(February 24, 2014 at 7:41 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 7:36 pm)discipulus Wrote: As far as I am aware, in every occurance of someone being resurrected in scripture, there is no mention of their physical appearance being so altered as to make them unrecognizable.

Jesus is recorded as being resurrected with the spear hole and nail holes still in him. Many of the people resurrected would thus have shown signs of death, if they were resurrected in the same way. So, no, you are wrong. They would have been recognizably dead.

Nice try. I commend you.

But alas...

Jesus was the Lamb of God who was slain. Christ I believe will always bear those marks in His wrists and His feet and His side so that we will always remember what an awesome sacrifice He made for us.

It is simply silly to think that a Christian who was beheaded for being a Christian would be resurrected without a head!!!

(February 24, 2014 at 7:42 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I think we're chasing down a red herring. The issue isn't that George A Romero-style zombies lurched around; it's that people known to be dead came back to life and interacted with friends and relatives. Why did nobody outside the story write this down? How did that news not make it back to Rome?

They all agreed it was best not to make a fuss as it would obviously have a significant impact on the future generations who needed to simply invest in blind faith otherwise they wouldn't pass God's test.

It was conspiracy by silence.

discipulus Wrote:Jesus was the Lamb of God who was slain. Christ I believe will always bear those marks in His wrists and His feet and His side so that we will always remember what an awesome sacrifice He made for us.

It is simply silly to think that a Christian who was beheaded for being a Christian would be resurrected without a head!!! ThinkingConfused Fall

Wow. The irony and simple hypocrisy of those two statements back to back is laughable.

(February 24, 2014 at 7:45 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 7:41 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Jesus is recorded as being resurrected with the spear hole and nail holes still in him. Many of the people resurrected would thus have shown signs of death, if they were resurrected in the same way. So, no, you are wrong. They would have been recognizably dead.

Nice try. I commend you.

But alas...

Jesus was the Lamb of God who was slain. Christ I believe will always bear those marks in His wrists and His feet and His side so that we will always remember what an awesome sacrifice He made for us.

It is simply silly to think that a Christian who was beheaded for being a Christian would be resurrected without a head!!!

It's like pissing in the wind.

Quote:(I sense the Fab Four - Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and Ringo - are about to enter the conversation.)

On, no. Not that sorry shit again.

Not just shit, either - floaters.

(February 24, 2014 at 7:45 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 7:41 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Jesus is recorded as being resurrected with the spear hole and nail holes still in him. Many of the people resurrected would thus have shown signs of death, if they were resurrected in the same way. So, no, you are wrong. They would have been recognizably dead.

Nice try. I commend you.

But alas...

Jesus was the Lamb of God who was slain. Christ I believe will always bear those marks in His wrists and His feet and His side so that we will always remember what an awesome sacrifice He made for us.

It is simply silly to think that a Christian who was beheaded for being a Christian would be resurrected without a head!!!

So you're going to discount the one clear-cut example we have with special pleading. You wouldn't be a Christian, by any chance?

Troll?

(February 24, 2014 at 7:45 pm)discipulus Wrote: It is simply silly to think that a Christian who was beheaded for being a Christian would be resurrected without a head!!!

Dead people coming back to life and strolling about town is fine, but doing it without a head is silly? Do you even hear how you sound?

(February 24, 2014 at 7:42 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I think we're chasing down a red herring. The issue isn't that George A Romero-style zombies lurched around; it's that people known to be dead came back to life and interacted with friends and relatives. Why did nobody outside the story write this down? How did that news not make it back to Rome?

Most N.T. scholars posit that since Matthew labels these resurrected people as "saints", that these were more than likely godly men and women that lived during the O.T.

If this indeed were the case, no one alive at the time would have recognized them because no one alive would have been alive when these "saints" had been alive.

But let me be charitable Stimbo. Let us posit that these "saints" were people who had recently died and were therefore recognizable to those who had known them....

How many Romans do you think were personally acquainted with these "saints"? Remember now, Rome was a pagan empire. Romans in general did not associate with those "strange Jewish folk". How many Romans do you think would have known these "saints" well enough to say: "Hey look! Over there! That is old Sam walking around, I knew him from Synagogue!!! He died ten years ago, now look at him! He is just as jubilant and full of energy as he was the day he slipped on the marble stairs and busted his head open!!"

I think you get my point.....

Come on Stimbo think about it.....

And even if I grant that the above was probable, what do you think the Roman intellectuals and politicians and historians would have said if one of their fellow Romans ran up to them and said: "Gee whiz! I just saw a man I knew. His name was Sam. Ten years ago he slipped on the marble stairs and busted his head open and died. Guess what guys???? I just SAW HIM WALKIN AROUND AND HE SAID HEY TO ME!!!!"

If you people treat me with polite disdain because I mention the supernatural, what do you think their response would have been????????


"Oh Oh hurry Tom, go get the stylus and tablet, we have to write this in the history books!!!!!!!!!"

No Stimbo....no

You and I both know it.