What is the response to the argument that the resurrection of dead saints as mentioned in Matthew 27 was false due to a lack of witnesses to an event of that magnitude? Also, what is the response to the argument that the earliest gospels are the shortest whereas the later gospels are the longest point to the idea of the accounts being added to over time?
Matthew 27:50-54 Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were terrified and said, ‘Truly this man was God’s Son!’ My first response to this is that whilst the Bible is true - and I would take that to mean that the Bible is a vehicle of truth. It is of course silly to suggest that history is the only kind of truth, so I do not find myself bound to see the section following our Lord breathing his last as history, but perhaps something more in the way of a theological commentary. The Curtain in the temple was torn in two - the old covenant was opened wide for all people The Earth Shook and the Rocks were split - the death of Jesus was earth shattering The tombs Opened and many bodies of the saints - the work of Jesus is universal and retrospective After Jesus resurrection they appeared to many - The divide of death has been conquered in this moment The Centurion declared this man was God's Son - Even the enemies of Jesus can be redeemed There is some evidence to support the idea that the Gospel record accumulated material as time went along. That may be the result of additional information recalled, perhaps by others who were not available to an earlier writer, or perhaps as a mark of the work of theological reflection on the events. That in no way speaks to the credibility of the documents. John (4G) always stands apart from the Synoptic Gospels, at many levels, and in that sense stands as an entirely independent witness. Dating the Gospels is a matter of some discussion, and I have just provided some of the common ranges that are discussed, for some have placed John as the earliest and some have cast John into the second century.
-Can any of you respond to the claim that there are significant differences between the IQs of different races because of evolution, which they claim proves that mankind in the image of God is a lie? -Also, tell me your thoughts on theistic evolution. I am hearing some rather novel theories from contemporary apologists about what Genesis 1 really means.
IQ is a difficult measurement tool, and it seems that significant variances have been shown on the basis of who is administering (supervising) the test. I would regard any claim that there is a racial divide on IQ to be extremely suspect. Theistic evolution works as a theory. Evolution itself runs counter to the accepted principles of the natural degradation of all things, (I think that is one of Newton's Laws), and as such Evolution of itself argues for God, not against God.
What about this: https://qz.com/965078/new-research-suggests-your-ability-to-forgive-or-not-is-actually-biological/
Is there genetic evidence that incest would have been more viable in Adam and Eve's time than today? What has been discovered to prove why incest was practical in the early years of humanity compared to today?
Apologetics is near and dear to my heart so I spend a lot of time investigating these questions. The question of the literal Adam and Eve for some time has given me serious trouble, because nothing seems contrary to our scientific experience today than a set of two biological First humans. That was then. As Sir Francis Bacon said, a little bit of reasoning makes one an atheist. A little more makes one a Christian. A scientific backing for the literal Adam and Eve is much more viable in today’s science than perhaps 50 or 150 years ago. Feast your eyes on this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam There is literally an actual literal male ancestor of the entire human race. Then, the finisher, is THIS: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
The Jews didn't believe that Jesus was from God despite the many miracles He performed, and even accused Him of casting out demons by the power of demons. They could just as easily discount the resurrection of the saints as them being imposters. Regardless, it wouldn't be prudent of them to make mention of it. That being said, it's worth mentioning the fact that the gospel account doesn't mention how long they were around or what they looked like- I don't think it outside the realm of possibility that they went around mostly unnoticed, with mostly disciples being "in the know". If true, I would see no problem with it. The authors were probably aware of what the others were doing and desired to introduce information that the others didn't include. This would have been the case regardless of the order they were written in or how long they were- there's little point in simply reiterating what others have already mentioned.
Materialists use the argument that beliefs are not spiritual, because people's beliefs often change when their mental health is deteriorating, proving that beliefs are just the product of a material brain that have no metaphysical origins or relations. What can you say in response to that?
And yet there is a corollary set of observations that our mental health changes when our beliefs change! How do those 'materialists' answer that one!
Can anyone tell me about the explanation for the apparent error in Mark 2:26, about the high priest thing being wrong?
There is a reasonable answer to that question: http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Mark_2.26.php Hope this helps.