johntheapostate

There had been some posts earlier, claiming that no viable reason was available to discredit the testimony of the Gospels. Because I am having a slow day I thought I would elaborate on what caused me to question the reliability of one of those Gospels and led me to read the Bible with a critical eye.

The author of the book of Matthew is a liar, and I can prove it.

Matthew 27:50-53 “ And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up the spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs and after Jesus’s restriction they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.�

I remember reading this passage for the first time when I was still a believer. I was dumbfounded by the implications an event like this would have had on the history of Jerusalem, both secular and religious.

I mean who were these holy people. If They had been the prophets of old and they were resurrected and testified to the validity of Jesus’s claim, surely there would not have not been one person left in the city who would have not believed. I had always been a little confused by Jesus’s statement that no sign would be given to the Jews other than the sign of Jonah which meant that he would emerge alive from the bowels of the earth, alive after three day and three nights of being deceived. ( which if one is to count the days and nights Jesus was in his tomb, he did not fulfill anyway) Yet combined with all his spectacular miracles and this the mother of them all, how could anybody have not believed.

I could kind of accept the fact that Jesus had not presented himself in triumph before those who had conspired against him, but what would have kept these holy people from doing so?

I wondered why had Matthew limited his description of this event to only two verses. Surely whole volumes should have been fill with their testimony concerning Jesus. I wondered to whom exactly did they present themselves and why was not the name and testimony of at least one such witness included in the text.

I knew that guards had been appointed to guard the tomb of Jesus because certain leaders were afraid that the disciples would come and steal his body, but wouldn’t that have been the least of their problems considering the multitude of saints wandering about the tombs waiting for the resurrection of Jesus so they could enter the holy city?

I wondered what exactly had happened to these resurrected people. Did they live long lives and then die again? Did they go back to their graves and cover themselves up again.? What?

I was a little perplexed that the author of Matthew had dropped such a bombshell and left no explanation to my questions

Now that I am an atheist, I can look at the gospels and find it rather odd that between the four of them they share so many of the same stories. I guess one could construe it to mean that the holy spirit had worked within the authors to concentrate on the most important events even though each of them ( if they were eyewitnesses) would have had a much wider spectrum of testimony to work with.

But I thought an event such as this one, had it occurred, it would have been of such significance that no one testifying to the truth of Jesus’s claims would fail to mention it. Surely the other books of the New Testament would clarify what the author of Matthew testified to.

I was surprised and very disappointed when I finally realized that those two short verses in the book of Matthew was all the information that I would be getting. I remember thinking if this was anything other than the word of god, I would dismiss this story as a blatant lie.

This was not the last contradiction that battered the stronghold of my thoroughly indoctrinated faith, but it is the one that caused me to read the whole Bible with a critical eye. Many years later I can pronounce that those two verses in Matthew are a deliberate lie, and the only reason not to accept this fact is a overwhelming desire not to.

I have now established to the satisfaction of anyone who is not allowing faith to overwhelm reason, that the author of the book of Matthew included at least one deliberate lie in his testimony concerning Jesus.

Really there is no logical reason compelling me to believe any of the extraordinary claims of a perjurer.

Columbo

John, thanks for the input first of all.

But IMHO - you're a classic example of an over-concluder.

You've found what is a problem for you and basically have said, "on no - that's it - out goes the baby with the bathwater - Jesus and the whole darn thing must be false, false, false."

Now I must concede as a logician, that there is a possibility of a lie here - but this is an example of the fallacy, that it must be either two choices - that Jesus is real or he isn't. Or that Mathew's a liar or he isn't. Here's what I mean;

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm

Ofcourse - one needn't lose his faith because of this apparent problem, as there could be many conclusions you can have. Now I know this only persuaded you to investigate your faith but surely this is the same thing - that you had big doubts and often times we think we only have two choices when infact we have many.

Another possibility is that Mathew heard some hearsay - or that they did rise, and they did so with spiritual bodies - as described in the books of the NT after the Gospels.

Sparrow

They're wrapped in leather bindings and their page edges are decorated with gold. Really, prove the bible is true - find a pile of shit. You owe me a new monitor.
:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

I would guess that God took care of it just like he did for the Ark during the Flood.

Sparrow

As a great logician, you should be able to realize that 'real' and 'not real' are not a false dichotomy. Feel free to describe the excluded middle of p and ~p if you like.

johntheapostate

Perhaps I am an over concluder, but I did not form my opinion on the basis of just those passages in Matthew alone. I spent some time studying the Bible before I made my decision.

Don't take this personally, but in my opinion most Christians are over assumers. When they read the Bible they approach it with the conviction that it is true, and that every contradiction could be resolved if they had all the information.

Can you imagine a jury composed entirely of the accused family and everyone adamant that the evidence pointing to the defendants guilt could be resolved if only all the information were available.

Columbo

Sparrow - I simply meant as to believe in Jesus or not, a quick typer is all.

As for piles of waste, I consider it an inane rant. Afterall, evolutionists often remind me of how resourceful and brilliantly adaptive life is. And I've seen just too many wildlife programs, where life comes and takes anything left, and can survive in hostile conditions. Infact - I was laughed by evo's when I said there'd be dino-dung in the hot conditions of Australia....it seems when there's a threat to dino-dung they have an answer - but not for people in Sinai. Oh.Kay.

To say there should be piles of waste and no dung beetles around - lol. I guess mountains are attributed to dino-dung. I expect you to now go dump in a desert and wait a few thousand years to see if it is still there. Indeed - what with these emigrations that Sven mentioned, if the conditions of those events are a good example of what we should expect to find in Sinai - then I'll assume those conditions in those other events were one of heat and desert conditions(afterall - it's used as an example of what we should find in Sinai - which was hot and dry etc)....So then - can you show the huge piles of waste found in those events? Thanks.

Columbo

John, fair enough.

I am probably guilty of assuming or believing the bible true before reading. I suppose I must as a believer - do this. And I suppose contradictions are found if one looks for them - and truth if one looks for truth.

Columbo

Firstly, I didn't say I was a great logician, just a logician, there's a difference.

Ofcourse, either Jesus is real or not, but that's not the question. But the choice isn't what we're dealing with anyway - I simply meant that Mathew being a problem for John the poster - won't mean you have to chose as to whether Jesus is the real deal or not. (The poster indicated it made him question the bible somewhat).

It's like if I eat cake - I either eat cake and be fat - or don't and not be fat.

Ofcourse - I can eat cake without being fat. There is more than two options.

Likewise - if Mathew's scripture is wrong, then one might think that will influence whether God is real or isn't. When infact one doesn't need to make that choice necessarily.

johntheapostate

I suppose that I, as someone raised in the fundamentalist tradition which holds the Bible as the absolutely inerrant word of god would be more susceptible to doubt the whole due to the inconsistency of the parts.

PoodleLovinPessimist

You can't prove that that didn't happen, therefore it is more rational to believe that it did happen.