Mageth

Originally posted by 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?

The claim would certainly carry more weight if it was recorded in other places. If it were, I'm sure you'd be using the other sources as evidence.

Skeptics already reject the Bible as a valid historical account because its a "2000 year old book".

Wrong. I "reject" parts of the bible that aren't valid historical accounts because they contradict the evidence and/or are not supported by contemporary external sources. Other parts perhaps are valid, in spite of their age.

Mageth

This statement is a bit puzzling, since you anxiously jumped into this thread with "prove it (didn't happen)" and "or it actually happened" in response to Toto.

Amaleq13

The question wasn't whether you think it happened. The question was whether the story is mentioned anywhere but Matthew. To my knowledge, the answer is "No".

Why would all Romans immediately assume these resurrected people were connected to the execution of Jesus?

This sort of event was exactly the kind of thing Pliny the Elder wrote about. Are you seriously suggesting that the Roman government prevented him from writing about this?

If it happened, I think that is certain. So much gossip and talk, in fact, that it would be impossible for the Romans to prevent it being recorded somewhere besides Matthew.

Angrillori

Magus said:

But isn't 'All scripture god breathed, yada yada yada?' Seems it's all important, and, like any bit of intricate-self-supporting structure, if one part falls it all falls. It doesn't say: 'All scripture is god-breathed EXCEPT yada yada yada,' does it? Or is that some original translation error methaphor I'm missing that says some parts are more god breathed than others?

Mike(ATL)

As far as I know, theologians don't know why this event was described only in Matthew's Gospel. This is not the only place though where the gospels vary slightly on the amount of details revealed and the way they'll tell a similar account. There are four gospels because they were written in different styles, to different audiences, and for different purposes. Matthew seems use poetic license and exaggerate a little in this particular account conveying the drama of the event. Perhaps the saints appeared in visions, we just don't know because it wasn't mentioned elsewhere. Matthew was known as the teacher and this part of the account seems to be specifically pointing out events that related to prophecy. I would guess (and only guess) that's why he mentioned this event and others did not.

Mageth

This is not the only place though where the gospels vary slightly on the amount of details revealed and the way they'll tell a similar account.

I would say the absence of crowds of "Dead Men Walking" and various earthquakes are more than just "slight" variation.

Likewise, I would say the inclusion of those things is a bit more than a little exaggeration, if they indeed did not take place.

Matthew was known as the teacher and this part of the account seems to be specifically pointing out events that related to prophecy. I would guess (and only guess) that's why he mentioned this event and others did not.

That's right - Matthew's "slight" variation and "little" exaggeration were intended to bolster the claims of fulfilled prophecy, and therefore the Messianic claim, for Jesus.

Hence, the embellishments served a purpose, giving motive to why the author of Matthew added them to the legend some 50 years after the fact.

UV2003

I would agree that they are more than slight variation.

I would also ask again the simple question to all Christians:

By what standard of evidence would you judge the following accounts written in a book:

Account 1:
On 9/11/01, A prominent CEO was known to be murdered by the terrorist attacks.
Several days later, he was raised out of the rubble and ascended to heaven.

Account 2:
On 9/11/01, A prominent CEO was known to be murdered by the terrorist attacks. At the moment of his death, Manhattan shook, and many more CEOs came back out of the rubble and walked around Manhattan and were seen by many people.
Several days later, Manhattan shook and he was raised out of the rubble and ascended to heaven.

What is the minimum evidence you would accept in our modern world to confirm the physical truth of these accounts? And, why or why not use that same standard for ancient claims?

Is it a loaded question? Of course it is. Now, when you argue for events in the past with a modern standard of evidence, you are doing so to prove the historicity of events that occured in a time when people did NOT adhere to our modern standard of evidence. Why? Because people back then did not understand quite the same way we do how nature operates and were open to persuasive and theological argumentation much more so than they are today.

Furthermore, when you attempt to argue for the historicity of many saints raised from the dead or even one man raised from the dead using a modern standard of evidence, you presuppose that this standard of evidence is the most viable method for doing so. Why do you presuppose this? I say it's because of the past few centuries which have lead to such things as the very keyboard you are typing on and now robots walking around Mars sending pictures back. This is the scientific method and while it does not explain everything, of course, it does lead us to reject the vast majority of claims of the supernatural without extraordinay evidence.

Pastors and biblicists have told me this is a "presupposition to disbelief in the supernatural", then they get into their BMWs and drive away, all the way operating a vehicle that was carefully constructed by engineers who very much have a presupposition to disbelief in BMWs powering themselves by anything other than observable, testable principles.

Does that rule out the supernatural? Of course it does not. However, read some other ancient literature and you will find many more occurences of supernatural events taking place. Read literature of today and you'll see the same! By what standard do you discredit those claims with which you do not align your personal theological presuppositions?

A simple question still remains, what would it take for you to rationally believe that during 9/11/01 a CEO who was known to be dead came back to life, and furthermore that according to a different account many CEOs known dead came back to life and were seen by many people?

-UV

Amos

The rubble he was to be raised from is the idea that he was a prominent CEO.

UV2003

Ouch! Blasphemer!