a little
while and cause much sadness but he will be back again. He says that when he
comes back the veiled talk will stop and he will speak plainly (16:25). Again
this to many, supports the notion of the Church developing the teaching ascribed
to Jesus not Jesus. The saying is best understood as referring to Jesus dying
and meeting his apostles again in Heaven. Evidence for this interpretation comes
from 16:26 where Jesus says that at that time they won't even need him to pray
to God for them for they will do it directly. He implies that he won't be
necessary to them anymore except as friend. Jesus says that the stuff in the
chapter he has been saying including that about going away and coming back is in
parable but despite that the apostles say they understand him and are delighted
he speaks plainly at last (16:29). They do not interpret the going away and
coming back as referring to Jesus' death and resurrection. The Church ignores
this and pushes the death and resurrection interpretation forward.
There is evidence in the gospels that some people in the times of the early Christians who believed that somebody else took Jesus' place after his death.
Their garbled traditions ended up in the New Testament.
Do not forget that alleged prophecy is a core matter for the New Testament. It structures itself and its claims around predictions God gave in the Old Testament and refers to them continually and even has them the rest of the time at the back of its mind. The gospel says that the Old Testament prediction that Elijah would return is not fulfilled literally. It was fulfilled figuratively when John the Baptist came preaching and baptizing. Yet there was no similarity between the two. Elijah did not live in rags like John did. The Old Testament said Elijah rose to Heaven meaning that when it says he would come back it means it. The figurative thing is very lame - like a Nostradamus thing. But it is possible that it was not a cop-out but the writers seriously thought figurative is fine. If so they were advocating a kind of mythology like the pagans. Whatever the case, the Baptist thing weakens the resurrection accounts as well for John is regarded as second in importance to Jesus. Did Jesus really die and did somebody else who the apostles knew was not him but who they considered to be Jesus figuratively risen from the dead organise the Church? Was the resurrection story a symbol? You can say it was and still be a fundamentalist believer in the infallibility of the Bible.
Jesus seems clear enough when he told his people he would
be killed and rise from the dead. The gospels which tell us Jesus often
used secret meanings that could be misleading. The rising from the dead
seems plain. But we read the apostles and others had not a clue what he
meant! That only makes sense if they had been told not to take it too
literally.
Conclusion
The New Testament just assumes far too much about the death and resurrection of
Jesus. It is an unbiased and unscientific and shows that the writers and the
apostles didn’t have a clue about giving testimony. One would expect them to be
excellent witnesses if they had really had loads of experience in defending
their testimony. The evidence indicates that the gospellers were making up what
they wrote and in fairness the alleged apostolic testimony that became the New
Testament may never have been available to the gospellers. They never claimed
that it was available.