UV2003

Which brings me back full circle. If all people can do is expound upon Jewish prophecy and such, but there is no independent attestation then we rightly assume this to be falsehood as it regards to literal history. Forget about the stuff about allegory or metaphor. If Matthew inserted this as fiction, then what the heck else is fictional? The whole account? The whole story?

To be 100% honest about this, it should be the most pervasively seen and bewildering miracle in the book, save a darkened sky. But, it is much more otherworldly than an eclipse or whatnot. When you read about many dead saints rising from their tombs and being seen by many people, you have to be amazed. You have to see evidence to believe this.

Is there a Christian alive who would believe without seeing it on CNN that many CEOs rose from the rubble of the WTC catastrophe?
Any? I seriously doubt it, because Christians operate with the exact same standard of evidence for physical proof that all other modern secular people do.

Christians, go to http://www.milkmiracle.com, watch the videos.
Do believe that really gods did that? If so, maybe they are demons, not gods? Hinduism is a false religion, so why are the gods drinking milk?

Read the passage again. Many dead people came back to life at the moment Jesus lost his life. This makes perfect theological sense, but was it physical? Jesus then came back later, and only then did they come out of their tombs. But how did they know that many dead people came back to life at the moment of his death? Did they see them in their tombs twiddling their thumbs or talking on their cell phones to Morpheus? The only rational explanation is that this is metaphorical and does not represent history.

If anyone can provide a rational explanation as to how the author of Mark neglected to include the details about two earthquakes, one of which shook open the tombs of many dead people who were seen by many, I'm open to explanation.

You have to be honest about this, atheist or Christian, if many dead people walked around Jerusalem to attest to Christ's glory, the whole world should know about all of the evidence to this day. There should be absolutely no question about this spectacular witness of his glory.

Where's the beef?

Magus55

I didn't make the claim. The Burden of proof is on Toto, unless we are gonna play the double standard game where only theists have to prove things, but atheists can say whatever the heck they want with nothing to back it up.


The ressurection does have to be truth ( in a theological sense), and if the Gospels told the truth about the ressurection, what point is there in lying about any other miraculous events? If Jesus rose from the dead, why can't anyone else? And it seems kinda stupid for the Gospels to record Jesus saying thou shalt not bear false witness, and to turn right around in front of their Lord and bear false witness over an event that isn't required to make any metaphorical point.

Magus55

I've never bothered to see if there is or not. Saints rising from the dead isn't the most important point of the Gospel. Do I think it happened? Yes, but i'm not on a mission to try and prove it.

As to why it doesn't show up, I would expect because the Romans didn't want it to. For much the same reason they didn't record Jesus missing from the tomb, and changing the lives of so many people. The Romans didn't want to relive it or admit that they were wrong about Jesus. Oral tradition was also much more common and authoritative back then. While today, we say everything must be in writing, things weren't like that back then. The Apostles wrote things down because Jesus told them to. Why would anyone else? I'm sure there was plenty of gossip and talk about it though. And of course, how much of society was illiterate back then? I'd imagine the majority, save the aristocracy.

Demigawd

See? The Evil Atheist Conspiracy (tm) extends at least as far back as two thousand years ago. I'm just so amazed the Romans were so thorough as to surpress *all* writings about the events. Except the gospels, of course.

Magus55

Because the world is full of skeptics who for the most part won't believe anything unless they see it with their own eyes. Would it really make a difference if multiple people wrote about it? Skeptics already reject the Bible as a valid historical account because its a "2000 year old book". What makes you think they would except any other 2000 year old book mentioning it?

Demigawd

Come off it, Magus. Skeptics don't reject the bible because it's a 2000-year-old book. It's because, as a supposed historical record, it makes extraordinarily outrageous claims that violate how things work in the world as we actually experience it. And it has no other sources that cooraborate such claims. There is no reason, outside of appeals to tradition and authority, to accept what it states as fact as it is to assume the events of The Illiad actually occured.

Angrillori

Hmm, do people disregard the bible perhaps BECAUSE it says things happened like hundreds of dead people crawling out of their graves, wandering around for a while and NO ONE ELSE AT ALL writes ANYTHING ELSE AT ALL mentioning this?

Say one newspaper reports that aliens landed in Washington DC, and NO ONE ELSE AT ALL mentions it, even in passing. Do you think, honestly, we should take that one newspaper as, ahem, gospel? Do we assume that in fact aliens DID visit the White House, and everyone just ignored it? Should we believe the news story simply because the author says, in the story, "I'm telling the truth?"

Probably not.

RUmike

Well what about Josephus? I realize this is an argument from silence, but the silence from a historian living in that time in that location to not so much as mention such an event is quite deafening. I guess he never heard about the saints, or having heard didn't believe, or having heard and believed he forgot to write it down, right?

I'm unaware of any such statement by Jesus. Is there a biblical quote you could give?

Mageth

Originally posted by Magus55
The ressurection does have to be truth ( in a theological sense),

Only in a theology that holds that the physical resurrection has to be true. Understand?

and if the Gospels told the truth about the ressurection, what point is there in lying about any other miraculous events?

The point is, did the Gospels tell the truth about the resurrection if the tales were embellished with other miraculous events that are unverifiable (despite your protestations, it falls in your lap to provide evidence)? (And the "point" in the embellishment would be to add veracity to the Messianic claim by illustrating another "fulfilled prophecy")

If Jesus rose from the dead, why can't anyone else?

It has not been established that Jesus rose from the dead.

And it seems kinda stupid for the Gospels to record Jesus saying thou shalt not bear false witness, and to turn right around in front of their Lord and bear false witness over an event that isn't required to make any metaphorical point.

I'll have to agree with you on that one.

Mageth

Originally posted by Magus55
As to why it doesn't show up, I would expect because the Romans didn't want it to. For much the same reason they didn't record Jesus missing from the tomb,

Because he wasn't? Makes sense to me.

The Romans didn't want to relive it or admit that they were wrong about Jesus.

Umm, the Romans didn't seem to give a tinker's damn about Jesus and his claims at the time.

Further, the claim is missing from contemporary Jewish historians as well.