Matthew 27:51–53

Originally posted by @romans1009
Also bearing in mind the difficulty in recording events (everything “permanent” had to be recorded by hand so oral transmission of information was likely the most common way information was shared) and the fact that the supernatural was much more prevalent and accepted back then so the “news value” in such an event may not have been that high.

Doesn't this sort of 'argument' undermine the credibility of Matthew 27:51–53 rather than enhance it?

Originally posted by @fmf
This bit:

"the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

How can one be sure this is true?

If you are able to believe the creation, virgin birth and resurrection, and trust God for the salvation of your soul, believing Matt 27 is a minor matter. Don't think any of that is possible without faith to be honest.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Don't think any of that is possible without faith to be honest.

So you believe the faith that things like Matthew 27:51–53 are true must come first and then... things like Matthew 27:51–53 become true, is that what you mean?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you are able to believe the creation, virgin birth and resurrection, and trust God for the salvation of your soul, believing Matt 27 is a minor matter.

It sounds like you are saying that whether or not Matthew 27:51–53 is true is "a minor matter"? Have I understood correctly?

Originally posted by @fmf
So you believe the faith that things like Matthew 27:51–53 are true must come first and then... things like Matthew 27:51–53 become true, is that what you mean?

No, that's not what I mean.

Originally posted by @fmf
It sounds like you are saying that whether or not Matthew 27:51–53 is true is "a minor matter"? Have I understood correctly?

No I'm saying there are many things that may be harder to believe. If you do believe those other things, believing Matt 27 is not so hard.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
No I'm saying there are many things that may be harder to believe. If you do believe those other things, believing Matt 27 is not so hard.

Assuming that you do. why do you believe that Matthew 27:51–53 is a true account of what happened?

Originally posted by @fmf
Assuming that you do. why do you believe that Matthew 27:51–53 is a true account of what happened?

Because I believe the Bible is true and does not contain any lies, since it's God's revelation to humanity.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Because I believe the Bible is true and does not contain any lies.

But isn't this just a case of ~ and I said this to Romans1009 too ~ a case of you believe it because you believe it?

The Bible does not contain anything untrue. Matthew 27:51–53 is in the Bible so it cannot be untrue. The fact that Matthew 27:51–53 is not untrue and is in the Bible is evidence that the Bible does not contain anything untrue. Isn't this merely an example of circular logic?

Originally posted by @fmf
But isn't this just a case of ~ and I said this to Romans1009 too ~ a case of you believe it because you believe it?

The Bible does not contain anything untrue. Matthew 27:51–53 is in the Bible so it cannot be untrue. The fact that Matthew 27:51–53 is not untrue and is in the Bible is evidence that the Bible does not contain anything untrue. Isn't this merely an example of circular logic?

We have discussed circular logic before. Don't you recall me asking you whether your reliance on logic is not also an example of circular logic? Besides, I don't think the atheist world view has any legitimacy to use logic because in order for you to use logic you would need to piggy back it off a theistic worldview. The existence of logic only makes sense to me within a theistic framework in which absolute truth exists.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
We have discussed circular logic before. Don't you recall me asking you whether your reliance on logic is not also an example of circular logic?

We have discussed circular logic before.

OK. I will refer back to that, then.

But just to be clear: you believe that Matthew 27:51–53 is true because it is in the Bible and you believe that everything in the Bible is true, right?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I don't think the atheist world view has any legitimacy to use logic because in order for you to use logic you would need to piggy back it off a theistic worldview. The existence of logic only makes sense to me within a theistic framework in which absolute truth exists.

OK, you have discussed this before with me and others. I will refer back to those discussions.

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]We have discussed circular logic before.

OK. I will refer back to that, then.

But just to be clear: you believe that Matthew 27:51–53 is true because it is in the Bible and you believe that everything in the Bible is true, right?[/b]

Yes and I believe everything in the Bible is true because it is God's revelation to us. And I have discussed in detail why I believe it is God's revelation to us if you would like to refer back to that as well.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes and I believe everything in the Bible is true because it is God's revelation to us. And I have discussed in detail why I believe it is God's revelation to us if you would like to refer back to that as well.

Are these assertions you are making the only way there is to establish that the account in Matthew 27:51–53 ~ about many people rising from the dead, for example ~ is historically true?

Originally posted by @fmf
Are these assertions you are making the only way there is to establish that the account in Matthew 27:51–53 ~ about many people rising from the dead, for example ~ is historically true?

I guess you could also check the historical records of the time if there are any in existence.

Do you think there is any way to establish that the account in Matt 27 is untrue?