Evolution Quesiton?

[The White Tiger]

Jesus rose from the dead and you have no problem with that story - but when Matthew mentions that others rose from their graves - that you have a problem with? One guy rises from the dead and it's pausible, but when a lot of people rise - well that's just too much...? I would think one would be as hard for you to take as several. For if one can be raised - can't they all?

Clue for a related search regarding the dead being raised at the same time Christ arose - "...He led captivity captive..." I have actually been wondering why no one has asked about the faithful Jews that died prior to Christs appearance/ressurection. I would want to know about that if I was truly investigating. Maybe that is the litmus test for real investigation?

And yes, I do believe what Matthew wrote. I didn't come up with this, I'm not the one putting it forward as a theory. I do accept it. Miracles are, well,  miraculous.

Oh, BTW - they weren't zombies - just people.

Road to Emmaus = Luke chapter 24 verses 13 - 35, and Mark chapter 16 12 - 23.

[bradentonian]

Oh, BTW - they weren't zombies - just people.

Road to Emmaus = Luke chapter 24 verses 13 - 35, and Mark chapter 16 12 - 23.

That's kind of interesting.  Is there documentation of what happened to them?  Did they go right back to the grave?  Did they lead normal lives and die naturally?  Were they raised corporally to Heaven?

[ufojoe]

No, they were hired as extras on Night of the Living Dead.

quote author=Buc Buckeye link=topic=21971.msg460488#msg460488 date=1207779898]
Jesus rose from the dead and you have no problem with that story - but when Matthew mentions that others rose from their graves - that you have a problem with? One guy rises from the dead and it's pausible, but when a lot of people rise - well that's just too much...? I would think one would be as hard for you to take as several. For if one can be raised - can't they all?

Who doesn't have a problem with it? I have really tried to remain open minded about it but in
the end, I can't get past the fact that rising from the dead is a very old story and I suspect that
the Church used it and other stories as a template for the life of Jesus Christ. To me, it's
clearly an astronomically related myth and a literal rising from the dead is not plausible
IMO. Doesn't matter if it's one guy or a group of saints.

Now, if you talk about Jesus the man I am looking forward to learning more on that. I have one
book about that and have not read it yet.

I have written before that when the zodiac is placed over the Earth, (I have the book on order
that describes the method that the researcher uses to decide where to place it) the sign of
Virgo falls on Virginia and Maryland. Virgo represents the Virgin and was the sign across
from Pisces when Jesus was allegedly born. Jesus = The Fisherman. Age of Pisces.
Mary was a Virgin. It's all astronomical. And the fact that MARY-land is right next
to VIRGIN-ia is not intriguing to anybody?

Who here is going to see "Expelled?"

I'm trying to end on a thread related subject...

[The White Tiger]

Not known bradentonian.

They were raised for a purpose though...

As I said, if one - Jesus - were ressurected then it is just as miraculous - if not more as he ressurected Himself. Consider this:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

Over 500 Witnesses:

"Several very important factors are often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony?"

[ufojoe]

All I want is one witnesses that i can cross examine.

Did Paul name those witnesses or transcribe what any of them said? I mean, they are an
important part to the story so I would assume that he took all of their testimony and
wrote it down. Or at least a ten or eyewitness twenty statements. And at least ten
to twenty names.

Were they talking about seeing a resurrected body or the spirit of Jesus? Just like when
people reported seeing the spirit of Moses and Elijah? Were their bodies resurrected too?
That's from Matthew 17. Love the Internet.

I'm trying to work with you, Buck.

[The White Tiger]

Intersting that you characterize and define Moses and Elijah as [/i]spirits[/i]...where did you hear that? Christians do not believe that they are spirits in the accounts you mentioned.

I gave you an account where a man spoke to his contemporaries about asking people they knew and could ask again. I can't give you names - apparently that was not what Matthew wanted to foucs on - he mentions it. Then he reminds a audience 20 - 30 years later that they knew some of the very people that saw this all happen. He wasn't recounting a story and corroborating the story with evidence - he was telling things to others aznd mentioned the corwd could ask the eyewitnesses if they wanted.

I did quote a professor of history from Miami of Ohio. That states that he found this to be a credible account.

I offer that another secular historian set out to disprove Dr. Luke's account and discount Luke as a historian:

"Sir William Ramsay, 1905 Noble Prize winner (chemistry), and professor of chemistry, University College - London. Sir William spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke's credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

Since I cannot offer you names or even introduce you to eye witnesses - this is some of the evidence.
You just have to trust the data.