Matthew 27:51-53: The Bible’s “Night of the Living Dead” Passage

Matthew 27:51-53.

Have you ever noticed what it says?

Immediately after Jesus’s death, Matthew has this very, very strange Night of the Living Dead story that he includes in his gospel. Matthew says that there was, immediately following Jesus’s death, an earthquake, and this earthquake was accompanied by an astonishing mass resurrection in which “many bodies of the saints which slept arose.” And not only did they arise from the dead, Matthew claims that they entered the very city of Jerusalem, appearing “unto many.” It’s so wild a passage that I’ll quote it in full (from the King James version of the Bible):

51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

There are three pretty good reasons to doubt that this story actually happened:

  1. Outside of this one gospel, no other ancient writer knows anything about this (not even as a rumor). It is as if a UFO had descended on Jerusalem and absolutely no one, apart from Matthew, thought it worthy of marking in historical memory. An event of so dramatic a nature would have changed everything in history. But not even the other gospels know the story. Why? Obviously because it did not happen.
  2. Even if we gave Matthew the benefit of the doubt, and held open the possibility that he recounted a real event, we still must ask a simple question: where did the author get the story? And the answer is this: We simply do not know. If Matthew believed that the story was true, and not a bit of folklore, we will never know what evidence or testimony convinced him that it was true. We have only a spectacularly implausible tale.
  3. Matthew has other stories of similarly poor quality, and they also lack credibility. See, for example, Matthew 28:11-15, in which the author circulates a conspiracy theory around which Jews are said to have tried to cover-up the resurrection of Jesus. The story, like Matthew’s “Night of the Living Dead” passage, provokes from us similar questions: Where did Matthew get the story? How does he know the story is true? How do we know whether Matthew isn’t just circulating a grotesque and fantastic antisemitic rumor?

But Matthew’s Night of the Living Dead passage (Mt. 27:51-53) is more than just implausible (if read literally). It also raises serious red flags concerning the whole of his gospel. In other words, it drives us to a number of unpleasant conclusions, such as these:

  • If Matthew can include such a wildly implausible and fanciful story in his gospel, maybe a lot of other things that he asserts are fanciful as well.
  • It seems that Matthew was not somebody who worried all that much about getting his facts straight before promulgating a story. Nor was he worried that people might spread his story without knowing anything more than what he told them in his book.
  • Matthew 27:51-53 would seem to provide clear evidence that the author of “Matthew” (whoever he was) had a very low regard for verification (either getting it for himself or distributing it to others).

And, of course, the biggest issue that Matthew 27:51-53 raises is this:

  • If Matthew can make a wild claim concerning many people rising from the dead, it casts doubt on the story he offers of one person rising from the dead (Jesus).

If a person is discovered to have spread a wild and unfounded rumor, it is reasonable to be suspicious of any other claims that he might make as well, don’t you think?

About Santi Tafarella

I teach writing and literature at Antelope Valley College in California.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Matthew 27:51-53: The Bible’s “Night of the Living Dead” Passage

  1. TomH says:

    Why do you persist in using the obsolete KJV? This undermines your credibility. The NIV or NASB or NKJV are superior translations and use current language. Perhaps you are seeking to make the greek text appear to be obsolete. As someone who has studied greek, I can tell you that you are far off the mark. The greek reads like current English in terms of its logic and literary structure (excepting the grammar).

    Didn’t your parents ever spank you for telling stories? Here you are telling stories about Matthew. I propose some alternate explanations for the guards’ report being in Matthew. One or more of them converted to Christianity (or didn’t) and Matthew interviewed them. However, in order to protect his sources, Matthew didn’t name them. Or perhaps, which seems more likely, one of the chief priests who heard the guards’ report converted and Matthew interviewed him. The writer of Acts reports that many of the priests converted to Christianity. Matthew likely had many contacts from his tax collecting days that the other apostles lacked. Possibly he heard about the guards’ report from non-church sources and needed to protect his sources. There is no need to seriously question Matthew’s report from your facts other than a pre-existent prejudice.

    The “night of the living dead” is a very strange way to describe the story, even if you disbelieve it. It conjures up images of corpses walking around with their arms outstretched, looking for brains. If, in fact, people were resurrected, they would hardly appear in that fashion, but would probably look and act normal, except for their clothing. Perhaps they would appear confused about the date and who the rulers were and city landmarks and layout. Perhaps they would use archaic language and would be difficult for 1st Century Jews to understand.

    I agree that this is a very strange story. Probably, Christians since the 1st century have had the same opinion of it. It is hardly ever mentioned. In fact, I can’t remember even one sermon being preached about it. However, there are lots of corroborations of many of Matthew’s events by other gospel accounts.

    • jason says:

      Jesus is alive because He is the ONLY God Who came in the flesh and died for all of our sins, and just because we have areas of ignorance and lack of faith does NOT give you or anyone else the priviledge of saying this account did not happen.
      there are ministries on the face of the earth right now in 2013 that have seen hundreds if not thousands of people raised from the dead. what is IMPOSSIBLE with man is possible for God.(Luke 18:27) Jesus raised the dead, He ALSO Healed ALL that were sick and demonized(matthew 4:23-24)
      I.E. Resurrection power is nothing for God, He has enough creative power on reserve to create 10 billion new galaxies if He desires to
      . God bless you and love you, in no way shape or form am i saying this out of hate but out of pure love. I was raised in a “certain christian faith” and used to be bound up by satan and believed all sorts of lies until Jesus started sifting out the junk and giving me His treasures, Ask Jesus into your life and Ask Him to baptize You with His Holy Spirit and your life will NEVER be the same!! love you!!

  2. santitafarella says:


    If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me! : )

    I love the KJV. It’s the version that all of our great literary stylists in the English language read and learned from. The modern translations can’t hold a candle to the KJV. And there’s more to life than just the facts (news, weather, and sports). The KJV is one of those “more to life” things. That people can’t (or won’t) try to read it is one of the tragedies of a dumbed-down culture.

    Okay, I’m off my soap box now.

    As for Matthew’s grotesque antisemitic conspiracy-theory slur on the Jews of Jesus’s day, forgive me if I don’t give Matthew the benefit of the doubt. The text reads like a slander rumor worthy of Fox Noise. You can come up with all sorts of possible ways that Matthew came to possess and repeat the story, but it tells us zero about how he actually came into possession of it. It drips with maliciousness, regardless of where it came from, and it is not even coherent. It suggests that, in exchange for money, the soldiers would use the excuse of falling asleep. But then they would be in danger of incurring punishment from Roman authorities for failing at their duty. Does that sound right to you? The story rings with falsehood and slander at numerous levels.

    As for Matthew’s Night of the Living Dead, it’s even weirder than I mentioned in the post because Matthew says that they didn’t come into Jerusalem until after Jesus rose from the dead. In other words, their tombs were opened by an earthquake on Friday and they laid in their tombs alive for three days, and then they came into Jerusalem on a Sunday. Look at verse 53 again. It keeps them in their open graves until Sunday. Think about that. This is a very, very creepy (and highly implausible) story.

    Why do you believe it?


    • Joe Boyles says:

      This goes to the credibility of the entire gospel. In an era whereas there were detailed history accounts, why were none of these event recored by historians? Why? Because none of it happened.

    • Anonymous says:

      If the KJV was good enough for Jesus?!!! If I recall correctly he probably read from Hebrew-Aramiaic scrolls..stories that were traditional/rabbanical writings passed down among the Jews, not an old english translation of the latin vulgates. Do yourself a favor and stay of your soap box lest you fall on your head.

  3. Also, why is it that Josephus and other secular historians did not record this event? Even if a mere 15 souls rose from the dead and were beheld by their loved ones, it would cause a great stir. The roman soldiers would likely have known some of them and would have reported it.
    Jesus’ resurrection being kept secret is just as possible as his not being raised (perhaps even more so), but 15+ (a conservative guess) being resurrected would not have escaped history’s notice.

    Another fascinating thing to question in the Matthew account is the mass-killing of children in Bethlehem. Herod Tetrarch was little more than a pawn that Augustus could easily have executed or replaced. Such a mass-slaughter (40+ it is likely) would not have gone unnoticed by the garrisons, and Caesar would likely have had Herod killed for his own amusement if he dared such a disorderly act.
    Flavius Josephus hated Herod (Chuck Wolfram, Herod Project Version 116). After all, Herod murdered many of his sons, one of his 8 wives, and got the title of Tetrarch in the first place through bribing Marc Antony. Yet in the works of Josephus, this mass-killing of infants is not mentioned. One would think that a critic of Herod would not leave out what could be the magnum opus in a career of wickedness.
    Also interesting is that it is highly doubtful that Matthew was written by Matthew (Peter Kirby, Gospel of Matthew Early Christian writings), but that the author is widely believed to be anonymous. Why then would the early church fathers deign to title the book after Saint Matthew?
    One ponders whether the Matthew account should even be in the Bible (much like Revelation, though that is merely my opinion).

    • santitafarella says:


      You make good points. With regard to the gospels, I think that many of these implausible stories come from the authors reading the Hebrew Bible or other literary sources and saying, “The messiah must go to Egypt, so I will make a story that puts the infant Jesus in Egypt” etc.


      • TomH says:

        Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Or maybe with your rejection of Christianity, telling the truth isn’t important to you.

    • TomH says:

      “15+ (a conservative guess) being resurrected would not have escaped history’s notice.”

      Why? In a world with no newspapers, with rumors of various extraordinary things abounding, how would such a story have escaped the common skepticism? How is it that Josephus omits the account of Pentecost? I find your arguments weak and filled with modern presuppositions about the state of common knowledge in 1st century Judea and transmission of the same.

      “Herod Tetrarch was little more than a pawn that Augustus could easily have executed or replaced.”

      Actually, Herod was a king who was loyal to the Roman empire. Not as easy as you say.

      “One would think that a critic of Herod would not leave out what could be the magnum opus in a career of wickedness.”

      Unless, perhaps, there was another motive which overrode a motive of revenge. What would have been the impact of confirming a Christian proposition of the slaughter of infants in Bethlehem?

      Or perhaps Herod’s misdeeds were so legion that the Bethlehem incident was just one more outrage and pretty irrelevant to Josephus’ purpose.

      F. F. Bruce has an interesting essay on Herod.

      I looked up the Kirby site. Ridderbose is unfortunately ignorant of Jewish epistemology as regards witnesses. Following Jewish epistemology, the author of Matthew would have questioned other witnesses (or compiled documents which contained the testimony of witnesses) rather than relying on his own (and possibly fallible) memory many years after the events. Hence Ridderbose’s assertion that Matthew’s account doesn’t seem like an eyewitness acount is irrelevant to the question of authorship.

      Other comments by critical scholars on the page are even more worthless than those by Ridderbose. What has to be done is to try to follow the events as recorded in the NT. Luke records that many attempted to *compile* accounts of the events of Jesus’ ministry. Why would many seek to do this? What were they compiling? What was the epistemic method used to create the source documents? How does this relate to the fact that the apostles were “giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus…?” How does this relate to the fact that the apostles gave “solemn testimony” to the Samaritans? The usage of “solemn testimony” in greek indicates a formal legal act.

      • Billy Wilson says:

        There’s always the more logical argument that you can’t resurrect decaying flesh to walk among the living except in stories, legends, myths, and movies. I’m sure you’re a reasonable, rational adult. The undead aren’t real and a bearded spaceman didn’t raise a flock of dead men to walk the Earth again.

        You could forget scripture in this argument. Dead people don’t walk. They’ve never walked because it is biologically impossible for them to do so. Just like illness isn’t caused by demons. The Earth doesn’t rest on four pillars. A man can’t live in a fish for three days. A man also can’t live for nearly a thousand years. The Earth isn’t 6000 years old. Snakes can’t talk.

      • Billy Wilson says:

        You use some hefty, nickle and dime verbiage to illustrate your point, but you’re still confusing reality with religious fantasy. If you’re arguing over the canon of myth and legend, that’s one thing, but to assume, as a rationally thinking adult, that these fantastic events actually occurred in reality is delusional at worst, naive at best.

        I rode a unicorn to work today. Don’t believe me? You weren’t there. I have faith that it was, indeed, a unicorn. There were no witnesses to corroborate my claims simply because I believed with all my might there was a shield of invisibility engulfing my body. Therefore, I rode a unicorn to work today while surrounded by a cloak of invisibility.

    • Christina says:

      Maybe those who didn’t believe then couldn’t see the resurrected, much like those who don’t believe how can’t fathom the truth of God. Good luck with that non-heavenly belief!

  4. sartre says:

    you forgot another good reason why it probably didn’t happen:


  5. Richy says:

    Your tenets are weak and unfounded. Where did you learn to construct an argument–in a community college?

  6. John says:

    In the dream I could leap higher than the trees and ran faster than a train. I also brought things, that did not exist, into existence.
    I did that with my Thought.
    My thoughts created a coherent space and the rules of physics meant nothing as I could change them– and then change them back– and return my world right back to normal. Yes, I did all this and it was completely believable.

    Somehow, someway, people think God has to obey the universe. We are sustained by his very thought. The Bible says, “we live, move, and have our being IN God”. We think the world is solid, just as we do in our dreams, but if God is the only one who truly exists, he can manipulate it to be anything he wants.
    So to mock this scripture as ludicrous is to have the imagination of an infant. Also remember…God is not on TV right now. He did not come at a time where obvious documented proof could be shown. So that’s preciously how it needs to be. It is NOT better for clear documented proof of this event to be found in history books or that’s the way it would be. God didnt pick the 57th best plan..he picked the only plan.

    You see, very little intellectual honesty and much laziness is done by those who lack faith. God has left us the message exactly as it is–with no video etc….just a message that was designed specifically through God’s infinite foreknowledge of how to draw His true children to Him..and leave the pretenders to just say its all crap. They are not coerced to follow God—they hear, it moves them, and they go and ask God about Christ freely. The others do exactly what their hearts really want—Not to ask for forgiveness and not to worship God’s Savior.
    Turn toward Christ and none of this is hard to comprehend…turn away and its just foolishness to you.
    New International Version (©1984)
    For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

    • A little late, but the problem with your example is that then Yahweh is guilty of being immoral. Since we are all but thoughts in the mind of Yahweh, and this is the only plan that could be used to “draw his true children” to him, then he is not a god but a limited contradictory being. This being created beings it knew wouldn’t choose it, tested and caused pain to beings it knew where going to be faithful, for what? To flex it’s power?

      Really. You shouldn’t call people intellectually lazy when you obviously haven’t thought this through. This post is old so perhaps you’ve seen the logical fallacies of your statement.

  7. John says:

    Just one more tidbit after reading the comments on how a few guys on an internet blog seem to know what people “would have done” 2000 years ago.

    JFK was killed in my lifetime and people are greatly divided on what happened. People dont even know if there was someone behind the grassy knoll but you seem to not only know what people would have done 2000 years ago but many people feel just fine saying what happened 200 million years ago as well.
    This is the incoherent world we live in. A world in which the arrogance and bias of people(and include many Christians as well) is so strong that they make statements which have very little thought put into them.
    The majority of the unbelievers reasons for not turning to Christ are just complete rubbish. Its all just masturbation and a daily ritual of BS to reenforce their opinion

    • Paul says:

      I could turn it round and say the majority of believers’ reasons for clinging to the Jesus myth are just complete rubbish, but I ‘d prefer not be so rude and ignorant, except for you I’ll make an exception.

      • Billy Wilson says:

        When adults are spouting fantasy just because they believe so hard it’s real, in a public forum no less, some rational folks need to jump in and remind everyone that we live in reality, not a Saturday morning cartoon.

    • zeebob says:

      I was a born again christian for 28 years and through extensive study of the bible came to the conclusion that it’s myth and history crafted into a narrative to keep the weak minded in a state of mind control. Ihave been free from the religious delusion for over a decade now. Jesus is and always has been a literary construct.

  8. Throb says:

    The Xtian cannon most are familiar with was edited by Rome then London. So pretty much of what is read in the “revised” text is more for central control and planning than it is as actual account. Did “Hebrews” even have a notion of saints. Thinking they were invented much later.
    If we look at Jesus as a man – he was more of a a well read well worded academic and revolutionary (terrorist?) than a heavenly emissary.

    The cannons assert mantras offered by a “holey” man as claims of divinity. A mantra is some we say to ourselves to get through difficult times – something said to bolster the “sayer’s” soiritual strength. For example, in John 6:35, the cannons assert Jesus claims to be the “bread of life”. Why would a nice smart humble man make such a ridiculous claim and position himself above humanity as though he was the “source: of everything?.
    Well, because, if those are, indeed, his words, he was doing what any spiritual mentor might to to help his client grow a sense of self worth.
    Jesus did not claim to be the “staff”. Jesus was offering a mantra – say it in the first person because that is how is was meant to be used – not as recognition of Jesus’s worth, but as a recognition of our worth.

    • Billy Wilson says:

      They seem to find a way to completely ignore Lilith’s existence. But, according to the originals, she was there, she left, and God tossed Adam another woman to cover in fig leaves. No telling what else was gutted. Can’t believe they left in a talking snake, armies of undead, and a man living in a fish for 3 days.

      I wonder how much longer the majority of people will believe such fairy tales. Would be nice if everyone stopped arguing about whose imaginary friend was real and had the bigger wang so we could worry about important issues we face every day, like war, disease, corruption, and food supply.

      • Oliver Stark says:

        Billy Wilson you better stay away from biological thought and face the Truth because it will be more better for you and remember in the beginning men wrote biology different from the Holy Bible to allow the devil to oppose the TRUTH.
        Because it says men originated from apes and the bible says God created man on earth in His Own Image, So think twice as a man and you will see you are not as wise as you feel because last,last school na scam.

  9. sickntired says:

    Matthew is relating the information he witnessed. He was not a news reporter. If you saw something happen and wrote it down, you wouldn’t be including your “research” into that writing as well. I also believe that there are numerous other writings that have never seen the light of day to the rest of the world. My firm opinion is that the Vatican has lots of writings they have hidden to keep the world from knowing more of the truth! They have been one sinister bunch in their Corporate Religion for centuries!

  10. ralph says:

    The story if Jesus is the story of standing up to the jew world order – a worthy vocation if there ever was one.

    • Throb says:

      A Zionist is not a Jew. A Zionist is a Zionist, period.

      Zionism is a Dominion Heresy.

      The 3rd largest population of Jews on the planet live in Iran. In Iranian synagogues and Iranian Xtian churches, the word is used for god as it is in Islamic temples, “Allah”. Islamic temples, just like the Xtian and Jewish god, is the god of Abraham (who, btw, was an Iraqi!)

  11. Roy says:

    “As for Matthew’s grotesque antisemitic conspiracy-theory slur on the Jews of Jesus’s day, forgive me if I don’t give Matthew the benefit of the doubt. The text reads like a slander rumor worthy of Fox Noise.”

    So any criticism of any Jewish person is false? All Jews are perfect? Not a single one of them is capable of deceit, corruption or self-interest? Or could it be that the power-brokers of a religion wanted to squash their competition before it got started? And as for “Fox Noise,” they are the best friend the Jews ever had. They completely support the War on Islam.

  12. Luke says:

    Liberals believe they are just so utterly clever when referring to “Faux News” or “Fox Noise.” It really is comparable to playing in the second grade sandbox. Santi, you appear to be an intelligent and throughtful guy. Please don’t give me reason to doubt that.

  13. Luke says:

    Santi- one other thing. I would be interested in knowing which networks you believe to be presenting the news without an overtly partisan spin.

    • Santi Tafarella says:

      All news comes with an underlying worldview and ideological orientation (whether spoken, unspoken, or denied). Fox News is in the “denial” column. The people who work there lie every time they use the phrase “fair and balanced.” They’re Orwellian. By contrast, Andrew Sullivan’s masthead at his blog is refreshingly honest (“Biased and balanced”).

      I think Sullivan has it right. Admitting your leanings even as you attempt to look at things from nuanced, complex, and contrary angles (not just the one you favor). I’ve always liked reading the New Republic and the New York Times for similar reasons.

      CNN is in the unspoken column, falling in the center. MSNBC is generally open about its bias.


      • Luke says:

        So you don’t have a problem with biased reporting as long as it is advertised as such. Fair enough. However I would maintain that admissions of bias are rare- practically non-existent, and that millions of people condemn Fox because they are too stupid to differentiate between the daytime news shows and the evening talk shows. When he was on Fox, Glenn Beck never purported to be a newscaster, often referring to himself as a rodeo clown. Nor do I believe Hannity or O’Reilly ever make that claim. On the other hand, I would be very surprised if the NYT has ever admitted that its news reporting, as opposed to its editorial page, is biased. There was a non-partisan study done during the campaign that found that only 3% of MSNBC ‘s stories about Mitt Romney were positive. A much higher percentage of Fox’s stories regarding Obama were positive. The head of MSNBC claimed the study was flawed. That does not sound like an admission of bias to me. Speaking of Orwellian, the conspiracy between Media Matters, the administration and numerous journalists takes the cake. When the WH puts out a narrative that gets repeated verbatim in many “news” outlets, the public can rightfully wonder whether anything it is told is really the truth. And no matter how much you hate Fox, the administration’s attempts to silence it and to cut it out are a direct repudiation of freedom of the press. There were a few brave members of the press, such as Jake Tapper, that objected and the administration backed off somewhat.

      • Santi Tafarella says:


        I don’t quarrel with your analysis of MSNBC, etc. The New York Times, for example, in a pretense to “objectivity,” never described Bush’s torture policies as torture and has never admitted to its Orwellian behavior at the time. The NYT still generally avoids the word torture in describing “enhanced interrogation.”

        What conservatives want to believe, however, is that FOX represents common sense and a non-deviant centrism that held throughout the culture 30 years ago and only now seems ridiculous and backward. Contemporary culture, in Krauthammer’s phrase, has “defined deviancy up” and “defined normalcy down,” thus making FOX seem right-wing to non-right wingers.

        But this begs the question. The truth is that a political and cultural struggle is always going on (either passively or aggressively; either out in the open or via slight of hand). There is no neutrality or center position that is not forced to justify itself, and that’s actually a good thing. There is a marketplace of competing ideas, and you can contribute to it.

        If FOX thinks it’s ill-treated by liberals and liberals think they’re ill-treated by FOX, it’s because both perceive the situation correctly (and happily lie to themselves about their own self righteous, objective, and pure motives).

        But none of this means that we can’t get at the truth of matters if we apply critical thinking, it just has to be done through the fog of war.

        In broad terms, its not hard to see that FOX is a propaganda vehicle for the Republican Party (as is MSNBC for the Democratic Party). The trick is in not fooling yourself when you’re watching your own side.


  14. Angel Nice says:

    It’s not all the accounts of Christ that are recorded in the bible, and besides; the Jesus we are talking about is the son of God (God himself). If we believe in the power of creation, why then are we always trying the impossible under estimation of Gods general power. Only the presence of Jesus in the grave as fulfilled, is enough to stir up the souls of the earlier prophets and saints positively cos is a prophecy fulfilled. If it seems so impossible to you, what about (Luke 9vs28-31. Mathew 17vs1-3). With this; why then do we believe that (Mathew 27vs51-53) is not real, if while he was still alive as a flesh the dead major prophets honored him? Let’s be realistic; if you still want to have a clearer revelation, you go to God in prayers cos the living Jesus Christ still reveals himself to them that diligently seek him. I’m a witness. Angel Nice@fb

  15. Look, say what you will about what people could or would have sone 2000 years ago. Human nature has not changed much in respect to seeing dudes that were dead and entombed hanging around with their loved ones and being recognized. If it happpened it would not have gone unwritten about. It would ahve been the biggest event in human history and could have been verified by many witnesses. Simple fact is much of the bible…it never happened and if peices of it did the facts were edited and corrupted by humans with an agenda through history as the “ancient texts” were translated and re-translated. WTF people?

    • “Human nature has not changed much in respect to seeing dudes that were dead and entombed hanging around with their loved ones and being recognized”

      With that being said. In this country alone we have countless accounts of ones who were thought to be dead, awake (resurrect) even on the table preparing to be embalmed.

      Preparation of the corpse for burial in that time period consisted mainly in washing it and wrapping it in shrouds. No draining and embalming as we use. It’s quite plausible this mass resurrection could have happened via that logic.

      But then too I am a believer of God’s Word. I’ve seen enough miracle’s in my lifetime that defies human logic and many scientists will attest to that fact. I don’t need quite the evidence that a non-believer needs. Not that I begrudge you your skepticism. In fact I think Christ rises to these occasions. He simply admonishes those who believe without need for such evidence as great in faith, but He Himself provided evidence for doubters.

      I also agree that it’s quite scholastically immature to make definitive statements about the Body of Work of God, when so much is missing from it. The beauty of it all is that His message of love and hope prevails regardless of what man does.

  16. John says:

    This is what we need to study, to pray that the word of God is correct, no matter what!

  17. JB says:

    How sad that you have no faith in an almighty powerful God who through His Son Yeshua, our Messiah, worked many great miracles. This being one of them, events that have been recorded by 3rd party sources even some who despised Yeshua wrote of His works in their chronicles after the destruction of Jerusalem both guards and rabbis alive and witnesses to events such as these-(the night of the “living dead” as you put it has been recorded by Jews in Jerusalem that night, might want to further research this) then again one can put all the evidence in the world in front of a rebel who will deny because God Himself has denied them the sight to see His Son, searching their hearts and knowing the hate that lies within. Just like the pharisees and scribes, if that be the case then I genuinely and dreadfully feel sorry for you.

    You’re mind tries to rationalize because your heart fails you in understanding and in faith, furthermore your way of thinking is simplistic setting human boundaries on a God that created the world with mere words, who kept Noah safe during the flood, who led His people out of Egypt, who healed the sick, possessed, and raised the dead long before He was crucified.

    As for the book of Matthew being anti-Semitic then you must also believe God is anti Jew because of those He destroyed in the wilderness while leading them to the promise land, or the 1st destruction of Jerusalem and the temple along with the Jews that died and those left that were led into captivity, how about the days of Daniel when he and his people were under oppressive bondage he being thrown into a furnace then a den of lions, I could keep listing events here. Point is that God isn’t anti-Semitic, was He anti-Semitic when He allowed the holocaust as foretold in Ezekiel 36 & 37 or did He bring affliction to then deliver His children and lead them back into the land of milk and honey as He promised?

    The world would never have given Israel back to the Jews had Hitler never happened, the fact that Roosevelt and Churchill had intelligence reports of the concentration camps before both were at war with Germany is proof of this. At best it would have been another one of Britain’s territories. Just like the Jews being oppressed in Egypt and God hardening pharaoh’s heart so He could work great miracles in front of His children. Then killing pharaoh along with his military, is this not also similar to what He did to Germany? Berlin was annihilated along with their military might and God kept His promise as foretold by Isaiah and Ezekiel both. This is about the heart and where your heart truly is there your perspective will be also.

    I don’t find Mathew being anti-Semitic at all in fact I find him that much more believable because his recording is consistent with behavior from past instances in delivering our people, I also find the book of Matthew to be more Jewish in the way that it’s recorded from customs traditions, quoting scripture from the old testament, Matthews testimony, and especially the genealogy of Jesus Christ-(Yeshua) that he gives, very much reminiscent of Moses’s writings. This is not an anti-Semitic book, this is a book for everyone but that should feel familiar to those who know their Torah. Sadly though most miss it because they’re blind.

    Friend you’re going to be seeing some things in the near future-(If you’re still alive) and my deepest hope for you is that you open your eyes and realize that God’s mind is not your mind, you’re a mere human He however is the God that created you. Prophecy is happening right now as we speak, one prophecied to bring destruction to the world for thousands of years sits before you, the man that Daniel Ezekiel, Isaiah, and John spoke of in detail. If you’re this blind to the truth and the beauty in Matthews recording then you’re probably also very unaware of what’s going on around in the world right now. Anyway I’ll keep you in my prayers, God bless. Shalom.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Your writing is trying to cause doubt and division, not unity.. The scriptures are the infallible Word of God and there were men of God that penned them.
    Men of the Lord wrote the accounts as directed by the Spirit of God. When you share or talk about something, does everyone that listens to you remember the same exact details in their full contents you shared them? Likely not. Have a beautiful day.

  19. Vincent says:

    I find it hard to believe that a loving Father, who has billions of children, would limit His love to just a small fraction of His children. Given His gift of free agency, which includes freedom of thought and thus a diverse perception of reality, it is not hard to believe that many of these diverse thoughts would be put into writing. And, once in writing, a group of His children form together to believe and live by these writings. Thus, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of writings of this Father’s children attempting to express their relationship to Him. The Old and New Testament (Bible) is such a writing, the Quran is such a writing, The Book of Mormon is such a writing, The Urantia is such a writing, the Veda & Upanishads are such a writing. (Sorry if I’m leaving-out your particular belief writing).

    I guess the point I’m trying to make is that a loving Father will find many ways to inject His love into the diverse lives of all His children. I also find it hard to believe that any of these writings (religions) that limits a Father’s love to just a short living time, like this earth life, has a limited view of eternity, and the eternal love of a Father.

    Now, I’ve said this before in two thoughts ( that “I believe that no one book, or one man, or one religion on earth, speaks exclusively for God(s). God’s love and expression is universal. God does not consolidate his love and truth in one church, or one book, or one person. He sows seeds of truth upon the total earth, landing on all lands and cultures and single individuals receptive to His message. These individual seeds of divine truth sprout as single thoughts and insights and sometimes into various writings and books. But, none of these writings are to be taken to mean the person who writes them has an exclusive ordination by God to speak for Him for the entire world. Nor does it mean that this person will have more than this one eternal insight in his/her lifetime.”

    I am for a belief in “Abba” the God and Father of all the people who have ever lived on this earth. If you want to use Jesus as an example, this is who He said to pray to.

  20. Anonymous says:

    The Bible can be interpreted successfully only by biblical scholars who are equipped and qualified through the Holy Spirit not by an atheist who has no idea or understand the Bible.

  21. Steve says:

    I have the privilege of being an alumni of the prestigious University of Chicago, Duke University, Yale University; and my dear Grandmother used to tell me when I was a little boy that, “If you think you know everything, then you don’t know anything. ” After reading this article, Santi Tafarella, comes across as a know-it-all. There are certainly some things to think about in the article because I am a LIFE LONG LEARNER. However, I realize that what is written is only ONE point of view. 👓

  22. Kenneth says:

    It all makes sense everyone is missing the facts of what Matthew says verse 53. Says they arose and came out of the graves after after after his resurrection and went into the City and appeared unto many. it wasn’t until 3 days later when Jesus was resurrected that those people were Resurrected!

  23. WM says:

    Matthew was almost certainly a Jew himself, so I think it is wrongheaded to project our modern ideas about “anti-Semitism,” which is racial/ethnic in nature. Jews were the most immediate religious competitors that the early Christians faced, and non-Christian Jews were strongly hostile to Christianity for religious reasons. It’s not outside the realm of plausibility that Jews would have covered up something that made the Christians look good, though I think it’s more likely Matthew is lying – or repeating a falsehood even if he believed it – because I think the resurrection is itself a Christian lie. But Abrahamic sectarianism is a particularly vicious phenomenon and always has been, and Matthews claims about Jews should be seen in that context. Inter-Jewish factionalism as well as inter-Christian factionalism reached the same levels of polemical and often physical violence, and I think it’s not so much “anti-Semitism” in the sense moderns use it as religious supremacism, which was shared by the bulk of Jews and Christians of all sects – and remember, the Christians of Matthews time were almost all ethnic Jews.

    • Oliver Stark says:

      Don’t be Esau that rejected Ressurection because The Lord said he shall not behold my Majesty after Isaac pleaded for his sins during is death

  24. Oliver Stark says:

    Don’t be Esau that rejected Resurrection because The Lord said he shall not behold my Majesty after Isaac pleaded for his sins during is death

  25. Peter says:

    The author of the whole book known as the Bible was written by one person: the Holy Spirit. Different men penned the different books but the author is one. If the Matthew account is wrong then God is wrong and because God can not be wrong then we have to examine our belief system. The truth is if you decide to that something is false then it will be false. To convince anyone that the Matthew account is faulty then we have to get the truth from the same book.

  26. Straight path says:

    Matthew who was supposedly a disciple, an eye witness yet he copied from mark. Mark was a 10yr old boy when jesus walked this earth. Poor Matthew what kind of mindset did he have. So don’t be surprised in the mysterious Matthew writing about the dead being resurrected. I think he pulled that one out his rear.

  27. Nevaeh says:

    how much cbd tincture should i take for 200 l person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s