mountainman

Dear Lugubert,

The archaeological evidence is the anti-christ. Try expanding your questions to include the second century, and if you are prepared for it, the third. Follow the evidence where it may lead. If you have no joy from the answers get back in touch with me.

Best wishes,


Pete

The Dagda

I was so tempted to put up a picture of Zombie Jesus.

But I don't think they were zombies, weren't they more resurrected Saints. Not that I believe for a moment it actually happened, but doesn't this merely accentuate that Jesus and God have power over even life and death. I think that was the point of including it.

S.C.Carlson

Thanks. Avalos is a post-modernist, so any debate with a thoroughly modernist apologist like Craig ought to have its moments, some good and some surreal.

Stephen

Huon

Patrick, you can find on Internet translations of the Bible with commentaries.
Here is one :
Patrick, bad boy, you are in no position to ask this question !

Patrick F

Apparently not anymore Stephen. Some time ago I had downloaded a bunch of "commentaries" from the site Illustrated Stories from the Bible (they don't tell you in Sunday school) and that was one of them, but I just checked and it's not on the site any more.

Citsonga

When I first read this, my first thought was, "Duh, why didn't I think of that?" It seemed to be a valid point.

But then I looked at Matthew 27 again and noticed that verse 53 says that they "came out of the graves after his [Jesus'] resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." As such, Christian apologists have an easy out to your argument, because these zombies allegedly weren't roaming around the streets until after Jesus rose from the dead.

Of course, it's still an unbelievable story. After all, even if they didn't show themselves immediately, if the event actually happened, it surely would have been recorded by more than just one person.

Roland

I'm not sure how that changes things. Thomas still didn't believe in his resurrection a full week after the alleged event. How long "after" could "after" be?

Jeffrey Gibson

It isn't --- unless you think that it's legitimate to engage in the harmonization technique used by some fundies and ill informed skeptics alike and read into GJohn material from GMatthew, and to construct a 5th Gospel that has everything in it that the 4 canonicals do (2 temple "cleansings", all 7 words from the cross, etc. etc).

Jeffrey

Citsonga

Your previous comments referred to the zombies "wandering around that weekend" (implying while Jesus was in the grave), and I merely pointed out that such wouldn't be the case from Matthew's text.

Interestingly, the Thomas incident a week later isn't in Matthew's version of the story. Though Luke and John have the disciples hanging out in Jerusalem a while and Jesus first revealing himself as risen to the gang there, Matthew has the disciples going to Galilee instead (with no implication of waiting around) and Jesus first revealing himself as risen there.

So, Matthew's zombies don't present much of that sort of problem with Matthew's version. Unfortunately for Christians, Luke and John also have to be dealt with, and you are correct about it supposedly taking a week before Jesus allegedly appeared to them. I believe a Christian's response would probably be to point out that the disciples had supposedly fearfully locked themselves in a room, and therefore may very easily have not been aware of the risen saints. Again, the Christians appear to have an easy out with this specific issue.

Regardless of that, though, the gospel writers couldn't even get the story straight on where the risen Jesus first appeared to the disciples. Jesus' resurrection is the most important doctrine of the Christian faith, and the Bible contradicts itself on the simple details about it! Stuff like that is enough for me to throw the Bible out.

I agree, though, that oddities like risen saints walking around, which surely would have been noted by historians, are more indications that the Bible isn't very reliable.

skepticdude

I'm sure some apologist will argue that "after his resurrection" meant "5 years after his resurrection" if that's the amount of time they need to squeeze into this general reference to make everything else fit.

An excellent argument for the foreknowledge of God is how the biblical authors deliberately spoke in general terms on subjects and timings that could give inerrancy a run for it's money.

Surely God must have been deliberately leaving first-century loop-holes open for 21st century fundamentalists to save face? How else can you explain that?!