The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

this example of people rising from the dead in the bible is probably an embellishment or false

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
dairygirl4u2c
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 410 times Debate No: 60383
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

this example of people rising from the dead in the bible is probably an embellishment or false

51 When Jesus died, the curtain in the Temple was torn into two pieces. The tear started at the top and tore all the way to the bottom. Also, the earth shook and rocks were broken. 52 The graves opened, and many of God"s people who had died were raised from death. 53 They came out of the graves. And after Jesus was raised from death, they went into the holy city, and many people saw them. -Matthew 27:51

Aside from Jesus healing people, this appears to me as the biggest supernatural event in the Gospel: Other people rising from the dead, out of graves!

The fact this story is only mentioned in one of the gospels (and incredibly briefly at that) is interesting. More interesting, perhaps, is that we have a range of non-Biblical records from a similar time, and this event is not recorded. Frankly, it would have been. Corpses stumbling through the streets is not something that people idly dismiss. Even for the people not all that interested in "yet another prophet", but just wanted to eke out their existence - this would have been a huge event.

I know this won't be popular, but it seems the most likely explanation is that this was an embellishment, perhaps intended to resonate with a particular audience, but equally perhaps just accidentally added during the oral tradition (IIRC the gospel of Matthew is usually dated between 40 and 70 years after these events).

The problem, though, is that it is not kosher to suggest/acknowledge this view, because it raises the ugly question: "if that bit is an embellishment, what else is?", and throws the "divine inspired" into chaos. But: I know plenty of Christians who raise an eyebrow at this part of Matthew, particularly because it is so throwaway.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

If the Bible says they rose from the dead, they rose from the dead and there were many eyewitnesses. It is the testimony of those witnesses that caused our calendar to be based on the lifetime of Jesus Christ, and they held to their testimonies even thogh many of them lost everything and were tortured to death for refusing to recant their testimony.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

that they were willing to be martryed might prove that there was something to Jesus, but it doesn't mean that everything the bible says is true.

we have a range of non-Biblical records from a similar time, and this event is not recorded. Frankly, it would have been. Corpses stumbling through the streets is not something that people idly dismiss. Even for the people not all that interested in "yet another prophet", but just wanted to eke out their existence - this would have been a huge event.

I know this won't be popular, but it seems the most likely explanation is that this was an embellishment, perhaps intended to resonate with a particular audience, but equally perhaps just accidentally added during the oral tradition (IIRC the gospel of Matthew is usually dated between 40 and 70 years after these events).

The problem, though, is that it is not kosher to suggest/acknowledge this view, because it raises the ugly question: "if that bit is an embellishment, what else is?", and throws the "divine inspired" into chaos. But: I know plenty of Christians who raise an eyebrow at this part of Matthew, particularly because it is so throwaway.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

You could be one of those who will rise from the dead. There is going to be a big resurrection in the future. Those who are saved and going to heaven now will get their bodies back from the grave, transformed, purged from sin to be united with their heavenly body in which they will be enjoying heaven through Jesus Christ. Those who are not saved, like all the people who think purgatory wiill spart them from Hell, wiill receive their old corrupt bodies in the fire of Hell where they are tormented in the flames from the moment their body drops forever dead.

There's no probably about it. If God said it, it's true. If you don't believe it, that won't prevent God from doing what He promised to do.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

to quote stephen colbert...

"so we know that the bible is true. we know that the bible is true because the bible SAYS that the bible is true. and if you remember from earlier in this sentence, every word of the bible is true. now are you following me, or are you some kind of religious zealot?"
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

To qoute Jesus Christ "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

You can go with the pervert-loving Colbert and enjoy the pleasures of sin all the way to the fire of Hell if you really think he's all that funny. I hope you repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and ask God in Jesus' name to save you and receive Jesus Chrsit through faith as your Saviour so you can be saved and know it now. I'll follow Jesus into eternal life and give thanks at the remembrance of God's holiness and always agree with God that my sin is evil and I deserve to die and I'll forever praise Him and thank Him for giving me eternal life.


Binding Contract:
I, God, do hereby swear by the blood of my Son, Jesus, to overlook all of your violations of my Holy Law (sin) and grant you full pardon and entrance into eternal life by the resurrection of my Son from the dead if you will agree to the following terms:

1) You must acknowledge that you are the one who deserved to die and my Son did not deserve to die.
2) You must believe that I love you so much that I died in your place in the form of Jesus Christ my Son, and you must believe that I raised Him from the dead and can do the same for you.
3) You must ask me to accept you on these terms, asking for my mercy to forgive you and believe that I am willing to forgive you. You must receive my Son, Jesus, as your Saviour by asking me in His name to save you.
This contract is written by me in the blood of my Son whom I gave to be the satisfaction for payment for your sins against me. If you honestly agree to the terms above, and will receive my Son as your Saviour, sign below.
It's not too good to be true, , I always honor my Word, and I have committed all Judgement into the hands of My Son, Jesus, who paid the price to secure this contract for you.

Sign here ____________________________________to enter into agreement with God and receive His guarantee of pardon and eternal life in Jesus Christ.
If you signed this agreement and received Jesus Christ as your Saviour, gettting baptized is the next step showing you are now identified in His death, burial, (shown by submersion under water) and resurrection (shown by being raised up out of water), and share the good news!
The Gospel according to John is a good place to start reading, and of course use only the King James Bible. Then read the Letter to the Romans. And pray and talk to God every day and ask Him to show Himself to you through His Word, the Bible, and thank God and praise the LORD forever!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
"What Mathew is recording was possibly his own testimony of this unique event or of those pious witnesses who confided in him during his ministry in the holy city.

Hence it is likely that this event was occurring in isolation with the knowledge of few and failed to rattle everyone in the holy city to become it known to everyone at that time. We would never know God"s mind but one possible reason for restricting the knowledge of this event to few chosen could be that Jesus was not yet resurrected and for that reason the Jews were not be alerted about it till it happened. This event in Mathew could be one of such kind, which was known only to a very few and somehow Mathew was one of the few who knew it.

Regarding second sub-question: The context where this event is narrated is in the midst of narration of yet another great event that was occurring: Dying of Son of God on cross for the humanity. Deviating from the narration of this and detailing on an event of people rising from the dead (when there are already other detailed narrations running into several verses on such similar events elsewhere in Gospels) would have diluted the importance of this main event of dying on the cross.

In general:

Each and every miracle that Jesus performed, including numerous other phenomenons that surrounded Him (His birth, transfiguration etc.) were not ordinary but were all greatest supernatural events. Regardless of this, we find that some of these events are not mentioned in all the Gospels.

It is common to see that some people attack the Bible for having four versions of the same story in the Gospels and other people attack the Bible for not having four exact copies of the same stories in the Gospels. Birth of Jesus is mentioned only in Matthew and Luke. Since it is not mentioned in Mark and John does it means that we should discard the fact that he was ever born?

Likewise, the event of Lazarus rising from the dead is recorded only in John"s Gospel and in no other
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
here is a decent rebuttal to my argument (as opposed to con's)

"We can only speculate. Nevertheless we can certainly deduce following conclusions by having a closer look at these passages:

If one visualizes this event happening then it is likely that the same was possibly not a public fanfare as it is made out in this question:

"The graves opened". It would be not right to take these words literally because when someone is raised from the death, this is likely to be an expression in describing that event.
"Many of God"s people who had died were raised from the death". Note that not all the dead people came out of graves but only God"s people (Holy people) came back to life.
Also note that the next passage is very specifically saying that they went to holy city- meaning Jerusalem. It is not that these dead people came out of the grave and strolled the streets of their respective localities where they lived. We can safely conclude here that they were seen by a very few people, that too by those who were in the know of recognising them.
This event would be a personal experience for each one of these people who saw the risen people and would not be a public phenomenon or an exhibition, where all the dead people would be parading through the holy city with a tag on them so that all people will see.
These "God"s people" could also be from all over the world. So it is unlikely that all the people who saw them in (holy city) Jerusalem would recognise them.
There is another possibility: These few chosen people witnessing the event, could be also holy people who were witnessing their presence in holy city something similar to encounter of Jesus with a few chosen, for we find something like this here:

Acts. 10:40 but God raised him up on the third day and caused him to be seen, 10:41 not by all the people, but by us, the witnesses God had already chosen, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

What Mathew is recording was possi
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
dairygirl4u2cLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con attacked Colbert. Con only cited the Bible to prove the Bible.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
dairygirl4u2cLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side used sources or even stated where certain quotes came from. Con did not successfully refute the arguments, other than using the bible.
Vote Placed by jackh4mm3r 2 years ago
jackh4mm3r
dairygirl4u2cLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Points to Pro in establishing the scenario from the source and explaining why it was unlikely. Con, as usual from this user, was off topic. Clarification upon request.