CHISTIANS PLEASE EXPLAIN "the walking dead"

[Chad32]

These aren't supposed to be myths. They're supposed to be historical events that prove the legitimacy of the bible. Christianity isn't just a religion. It's a relationship.

[Rev. Rye]

Here's the translation in the Amplified Bible:

51 And at once the curtain of the [a]sanctuary of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; the earth shook and the rocks were split.

52 The tombs were opened and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep [b]in death were raised [to life];

53 And coming out of the tombs after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Fun fact: I remember this passage because Diamanda Hagan mentioned this in her review of Zombiechrist.

You can find it here:

PHP Code:

http://blip.tv/diamanda-hagan-lecher-bitch/special-review-zombiechrist-sd-6478703 


[Drich]

Matthew 27:51-3 describes the "resurrection" of many godly people who rose from the graves and exited the cemetery on Good Friday and returned to Jerusalem where they were seen by many people, earthquake and rocks breaking in half. If true, this event would have stunned all of Jerusalem, unquestionably been documented by numerous sources, as well as other gospels and in terms of shock value would have dwarfed even the resurrection of Jesus. Yet nowhere, not even in historical non-biblical records. Only in Matthew does anyone speaks of this resurrection-related miracle. C'MON.....

If this happened the people who were resurrected could not have been dead long. Which means the only people who would have been able to account for death were close family members (they did not issue death certificates back then.) which I turn means any accounts of a recently dead person coming back would have been quickly dismissed by non believers as the family being mistaken that they were dead. It's not like they were all crucified. Matthew simple recorded the information he was privy too.

[Cinjin]

If this happened ...

What do you mean "IF" this happened? Is it your gods words or not?!? You filthy apologists always want it both ways: It really happened when you can find a way to defend it, or it didn't really happen when you can't find a way to defend it. Scumbags.

... the people who were resurrected could not have been dead long.

Adding text to the Bible yet again there drich? You got that lie all worked out? Because the bible doesn't say anything about how long they were dead. Are you saying that you dickless god does not have the power to bring OLD corpses back to life?

Which means the only people who would have been able to account for death were close family members

More interpretation from a filthy apologist. Sorry pal, that's not what it says. It says they were seen BY MANY!!!

(they did not issue death certificates back then.) which I turn means any accounts of a recently dead person coming back would have been quickly dismissed by non believers as the family being mistaken that they were dead. It's not like they were all crucified.

Bible doesn't say ANY OF THAT you liar. In fact, it seams pretty god damn reasonable that a corpse being brought back to life would have a LOT to say about where he's been and the "all powerful" genie that woke him up. Whats even better is that your entire post never even addresses the glaring fact that no one in real history can account for all these zombies walking around. No Jesus, no saints, nada.

Matthew simple recorded the information he was privy too.

Finally the truth ... sort of.

Someone likely using the name, Matthew, heavily embellished an urban myth and wrote down the information he was privy to: a silly fictitious story made up by superstitious primitives trying to invent a "new" religion.


Gullible fools - all of you.

[Drich]

What do you mean "IF" this happened? Is it your gods words or not?!? You filthy apologists always want it both ways: It really happened when you can find a way to defend it, or it didn't really happen when you can't find a way to defend it. Scumbags.

i used the word 'if' because the op used the word 'if'. I did this to promote discussion. The concession to probability allows the free exchange of ideas with out nailing the one in doubt to belief.

... the people who were resurrected could not have been dead long.

Adding text to the Bible yet again there drich? You got that lie all worked out? Because the bible doesn't say anything about how long they were dead. Are you saying that you dickless god does not have the power to bring OLD corpses back to life?

I am working with an appeal to probability for the sake of providing circumstances that will allow for an explanation that would account for the lack of spectical across that region. The op took liberties in the use and description of 'zombies' in biblical text. My efforts here grounded the terms of the resurrection described in Matthew, inorder to provide a context which again the resurrection of the dead would not have been this grandiose event the op thought it should be.

More interpretation from a filthy apologist. Sorry pal, that's not what it says. It says they were seen BY MANY!!!

yes sport SEEN by many. It does not mean the MANY were able to confirm their deaths. Again I said only close friends and families would have mourned their deaths. Meaning if the 'zombies' did not look like the zombies from the walking dead, they would have looked like everyone else, and could have been seen by many.. Of those who seen them would have been believers and un believers. Believers would have seen them and saw a mirical, but your counter part (being one of the many who saw them) would have noticed they did not look like they had been dead and doubted the whole thing and dismissed it. Even though you may have 'saw' him.

Bible doesn't say ANY OF THAT you liar. In fact, it seams pretty god damn reasonable that a corpse being brought back to life would have a LOT to say about where he's been and the "all powerful" genie that woke him up.

which would have been dismissed by some 2000 year old dbag like you who did not want to believe what was said.
Which address the op's concern as to why no one else records what happened here.

[Cinjin]

NICE! This DBag wins again. You're gettin worse at this Drich. Maybe you should think about wrapping up your "work" here.
Not only was your response contrived, but you didn't even bother with points you couldn't answer.

Matthew simple recorded the information he was privy too.

Finally the truth ... sort of.

Someone likely using the name, Matthew, heavily embellished an urban myth and wrote down the information he was privy to: a silly fictitious story made up by superstitious primitives trying to invent a "new" religion.

... the people who were resurrected could not have been dead long.

Adding text to the Bible yet again there drich? You got that lie all worked out? Because the bible doesn't say anything about how long they were dead. Are you saying that you dickless god does not have the power to bring OLD corpses back to life?

[Avodaiah]

I think Drich was trying to explain why it could have happened, not proving that it must have happened. It could have been the new corpses that were raised and went to their families, who saw that they had been raised.
You also said it was likely that someone else was impersonating Matthew and made it up. Why do you think that?

[Drich]

Avo, it's really not worth the effort with this one. He brings up good points in the beginning of his arguements, but as he runs out of ammo he will just start spewing hate and anger all over the place. So I try and boil his efforts down personal opinion or feeling so they can be easily dismissed by anyone without having to go there myself. (Kinda along the lines of the proverb that says we should not provoke a child to wrath.) I try and do this by letting him have his 'wins' from time to time. This was done by answering what preserved the core message, (that you understood) and letting have the rest.

I don't like to say I have given up on anyone, but at some point we must shake the dust from our boots on those who only look to destroy the message we share. By doing this we are then able to focus on the ones we maybe able to help by preserving the message we bring.

[Bad Wolf]

Oh what a convenient explanation for your inability to discuss! You just let him win!

[Drich]

Oh what a convenient explanation for your inability to discuss! You just let him win!

Look at what was refuted, and look at what was ignored/unanswered. Was anything that was ignored more than personal insult, conjecture, or speculation on his part?

Cinny knows that if he can bait me into a heated discussion, then everything I have said can rightfully be dismissed. If someone like him can grasp this concept.... Therefore why would I meet him one his terms? Rather my best play is to bait him with the smugness he loves so much, and turn the tables on him when he flies off the Handel... Or not, maybe I just feel like ignoring the mess he has made. either way he will have been defanged.