(February 24, 2014 at 7:36 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: One of the problems I have with the bible is the "dog that barked in the night" thing.
For eg, Matthew 27:52-53. Now I know that this was before twitter, but you'd think that if a significant number of people came back from the dead and started walking about, and indeed were "seen by many" it would get at least a mention in contemporary records. The Romans were an organised bunch, the expected dead people to stay dead. Failure to do so may have reasonably be expected to cause comment.
In other news, It must have made for some awkward "honey I'm home" conversations.
Why think the Roman historians would record such an event?
The Romans in general despised the Jews and more or less tolerated their existence. They were also proud people. Why would they record something that would bring their credibility and judicial practices into question? If Roman historians recorded this occurance, they would be lending credibility to the testimony of Jesus' followers that Jesus was divine afterall. For the death of Christ and the resurrection of the dead bodies occured simultaneously. Many of His followers would have argued that the supernatural occurance was directly related to Christ's death, which is the last thing the Romans would have wanted to allow to happen.
You also assume that these resurrected individuals appeared to Romans. But the scripture is silent on the issue. It is not unreasonable to think that these resurrected people appeared to them that knew them even as you yourself alluded to. If this indeed was the case, it is more probable that these resurrected individuals were seen by Jews not Romans.
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.
So it seems to me that your argument is simply unpersuasive. It does not follow that just because some people were resurrected that therefore it would be recorded by Roman historians.
