The Testimony of Thomas on the Resurrection of the Christ

Saint Thomas the Doubter was rudely awakened from his long sleep by the afternoon call to prayer. But he snorted in derision to the trumpet sound and instead concentrated on his dream. It was too vivid for him to be considered as a dream; rather it was like a vision to him…..A vision about a gentleman called David Hume who was to be born in a millennium and seven centuries from the date of this dream.. He was the one to challenge the whole notion of the miracles of Christ.

He was to explain that a miracle was a violation of a law of nature. And that a miracle is to be understood as a regularity of past experience projected by the mind to future cases. Humes argued that the evidence for a miracle is never sufficient for rational belief. because it is more likely that a report of a miracle is false, being the result of misperception, mistransmission, or deception, rather than that a violation of a regularity of experience has actually occurred.

Thomas could here the voice of Humes intone down the generation when men could speak freely without being burned alive:

“When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened.... If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.”

Thomas the Doubter was in awe of the deterioration of the language which latter-day generations would speak, and bewailed that the world was going downhill with the pollution of formal language wherein the “thou” and “thine” and “thee” were all missing. But he was more aggrieved of how long it was going to take for the enlightenment of man; and the fulfillment of time for the Christ hokum to unravel.

He spat on the ground in contempt and declared rather loudly:

“What is wrong with men that they cannot explain a simple ruse? Is it too much for humans to explain fraudulence? Of course, this whole resurrection was a simple hokum. The man Yeshua did not die; can’t you see? He went into a coma on the cross and was taken down by the fictional character called Joseph of Arimathea and smuggled out of Judea to India, in the Kashmir Region where his grave remains till today.

The matter was very simple: Those who took on the dangerous task of preaching salvation in Judea under the tetrarchy of Rome wound up dead. Everybody knew. You ended up on a cross. Period. And only a fool would not make preparations to ascend the cross and descend it when the time came. So, it was with the man Yeshua. He knew his end from the very beginning and planned the whole execution thing with Judas in order to control the outcome completely. He knew the most likely method of Roman execution was crucifixion, so he was always preparing to get ahead of them to stage the outcome. In fact, he was always acting in such a way to court that ending to his life’s drama.

He was always experimenting with drugs and knew about this chemical concoction which could knock one into a coma upon application of a small amount. But to be sure of everything, there must be a guinea pig……A fool to have the drug applied on him to die for three days…Or better still for four days for the avoidance of any doubt. And who better to fit the bill than Lazarus, his favorite friend and disciple.

So, he made arrangement with Lazarus in Bathany and traveled to Bathabara, near Galilee, which was a nearby town. Before travelling, he gave clear instructions to Lazarus to take the drugs in such and such a quantity and for such and such time. Lazarus blindly obeyed all the instructions; and was taken suddenly ill and “died” in the absence of Yeshua. But in truth, he only fell into a coma and was entombed.

The matter of his death was reported too early to Jesus. Hence he waited for two more days to let the drug wear off before he would go and resurrect Lazarus. That is why he tarried and told the crowd the truth that Lazarus was not dead, and that he was merely asleep, which indeed he was, if we can call coma sleep.

The rest of the story is by now familiar to everybody: Lazarus was called out from the tomb; and we knew that he was not dead because the concern expressed by his sisters did not come true: The man was not smelling after four days in the tomb because he was not dead. Period. The ensuing drama was all enacted for the desired effect; the man Lazarus got out of the tomb on cue. Read this story at John 11:5-6.

But more importantly to Yeshua, the efficacy of the drug was not in doubt: On the day that he is crucified, he would resurrect by aid of this drug that could cause a temporary comatose and give the impression that one was dead while still alive.

And to fulfill the mission of the resurrection, he recruited some of the Roman soldiers who were already in awe of him. He had made a disciple of the centurion whose servant he healed. See Matthew 8:5-13. And that centurion was also friends with the commander of the squad that was to go and crucify Jesus. It was he who had the instruction to administer the drug to Jesus while on the cross and to help him to escape.

And he played his part till the very end, for if anybody knew of crucifixion, the practice was to leave the criminal to hang on the cross stark naked, and to let the person crucified suffer death with maximum excruciating pain. So the cross is not where to serve a drink. One should also ask, why vinegar, and not ordinary water? The man said he was thirsty, and then you give him “vinegar”. What is vinegar doing at a site of crucifixion? Was it the practice to administer vinegar to those hanging on the cross?

So the substance was not vinegar at all. Rather, it was a concoction handed by Christ’s disciples to me, Thomas the Doubter, with instructions to hand the drug to the “Platoon Commander” of the Crucifixion, who was a good friend of the Centurion whose servant Jesus healed. That was the chain of custody, of which I, Thomas the Doubter, I can swear an affidavit. And that is why on the cross, the Christ died soon after drinking the concoction. See John 19: 29-30 where Yeshua said, “It is finished” and then died.

It was not the practice to alleviate the pain of one condemned to die on the cross. And what is more, those condemned to die on the cross were to be left on the cross, to rot on it for the birds to eat their flesh. Moreover, Jesus died too quickly, in less than three hours whereas those crucified with him remained alive, These had their legs broken to speed up their deaths, but Jesus was already presumed dead and therefore his legs were not broken.

The idea that he was pierced with a spear was hokum because piercing a body on a cross with a spear is almost impossible: The spear would scratch the top of the skin and leave the victim with a mere scratch.

Finally, the claim that Jesus was severely beaten and weakened more than any of the other persons crucified has no support in the facts of this case: We should understand as an initial matter that even Pilate was sympathetic to his case, and wanted to let him go free. And so were all the soldiers who observed the proceedings. Reasonably, they were not going to treat him worse than those other zealots with whom Jesus was crucified. And yet, these were still alive. So how could Jesus die before them?

Finally, the whole ruse becomes obvious when Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to plead for the body of Christ so that he could give him a decent burial. This was all part of the fraud. Those familiar with the history and purpose of crucifixion know that it did not permit any decent burial at all: It will defeat the purpose of exacting the most cruelty and humiliation on the person crucified. So, the notion of a descent burial did not exist, and if granted, it was also further evidence that Yeshua was helped to escape the crucifixion alive. There is no doubt about that because Pilate himself wondered if the Christ was dead, and peremptorily overcame his own self-doubt with shallow excuse, since he himself had no stomach to kill Yeshua.

Finally, Yeshua himself did not support the idea of dying for anybody since he planned the whole affair and tricked the system in order to remain alive.

So the evidence of the crucifixion itself plainly supports fraud in the factum, and also demonstrates David Hume’s sound peroration that if there is an alternative explanation for any miracle, it makes more sense to follow the explanation than to assume that there was a miracle.

After logically reasoning and rationally writing this piece of revelatory document, Thomas the Doubter pulled out a large roll of hashish, smoked it heavily, and fell into his own comatose.

By Dr. Samuel Adjei Sarfo, Esq.