Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[discipulus]

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:

---

I am serious.

Yeah ok u where there to see these dead people looking like normal people.. assuming makes an ass out of u.

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. In other words, every time in scripture someone has been resurrected, they retain their physical appearance they possessed before they died and look like a normal person.

So I assume this based on the uniform testimony of scripture. Once again this is something taught in hermeneutics.

---

Accounts may not match up. That does not mean they contradict each other. A contradiction would be:

Matthew saying Jesus was crucified by Himself and Luke saying Jesus was crucified with two thieves.

That would be a contradiction.

Matthew could say Jesus was crucified with two other thieves and Luke could say that Jesus was crucified.

That is not a contradiction. Luke not mentioning the two thieves is him not mentioning the two thieves. That is it.

Of course I used those as examples.

So they were just shite at documenting then?

Documenting the most earth shattering, history defining, humanity changing moment in earth's existence?

They leave out a few things do they? Cut some corners? Get a bit fuzzy with the details?

Bloody hell.

If that is how you see it. In my sight their divergence in details lends credibility to their accounts. It would be mighty suspicious if all four men recorded every single event exactly the same. I am sure some here would charge them with conspiring together if this had been the case!!!!

"It is a conspiracy, they copied one another!!!!" would be the charge then.....

Some people cannot be satisfied it seems.... hock: