The resurrected saints. (gospels, Pilate, faith, Antichrist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the fact that Islamic suicide bombers blow themselves sky-high is proof that Islam is the truth eh? After all, who would die such a terrible death for a lie??
Blowing yourself up, only takes a fraction of a second. Being slowly torchered, is completely different. Also, the followers of Christ would of known first hand, if His life was a fraud or a lie. So His followers, would be in a much better position to know the truth. And if all 11 were willing to die such horrible deaths, they must of known first hand, that His life was the truth.
How did he pull that off? Are you saying that this was some secret event only he was privy to? His book says that these "saints" were seen by MANY in the city of Jerusalem. What the writer of Matthew is talking about is an UNPRECEDENTED event here, Campbell, that no other contemporary writer or any since ever corroborated. Don't you find this odd? Again, notice how the other 2 Gospel writers mention the SAME events leading up to and beyond this quaint story the writer of Matthew mentions. It is soooooooo obvious this was a LATER interpolation to strengthen the case for Jesus it is not even funny.
Many is an unspecified number. Also it's certainly possible others could have heard such stories, but found them either unlikely or not right for what they wanted/needed to write.
Granted I'm cautiously open to the idea some things in the Gospel didn't happen quite as described, but it's certainly possible this event happened even if maybe not quite in the way it might sound to us. Ancient history is sometimes a bit uncertain, particularly when we're dealing with individuals who were not opulently wealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
Campbell this is an old tired Christian argument. I used to use it. There are crazy people running around dying for lies just about every day. Billions of people in this world are following religions started by people who claimed they heard voices (they call it "god") talking to them (or so we are told). Belief, no matter how strong it is, does not a truth make. You should know that, sir.
Part of this is okay, but part is a bit circular. You're using "it's just voices" to prove "it's just voices" or at least it sounds like that.
However it is true people will die for things they believe is true even if they're not. That doesn't even have to have anything to do with religion. People will die to defend some nationalistic or economic cause that's dubious at best. Or they'll die to save a picture of Kim Jong-Il, although whether Juche/Kimilsungism is or isn't a religion is admittedly a bit of a gray area.
What's perhaps more remarkable or intriguing is not people dying for something, but living for it. That someone will abandon wealth and honor to live a life of poverty in service to "fill in the blank" religion is intriguing. It doesn't prove anything, many Buddhists have done this and I believe some Hare Krishnas came from money, but it does make me think XYZ religion may have something of value. (Although a few atheists here have indicated they feel helping people is just encouraging them to be dependent leeches, but I'm guessing the Ayn Rand influence isn't that common even on the Net)
Many is an unspecified number. Also it's certainly possible others could have heard such stories, but found them either unlikely or not right for what they wanted/needed to write.
Granted I'm cautiously open to the idea some things in the Gospel didn't happen quite as described, but it's certainly possible this event happened even if maybe not quite in the way it might sound to us. Ancient history is sometimes a bit uncertain, particularly when we're dealing with individuals who were not opulently wealthy.
Gotta jump in here. I'd say the point is not how many 'many' is, but whether we can trust Matthew on that any more than we can trust his shekel -eating fish or the moving star or whether he is just throwing in some uncheckable corroboration, the real point is that the other gospel - writers, descrobing the same event and, as I pointed out working, from the same original text, don't mention it. That means, not that they hadn't heard it, or that they didn't consider it important (neither of which arguments really stands up) - but that it was not in the original text. Now I don't know whether Matthew made it up or got it from urban legends, but the fact is that it is an addition to the text by Matthew.
I suppose that means that, effectively, we have two sources - the ur- synoptics and John (which may have been the same original text in any case) and it comes down to whether we think those rather fantastical additions can be believed.
To Campbell and Thomas, I maintain that it is very odd the writer of Matthew is the ONLY writer in antiquity to mention a story about these dead saints who came back to life or that the others did not find such an unprecedented event unimportant or were completely clueless about the buzz that must have occurred.
The other thing that is rather odd is that a few weeks later, we are told that Peter gives this magnificent speech attesting that Jesus, whom the Jews crucified (his words allegedly) had risen from the dead. He makes NO mention of these dead saints that were seen by "many" which would have been added evidence to the power and significance of Jesus.
Beyond Peter, no other New Testament writer or character mentions the story either. It exists solely in the book of Matthew and the interesting thing is, Matthew's writer says it happened TWICE - at the death of Jesus and during his resurrection.
Last edited by InsaneInDaMembrane; 12-03-2009 at 07:14 AM..
Blowing yourself up, only takes a fraction of a second. Being slowly torchered, is completely different. Also, the followers of Christ would of known first hand, if His life was a fraud or a lie. So His followers, would be in a much better position to know the truth. And if all 11 were willing to die such horrible deaths, they must of known first hand, that His life was the truth.
The point you were making it seems was that the followers of Jesus would not have died for a lie. Dude, people have died for their beliefs for thousands of years, they are doing it today and they will do it in the future. It can't be said that all those beliefs were true. So yes, people have, do and will die for beliefs that are not true. In WWII, hundreds of Japanese sacrificed their lives for their Emperor....because they thought he was a god. Guess what! He wasn't and they died for a lie.
The followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh wouldn't have died for a lie....would they?
And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27: 50 -53)
Why is this remarkable event not mentioned in Mark, Luke or John?
Why is there no record at all outside of Matthew's account?
This thread about Jesus Christ and his mission seems to have turned almost entirely to philosophy and dry scholarly ruminations, so I thought I'd inject just a little bit of religion and perhaps elicit an element of faith and spirituality into the discussion.
Your questions are certainly valid but for those who sincerely accept the Bible as the word of God it probably doesn't matter how many times the resurrection of Christ is recorded, IT'S THERE!
There is also another written witness of the Savior's resurrection, it's in the "stick" of Joseph, The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ where it's recorded that the resurrected Savior visited his "other sheep" in the America's descending in glory from the sky and working many of the same miracles and teaching most of the same teachings as he did earlier in the Old World.
In my opinion it's always of value for sincere followers of Jesus Christ to keep in mind the difference between arm of flesh learning and scholarly letter of the law type conclusions versus what's to be learned from prayer, sincere scripture study, fasting, keeping God's commandments diligently, and walking the way Jesus taught his disciples to walk.
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2: 8
As mentioned earlier, the writer of Matthew is the same writer who claimed that the "massacre of the innocents" (another story ONLY found in the book of Matthew) was a fulfillment of a prophecy in the book of Jeremiah. Read the prophecy and it has nothing to with Matthew's [apparent] fabricated story.
The writer is also the same one that tried to imply that Micah 5 spoke of Jesus. Read Micah 5 and you get an entirely different idea.
This is the same writer that mixed up the prophet Zechariah with Jeremiah.
Judging by his track record of dishonesty, misinterpretation and outright screw up of facts, I'm supposed to believe this guy saw or heard that zombies were walking about in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago? I don't think so.
The point you were making it seems was that the followers of Jesus would not have died for a lie. Dude, people have died for their beliefs for thousands of years, they are doing it today and they will do it in the future. It can't be said that all those beliefs were true. So yes, people have, do and will die for beliefs that are not true. In WWII, hundreds of Japanese sacrificed their lives for their Emperor....because they thought he was a god. Guess what! He wasn't and they died for a lie.
The followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh wouldn't have died for a lie....would they?
Most of the followers of Jim Jones were murdered, same with David Koresh. And hundreds of Japanese did sacrifice themselves. Yet the difference between all of them, and the followers of Jesus. Is the fact that after three years of being with Christ, they had first hand knowledge of Christ. They would of known, that the feeding of the five thousands was a fraud. And they were in a position to know that all of His other miracles were frauds as well. Yet, they died for Christ, because they knew what occured was the truth. They were there, they saw the reality of His existance, and His power. And that is why they died for Him. It was never about what they (thought they knew), but their faith was built on what they knew was true. And that is because they saw it all happen before their own eyes, and they could not deny that truth. The followers of Jesus were not operating on blind faith, as the follower of the Japanese Emperor, or any number of other blind faith believers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
