"the walking dead"

[Desert Snake]

Problem, one report from maybe Matthew the apostle, do you know for sure he wrote it? No one else mentions the dead people coming out of the tombs and walking around town. Why? If Matthew didn't write it, then the whole book is suspect. If he did write it, but "exaggerated" or made up the story of the dead people, he suspect and the book he wrote is too. So is this a true report that only Matthew cared to mention? If something like that really happened, even non-Christians should have at least said something about it, don't you think?

It's not a 'problem', why do think I even care? Is there some 'reason' I would care? Is there a reason I would be a Christian? There's a difference between reading religious texts with an open mind, and reading them with a framework of interpretation that is literally declaring the religions false in most ways, which is what he was doing.

btw, I don't 'know' or care about the supposed occurrence, so no opinion.

 

[CG Didymus]

It's not a 'problem', why do think I even care? Is there some 'reason' I would care? Is there a reason I would be a Christian? There's a difference between reading religious texts with an open mind, and reading them with a framework of interpretation that is literally declaring the religions false in most ways, which is what he was doing.

btw, I don't 'know' or care about the supposed occurrence, so no opinion.

If you don't care then go away.

 

[Desert Snake]

If you don't care then go away.

So you're saying you care?

 

[CG Didymus]

So you're saying you care?

Why are you reading and responding if you don't care?

 

[Desert Snake]

Why are you reading and responding if you don't care?

You didn't answer the question.


Because it's Scripture, that's what we do here.

 

[CG Didymus]

Basically, how much of the Bible is it even possible you would find to be truth, sure doesn't seem like much.

Basically, how much do you believe? Dead people coming out of their graves and walking around town, from any other book, other than the NT, would be laughed at. But, it's dead serious, because Matthew uses it to build a case showing that Jesus is the Messiah. If Matthew is making things up, then maybe Jesus and Christianity and the NT aren't all that perfect. But, if you don't care, that's fine.

 

[Desert Snake]

Basically, how much do you believe? Dead people coming out of their graves and walking around town, from any other book, other than the NT, would be laughed at. But, it's dead serious, because Matthew uses it to build a case showing that Jesus is the Messiah. If Matthew is making things up, then maybe Jesus and Christianity and the NT aren't all that perfect. But, if you don't care, that's fine.

You're getting my religion mixed up with some Scripture. They aren't the same thing. Scripture is involved in my religious beliefs, that's all.

 

[paarsurrey]

Lol we get it, you think the Bible is false.

Bible is a mix.
Surely some or many parts of Bible are false. No doubt about it.

Regards

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The "Gospel according to Matthew" was not known to Papias (ca 125), although mentioned by Tatian (ca 165). So it was probably written about 100 years after the crucifixion! That's why the author never refers to the apostle Matthew as "I" or to the disciples as "we". He used Mark's Gospel (which Papias did know), a collection of the sayings of Jesus, and the stories that he'd heard. But he wasn't there at the time.

 

[outhouse]

The "Gospel according to Matthew" was not known to Papias (ca 125)


.

Yet that is not how they determine dating of said pieces.


While matthew would become the most popular gospel, at that time the gospels were not wide spread, or even known to all.

Different communities had different gospels. There was no widespread use of all gospels by all communities.

 

[outhouse]

If you don't care then go away.

I used ignore on him.

Works great!

 

[CG Didymus]

The "Gospel according to Matthew" was not known to Papias (ca 125), although mentioned by Tatian (ca 165). So it was probably written about 100 years after the crucifixion! That's why the author never refers to the apostle Matthew as "I" or to the disciples as "we". He used Mark's Gospel (which Papias did know), a collection of the sayings of Jesus, and the stories that he'd heard. But he wasn't there at the time.

They didn't mention that Sunday school.

 

[CG Didymus]

I used ignore on him.

Works great!

Good idea. Thanks.

 

[paarsurrey]

"the walking dead"


There were no literal and physically "walking dead".
It is a usual exaggeration of the sinful Bible scribes.

Truthful innocent Jesus never needed any such made-up miracles that he never performed.

Jesus just healed the near-dead people with his knowledge of the medicine of the day and with his prayers to G-d; he himself was neither a god nor a son of god.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The "Gospel according to Matthew" was not known to Papias (ca 125), although mentioned by Tatian (ca 165). So it was probably written about 100 years after the crucifixion! That's why the author never refers to the apostle Matthew as "I" or to the disciples as "we". He used Mark's Gospel (which Papias did know), a collection of the sayings of Jesus, and the stories that he'd heard. But he wasn't there at the time.

Wikipedia on Matthew:

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90;[2] a pre-70 date remains a minority view.[3] The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle.[4]

The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source.[5]

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is strange that though as is evident; Matthew copied/plagiarized from other sources extensively as mentioned above, specifically from Mark; even then while canonizing the Gospels; the corrupt clergy preferred to place it before the Gospel of Mark.

Still weird; none of them is an eye-witness of the event of Crucifixion.

Regards

 

[2ndpillar]

Matthew 27:51-3*describes the resurrection of many godly people who exited the cemetery on Good Friday and returned to Jerusalem where they were seen by many people, earthquake and rocks breaking in half. If true, this event would have stunned all of Jerusalem, unquestionably been documented by numerous sources, as well as other gospels and in terms of shock value would have dwarfed even the resurrection of Jesus. Yet nowhere else but in Matthew does anyone speaks of this resurrection-related miracle. if its not literal then how to determine when it is... personal preference i take it..

Dear truth,
In Mt 18:16, which is a rehash of Dt 19:15, all matters must be established by at least two first person witnesses. Your story of Mt 27:51-3, can not be established, as it has one witness only, and probably like the story of the woman caught in adultery, was an add on by the church (Jer 8:8).

 

[gnostic]

This never happened; it makes Matthew an unreliable scribe, a superstitious person in a soft language.

And Muhammad is more reliable?

Tell me, paarsurrey.

How many people can confirm Muhammad's claim that the angel Gabriel had visited him?

How many people can confirm Muhammad's ascent to heavens to speak to god, like Enoch, in the al-’Isrā’ wal-Mi‘rāj?

It is in the Qur'an, Hadith or in his biographies doesn't mean any of these are true or that they happened, because their there were no other witnesses.

Are the gospels unreliable? Yes.

But so are every other scriptures, past and present, including the Qur'an.

 

[JayJayDee]

Matthew 27:51-3*describes the resurrection of many godly people who exited the cemetery on Good Friday and returned to Jerusalem where they were seen by many people, earthquake and rocks breaking in half. If true, this event would have stunned all of Jerusalem, unquestionably been documented by numerous sources, as well as other gospels and in terms of shock value would have dwarfed even the resurrection of Jesus. Yet nowhere else but in Matthew does anyone speaks of this resurrection-related miracle. if its not literal then how to determine when it is... personal preference i take it..

There are only 9 resurrections mentioned in the Bible. All are documented with many witnesses. Why is this one account given only as a casual mention in relation to Jesus' execution, and only by Matthew?

I believe that the text at Matthew 27:52, 53 concerning “the tombs [that] were opened” as the result of an earthquake occurring at the time of Jesus’ death is not talking about a mass resurrection that occurred. If such an event took place, then it would have been reported by the other gospel writers, since there were witnesses.

A comparison with the texts concerning previous resurrections makes clear that these verses do not actually describe a mass resurrection at all but merely a throwing of bodies out of their tombs by the earthquake. And "they", (that is, ones who came out from among the tombs after seeing the bodies emerge) went into the city and were seen by many.

This is either a translation error, or it was the misreading of an incident that was not what many people think it was. If it was confirmed by other Bible writers, then perhaps we could give it credence in the way it is rendered, but since there is no corroboration, then perhaps it was not a mass resurrection at all.

It doesn't make Matthew or the scriptures wrong...it is just a misunderstood passage that does not alter any important Bible teaching nor does it impact at all on the veracity of the whole book.

 

[Alt Thinker]

Matthew 27:51-3*describes the resurrection of many godly people who exited the cemetery on Good Friday and returned to Jerusalem where they were seen by many people, earthquake and rocks breaking in half. If true, this event would have stunned all of Jerusalem, unquestionably been documented by numerous sources, as well as other gospels and in terms of shock value would have dwarfed even the resurrection of Jesus. Yet nowhere else but in Matthew does anyone speaks of this resurrection-related miracle. if its not literal then how to determine when it is... personal preference i take it..

Although Matthew mentions the ‘walking dead’ during his description of the death of Jesus, he makes it clear that it happened after the resurrection of Jesus. Sort of….

Matthew 27
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 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 went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

According to one tradition popular at that time, the Messianic Age was to begin with a general resurrection of everyone who ever lived. Everyone, living and dead, was to be judged and either rewarded or punished. This was to rectify the injustices of history in which the wicked prospered while the righteous suffered.

Paul has the resurrection of Jesus, the ‘first fruits’, be the opening of the Messianic Age, with the expectation that all the dead would be resurrected soon. Matthew supports this expectation by having some resurrections already happening. But he seems to get confused. He has the tombs breaking open and holy people coming back to life when Jesus dies. However they do not come out of the tombs until Jesus does days later. Might “after Jesus’ resurrection” (bolded in the quote above) have been added later on when Matthew or some copyist realized that Jesus had to come back to life first?

 

[Revoltingest]

New season has started.
I'll give no spoilers, but I will say that our little band allows some dangerous members to live too long.
Carol is right....she should'a killed him.