So, exactly what is the difference between a Near-Death Experience and the Biblical resurrection of Jesus?
As said by Miracle Max,” Mostly dead is slightly alive, and all dead is when you go through their clothes for loose change.”
In other words, near death experiences are just that, the people experiencing them are not dead. Resurrection is life from death. That said, there are some gray areas that I am not sure about with the various instances of Lazarus and others being revived. In all those instances, they were revived to their old life, not to a new life in Christ, so that is different. The real problematic one is the tombs opening and many dead coming out of them in Matthew 57:52. Perhaps that was a theologic statement linking back to Ezekiel’s vision on dead bones in his chapter 37, but is written as history with eye witnesses.
things that make you go, “huh.”
1 Like
Phil,
Do you believe the author of the Gospel of Matthew intended his dead saints being shaken back to life story to be understood as a literal event or as apocalyptical metaphor?
Joel Marcus is a well respected critical scholar. His two-volume commentary on Mark is excellent. He wrote an interesting article:
Did Matthew Believe His Myths?
It might not give full answers or the ones we want but it’s interesting.
We tend to be dismissive or glance over this account in modern times but that is a pretty recent development in the Church.
Vinnie
1 Like
Gary, I lean towards metaphor. Just too many unanswered questions. Which gets into the inerrant vs. inspired views of the Bible.
If it is metaphor, that does open Pandora’s Box, doesn’t it?
1 Like
Yes, for a small number of people. Christian’s until the 18th century universally accepted it as true. The weighty argument from silence that Matthew is the only one to mention it did not bother them, apparently, nor did then waiting in the tomb a few days of this is how they understood it.
The Gospel coalition offers an interpretation that solves all the problems adequately enough (silence and waiting in the tomb) .
Given that their bodies were still in the tombs, these saints were likely not patriarchs from centuries past, but more recent followers of Jesus.
As for the waiting in the tombs, the article says this:
A better scenario emerges when we notice how Matthew interlocks this scene with the next chapter: namely, earthquakes coinciding with the tomb-opening of both the saints and Jesus (Matt. 27:51; 28:2), and the subtle foreshadowing of Jesus’s resurrection in 27:53, which Matthew doesn’t actually narrate until 28:5–6. He times the saints’ resurrection appearances after Jesus’s own but narrates theirs out of order to deal with these saints in one fell swoop, and thereby maintain focus on Jesus in the next chapter.
The sequence, then, is as follows:
Jesus dies → saints’ tombs open → Jesus’s tomb opens → Jesus is raised → saints are raised → eyewitness appearances of both.
This preserves Jesus’s place as the true “firstfruits” of resurrection (1 Cor. 15:23), rather than certain other saints preceding him.
I think if this account is describing all the patriarchs coming out of the tombs or a very large number of people, then an argument from silence (which is generally weak) would be strong enough here to discount its historicity.
If Jesus can rise from the dead, raise the dead, walk on water, control the weather, expel demons, multiply loaves and so on, a few dead people rising from the tombs is not a stretch.
1 Like
One can always find a reinterpretation of the apparent errors and bizarre claims in one’s holy book if one tries hard enough. Mormons do it too:
Mormons explain the lack of DNA evidence for Jewish ancestry in Native Americans by citing principles of population genetics, such as genetic drift and population bottleneck, which could cause original genetic markers to become diluted or lost over time. They also suggest that the Book of Mormon people represent a small portion of the ancestry of Native Americans, not the sole origin. Some explanations from the LDS Church and its supporters propose that other migrations from Asia, and later post-Columbian intermarriage, further diluted any potential ancient Israelite markers.
Gary: And what about evidence of ancient Jewish cities in North America?
Mormons: the Mayan ruins!
The idea that dozens or hundreds of dead people walked out of their graves that first Easter morning, walked into Jerusalem and chatted up crowds of shocked/horrified onlookers…and NO ONE other than the author of Matthew mentions this event…is sufficient evidence in itself that this story is metaphorical. It did not happen. Such an event would make “headlines” all over the Roman world. It did not. I suggest that you believe it because you want to, not because there is good evidence.
There are at least two, maybe three independent sources which claim that Jesus appeared to others after his death. That is what most people require to believe any odd claim: multiple, independent, corroborating sources. The story of dead saints shaken out of their graves has one source and one source only.
Says you as a modern, post enlightenment westerner who is highly skeptical of miracles. In the gospels the enemies of Jesus don’t even deny his miracles. They attribute him to Beelzebulb. If a community in some country across the world believed 6 people rose from the dead today it’s quite likely I would never even hear about it. Rome, thousands of miles away wouldn’t even care about such a small story in Jerusalem if it ever heard it.
If a handful of people appeared after Jesus rose, it’s quite possible for the record to be found in only one place seeings as how we don’t have a Jerusalem daily times giving us a daily play by play and only writings from a few authors from the period survive and one is a historian who wrote 45 and 65 years later. And it’s not inconceivable for someone who didn’t see the people rise from the dead to dismiss that it ever happened. I’m sure a lot of people dismissed the idea that Jesus rose from the dead as well. If you can reject him on the basis of 500 witnesses, it’s quite possible to reject about half dozen others rising.
Also, your comment about Mormon apologetics is a disingenuous red herring. It has no bearing on this issue. If you can demonstrate the gospel story is false, do so. If you cannot, then non liquet is the answer. Talking about Mormons is meaningless.
1 Like
Absence of corroborating evidence is not evidence of absence. You need positive reasons for denying an account occurred, otherwise the appropriate judgment is simply non liquet.
1 Like
Listen to yourself, Vinnie. Imagine if Mormons said this:
“No one in the Book of Mormon contradicts the claim that ancient Jews traveled to North America.”
Well, of course they don’t. The author of the Book of Mormon is writing religious propaganda, meant to convert people to his belief system. Ditto for the authors of the Gospels. I acknowledge that Jesus had a reputation as a healer and miracle worker. I acknowledge that even though I don’t believe in miracles. I acknowledge it because there are multiple independent sources which say he had this reputation.
Imagine if everyone did as you demand. We would be forced to accept as fact every odd claim, supernatural or not supernatural, under the sun until it is proven false. That is not how the educated world operates. The educated world requires claimants of odd events to provide evidence proving their claim true. The burden of proof is not placed on skeptics to prove every odd claim false first, before ignoring it as nonsense.
Proximity to events matters when evaluating historical sources and Matthew may have some fiction or midrash (certainly a debatable topic) but it’s ancient bios and is clearly dealing in reality with large portions of what it narrates.
1 Like
Really? How do you know that?
Non liquet does not mean accept. It simply means there is not enough evidence to confirm the report and nothing forcing a rejection so no judgment is reached. If you have solid reasons for rejecting it that is fine. If you want to dismiss it out of hand based on your worldview, that is fine. Just don’t confuse that bias (whether right or wrong) with historical argumentation.
Hardly – the Romans would have scoffed at the reports as peasant tales. Sure, rumors would have flown, but not roosted enough for anyone to bother writing them down.
The Gospel writers were doing bios, a known form of biography meant to show someone’s nature and importance. Note, though, that this did not exclude including one or two fanciful bits to make some point.
Mike Licona’s take is that Matthew inserted a brief poetic/apocalyptic scene to emphasize the importance of Jesus’s resurrection. Apparently, such artistic devices used to emphasize key messages were part of the bios genre back in the day and not viewed as “lying”. Mike got a lot of flack from biblical “inerrantists”, mainly in the States, for this view but it is one that makes sense to me. The inerrancy debate and fallout can be googled online for those interested.
So they were not writing “so that you might believe”?