The gospel of Matthew 27:51-53 tells us what happened right after Jesus Christ died:
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.
Let's think about how monumental an event this must have been. Dead and rotting corpses rose up through the rocks and dirt of their graves and descended on the city of Jerusalem. The news of such an event (unprecedented in the history of the world) must have spread throughout the Roman Empire like wildfire. It was possible to die, rot in the ground and then return to life! Next to alien contact I can't think of a more electrifying event which could occur.
So why is there no secular record of this? No contemporary historian knows anything about it. There is no Roman record of it. Did Pontius Pilate not think it worth mentioning in his correspondence with Rome? There is no word on what happened to these zombies either. Did they live for a while and die again later? How did they walk around with ruined bodies? Did anyone bother to examine them? It's almost like the story is complete fiction. But the Bible doesn't lie, does it?
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
Small mod hat on: hi everyone posting after the OP. Many of your posts are simply longer versions of the one liner, "good post". If you agree PM me and I'll remove your post.
Ok now I recently watched something on this and ill see if i can remember correctly.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
"And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment,"
DOES HEBREWS 9:27 MEAN NO HUMAN CAN EVER DIE TWICE??
ANSWER : No. The passage doesn't refer to the ability to only die once but the "appointing", the scheduling, the designation....the to die only once. If a defendent has only one appointment to see a Judge this doesn't mean it is impossible to see him ever again or that it would be impossible to see him without an appointment. It also doesnt mean one cannot fail to keep the appointment. The New World Translation uses the term "reserved"
HEBREWS 9:27
And just as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this to receive a judgment...
So the verse implies that all humans have a "one time only" (once for all time) never to be repeated reservation with death not that humans CAN only die once, there's a big difference.
AN APPOINTMENT WITH DR DEATH
While the context indicates Paul is actually refering specifically to the High Priests under the Jewish temple system, the expression can also be applied in a general sense to all humans are appointed /reserved, schduled to die once and only once of inherited "adamic" sin . Any individuals subseqently resurrected, should they after "judgement" prove unworthy of continued life, will be duly executed at God's hands, destroyed for willful rejection of God's standards for life. That would be be an audience without an "appointment" , or "death without having made a prior reservation". While the first death is scheduled for us all (although a few will indeed not keep their appointments) the "second" is entirely unscheduled and in no way inevitable.
CONCLUSION Hebrews 9:27 does not mean that humans can (or even must) die once, nor does it mean that all humans that benefit from a resurrection automatically become immortal (indestructable). Hebrews 9:27 means that mankind has, as of the original sin been reserved / appointed to die at least once. Any deaths after what Paul refers to a "judgenent" will be entirely the person's own fault.
Hebrews 9:27 NRSV "And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment,"
And every fundamentalist will probably tell you that this is inspired by God?
But Matthew will show you that God got it wrong!
Yes, those saints died -- once. Then they rose when Christ did -- never to die again. Therefore, the verse from Hebrews doesn't contradict this resurrection miracle at all.
We know they were saints because only those who followed God would arise with Jesus. Those who did not will remain in their graves until Christ's second coming.
The Jews wrapped their dead in fairly substantial shrouds that were glued with resin. Therefore, they would not have been completely naked. Therefore, no one's sensibilities would have been offended. And even if they had been naked, I fail to see how that would "prove" that Matthew made everything up.
As for non-Biblical sources not reporting it, that constitutes an argument from silence which, at best, is weak and, at worst, fallacious. Think about it. Would the Romans really record an event that made them look bad?
I thought perhaps someone might find the following article interesting. It explains why Jesus and those who rose from the dead with him were not zombies or ghosts or anything else atheists and other non-believers like to mockingly call them.
Hebrews 9:27 NRSV "And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment,"
And every fundamentalist will probably tell you that this is inspired by God?
But Matthew will show you that God got it wrong!
Yes, those saints died -- once. Then they rose when Christ did -- never to die again. Therefore, the verse from Hebrews doesn't contradict this resurrection miracle at all.
We know they were saints because only those who followed God would arise with Jesus. Those who did not will remain in their graves until Christ's second coming.
The Jews wrapped their dead in fairly substantial shrouds that were glued with resin. Therefore, they would not have been completely naked. Therefore, no one's sensibilities would have been offended. And even if they had been naked, I fail to see how that would "prove" that Matthew made everything up.
As for non-Biblical sources not reporting it, that constitutes an argument from silence which, at best, is weak and, at worst, fallacious. Think about it. Would the Romans really record an event that made them look bad?
QUESTION
OK. What became of those who Matthew claimed were raised from the dead when Christ died?
Overcomer wrote:
As for non-Biblical sources not reporting it, that constitutes an argument from silence which, at best, is weak and, at worst, fallacious. Think about it. Would the Romans really record an event that made them look bad?
You assert that it is either weak or fallacious to draw any conclusions based on the absence of non-Biblical sources for this tale. You then suggest a conclusion based on the absence of non-Biblical sources.
So, is your question based on a weak or fallacious argument?
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
Hebrews 9:27 NRSV "And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment,"
And every fundamentalist will probably tell you that this is inspired by God?
But Matthew will show you that God got it wrong!
Yes, those saints died -- once. Then they rose when Christ did -- never to die again.
Therefore, the verse from Hebrews doesn't contradict this resurrection miracle at all
RESPONSE: "Never to die again" Really? Then where are they now?
RedEye wrote:
How did they walk around with ruined bodies? Did anyone bother to examine them? It's almost like the story is complete fiction. But the Bible doesn't lie, does it?
One of the most disturbing things about this historical event, in biblical shock terms, is the fact that these poor souls would have been naked. It is one thing to rise from the dead but quite another, in biblical terms, to go around unclothed. How could God have allowed this? While we can readily accept that on the momentous occasion of Christ's crucifixion it would have been a small matter for pious folk to quit their tombs, especially if they hadn't been buried too deeply, it cannot be possible that God allowed naked people to shuffle around and shock decent folk. This proves Matthew made the whole thing up.
I tend to disagree. Their nakedness (or rags) might have been the least shocking thing. Someone rising from the dead in a decayed state, that would be truly shocking and newsworthy. One would be a sensation, a whole horde of them should have been electrifying.
On a related point Jesus too would have been in his birthday suit, having thoughtfully folded up his funeral garments before politely pushing the stone away and going for a drink.
He might have needed a long bath before approaching anyone. (I believe he was wrapped in cloth so he would have had to break out of that first and then fashion it into some sort of clothing --- so much for the shroud though).
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
Overcomer wrote:
As for non-Biblical sources not reporting it, that constitutes an argument from silence which, at best, is weak and, at worst, fallacious.
An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.[6][7]
How could an item be more important and interesting than the dead returning to life?
Think about it. Would the Romans really record an event that made them look bad?
Um, yes. Why not? We have Roman records of Caligula for example. Didn't he make Romans look bad? We have extensive records of major military defeats which the Romans suffered. It is ridiculous to suggest that Romans only recorded what made Romans look good.
Anyway, I fail to see how a report of the dead coming back to life would make Romans look bad. The Roman administration may not have even made the connection to someone (among many) that they had recently crucified. They would have no real reason to. They certainly did not have to acknowledge such a connection in their reports. The news itself being so sensational would far outweigh any other considerations.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
As for non-Biblical sources not reporting it, that constitutes an argument from silence which, at best, is weak and, at worst, fallacious.
One source, and one source only for the zombie invasion. Remove the initial claimant (Gospel Matthew) and the zombie invasion vanishes from the annals of history.
The argument from silence does work here, since multiple people rising from their graves ought to be something that shocks the entire community at the time. It should be something talked about, gossiped about.
Would the Romans really record an event that made them look bad?
Yes, they did. Polybius wrote about the Battle of Cannae, where Carthage's Hannibal decisively defeated the Roman Republic, for one.
Besides, your argument (that the Romans wouldn't have written about the zombie invasion) only makes sense in terms of the Roman political establishment (if the Romans self censored). What about everyone else in Jerusalem? Would everyone in Jerusalem not of Roman stock or not part of the Roman political system have not written at all about the zombies simply because the Romans didn't want to make themselves look bad? Wouldn't the Romans have written messages anyway, at least initially, before orders came down to stop talking about it?
I invite you again to think hard about this and explain why, in your mind, the saints did rise from the graves, hung around for a couple of days to later walk into a major city, and yet only Gospel Matthew talks about it.
No-one else does. Nowhere else is it mentioned, either in Christian writings or elsewhere. Wouldn't the Jews of the city, barely a handful of decades from rising up in a rebellion, have mentioned it?
I thought perhaps someone might find the following article interesting. It explains why Jesus and those who rose from the dead with him were not zombies or ghosts or anything else atheists and other non-believers like to mockingly call them.
Maybe we mean zombies like the following?
[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]
Either way, Gospel Matthew tells a story about a bunch of people who were dead, in their graves, who then come back out of their graves, hang around a couple days and then march into a major city. Unless you're going to argue that the people who rose looked exactly like living people (such that the other living residents of Jerusalem were unable to tell the difference)...?
As an aside - the reason you hear us atheists saying zombie is not merely to claim that Jesus and the saints were shambling Romero corpses, but to point out that you Christians are the ones believing and promoting that people rose from the dead, much like you yourselves might mock others who say they saw a real zombie.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
."
