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.
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?
When these people came out of the ground, were they clothed?
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!”
I bet they'd say more than that!! I mean, imagine doing your shopping in Jerusalem. You've just come out of the chemist after buying 'something for the weekend' and bang....you walk right into a couple of zombies carrying a crate of beer, bagels and an assortment of cold meats. Well, I mean....I reckon that would be worth at least a 'What the ....!!
Quote:
Why is this remarkable event not mentioned in Mark, Luke or John?
Why is there no record at all outside of Matthew's account?
....because it didn't happen. Impossible that it happened yet Matthew was the only person on the whole planet that wrote about it.
They are the 24 elders now in Heaven (see Rev 4:4). They are the very first of the saints resurrected who will lead as generals, as in an army, when the rest of the saints are gathered (1st resurrection and rapture) after the Great Tribulation.
They will all come down with Jesus Christ to establish God's Kingdom on earth; but first they will destroy the army of the Antichrist in the Battle of Armageddon and rule the surviving humans on earth for 1000 years.
This is out of their enthusiasm; nothing like that happened; and it isn't necessary.
This idea is related to the misconception that the body will be recreated again and that the bodies of prophets, saints, sages and imams are kept and preserved as they are; which is a wrong notion.
All bodies will return to dust again, and the spirit or the ghost will survive in the ghost world or the afterlife. And there will be no need to the body after death, neither will the spirit return again to the body which will decay and become dust.
Why is this remarkable event not mentioned in Mark, Luke or John?
It was not as important in what they were trying to say. Also "many" is unspecific so possibly the witnesses they talked to only observed a mild earthquake. This is not necessarily a remarkable occurrence in the Mideast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflight
Why is there no record at all outside of Matthew's account?
History among ancient peoples is often not like what history is to us today. History was often "a story" that had elements of teaching some moral or other lesson. And no not just the Bible. Sima Qian, Herodotus, Livy, etc all had elements of that. Tacitus reportedly was more about accuracy, but I don't know that his style was universal or that he was totally rigid on the matter. There wouldn't necessarily be much reason for Romans to write about this as it happened in a far off province and I'm not sure it fits any obvious Roman moral. (Well maybe "the gods will punish you if you give in to crowds of Jews", but I don't know. Also I think at this period it was really more the Greeks who disliked Jews due to the Maccabean debacle)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflight
When these people came out of the ground, were they clothed?
They either were or it made no difference. I believe the Jews did have their dead clothed though.
Note: I'm not thickheaded, I know this is another "The Bible is bunk" thread. I think you'll get the "because it didn't happen" answer you want in plenty so there's no need to supply that for you.
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?
When these people came out of the ground, were they clothed?
There is another record of that event. It's written of in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.
Not long after his resurrection Jesus Christ appeared to his "other sheep" in the Americas who had migrated there from Jerusalem 600 years earlier. Following are a few paragraphs that describe the importance of the Nephite record keepers recording the fulfillment of prophecy:
"And it came to pass that he said unto Nephi: Bring forth the record which ye have kept. And when Nephi had brought forth the records, and laid them before him, he cast his eyes upon them and said:
Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant Samuel, the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who should arise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?
And his disciples answered him and said: Yea, Lord, Samuel did prophesy according to thy words, and they were all fulfilled.
And Jesus said unto them: How be it that ye have not written this thing, that many saints did arise and appear unto many and did minister unto them?
And it came to pass that Nephi remembered that this thing had not been written.
And it came to pass that Jesus commanded that it should be written; therefore it was written according as he commanded. And now it came to pass that when Jesus had expounded all the scriptures in one, which they had written, he commanded them that they should teach the things which he had expounded unto them."
I did a thread on this topic on this site over a year ago (and another site before this one) but the search feature here is a little hard to navigate considering my "colorful" history here, but here is what I did type on the other site in relation to this very topic:
================================================== ========
The writer of the Book of Matthew was a brave man. Dude wrote some things, that when looked at more closely, were rather "brite" and audacious. With this being said, I want to ask a question on one of the Bible's greatest mysteries.
In Matthew 27:52-53, we read that when Jesus died and also when he was resurrected, the bodies of 'the saints which slept arose.' Now not only is this little bit of revelation not in any other of the Gospels, but in the book of Mark (the oldest of the Gospels), the same surrounding account is told, but without any mention of what Matthew claims happened. In fact, if you read the account in Mark 15:38-39, Mark has the same verses preceding and after Matthew's startling revelation, but does not say anything about dead people rising up.
This is Mark's account compared to Matthew's:
And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last.Then the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. So when the centurion, who stood opposite Him, saw that He cried out like this and breathed His last, he said, "Truly this Man was the Son of God!" (Mark 15:37-39)
And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, "Truly this was the Son of God!" (Matthew 27:50-54)
Luke tells the same account, but fails to mention what Matthew said about these dead people.
Here's Luke's account compared to Matthew's:
"Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, "into Your hands I commit My spirit."' Having said this, He breathed His last. So when the centurion saw what had happened, he glorified God, saying, "Certainly this was a righteous Man!" (Luke 23:46-47)
And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, "Truly this was the Son of God!" (Matthew 27:50-54)
The Gospel of John doesn't even find any of this important to mention.
Now my question is, where did these dead people go? Matthew says they went into the 'holy city' (Jerusalem) and appeared to many, but we read nothing else about it anywhere else in the Bible. Did they die again? Did they eventually rise to heaven? Did they go back to their graves? What was the response of the people who saw them? To make the matter even more baffling, a few days later Peter preached his famous sermon on Pentecost and in all of his talking, trying to prove Jesus was the son of God and risen lord, he never once referenced the mircale of these dead people rising from their graves to bolster his argument and really bring home the point.
Any thoughts on this? Please keep in mind like I said up top, the writer of Matthew took some serious liberties in his attempt to prove Jesus was the Messiah of Israel, predicted by the prophets. Did he get a little carried away here or do you know of a valid explanation?
It was not as important in what they were trying to say. Also "many" is unspecific so possibly the witnesses they talked to only observed a mild earthquake. This is not necessarily a remarkable occurrence in the Mideast.
History among ancient peoples is often not like what history is to us today. History was often "a story" that had elements of teaching some moral or other lesson. And no not just the Bible. Sima Qian, Herodotus, Livy, etc all had elements of that. Tacitus reportedly was more about accuracy, but I don't know that his style was universal or that he was totally rigid on the matter. There wouldn't necessarily be much reason for Romans to write about this as it happened in a far off province and I'm not sure it fits any obvious Roman moral. (Well maybe "the gods will punish you if you give in to crowds of Jews", but I don't know. Also I think at this period it was really more the Greeks who disliked Jews due to the Maccabean debacle)
They either were or it made no difference. I believe the Jews did have their dead clothed though.
Note: I'm not thickheaded, I know this is another "The Bible is bunk" thread. I think you'll get the "because it didn't happen" answer you want in plenty so there's no need to supply that for you.
That is obviously the point here. At best it is, as you say, Matthew saying something that wasn't important to the others. So did they leave it out as unimportant? Hard to believe. Did Matthew invent it? Not unlikely, as he invented the shekel - eating fish and Sinking Simon episode. Not to put too fine a point on it, it was producing false tales in order to convince readers. Not an uncommon ploy in Biblica exigesis. As you say, a 'Bible is bunk' thread. Well, isn't this bunk?
Apparently not. You may recall the post on Nero and the fire of Rome. Even though that wasn't mentioned by a number of historians,no-one doubts that it occurred. Of course the Jew, Philo, in Alexandria might have had other interests or perhaps he was disinclined to comment so near the event, but when Mark and Luke mention the rending of the temple veil, it's odd they don't mention an earthquake strong enough to split to rocks and allow the buried saints out. Trying to pass it off as a mild earthquake too insignificant to mention is not doing yourself justice.
And John of course doesn't even mention the temple veil. As an eyewitness he was apparently concentrating on the leg - breaking. But then, if the centurion of the synoptics witnessing the tearing of the veil, etc. confessed that Jesus was the son of God or, at least innocent, John didn't trouble to mention it or ask what he'd seen to make him think that or, for that matter, hear it from the other disciples and later write it down.
You may think this pettifogging detail. Surely what matters is the message getting through. But is the message true? If we can't take that earthquake miracle on trust, what miracles can we take on trust? Not that many, as it happens and honesty to ones-self at least should make one ask 'if the Bible is bunk..' (which your remark above, dismissive though it is, seems to be conceding) just what, in the 4 gospels, if anything, should one believe?
Quote:
I'm not thickheaded, I know this is another "The Bible is bunk" thread. I think you'll get the "because it didn't happen" answer you want in plenty so there's no need to supply that for you.
No, you are not and nor are other believers here, though it often looks like it because of this inability to face up to unpalatable questions. This is just one of the serious problems with the gospel story and there are worse ones. You are not thick and nor are a lot of other believers, but, if these threads, points, and questions are ignored in such a dismissive way, it is not treating ones' own intelligence with respect. It is not - to use a common theist term 'reading the Bible with an open mind'. It it is applying the lock - down shuttered denial of real and demanding questions about whether the Jesus story can be given much credence. It is what we atheist refer to as Blind faith. And I believe that is a sad misuse of a number of pretty good brains.
What shall we do to be saved....from Blind faith? As Obama said - read ya Bahble. But critically, not just swallowing whatever tall tales the evangelists want to spin you or just bleeping over the bits that are a bit embarrassing. And for reason's sake compare one gospel with another. The discrepancies are sometimes shocking and take a bit of dismissing as just another of those wretched atheist 'Bible is bunk' arguments.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-30-2009 at 09:14 AM..
Keep in mind that (as I hinted at) that Matthew CLEARLY had an agenda and took serious liberties with the Jewish scriptures to make, prove or further his points.
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.
but here is what I did type on the other site in relation to this very topic:
