I had never thought about it like that, but this person makes an interesting point:
"So no, I’m going to grant that perhaps these kinds of supernatural events occurred. So what’s difficult to believe about Matthew’s account, given that supernatural suspension of the natural order isn’t so hard?
It isn’t that the whole land was in darkness for three hours during midday (leading up to Jesus’ death).
It isn’t that the curtain of the temple tore in half, from top to bottom, by itself at the time of at Jesus’ death.
It isn’t that there was an earthquake that was strong enough to break rocks.
Or that tombs opened up and “many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised … [and] came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.” (Matthew 27:51-54). – See what I mean about how frequently people came back from the dead in these days?
These events, impressive though you might find them today, even after you realize that no other Gospel writer thought to mention ANY of these things, aren’t too hard to believe.
You read correctly, no other account of Jesus’ death and resurrection mentions that other saints were raised from the dead, came out of their tombs, and walked around being seen by many people. Here is an interesting part to ask any Christian that you’re engaged with… how this whole resurrection thing works. If people died and came back to life before Jesus – saints, in their tombs, waking back up and walking around – what was it that made Jesus special? It’s a fun side-topic to explore."
You can read the full article here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Basically Matthew just made shit up.
ReplyDeleteWhat's up with you guys awake so early in the morning on a Saturday?
ReplyDeleteGreat article!
I was up to watch the Liverpool vs. Everton game at my local but they've decided to have a lie-in instead; bastards!
ReplyDeleteStew,
I wouldn't just say that Matthew made shit up, the writers of all the Biblical books seem to have taken license with reality - hence the Bible's cover note that was found in one of the 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' books; "The following is a work of fiction, all persons, characters and events are fictitious and any resemblance to any persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental" (something like that).
I wonder what Rob Penn has to say about this...
Milo,
ReplyDeleteI get up every morning between 3:30 and 4. I don't know why.
Well, NM, you see...
ReplyDeleteInsomnia is proof that you love your sin and Satan as well.
Besides the fact that this person uses numerous logical fallacies (such as the argument from silence and begging the question).He never shows how having more people resurrected make the event less significant.
ReplyDeleteAnd the saints were risen in normal bodies and head to. The difference is that Jesus was risen in a new glorious supernatural body and did not have to die again.It was the first fruits of final eschatological resurrection.
That is the difference
(For evidence for the resurrection check out my blog)
Facilis,
ReplyDeleteThere isn't any proof that Jesus or anyone else ever rose from the dead, so saying this:
"And the saints were risen in normal bodies and head to. The difference is that Jesus was risen in a new glorious supernatural body and did not have to die again.It was the first fruits of final eschatological resurrection.
That is the difference "
doesn't really mean anything, because there is no proof of the resurrection.
That being said, if you could prove it happened, using your logic, you would then have to prove that "Jesus was risen in a new glorious supernatural body and did not have to die again" and also that "It was the first fruits of final eschatological resurrection."
I visited your site and didn't see anything that would convince me that any resurrection ever happened, be it Jesus or otherwise.
So nonmagic what do you think of the 5 facts I presented
ReplyDeleteThe works of Josephus that talk about Jesus are speculated to be falsely attributed to him. They do not follow the same writing style as other works and are not quoted until Eusebius in the fourth century. Eusebius didn't find it in poor taste to lie for the faith.
ReplyDeleteTacitus only talks about Christians existing, not the basis for their faith. Lucian of Samosata does the same thing.
If reporting that a group of people believe something to be true justifies it as being true, then congratulations, David Koresh was Christ.
Well, Facilis, it pretty much isn't anything I haven't seen in one form or another before.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm not really seeing anything there that provides any proof that the resurrection of anyone is a fact.
Let me, in the brief time I have at the moment, break this down:
These are your 5 'facts':
(I use 'facts' in quotation marks because while you claim them to be facts, it could be argued that some, or all, of them aren't)
The Facts are:-
1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. The tomb was empty
3. Jesus’ disciples were disheartened after he was dead.However they had experiences that led them to believe that Jesus had physically risen from the dead and appeared to them.They were so convinced they suffered and some were martyred for their belief.
4. Paul ,who was a persecutor of Jesus had an experience that led him to convert and believe in the risen Jesus
5. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly converted to Christianity.
Ok, if you are going to call #1 a fact, then you have to prove to me first that there was a historical Jesus. There is a lot of debate on this and for me , personally, the jury is still out.
#2-- You have an empty tomb --could be numerous explanations for that.
#3-- I'd be disheartened after my cat died too, and I could have numerous experiences that would make me think she wasn't dead or had been resurrected. Don't make those experiences true.
#4-- People have experiences all the time that they interpret as being reasons to convert to a religion or a mind set. That is not proof of a resurrected Jesus.
#5-- See #4.
Also, I see yo using a lot of circular reasoning, which in this case is you using the bible to prove the bible is true. That isn't proof, either.
That's what I thought.
Why was Paul not convinced by the evidence and eye witness accounts of Jesus' resurrection? Not to mention all the miracles Jesus performed. Wouldn't Paul know of these events and if so why didn't he believe Jesus was the Messiah? Someone who was prosecuting Christians would have had knowledge of the claims Christians made. But strangely enough Paul says everything he knows about Jesus he learned directly from God through revelation.
ReplyDelete3. Jesus’ disciples were disheartened after he was dead.However they had experiences that led them to believe that Jesus had physically risen from the dead and appeared to them.They were so convinced they suffered and some were martyred for their belief.
ReplyDeleteWell, we have some stories that they were martyred. And don't forget that people have died for causes that aren't true.
Sikhism isn't true because Bhai Dayala Ji was boiled alive instead of renouncing it.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the Christian martyr stories appeared in the middle ages. I grew up Christian and often read "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" instead of watching TV. So now I know who Germanicus is but not who The Dukes of Hazard are. *sigh*
In the verses you mentioned, the stones broke apart, and the graves opened themselves to show by this act that death was overcome: and the resurrection of the dead followed the resurrection of Christ, as verse 53 indicates.
ReplyDeleteThe saints(Believers) which slept arose. Their rising was a testimony that the death of Christ is life to the saints (Believers).
People were not resurrected all willy nilly. There was a purpose, as you can see.
I would imagine these saints to be perhaps Simeon, Zacharias, John the Baptist, and others who had believed in Christ, and were known to many in Jerusalem, and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection, appeared to many who had probably known them before. By this God was showing that Christ had conquered death, and would raise all his saints (Believers) in due season.
freed,
ReplyDeleteAre there any contemporary Jewish, pagan, or secular sources to corroborate the account found in Matthew 27:51-54?
I haven't looked for any and honestly can't prove a thing or point you to any other material, other than a commentary which is where I go when I don't understand a verse.
ReplyDeleteMy intent was just to further clarify or explain the meaning of those verses she cited.
Freed, (Cynthia?)
ReplyDeleteI respect that you pointed out that you can not prove what you said. Personally, I think it takes a degree of honesty to admit that your belief or opinion is just that, rather than to state it as fact with no evidence.
Thank you for the comment.
Yes that's me :)
ReplyDeletefreed,
ReplyDeleteI agree with NM, your honesty is much appreciated. If you don't mind me asking, what commentary do you use?
I have a hard time understanding Matthew Henry but he's one of the best.
ReplyDeleteHere at home I use New Bible Commentary - 21st-Century edition. It is also a pretty good one and the language is more modern...hence 21st century I guess.