![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/08\/TombsOpenedMt2752.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>,\u00a0who was\u00a0\u201craised Presbyterian\u201d<\/a>,\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He also made a general statement\u00a0on 6-22-17<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cChristians\u2019 arguments are easy to refute . . . I\u2019ve heard the good stuff, and it\u2019s not very good.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>He added\u00a0in the combox<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I\u2019ve mischaracterized them.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>Such confusion would indeed be\u00a0predictable<\/em>, seeing that Bob himself admitted\u00a0(2-13-16<\/a>):\u00a0\u201cMy study of the Bible has been haphazard, and I jump around based on whatever I\u2019m researching at the moment.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Bob (for the record) virtually\u00a0begged<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0pleaded<\/em>\u00a0with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But by\u00a010-3-18<\/a>,\u00a0following\u00a0massive, childish name-calling attacks<\/a>\u00a0against me,\u00a0 encouraged by Bob on his blog (just prior to his\u00a0banning<\/em>\u00a0me from it), his opinion was as follows:\u00a0\u201cDave Armstrong . . . made it clear that a thoughtful intellectual conversation wasn\u2019t his goal. . . . [I] have no interest in what he\u2019s writing about.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n And on 10-25-18, utterly oblivious to the ludicrous irony of\u00a0his<\/em>\u00a0making the statement, Bob\u00a0wrote in a combox<\/a>\u00a0on his blog:\u00a0\u201cSomeone who\u2019s not a little bit driven to investigate cognitive dissonance will just stay a Christian, fat \u2018n sassy and ignorant.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>Again,\u00a0Bob mocks some Christian in his combox on\u00a010-27-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cYou can\u2019t explain it to us, you can\u2019t defend it, you can\u2019t even defend it to yourself. Defend your position or shut up about it. It\u2019s clear you have nothing.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And again\u00a0on the same day<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf you can\u2019t answer the question, man up and say so.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And on\u00a010-26-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cyou refuse to defend it, after being asked over and over again.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And\u00a0again<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cYou\u2019re<\/i>\u00a0the one playing games, equivocating, and being unable to answer the challenges.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Bob\u2019s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds. Again,\u00a0on 6-30-19<\/a>, he was chiding someone for something very much like he himself:\u00a0\u201cSpoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, \u2018Let me retract my previous statement of X\u2019 or something like that.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Yeah,\u00a0Bob<\/em>\u00a0could!\u00a0\u00a0He still hasn\u2019t yet uttered one peep in reply<\/a>\u00a0to \u2014 now \u2014 41 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.<\/p>\n Bible-Basher Bob\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0To find these posts, follow this link:\u00a0\u201cSeidensticker Folly #\u201d<\/a> or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page<\/a>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Bob and fellow atheist Neil Carter provide a delightfully humorous and classic example of a purported biblical contradiction where there is none. And they both could have avoided making fools of themselves by simply reading the next verse<\/em>, (um, this is called context<\/em> . . .) and (as a bonus) seeking a little bit more understanding about some of the techniques in Hebrew literature. Get some popcorn, sit back in your seats, and enjoy this one. and we\u2019ll see who is being stupid and gullible in this instance: Christians or atheists.<\/p>\n Bob brought up the topic at hand in his article, \u201cSix Christian Principles Used to Give the Bible a Pass\u201d<\/a> (5-6-20, but an update of an earlier version, dated 2-15-16):<\/p>\n For example, Paul says, \u201c. . . the Messiah . . . the first to rise from the dead, . . .\u201d (Acts 26:23). But this is contradicted by (1) the zombies that came out of their graves on the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:52), who were actually the first to rise from the dead, . . .<\/span><\/p>\n Really? Bob claims this event was \u201con the death of Jesus\u201d<\/span> but the text<\/em> doesn\u2019t claim that. The problem is that he neglected to take into consideration the next verse, which reads: \u201cand coming out of the tombs after his resurrection<\/em><\/strong> they went into the holy city and appeared to many\u201d (RSV). Don\u2019t believe the RSV? There are many more translations<\/a> that state the same thing:<\/p>\n Young\u2019s Literal Translation<\/em>: \u201cafter his rising\u201d<\/p>\n Weymouth<\/em>: \u201cafter Christ\u2019s resurrection\u201d<\/p>\n KJV \/ Douay\/Rheims \/ NRSV \/ NKJV \/ NASB \/ ESV \/ ASV<\/em>: \u201cafter his resurrection\u201d<\/p>\n NIV<\/em>: \u201cafter Jesus\u2019 resurrection\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Not content with this remarkable display of clueless exegesis, Bible-Basher Bob digs in with his article, \u201cMore of the Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions (Part 5)\u201d<\/a> (4-15-19). This is particularly comical because here he cites the larger passage (Matthew 27:51-53), yet misses the phrase \u201cafter Jesus\u2019 resurrection\u201d in 27:53, and goes on his merry way, oblivious to his blind spot, mocking Christians and yet another so-called biblical contradiction in his section, \u201cJesus and the zombies\u201d:<\/p>\n [W]hy would it have been astonishing, on Sunday morning, to find Jesus risen from the dead? Remember this incident [passage cited] . . . Here\u2019s the chronology. Jesus died on Friday evening, and at that moment many worthy dead people came to life. Jesus resurrected . . . and then the newly undead people left their tombs to walk around Jerusalem. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [N]o one would be surprised by a risen Jesus once they\u2019d seen the crowd of undead. What\u2019s one more, particularly when he was the instigator of the process? Word of the remarkable sight of walking dead would\u2019ve traveled quickly through Jerusalem.<\/span><\/p>\n When the women returned, breathless with the news of having seen Jesus (or just the empty tomb), the disciples could\u2019ve replied that Jerusalem was crawling with zombies, so what\u2019s one more?<\/span><\/p>\n There are several insuperable problems with this scenario. First, Bob contradicts himself. A little over three years earlier, he claimed that these raised bodies walked around Jerusalem \u201con the death of Jesus.\u201d<\/span> But in this article he places that event after Jesus\u2019 resurrection. Which is it?<\/p>\n Secondly, he appears to posit the very odd and implausible scenario of these bodies coming to life<\/em> at the \u201cmoment\u201d<\/span> of Jesus\u2019 death. But of course the text never says<\/em> that. The only time-frame it gives is sometime after Jesus\u2019 resurrection. Nevertheless, Bob pulls this idea out of a hat and runs with it. But this means that these saints were lying in their graves, resurrected and conscious, from Friday till Sunday, at which time they decided to lose the claustrophobia and get out of their graves for some fresh air (and how they managed to breathe<\/em> all that time is another<\/em> mystery to solve, but I digress . . .).<\/p>\n The third silly thing is that Bob assumes (with no textual reason to do so) that these raised dead were already walking around Jerusalem before<\/em> the women reported the risen Jesus. But this doesn\u2019t follow and we simply don\u2019t know<\/em> whether their walking around \u201cafter\u201d Jesus\u2019 resurrection was before or after the women discovering the empty tomb. Both things occurred after the resurrection of Jesus, but we have no way of knowing which came first in time<\/em> (after the resurrection, in relation to each other). But these logical facts and plausibility factors cause Bob no hesitation in wildly speculating about biblical \u201ccontradictions\u201d all over the place. He\u2019s having too much fun mocking to consider mere logic, self-consistency, and the English language and what its words mean, in context.<\/p>\n Bob then sends us via link to fellow atheist Neil Carter\u2019s post, \u201cThe Greatest Story Never Told\u201d<\/a> (3-29-15): from which he \u201clearned about this contradiction.\u201d Neil also has a great deal of self-deluded fun with the issue:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Do you know how many people the Bible says were raised from the dead on Easter weekend? . . . when I ask them this question, the answer I usually get is: \u201cIt says only one person was raised from the dead: \u00a0Jesus.\u201d But that\u2019s not correct, . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I have to point out to Christians, many of whom maintain that the Bible cannot be wrong, that in one place (and only one place) the Bible says that a\u00a0whole bunch of people<\/em>\u00a0came out of their graves right after Jesus died on the afternoon of Good Friday and then walked around Jerusalem\u2026a couple of days later.<\/span><\/p>\n Neil, too, cites Matthew 27:51-53, yet can\u2019t grasp its meaning. He claims that they emerged from their burial spots on Good Friday right after Jesus\u2019 death, whereas the text says, \u201ccoming out of the tombs after his resurrection\u201d (27:53, RSV). That\u2019s a direct contradiction. His take varies from Bob\u2019s in that Bob (at least truer to the text) has them come alive and lay there in their tombs for many hours, whereas Neil (utterly ignoring the text) brings them out right away. Then they hang out till Sunday (doing what<\/em>? Playing chess or hopscotch?) and decide after a referendum to show up in Jerusalem, so they can have more fun scaring people, as zombies.<\/p>\n It\u2019s an extraordinary display of being unable to read a text. He continues:<\/p>\n This story is problematic for several reasons.<\/span><\/p>\n First of all,\u00a0no other gospel writer says a word about a mass resurrection<\/em><\/strong>. This story is unique to Matthew\u2019s gospel. If something this dramatic really happened,\u00a0why did no other gospel writer say a word about it?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Maybe because Matthew already did<\/em>, and so there was no obligatory<\/em> need for anyone else to do so? If we assume that all four Gospels must contain all of the details that all the others contain, this would pose a problem, but of course, this assumption itself<\/em> has no basis, so it\u2019s a non-issue and non sequitur<\/em>. If all the Gospels were exactly the same in the events they described, there would obviously be no need<\/em> for all four in the first place.<\/p>\n Even the details of the story are really fuzzy. It says there was an earthquake when Jesus died. It was so big that \u201crocks split.\u201d It\u2019s unclear whether or not that was the cause of the graves opening, but what\u2019s clear is that it says a bunch of people came back from the dead at that moment. <\/span><\/p>\n Actually it\u2019s not clear if one understands one of the common techniques of Hebrew literature. more on that below.<\/p>\n How long had they been dead? Were they decomposed or had they been resurrected in fresh form?<\/span><\/p>\n Who cares? Why does that matter?<\/p>\n And how long did they hang around their graves before they came into town to circulate among the townspeople? All weekend? It says they were raised on Friday afternoon but curiously it says they didn\u2019t go into town until after the resurrection. What did they do during all that time?<\/span><\/p>\n Here Neil stumbles into the criticism I already made above before I read this. But it\u2019s not silly because of the text<\/em>. It is because if what they seem to think is the only possible interpretation<\/em> of the text. It\u2019s not.<\/p>\n Think about how dramatically this would change the credibility of the resurrection of Jesus for everyone at the time. I mean, imagine you are poor doubting Thomas and you missed out on the initial appearance of the risen Jesus to the rest of the disciples behind closed doors.\u00a0Would you really have had any trouble accepting that one more person had come out of his grave at that point?\u00a0 Would it even have been news?<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0The town was supposed to have just witnessed a whole bunch of people back from the dead! What\u2019s one more person added to the mix?<\/span><\/p>\n This is the same unsupported assumption about chronology that I noted above. People often simply think illogically: including even atheists, who almost invariably think they are so vastly intellectually superior to us lowly Christians.This is one of the first things I learned in logic class in college: even some of the greatest minds can and have fallen into illogical, fallacious thinking.<\/p>\n The story of Easter weekend is a big deal\u2014it\u2019s central to the Christian message\u2014and finding this random scene which never gets mentioned again is really a bit of an embarrassment.<\/span><\/p>\n Really? How<\/em>? Lots of things are only mentioned once. The Annunciation to Mary, announcing the birth of Jesus, Who is God Incarnate was only in Luke, etc. There is very little in Scripture about original sin, which virtually all Christians believe. There is nothing at all about the canon of Scripture: which books belong to the Bible. That had to be declared by the [Catholic] Church and Christian tradition. This is a non-issue: as much as atheists like Neil would love to force-fit it into a \u201cproblem.\u201d And of course, nothing in Scripture ever suggests that an event or doctrine must be mentioned more than once (or even at all<\/em>, in the case of the canon) to be considered \u201cimportant.\u201d So where does Neil get off thinking that this is actually\u00a0 a requirement<\/em>? On what basis?<\/p>\n I think if most were willing to be honest, they\u2019d have to admit that they\u2019re not sure this story should really be in the Bible. It doesn\u2019t belong. . . .\u00a0nobody in his right mind can make a good case that this other part of the story makes any sense.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t see how he can conclude this either, in terms of the framework of the bible and Christianity. It simply is an illustration that all believers are to be resurrected, as a result of the resurrection of Christ. It\u2019s a straightforward application of what St. Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 15. I don\u2019t see why any Christian should have any problem with it at all. We\u2019re not atheists. we believe in miracles and the power of God. I think Neil just has a flair for the melodramatic and gets carried away . . .<\/p>\n But I\u2019d like to submit a feature of Hebrew literature that can easily explain this passage in its chronological elements. I dealt with it in a previous refutation of Bob (#15)<\/a>. It\u2019s called \u201ccompression\u201d or \u201ccondensation\u201d of events in a text:<\/p>\n In his book,\u00a0The Historical Reliability of the Gospels<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(IVP: 2nd edition, 2007, p. 216), Craig Blomberg took note of this and applied it to the Bible:<\/p>\n Perhaps the most perplexing differences between parallels occur when one Gospel writer has condensed the account of an event that took place in two or more stages into one concise paragraph that seems to describe the action taking place all at once. Yet this type of literary abridgment was quite common among ancient writers (cf. Lucian,\u00a0How to Write History<\/em>\u00a056), so once again it is unfair to judge them by modern standards of precision that no-one in antiquity required. The two most noteworthy examples of this process among the Gospel parallels emerge in the stories of Jesus raising Jairus\u2019s daughter and cursing the fig tree.<\/p>\n F. Gerald Downing, in his volume,\u00a0Doing Things with Words in the First Christian Century<\/em>\u00a0(Sheffield: 2000, pp. 121-122) observed that the Jewish historian\u00a0Josephus<\/a>\u00a0(37-c. 100 AD) used the same technique:<\/p>\n Josephus is in fact noticeably concerned to \u2018improve\u2019 the flow of his narrative, either by removing all sorts of items that might seem to interrupt it, or else by reordering them. . . . Lucian, in the next century, would seem to indicate much the same attitude to avoidable interruptions, digressions, in a historical narrative,\u00a0however vivid and interesting in themselves.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n See much more about this in that earlier installment<\/a>. It\u2019s these sorts of \u201cliterary \/ cultural\u201d things that atheists rarely ever understand or seek<\/em> to understand, leading them to arrive at all sorts of mistaken and silly ideas about the Bible and theology. I would urge them for their own good not to \u201ctry this at home\u201d and to leave it to the experts.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>Leonard J Matthews<\/a>\u00a0(5-20-15), Caboolture cemetery, Queensland<\/span> [Flickr<\/a> \/ CC BY-ND 2.0<\/a> license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Atheist Neil Carter Joins in on the Silliness and Tomfoolery as Well Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker,\u00a0who was\u00a0\u201craised Presbyterian\u201d,\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":50833,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,31],"tags":[4129,3804,1043,258,4126,5552,11815,11821,2516,11818],"class_list":["post-50830","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-bible-and-tradition","tag-alleged-bible-contradictions","tag-angry-atheist","tag-anti-theism","tag-atheism","tag-bob-seidensticker","tag-cross-examined","tag-matthew-2752","tag-resurrected-saints","tag-resurrection","tag-zombies"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Walking Dead<\/span><\/h3>\n