Quote:Even if some Romans in the holy city saw these resurrected individuals, it does not follow that Roman historians would have recorded this. If some Romans did claim to see resurrected people they were probably ridiculed and dismissed as crazy decieved individuals not unlike many of you here would dismiss such a claim if it was made to you.

I guess, except for the enormous wealth of crazy shit Romans did that seriously damaged Roman credibility and yet still, somehow, found its way into Roman records. Yunno, like the emperor who made his horse a Senator?

There's no way that the event wouldn't have been recorded by somebody if it actually happened.

The historians of the era didn't record it therefore it must have happened

(February 24, 2014 at 12:40 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Apparently you are the type who is utterly shameless when it comes to inventing bullshit to get your gospel stories off the hook.

Not at all. I am one who is clearly, concisely, and logically demonstrating through rational reasoning why various arguments against Christianity, while on the surface appear to be of some merit, are actually, once clearly understood, simply not sound.

---

(February 24, 2014 at 1:20 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

Quote:Even if some Romans in the holy city saw these resurrected individuals, it does not follow that Roman historians would have recorded this. If some Romans did claim to see resurrected people they were probably ridiculed and dismissed as crazy decieved individuals not unlike many of you here would dismiss such a claim if it was made to you.

I guess, except for the enormous wealth of crazy shit Romans did that seriously damaged Roman credibility and yet still, somehow, found its way into Roman records. Yunno, like the emperor who made his horse a Senator?

There's no way that the event wouldn't have been recorded by somebody if it actually happened.

The historians of the era didn't record it therefore it must have happened

The event was recorded by somebody. It was recorded by Matthew the gospel writer.

(February 24, 2014 at 1:34 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 12:40 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Apparently you are the type who is utterly shameless when it comes to inventing bullshit to get your gospel stories off the hook.

Not at all. I am one who is clearly, concisely, and logically demonstrating through rational reasoning why various arguments against Christianity, while on the surface appear to be of some merit, are actually, once clearly understood, simply not sound.

---

(February 24, 2014 at 1:20 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I guess, except for the enormous wealth of crazy shit Romans did that seriously damaged Roman credibility and yet still, somehow, found its way into Roman records. Yunno, like the emperor who made his horse a Senator?

There's no way that the event wouldn't have been recorded by somebody if it actually happened.

The historians of the era didn't record it therefore it must have happened

The event was recorded by somebody. It was recorded by Matthew the gospel writer.

Decades after the "fact" and by no other Gospel writer, even though such a supposedly well attested event would have buttressed their stories! You seriously can't understand the problem with that?

I love that clear, concise Christian logic.

I've written this guy off. Just another useless apologist. Slightly more articulate than G-C or Drippy but no more rational.

Any excuse to get your bible off the hook is good enough for this kind.

(February 24, 2014 at 1:51 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 1:34 pm)discipulus Wrote: Not at all. I am one who is clearly, concisely, and logically demonstrating through rational reasoning why various arguments against Christianity, while on the surface appear to be of some merit, are actually, once clearly understood, simply not sound.

---

The event was recorded by somebody. It was recorded by Matthew the gospel writer.

Decades after the "fact" and by no other Gospel writer, even though such a supposedly well attested event would have buttressed their stories! You seriously can't understand the problem with that?

I love that clear, concise Christian logic.

To be charitable, I will agree and say yes indeed, the recording of the event by multiple writers may have very well buttressed their stories.

For whatever reason, we only have Matthew recording the instance. If this causes you to doubt the reliability of the Bible, then fine.

Why do you think the other gospel writers didn't mention the other dead people coming back?

I mean it's quite a big deal...

Oh, this should be good!

(February 24, 2014 at 2:52 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Why do you think the other gospel writers didn't mention the other dead people coming back?

I mean it's quite a big deal...

Good question. I don't know.

But I agree, its a big deal. I think God inspired each writer to record certain things. When all four gospels are put together, we have four independent eyewitnesses whose accounts provide a comprehensive account of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

If all four gospel writers had included the Matthew 27 account, would you believe the Bible was the word of God? If you had other secular authors record it, would you conclude the Bible was the word of God?

Or would you still try to explain it all away as some sort of grand Jewish political conspiracy?

Not because of that, no. When I believed in the bible it was because I connected it to my personal experience of God. I've since questioned that connection.

Unfortunately you have four stories that don't actually match up in all the details.