Zombies!

[John V]

I think what Alpha Male's point was, is that they wouldn't have been zombies, they would have been completely alive, just like they were before they died. He's objecting to the habit many of us have of mocking resurrection stories by calling the people brought back to life, 'zombies'. The word 'zombie' implies they're reanimated corpses, not living people, which is unlikely to be what the Biblical authors had in mind. He's basically objecting to the mockery.

Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you, AM.

Yep, that's the gist of it, and minnie demonstrated that that is indeed atheists' goal in pointing to that passage with the cartoon he posted.

[Mister Agenda]

Um, seems like the sort of thing non-Christians in Jerusalem would have thought to make a note of in their histories.

Hardly. Think it through. If someone who you knew was dead appeared to you and said you were alive by the power of Jesus...you'd become a follower of Jesus. If you didn't experience it first-hand, but just heard rumors, you wouldn't find it noteworthy.

Neither of us experienced it first hand, but we both find it note-worthy, even though I don't believe it's true. Humans have a great appetite for miracle stories, even ones they don't think are true. And you don't have to believe the explanation to believe the event. If a lot of people said a bunch of people were resurrected from the dead by a bruja, I wouldn't be quick to believe it, but I would not have any trouble accepting that something happened to get so many people excited. Even 'the silly Christians were telling everyone that many dead people in Jerusalem rose from their graves last week' would be something to indicate it's not just an embellishment on an oral tradition.

[John V]

Because you'd think something like that would have made enough of an impression that someone besides that Gospel writer, a known historian (which Jerusalem at that time was not lacking) for instance. Why would you be surprised that we would go to a mass uprising of the dead rather than one particular instance? The bigger the event, the more problematic lack of corroboration is.

First, we don't know that it was a "mass uprising." The possible range of the word translated "many" is very wide. Consider this other usage of the word by Matthew:

Matt 9
9 As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, “Follow Me.” So he arose and followed Him. 10 Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples.

That "many" is the same underlying word as in the passage in question, and it refers to a number that could sit down together for a meal. In other words, it's not necessarily a large number.

Second, consider the time at which this occurred - Passover. IIRC it's estimated that Jerusalem's population was around 5 times the normal during Passover.

So, you have a number which could be as few as a dinner party, at a time when the city was flooded with strangers anyway.

No, it's not something that would make an impression on a secular historian.

[The Grand Nudger]

So there may not have been that many of them, and they weren't romero style zombies?  Not much of an objection.  I agree, if a handful of people showed up unexpectedly at a dinner party that wouldn't bare mention...and yet a religion is formed around it?

[robvalue]

When you're writing a book, you can make pretty much anything you want happen in it. There are whole sections dedicated to such an idea in most bookshops.

So it's not really that amazing.

[Nihilist Virus]

I agree with alpha male, I'd find it hardly remarkable if many dead people came back to life suddenly and without warning. I'd hardly expect it to be documented as a historical event.

[Little lunch]

I thought this was a poker machine thread.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Deserves its own thread, as people keep using it as a red herring to divert attention from other topics. 

Matt 27
51 Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

So...what's the big deal? Is it just that Walking Dead fans can only picture it in those terms?

If god can raise people from the dead, he can give them a proper appearance and clothes if he likes.

Don't claim that you doubt it because it isn't mentioned in the other gospels, as neither would you believe it if it were mentioned in all of them.

So...what's the problem?

They probably just find the claim itself absurd and are ridiculing it by comparing it to zombie stories.

My problem with it goes more to the theology. Why was anybody supposed to notice or care that one guy rose from the dead if, like, every corpse in Jerusalem got up and did the same thing 3 days prior? Can you imagine how that conversation would go?


"Hey guys! Guess what just happened!"

"Dammit...Pete, we don't have time for your shit right now. We're kinda busy."

"No, you guys have to see this! Jesus rose from the dead!

"Ummm...we, uh...we fucking know that, Pete."

"You do?"

"Yeah...fucking everybody did long about the time they were crucifying that asshole. We're still trying to re-bury them."

"No, but this just happened, and instead of going back to being dead after a while, he appeared to a few people and then just floated into the sky!"

"Right...Pete, we really don't have time for this."

[Losty]

Well the biggest problem is the part I bolded.  That is one enormous if, almost as big as the one in if He can create everything from nothing.  Imputting divine intention into every happenstance is so out there that if you have to ask "what's the big deal" it is a pretty sure bet you can't or won't see the answer.

Do you seriously think that's all there is to it? That people try to divert to that particular passage merely because they don't believe in a god that can raise people from the dead? There are numerous raisings in the Bible. That isn't the first, or the last. Why is that the one they go to? 

Alpha, none of us believe in God at all. It's not just that we don't think he can raise the dead. It's that we don't think he exists. Wouldn't it make more sense to assume people go to this verse just to get on your nerves?

[Spirian]

I'm pretty sure you're not a Christian.