Jesus In India — Page 49
J e s u s i n I n d i a 49 people and who says that he is superior in his kingly rank even to this and that king, the people are always wont to question such itinerants whether the man, going about in their country, is really the king of that land; to which question these travellers reply to the best of their knowledge. This being so, the bringing of the dead to life by Jesus would have been, as I have stated before, worth believing in, if the evidence on which the dead must have been questioned, which was but natural, had led to some useful result. However, this was not at all the case. Therefore, along with the supposition that the dead were brought back to life, one is compelled to suppose that the dead did not give evidence favourable to Jesus which could lead one to believe in his truth. They rather gave evidence which added to the already existing confusion. Would that instead of human beings, some animal had been restored to life! Perhaps the idea was to preserve secrecy. For example, if it had been said that Jesus had brought back to life several thousand bullocks, it would have been ‘reasonable’ enough, and, if the question was asked as to what the evidence of these dead animals had led to, the answer would have been easy: how could the mute bullocks testify one way or the other? The dead, however, whom Jesus brought back to life, were human beings. Suppose some of the Hindus were asked if ten or twenty of their dead ancestors were restored to life and brought back to this world and were asked to state which religion was the true religion, would they still have any doubt about the truth of that religion? They would never say No. Therefore, take it for a certainty that there is no man in the whole world who would persist in his disbelief and denial after such a disclosure. What a pity that