RE: Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?
February 24, 2014 at 7:17 pm
(This post was last modified: February 24, 2014 at 7:26 pm by discipulus.)
(February 24, 2014 at 6:31 pm)Mr. Moncrieff Wrote: Jews can see dead people.
All around them.
Walking around like regular people.
But not Romans.
Maybe the Romans don't realise THEY'RE dead?
Maybe they have to drop a wedding ring first.
Matthew did not say zombies got up and started walking around eating people.
He said :
"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."
These people would have looked like ordinary people. They were not ghosts or floating white sheets with holes cut out for eyes or flesh eating zombies.
This zombie apocalypse that you seem to be envisioning would probably have been recorded by historians but alas, it never happened.
But I want to point out something to all of you that I find ironic.
I find it ironic that you all sit up here and laugh at the mention of the supernatural and poke fun of it and ridicule Christians for speaking of the supernatural, and yet you want to be incredulous because I say that if indeed some Romans had spoken out about seeing people resurrected to life that they were more than likely dismissed as superstitious fools!!!!
I just find that ironic. Time and time and time again I am branded a fool and a superstitious idiot by atheists for mentioning the supernatural, and yet atheists act like I have said something completely off the wall when I posit that those who claimed to have seen resurrected people would have more than likely been disregarded!
You all cannot have it both ways.
hock:(February 24, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:The gospel accounts, though differing in certain respects, never contradict one another.
You can't be serious.
http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm
I am serious.
(February 24, 2014 at 4:18 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:(February 24, 2014 at 3:58 pm)discipulus Wrote: You are right they don't all match up. Each writer recorded certain specific details of Jesus' life and each writer, though inspired, retained their own individual and unique style of writing. Each gospel writer was inspired to portray Jesus in a particular light. For example, Matthew's style was geared more towards a Jewish audience while John was writing of Jesus as the Logos, or The Word of God. John focuses on the divinity of Christ while Luke emphasizes His humanity.
When taken as a whole we have more of a complete picture than what we would have if we were to take them individually.
News reporters covering the 9/11 terrorist attack on the WTC, though reporting on one terrorist attack, each recorded different things depending on their vantage point. Taken together the accounts of the reporters provide us with a more complete picture of the attack.
The gospel accounts, though differing in certain respects, never contradict one another.
Except where they do and one has to take a stretch to make them fit.
For eg, you would think that if they were writing down the last words of the living god they would all hear the same words, instead of which we have 3 different last words. And wearing a robe which was purply red. Or red. Or purple.
Of course one can, at a stretch, find a way in which they are all true. But why is it reported that way? Like and John both have a phrase followed by "and then he gave up the ghost? Did he use both? If so, why does neither report record all of the words. It's not a long speech.
Hermeneutics is a marvelous discipline I suggest you look into.
