Philosopher Anthony Flew maintains that ‘survival of death’ is a mere contradiction, since death is not lived through. He asserts that even if, after the death of human organism A, another human organism, seemingly identical in appearance and memories, should appear, it could not literally be the same organism as A. He thus, in effect, rejects the concepts of both the resurrection of the body and reincarnation. However, Flew’s theory may be criticised on the grounds that it focuses on the use of religious language. By definition ‘death’ refers to the ending of a life, but it is simply used by theists to describe the termination of life as we know it. In this sense, Flew’s criticism is flawed. It should also be noted that Flew fails to acknowledge God’s omnipotence and the fact that we can only consider the concept of eternal life based on the knowledge that we possess, which is limited and wholly inadequate.
The dualist view of the body and soul, associated with the philosophies of Plato and Descartes, holds that it is the soul which survives after death, with the body being a temporary dwelling – place. This account is more plausible to the theist than that of Flew, in that it accepts the notion of eternal life, thus appears to fit, at least initially, with the teaching of the Bible. However, it clearly does not cohere with the doctrine of the Resurrection. Christians who hold that Jesus’ resurrection was literal may reject the dualist theory as invalid. This is assuming, of course, that Jesus was truly human, for we must realise that God and Jesus are one and in any case, it is important to reiterate the fact that the Bible emphasises God’s omnipotence and the reality of miracles.
Many arguments have been presented in opposition to the literality of the Resurrection. In fact, the ex – Bishop of Durham – David Jenkins – claimed that Jesus’ resurrection is meant to be interpreted as a symbol of myth. Firstly, it has been asserted that Jesus did not die on the Cross, hence the reality being an act of resuscitation, not resurrection. It is highly unlikely, however, that such is the case, if accounts of Jesus’ beating are accurate; he was beaten thirty – nine times before being placed on the Cross, the maximum possible under Roman law. It is clear that should Jesus have been placed in the tomb alive, the cold would have killed him, as pointed out by Frank Morrison in his book ‘Who Moved the Stone?’ In light of this, resuscitation would have been impossible. Another possibility is that the Jesus’ disciples had hallucinations, a theory which could be deemed ludicrous. Although after the death of a close relative people have been known to imagine their existence, psychologists claim that peoples’ minds are unique and that it is highly unlikely for two people to have the same hallucination. It should also be noted that some of those who allegedly saw Jesus did not have a close relationship with him. A third suggestion is that Jesus wasn’t crucified, rather his ‘twin’ or look-alike was. Whilst considering this proposal, it is important to ask ourselves whether a righteous God would deceive his people. Furthermore, if God is omnipotent, then surely there would be no need for deception? It is also questionable as to whether anyone would be willing to stand in Jesus’ place and sacrifice his life. Nevertheless, if people truly believed that He was the son of God, then the prospect does not seem wholly unlikely. The final case cited in opposition to the Resurrection asserts that Jesus and the disciples’ intention were to deceive, with the motive of fulfilling a prophecy. The theory is improbable, because Jesus’ actions would have contradicted his teaching. In light of the disciples’ persecution, it seems safe to assume that they truly believed in Jesus’ resurrection – or is it? It may be that the disciples considered Jesus’ message to be important enough to preach a lie, regardless of consequences.
St. Paul states that to say that ‘there is no resurrection of the dead’ is to render the gospel ‘null and void,’ whilst in the Apostle’s Creed Christians profess belief in ‘the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.’ John Hick’s theory complies with the Christian doctrine, for he attempts to demonstrate that the resurrection of the body is logically possible. Since God is by definition omnipotent, Hick maintains that it would be feasible for God to create an exact replica of a human being, complete with memories and characteristics, which could be identified as the same person as he who had died. This theory clearly contradicts that of Flew.
