How do I turn the table on atheists?

[cornbread_r2]

Matthew 27:52-53.

*52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people. *

Sarah, do you have a translation of the Gospel that says “hundreds, if not thousands of graves” burst open, or is this just an atheist exaggeration in the hope of making it sound like a George Romero flick? I’ve read that selection “many” times, (which in that context and the first could mean just 4 or 5). The passage clearly states that “many holy people” were raised to life - so in context, this would have meant devout Jewish people, including, possibly, some Jews who recognized Christ as the Messiah in life (although not many, as few of these would have been likely to have died in the period of Jesus’ ministry.)

Given the wider context of this event occurring along with an earthquake, rocks splitting and the rending of the Temple curtain – generally regarded as signs of extremely portentous events – it seems reasonable to conclude that the author intended to portray this too as a pretty significant event. In addition, given that at this same time Jesus was supposedly retrieving from the Bosom of Abraham all of the righteous whom had died since the time of Adam, it also seems a stretch to conclude that this passage refers only to those few holy Jews who had died during Jesus’s Earthly ministry.

So, this passage does not record the resurrection of Romans or other Pagans, so it would be unlikely to be witnessed by any of them, and as both the Hasmonean religious elite and the Roman occupiers were violently antithetical to the Christian movement and it is unlikely that anyone would have risked their life to report it to them.

If the Romans didn’t do anything to Peter and Jesus’s other known co-conspirators when they were running all around Jerusalem – mere weeks after their leader had been executed for sedition – not only boldly preaching the bodily resurrection of that leader and the *arrival *of his kingdom, but also recruiting thousands of new followers (all per Acts), how much danger from the Romans could mere reporters of strange sightings have been in?

If the Jewish dead who were resurrected were to speak to their loved ones or others, it is likely (again, in context) that these people, recognized by the living as devout and holy Jews, would be witnessing for the divinity of the risen Christ, as they were resurrected in connection with the events of Easter Sunday - this message would again be unlikely to be recorded, if known or reported, by the Sanhedrin or the Romans, as individuals from both groups had recently been complicit in the execution of the leader of this group. It would be improbable that these bureaucrats would turn around and write of events that would discredit their actions.

That doesn’t address why it wasn’t mentioned by contemporary and nearly contemporary historians like Josephus, nor does it explain why all of the other Gospel authors – notably including the allegedly historically rigorous Luke – failed to mention it. Surely they had nothing to fear writing decades later.

[snip]

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cornbread_r2 (ah,would that name have anything to with ‘pie r squared’?) Sorry, it just sort of leaped out from my fingertips… Oh, and you may get a chuckle out of the fact that I had to get a Wiki definition of your religion … actually, I thought you misspelled ‘agnostic’. Learn something every day, eh? Now, on to some serious work…

If the Romans didn’t do anything to Peter and Jesus’s other known co-conspirators when they were running all around Jerusalem – mere weeks after their leader had been executed for sedition – not only boldly preaching the bodily resurrection of that leader and the *arrival *of his kingdom, but also recruiting thousands of new followers (all per Acts), how much danger from the Romans could mere reporters of strange sightings have been in?

Probably none. But, probably danger for reporting (given the degree of literacy at that time) was not the issue - contrasted with the danger of witnessing as Deacon Stephen demonstrated. In my opinion the biggest mistake is to think that what goes on today and the way people think are the way that we in the US or in the West or in the 21st Century think and act. This is simply not true. Today, we can get a real-time transcript appearing at the bottom of our TV set (hearing impaired feature) scrolling throughout a person’s presentation. Getting an actual transcript of what someone said, hours after it happened is considered slow - and why bother when there is a pod-cast of the event…?

But, look at the reality - it was about 20 years after Christ died before the first book of the New Testament was even written - and about 67 years after Christ died before the last book of the NT was completed. Such a lag would be totally inexcusiable in today’s fast paced world… like finally getting the complete report on the U.S. B-29 bombers beginning the massive bombing campaign against mainland Japan and in Europe, the Allies capture Strasbourg! The way we process time is totally different today - but those events were 67 years ago!

Reporters (AP, UPI, BBC…?) had not yet been invented. Historians were still trying to get a claim to respectablity. We can admire Thucydides, who wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War (431BC - 404BC) - but this war involved almost 500,000 military and civilians - all with their view of particular battles, naval expeditions, losses and victories - and all we have is Thucydides. And while some to the ancient phiosophers remark on some aspects - this is nothing compared to what could exist if just 1% of those who saw what was going on just picked up a pen and wrote this down. Does anyone doubt the Peloponnesian War(s) took place? or their outcome?

Now, as Catholics, we believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God - who used human authors - all the way from Genesis to Revelatons. God not only got His Message out - but, got it out exactly as He intended. No one is claiming that the History of the Poloponnesian War was inspired - yet, we try to read it like it was a newpaper account of what took place… even though Thucydides was an Athenian General who fought in the war and was not as objective as he tried to claim!

I mention this because your criticism is honestly misplaced. No one can tell you why something was NOT written. But, writing itself was not that wide-spread… and, that is probably the best secular answer there is for your question.

The first Epistle to Corinth[5] referenced at 1 Corinthians 5:9
The third Epistle to Corinth called Severe Letter referenced at 2 Corinthians 2:4 and 2 Corinthians 7:8-9
The earlier Epistle to the Ephesians referenced at Ephesians 3:3-4
The Epistle to the Laodiceans[6]referenced at Colossians 4:16

That doesn’t address why it wasn’t mentioned by contemporary and nearly contemporary historians like Josephus, nor does it explain why all of the other Gospel authors – notably including the allegedly historically rigorous Luke – failed to mention it. Surely they had nothing to fear writing decades later.

We know that many ancient writings have been lost to the world - and most probably will remain lost for all time. Here is a helpful link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_work

In the New Testament there appears to be missing works, too - based on internal evidence from St. Paul who references them in other works. Here are four:

The first Epistle to Corinth[5] referenced at 1 Corinthians 5:9
The third Epistle to Corinth called Severe Letter referenced at 2 Corinthians 2:4 and 2 Corinthians 7:8-9
The earlier Epistle to the Ephesians referenced at Ephesians 3:3-4
The Epistle to the Laodiceans[6]referenced at Colossians 4:16

Ultimately, your question takes on the drama of being asked to prove a negative… I submit that such documents may have been written - but, they have not been found - and, unlike Paul who provided us some evidence of other writings of his - other authors did not write as much or did not have internal clues.

I think the key is dropping the requirement that everything be known before any belief is possible. A little child believes in the love of his parents for him - and he certainly does not undersand love or his parents.

God bless

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Given the wider context of this event occurring along with an earthquake, rocks splitting and the rending of the Temple curtain – generally regarded as signs of extremely portentous events – it seems reasonable to conclude that the author intended to portray this too as a pretty significant event. In addition, given that at this same time Jesus was supposedly retrieving from the Bosom of Abraham all of the righteous whom had died since the time of Adam, it also seems a stretch to conclude that this passage refers only to those few holy Jews who had died during Jesus’s Earthly ministry.

And your source for this is…?

The passage says “many” were raised from the dead. That isn’t a stretch, it’s what the text says. It was a pretty significant event, as was the raising of 1 man (Lazarus) from the dead. Would it only be “significant” for you if a thousand were raised from the dead?

Three or four would be pretty significant, wouldn’t you agree?

As I said, it would be unlikely to consist solely of those Jews who died during Jesus’ ministry. As those who returned to witness to Christ’s divinity would likely be recognized, respected Jews, it would be unlikely that such reports would be recorded, even by our one good nearly contemporaneous source, Josephus, as this would be a pretty scandalous event.

If the Romans didn’t do anything to Peter and Jesus’s other known co-conspirators when they were running all around Jerusalem – mere weeks after their leader had been executed for sedition – not only boldly preaching the bodily resurrection of that leader and the *arrival *of his kingdom, but also recruiting thousands of new followers (all per Acts), how much danger from the Romans could mere reporters of strange sightings have been in?

What possible reason would a Jew have to report such a thing to a Roman authority? Seriously? What would be the upside to that?

Who would he report this to? The Centurion on duty at the night-desk at the local precinct?

Reporters of such events would have been in greater danger from the religious authorities - e.g., the stoning to death of St. Stephen by an enraged mob, egged on by (then) Saul of Tarsus just a couple of years after the event of Jesus’ resurrection.

That doesn’t address why it wasn’t mentioned by contemporary and nearly contemporary historians like Josephus, nor does it explain why all of the other Gospel authors – notably including the allegedly historically rigorous Luke – failed to mention it. Surely they had nothing to fear writing decades later.]

Can you name another historian who covered events in early first century Palestine other than Josephus and the authors of the Biblical texts? Or any contemporary historian of the period and place before Josephus? They just aren’t there, cornbread. There were no itinerant Roman historians wandering the backroads of the empire, recording the events of a conquered people.

I suspect many atheists and agnostics think there is this big library of the works of all these Roman and Jewish historians who were recording the folkways of the humble conquered people of 1st century Palestine, and that all these scrolls and papyruses are neatly categorized in a room in the British Museum somewhere, or surely they must be on a website somewhere. Let me know who some of these historians were, cornbread. There was Josephus, and then…uhhhh…I know there must be another…

As it happened to what was (apparently) a rather small in-group of believers, or those who became believers soon afterwards (wouldn’t you convert, if you witnessed this?), the story did not make its way to Roman historians, and Josephus, who was (on the evidence) not in sympathy with the Christians, would be unlikely to record it if he heard it. He was apparently familiar with the Christians, but did not have a deep knowledge of their beliefs. Who else would you expect to record this story, cornbread?

Why did Luke not record this?

Different biographers record different events with different perspectives.

As an example, let’s pick a historical figure that is familiar to both skeptic and theist: Harry Houdini. He was deeply skeptical of unwarranted spiritualistic claims, yet was an avowed believer in God and an afterlife, and went to his grave as a devout practicing Jew. I have about 15 biographies of Houdini in my library.

I can get the story of his life and the major events from each volume. But the order of events may vary somewhat, and there are events (some quite notable) recorded by each biographer that is not mentioned by some of the others. Gresham will describe an event that is unmentioned by Christopher, and Christopher will describe an event that is not mentioned by Silverman or Brandon. That does not mean I question whether the event happened. That’s the nature of biography.

 

[Sister_Angel]

Dear cornbread, if you would just read this you might get some insight into what you are looking for Blessings and Peace!

Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Word-Gaudium et …www.vatican.va/…vatican…/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes

 

[OMGJ]

Hi, OMGJ,

Well… how does ironic sound …? Actually, it was I who learned from you…

For someone who has just joined CAF, you have made a number of excellent contributions. Keep up the good work:thumbsup:

Aww shucks

Thanks for the compliment.

As I see it, there is still a Flat Earth Society … really! Here is the link:theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

[OMGJ]

In my opinion the biggest mistake is to think that what goes on today and the way people think are the way that we in the US or in the West or in the 21st Century think and act. This is simply not true. Today, we can get a real-time transcript appearing at the bottom of our TV set (hearing impaired feature) scrolling throughout a person’s presentation. Getting an actual transcript of what someone said, hours after it happened is considered slow - and why bother when there is a pod-cast of the event…?

Not to sound like I’m trying to suck up to you for the previous compliment but that is exactly what I was thinking!! It seems that some people are having a difficult time in putting things into perspective. It seems that they’re picturing an ancient Jewish or Roman reporter running around writing down all that is transpiring. And as you said, literacy wasn’t as common place then as it is now. So your sample set of people who are even capable of writing it down is much lesser than if you put those events to happen in modern times.

But, look at the reality - it was about 20 years after Christ died before the first book of the New Testament was even written - and about 67 years after Christ died before the last book of the NT was completed. Such a lag would be totally inexcusiable in today’s fast paced world… like finally getting the complete report on the U.S. B-29 bombers beginning the massive bombing campaign against mainland Japan and in Europe, the Allies capture Strasbourg! The way we process time is totally different today - but those events were 67 years ago!

Reporters (AP, UPI, BBC…?) had not yet been invented. Historians were still trying to get a claim to respectablity. We can admire Thucydides, who wrote the History of the Peloponnesian War (431BC - 404BC) - but this war involved almost 500,000 military and civilians - all with their view of particular battles, naval expeditions, losses and victories - and all we have is Thucydides. And while some to the ancient phiosophers remark on some aspects - this is nothing compared to what could exist if just 1% of those who saw what was going on just picked up a pen and wrote this down. Does anyone doubt the Peloponnesian War(s) took place? or their outcome?

Now, as Catholics, we believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God - who used human authors - all the way from Genesis to Revelatons. God not only got His Message out - but, got it out exactly as He intended. No one is claiming that the History of the Poloponnesian War was inspired - yet, we try to read it like it was a newpaper account of what took place… even though Thucydides was an Athenian General who fought in the war and was not as objective as he tried to claim!

I mention this because your criticism is honestly misplaced. No one can tell you why something was NOT written. But, writing itself was not that wide-spread… and, that is probably the best secular answer there is for your question.

We know that many ancient writings have been lost to the world - and most probably will remain lost for all time. Here is a helpful link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_work

In the New Testament there appears to be missing works, too - based on internal evidence from St. Paul who references them in other works. Here are four:

The first Epistle to Corinth[5] referenced at 1 Corinthians 5:9
The third Epistle to Corinth called Severe Letter referenced at 2 Corinthians 2:4 and 2 Corinthians 7:8-9
The earlier Epistle to the Ephesians referenced at Ephesians 3:3-4
The Epistle to the Laodiceans[6]referenced at Colossians 4:16

Ultimately, your question takes on the drama of being asked to prove a negative… I submit that such documents may have been written - but, they have not been found - and, unlike Paul who provided us some evidence of other writings of his - other authors did not write as much or did not have internal clues.

I think the key is dropping the requirement that everything be known before any belief is possible. A little child believes in the love of his parents for him - and he certainly does not undersand love or his parents.

Excellent points!!!

 

[tonyrey]

That doesn’t address why it wasn’t mentioned by contemporary and nearly contemporary historians like Josephus, nor does it explain why all of the other Gospel authors – notably including the allegedly historically rigorous Luke – failed to mention it. Surely they had nothing to fear writing decades later.

1. Did historians need to give an encyclopaedic account of **all **the events they believed were fantasies?
2. Didthe Gospel authors need to give an encyclopaedic account of **all **the events they believed were true?
3. Was the most significant event for Christians?
4. Is that the main reason why do you reject the truth of the New Testament?
5. If not what is the main reason?

 

[Bobber90]

Answered in my article.

It is not, I’m afraid. Why would we have such a favourable multiverse, would be the next question. That doesn’t take us any closer to a god, nor does it make fine tuning improbable.

If you are familiar with the content of the articles you cite, can you either enlighten me now, or allow me to personal message you with queries?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It is not, I’m afraid. Why would we have such a favourable multiverse, would be the next question. That doesn’t take us any closer to a god, nor does it make fine tuning improbable.

It does if the driving premise of naturalism is based on the idea that meaningful teleological implications (highly organized patterns which have a purposeful end) can be explained as being a product of random or chance events + environment. If thats the major premise upon which philosophers reject teleology, then fine-tuning presents a major problem for those scientists or philosophers who cannot possibly explain fine tuning according to the principles of evolution. While i believe that it is methodologically meaningless to speak of a scientific theory of teleology, fine tuning does on the other-hand absolutely undermine the myth that all the scientific evidence thus far is pro-naturalism by implication(can be explained by natural events). The implication is that “Fine tuning” is not a product of random events, and thus the existence of a “teleological cause” logically speaking has the highest probability of being true.

The only way you can argue against fine-tuning, is to demonstrate that the ingredients which lead to the particular existence and potentialities of the universe or multi-universes are found in their particular configuration because that configuration is a natural attribute of physical reality.

However, if the theist can think of just one way in which that configuration could have been different, he would be in effect showing that it is not necessary; and thus the theist wins the argument.

 

[StrawberryJam]

It does if the driving premise of naturalism is based on the idea that meaningful teleological implications (highly organized patterns which have a purposeful end) can be explained as being a product of random or chance events + environment. If thats the major premise upon which philosophers reject teleology, then fine-tuning presents a major problem for those scientists or philosophers who cannot possibly explain fine tuning according to the principles of evolution. While i believe that it is methodologically meaningless to speak of a scientific theory of teleology, fine tuning does on the other-hand absolutely undermine the myth that all the scientific evidence thus far is pro-naturalism by implication(can be explained by natural events). The implication is that “Fine tuning” is not a product of random events, and thus the existence of a “teleological cause” logically speaking has the highest probability of being true.

The only way you can argue against fine-tuning, is to demonstrate that the ingredients which lead to the particular existence and potentialities of the universe or multi-universes are found in their particular configuration because that configuration is a natural attribute of physical reality.

However, if the theist can think of just one way in which that configuration could have been different, he would be in effect showing that it is not necessary; and thus the theist wins the argument.

Define purposeful and meaningful. Then try to wrap those ideas into something that does not require either.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Then try to wrap those ideas into something that does not require either.

I don’t understand what you mean?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I don’t understand what you mean?

I think we need to understand the terminology being used here so that we can engage in useful conversation.

 

[Bobber90]

It does if the driving premise of naturalism is based on the idea that meaningful teleological implications (highly organized patterns which have a purposeful end) can be explained as being a product of random or chance events + environment. If thats the major premise upon which philosophers reject teleology, then fine-tuning presents a major problem for those scientists or philosophers who cannot possibly explain fine tuning according to the principles of evolution. While i believe that it is methodologically meaningless to speak of a scientific theory of teleology, fine tuning does on the other-hand absolutely undermine the myth that all the scientific evidence thus far is pro-naturalism by implication(can be explained by natural events). The implication is that “Fine tuning” is not a product of random events, and thus the existence of a “teleological cause” logically speaking has the highest probability of being true.

The only way you can argue against fine-tuning, is to demonstrate that the ingredients which lead to the particular existence and potentialities of the universe or multi-universes are found in their particular configuration because that configuration is a natural attribute of physical reality.

However, if the theist can think of just one way in which that configuration could have been different, he would be in effect showing that it is not necessary; and thus the theist wins the argument.

Thank you, I see what you mean about the uselessness of naturalism for atheism if it merely works within a teleological reality. I agree that a teleological cause would be highly likely, and the random existence of fine-tuning would seem highly unlikely. However, isn’t teleology normally inferred from the idea that the universe is fine-tuned, rather than concluded independently from this idea? If the two ideas have solid, independent evidence/arguments, then I can see why theism is greatly supported, but I just don’t see how we would be able to get to that conclusion rationally.

That leaves it in my mind as:

1. The conditions of the universe are absolutely marvelous for life, but there could be many more universes like ours // it could be merely chance // there could be only a small number of possible models of physics, and ours is common … etc

AND

1. We like the idea of purpose in our lives, but perhaps it is a human desire and not an objective reality.

 

[emisher]

Thank you, I see what you mean about the uselessness of naturalism for atheism if it merely works within a teleological reality. I agree that a teleological cause would be highly likely, and the random existence of fine-tuning would seem highly unlikely. However, isn’t teleology normally inferred from the idea that the universe is fine-tuned, rather than concluded independently from this idea? If the two ideas have solid, independent evidence/arguments, then I can see why theism is greatly supported, but I just don’t see how we would be able to get to that conclusion rationally.

That leaves it in my mind as:

1. The conditions of the universe are absolutely marvelous for life, but there could be many more universes like ours // it could be merely chance // there could be only a small number of possible models of physics, and ours is common … etc

AND

1. We like the idea of purpose in our lives, but perhaps it is a human desire and not an objective reality.

Faith in the possibility of other universes?

 

[emisher]

Thank you, I see what you mean about the uselessness of naturalism for atheism if it merely works within a teleological reality. I agree that a teleological cause would be highly likely, and the random existence of fine-tuning would seem highly unlikely. However, isn’t teleology normally inferred from the idea that the universe is fine-tuned, rather than concluded independently from this idea? If the two ideas have solid, independent evidence/arguments, then I can see why theism is greatly supported, but I just don’t see how we would be able to get to that conclusion rationally.

That leaves it in my mind as:

1. The conditions of the universe are absolutely marvelous for life, but there could be many more universes like ours // it could be merely chance // there could be only a small number of possible models of physics, and ours is common … etc

AND

1. We like the idea of purpose in our lives, but perhaps it is a human desire and not an objective reality.

Or maybe the presence in history of the man Jesus forces us out of the endless circle of debate about what might be outside of our universe. After all, we all proceed with uncertainty on many things in our lives.

Maybe the existence of this idea of resurrection forces us to have to deal logicallly with the other possibilities to explain such a strange claim?

Bobber 90, check out this link regarding the logic of the resurrection. It’s not too long and is an interesting read. He doesn’t assume that the gospels are inspired but simply argues logically from what is written in the text.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

It can be difficult to allow that Jesus was telling the truth, but the other two possibilities don’t make sense either, as I pointed out on p. 43

Talk to you later.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Isn’t teleology normally inferred from the idea that the universe is fine-tuned, rather than concluded independently from this idea?

If you have reason to believe something that seems absurdly unlikely to just sort of ‘be there’ is there, it makes sense to think it was actively put there, or created.

The widespread experience across cultures and ages of creator God/s gives a handy answer, much better than multitudes of universes we have no experience of, and therefore no reason to believe exist. And to put it down to absurdly remote chance is not rational - it’s essentially faith

 

[cornbread_r2]

Arizona Mike and others:

Mine was admittedly an argument from silence and while such arguments can never be conclusive, silence can, I think (depending upon the extravagance of the claim), be strong circumstantial evidence against a claim.

In regards to this particular alleged event – the resurrection of many dead people and their subsequent appearance to many other people – only one person in all of the NT refers to it. While I think it’s a fair point that, for all we know, it might have been referenced in non-surviving manuscripts of non-Christian writers, anyone who seeks to explain away the silence of all of the other NT writers to an event involving spectacular multiple resurrections due to lack of interest or space limitations or theological irrelevance or on any other grounds has, IMO, a much harder row to hoe.

I get the impression from some of the comments here that my and other people’s questioning of the veracity of this event is being viewed as the result of a dogged atheistic commitment to a denial of TRUTH, no matter how unreasonable and no matter the cost. I can assure you that I’ve had questions about this passage since my days in prep-seminary and that many faithful Christians have, after much prayerful study, simply accepted this passage as a powerful metaphor without taking the first baby-step towards the dark side.

As I’m sure that there no arguments that I can advance that would dissuade someone from seeing this as an actual, real event – especially if they should choose to invoke divine intervention into the calculation – I’m going to withdraw from the discussion at this time. Thanks

 

[tqualey]

Hey, Cornbread_r2,

You are the second self-styled heroic atheist to exile themselves from this thread … at least for the moment…and, all because you can not answer to what is put in front of you. When you come back, please just address the subject with facts without the usual recourse to the absence of enough facts.

When challenged to actually come up with an argument that goes beyond: “You did not convince me”, or “I don’t believe what you said”, or “This all just happened”, the position you have ground out and smoothed over for yourself just shatters.

Actually silence can mean a lot of things… consent for one, disagreement for another - or even just being dumbfounded and not knowing what to say. In this particular case, just stop and think for a minute - this part of your argument rests on the hypothesis that since only one writer mentions resurections it must be false! Just how many more writers would make this aspect convincing - probably one more than can be produced! This is an astoundlingly glib response… and one that defies logic. The 1st Century writers are not 21st writers in togas having traded in their iPads for scrolls but keeping the same mannerisms and writing styles that we are used to today. This is not the case.

I do not have a clue what you mean by taking baby steps to the ‘dark side’ except you have been watching old Star Wars movies… But, you know … the ‘dark side’ has some serious problems - and, it is not just the heat and the company you keep, but it is the eternal loss of God. You may think you have started off with ‘baby steps’ but the Devil has all the greese he needs to make this one long slide. Best advice is to take some ‘baby steps’ in the opposite direction.

Concerning the ‘…divine intervention into the calculaiton…’ where do you think resurrection comes from if not God? Christ brought back the deceased son of a widow, the young daughter of an official, and, the most public display being Lazarus who had been in the tomb 4 days and his sister was convinced he was putrifying even as she spoke to Christ! Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, in full public view, commanded Lazarus to come out of the tomb once the stone had been rolled away. Just like on previous occasions Christ tells us that if we do not believe Him for what He says about Himself - believe the signs.

Of course if the signs are not to be believed, then Christ is not to be believed and then God Himself is not to be believed - all because not enough people wrote about the resurrection:shrug: But, that is OK … really … the Jewish leaders refused to believe that Christ rose from the dead - they also refused to believe that their world had permanently changed because to accept Christ would have meant they would have had to change themselves - and, this is something that they were not prepared to do. This same basic problem haunts some to this very day.

God bless

Arizona Mike and others:

Mine was admittedly an argument from silence and while such arguments can never be conclusive, silence can, I think (depending upon the extravagance of the claim), be strong circumstantial evidence against a claim.

In regards to this particular alleged event – the resurrection of many dead people and their subsequent appearance to many other people – only one person in all of the NT refers to it. While I think it’s a fair point that, for all we know, it might have been referenced in non-surviving manuscripts of non-Christian writers, anyone who seeks to explain away the silence of all of the other NT writers to an event involving spectacular multiple resurrections due to lack of interest or space limitations or theological irrelevance or on any other grounds has, IMO, a much harder row to hoe.

I get the impression from some of the comments here that my and other people’s questioning of the veracity of this event is being viewed as the result of a dogged atheistic commitment to a denial of TRUTH, no matter how unreasonable and no matter the cost. I can assure you that I’ve had questions about this passage since my days in prep-seminary and that many faithful Christians have, after much prayerful study, simply accepted this passage as a powerful metaphor without taking the first baby-step towards the dark side.

As I’m sure that there no arguments that I can advance that would dissuade someone from seeing this as an actual, real event – especially if they should choose to invoke divine intervention into the calculation – I’m going to withdraw from the discussion at this time. Thanks

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Arizona Mike and others:

Mine was admittedly an argument from silence and while such arguments can never be conclusive, silence can, I think (depending upon the extravagance of the claim), be strong circumstantial evidence against a claim.

In regards to this particular alleged event – the resurrection of many dead people and their subsequent appearance to many other people – only one person in all of the NT refers to it. While I think it’s a fair point that, for all we know, it might have been referenced in non-surviving manuscripts of non-Christian writers, anyone who seeks to explain away the silence of all of the other NT writers to an event involving spectacular multiple resurrections due to lack of interest or space limitations or theological irrelevance or on any other grounds has, IMO, a much harder row to hoe.

I get the impression from some of the comments here that my and other people’s questioning of the veracity of this event is being viewed as the result of a dogged atheistic commitment to a denial of TRUTH, no matter how unreasonable and no matter the cost. I can assure you that I’ve had questions about this passage since my days in prep-seminary and that many faithful Christians have, after much prayerful study, simply accepted this passage as a powerful metaphor without taking the first baby-step towards the dark side.

As I’m sure that there no arguments that I can advance that would dissuade someone from seeing this as an actual, real event – especially if they should choose to invoke divine intervention into the calculation – I’m going to withdraw from the discussion at this time. Thanks

Cornbread, I argue for things all the time, all the while knowing that my arguments will not dissuade most atheists from their dogged faith in a materialist world. The fun is in the trying. Don’t just up and quit, man!

Actually, the Gospel of John tells us of the earlier physical resurrection of Lazarus, which was also witnessed by “many,” yet this awe-inspiring event is not mentioned in the other Gospels. Should I not give credence to any miracle in the New Testament unless it is mentioned in each Gospel? And if each Gospel told of the same events with no additions or subtractions, wouldn’t most atheists claim this proved…uh…collusion?

Each of the writers of the Gospels used different events from the life and resurrection of Christ to emphasize different points.

And yet, we do not find any writings by the early Church fathers, many of whom were in a position to have either seen firsthand the events or were taught directly by one of the apostles or other eyewitnesses, that discredit the events described in Matthew 27:52-53 - none of the early Bishops wrote, “Well, pretty much everything in the Gospels is correct…except that business about Lazarus…or the business about the resurrected holy dead on Good Friday…that part is probably just metaphorical…” Yet they did discredit fallacious stories in the Gnostic, non-canonical texts.

We can be fairly sure that Matthew 27:52-53 is not an interpolation introduced into the Gospel at a later date, as we don’t have any early manuscripts of Matthew in Greek, Aramaic, or Latin that don’t contain the verses.

Matthew 27:52-53 is also referred to by “many” of the Early Church Fathers, who again, would be in a position to know witnesses to these events, and none of them dispute that this happened. These works are non biblical and not considered inspired, but they are considered to be true, and stand as powerful outside attestation to the events described in Matthew 27:52-53.

You can find references to the events in this passage by Ignatius (c. 35-107), Irenaeus (c. 130–200), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), Tertullian (c. 160-225), Julius Africanus (c. 160-240), Origin (c. 185-254), Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-236), Cyprian of Carthage (c.?, - 258), Eusebius (c.260-340), and Alexander of Alexandria (b.? - 328), among others. All considered it a true account. All are considered, as you put it, “faithful Christians,” but were a little closer to the original source than your friends who consider it merely a “powerful metaphor.”

Re the dangers of invoking “divine intervention” to explain this event…how else would I explain it?

 

[roger_z]

I think the best way to turn the table on atheists is to question why they exist in the first place, but not by posing that question directly. Atheists cannot know for sure whether there is a God or not, yet they maintain firmly that there isn’t one, much like Catholics maintain that there is one. These are acts of faith. We cannot know whether there is a God or not because we do not have the resources to make that determination by looking at evidence or science because theoretically, God can either exist or not regardless of whatever you look at in the universe. There is no proof of “no God”. So it is a believe based on faith. So why does it exist? The answer is simply to look at the actions of atheists. What do they do? They go and write books how there is no God. They ask people, “How can you believe in a God?”. They get angry at religion as if it did something to them. Look at the things they say… they say things like, “It makes me so mad to see all these crazy religious lunatics.”. And where do they say these things? I myself have seen them as youtube comments in religious videos… these are videos for Christians intended to be viewed by Christians (such as prayers), yet atheists go and seek these videos out. Where else do they go? They go onto Christian forums. They even go onto this forum! If an atheist wants to tell you that there is no God, present him with a challenge. Tell him/her that if they really believe there is no God, that they should be able to remain silent about it. Because if there is no God, there is no need to spread their message across and there is no need for them to be angry at religion and there is no need to go onto Catholic forums and say things like “I can’t believe you guys believe in a God”. In private, they go online and look for links like “Proof that there is no God” and buy books questioning religion. They are already atheists, yet they buy the books, read them, and read the links and try to get others to buy into it. The reason is that they seek validation. They want to find others who share in their belief, they go and seek out religious forums to pounce on, and they take a proactive stance in their quest. They don’t have the courage to stand alone with their atheism. They need to be atheists with others so that they can constantly give each other validation. This is why they try to find error in scripture. Same reason as the protestants do with respect to catholic teachings. Because they try to find contradictions, either in science, scripture, or wherever else to give themselves some comfort that what the Catholics say is not true. You’ll notice a lot of atheists and protestants on this forum asking questions, yet they will never be satisfied with any answer. They’re not asking to know what Catholics believe on the matter. They could look that up on the Internet easily. And they know their arguments logically fall apart. They seek evidence to fit their conclusions and maintain their delusion that it is evidence even though it’s not. A true atheist can realize that it’s theoretically possible God exists, yet one in denial will refute even logic for their favored conclusion. They’re asking questions because it’s a part of their self-validation. As one of my favorite quotes says, even an atheist half-believes in God at night. These people are too afraid to keep their atheism to themselves. Atheism is not a religion and a true atheist would have the courage not to evangelize. If an atheist came up to me and told me that he doesn’t believe there’s a God, I would tell him that I don’t believe he’s an atheist.