The Zombie Invasion of Jerusalem

[RedEye]

The gospel of Matthew 27:51-53 tells us what happened right after Jesus Christ died:

• Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Let's think about how monumental an event this must have been. Dead and rotting corpses rose up through the rocks and dirt of their graves and descended on the city of Jerusalem. The news of such an event (unprecedented in the history of the world) must have spread throughout the Roman Empire like wildfire. It was possible to die, rot in the ground and then return to life! Next to alien contact I can't think of a more electrifying event which could occur.

So why is there no secular record of this? No contemporary historian knows anything about it. There is no Roman record of it. Did Pontius Pilate not think it worth mentioning in his correspondence with Rome? There is no word on what happened to these zombies either. Did they live for a while and die again later? How did they walk around with ruined bodies? Did anyone bother to examine them? It's almost like the story is complete fiction. But the Bible doesn't lie, does it?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 57 by Goose]

On one level I have to continue to applaud the exhaustive effort on your part scrabbling for purchase. The meat has already been addressed, though. Now, as usual, your energy is being spent attacking procedural missteps in logic or historical inquiry. Not in defending... anything.

You say you'll "get there" regarding Matthew's intent on this lone paragraph in all of recorded history that touches on the dead wandering about town for the weekend. While I agree you'll get SOMEwhere, it won't be THERE. How can you? You have zero means of ever knowing what the author intended, so what are you doing apart from switching to offense instead of defense?

I don't get loud with people like you and Winepusher or Chris or Historia because you're idiots that believe in the ridiculous. Rather it's because you're really smart guys that believe in the ridiculous. (Cue outraged complaint about my bias against magic).. The entirety of your relevant participation in this thread can be summed up as follows: The passage in Matthew that describes the dead leaving their graves and mingling with many who saw them COULD be historical, but you won't know until you somehow ascertain the motive of an author dead for millennia. OR it's some sort of symbolism and shouldn't be taken literally; should, in fact, be arbitrarily relegated to the bin of scripture that sounds historical on its face... BUT... really isn't.

[brunumb]

Come on folks ...
Can't any believer here tell us -

HOW did Matthew find out about this zombie event ?

Did he eye-witness it ?
Or hear about it ?

Jubal

I'm also curious as to how they were identified as saints or holy people as distinct from your everyday dead person in the cemetery.

[marco]

Come on folks ...
Can't any believer here tell us -

HOW did Matthew find out about this zombie event ?

Did he eye-witness it ?
Or hear about it ?

Jubal

I'm also curious as to how they were identified as saints or holy people as distinct from your everyday dead person in the cemetery.

Perhaps the way they walked gave a clue; or they may have incessantly struck their bare bones with a lash and recited some canticle. Holiness might be more evident in skeletons than in fleshy types. There is also a thing called the odor sanctitatis, the odour of sanctity, which really nice people, on being exhumed, possess. Apparently Aquinas had it.

[Goose]

On one level I have to continue to applaud the exhaustive effort on your part scrabbling for purchase.

Thank you?

The meat has already been addressed, though.

Has it? I dont think it has yet.

Now, as usual, your energy is being spent attacking procedural missteps in logic or historical inquiry.

Yes Im a stickler for following a good historical method and using good logic. As usual you chime into the conversation to complain about that.

Not in defending... anything.

What is it you think I should be defending?

You say you'll "get there" regarding Matthew's intent on this lone paragraph in all of recorded history that touches on the dead wandering about town for the weekend. While I agree you'll get SOMEwhere, it won't be THERE. How can you?

I answered this. By weighing the arguments.

You have zero means of ever knowing what the author intended, so what are you doing apart from switching to offense instead of defense?

I wouldnt say we have zero means.

I don't get loud with people like you and Winepusher or Chris or Historia because you're idiots that believe in the ridiculous.

Im left wondering if getting loud is all you are able to bring to bear on the issue?

Rather it's because you're really smart guys that believe in the ridiculous.

Ill take that as a compliment.

The entirety of your relevant participation in this thread can be summed up as follows: The passage in Matthew that describes the dead leaving their graves and mingling with many who saw them COULD be historical, but you won't know until you somehow ascertain the motive of an author dead for millennia. OR it's some sort of symbolism and shouldn't be taken literally; should, in fact, be arbitrarily relegated to the bin of scripture that sounds historical on its face... BUT... really isn't.

Not exactly but thats a close enough evaluation. Is there a problem with that?

[Goose]

I was unaware there were amateur and professional sceptics among us.

Im not aware of there being any professional scholars among us. So who else do you think your ridicule scores a hit with if not amateur sceptics?

Ridicule is a gateway to criticism. If a proposition is preposterous, it merits ridicule, as Matthew's account here.

Ridicule shows weakness in the one ridiculing. If the one ridiculing had valid logical criticisms those criticisms themselves would be sufficient to expose an opponent's position as illogical. Its when one has no good counter arguments that one often resorts to ridiculing an opponent. I welcome the ridicule. It tells me my opponent has nothing.

With pleasure - just examine the words the man used.

."...he gave up his spirit. 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people. 54 When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!" ... "

The phrase "at that moment" identifies a spot in time. Not our time, not the future but "at that moment" time.

I dont know that identifying a spot in time is enough to solidify the historical view. We see in the apocalyptic passage of the Olivet discourse a few chapters earlier a similar temporal fixating point.

But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened...- Matthew 24:29

The temporal clause: "When the centurion... saw..." fixes the occasion and the reported events. There is no conceivable doubt that he is relating events immediately after Christ's exitus.

Matthew explicitly states the Roman centurion guarding Jesus saw the earthquake. You are assuming that and all the happened must necessarily include seeing the risen Jews.

[Jubal]

I'm also curious as to how they were identified as saints or holy people as distinct from your everyday dead person in the cemetery.

Well, certainly it would have included the famous King David.

Buried in Jerusalem a thousand years before the zombie event.

What was his body like after 1000 years I wonder ?

Jubal

[Goose]

I'm also curious as to how they were identified as saints or holy people as distinct from your everyday dead person in the cemetery.

Well, certainly it would have included the famous King David.

Buried in Jerusalem a thousand years before the zombie event.

What was his body like after 1000 years I wonder ?

Well exactly. You can't even keep this zombie mischaracterisation internally consistent. Zombies are depicted in pop culture as having flesh. The flesh on King David's bones would have decomposed long before Jesus' death. Hed be nothing but a pile of bones and yet you envision him as certainly one of the zombies.

[marco]

I was unaware there were amateur and professional sceptics among us.

Im not aware of there being any professional scholars among us. So who else do you think your ridicule scores a hit with if not amateur sceptics?

Do you have a reason for changing sceptics into scholars? You cannot possibly be aware of the standing of all those who participate here, but you brought the point up about "amateur sceptics."

I welcome the ridicule. It tells me my opponent has nothing.

No one likes to be laughed at. We have our individual ways of dealing with it if we have the misfortune to be mocked. If ridicule is justified and a person welcomes it, then I suppose there's not much more to say. If it's ill-informed, unjustified ridicule, it should be easy to counter it in an apt paragraph.

The phrase "at that moment" identifies a spot in time. Not our time, not the future but "at that moment" time.

I dont know that identifying a spot in time is enough to solidify the historical view. We see in the apocalyptic passage of the Olivet discourse a few chapters earlier a similar temporal fixating point.

But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened...- Matthew 24:29

Is this supposed to be a counter argument? The passage I quoted is from Matthew 27 and concerns the actual passage of events as viewed. The statement you quote is in the FUTURE tense - it is not "similar" - and certainly does not fix a moment in time. I assume you've just completely misunderstood the point being made, but in any case there's no obvious counter to it.

The temporal clause: "When the centurion... saw..." fixes the occasion and the reported events. There is no conceivable doubt that he is relating events immediately after Christ's exitus.

Matthew explicitly states the Roman centurion guarding Jesus saw the earthquake. You are assuming that and all the happened must necessarily include seeing the risen Jews.

I wasn't, but that would be a natural deduction given the use of "all". Do we simply write it off as sloppy recounting? The point I was making is that Matthew is recording events, not making up metaphors. The centurion's involvement shows he is dealing with actual events. You were supposing this is difficult to prove. It may be difficult to understand but it's a relatively easy matter to show what Matthew is doing.

[Goose]

Do you have a reason for changing sceptics into scholars? You cannot possibly be aware of the standing of all those who participate here, but you brought the point up about "amateur sceptics."

You arent answering my question. Who else do you think your ridicule scores a hit with if not amateur sceptics?

If it's ill-informed, unjustified ridicule, it should be easy to counter it in an apt paragraph.

The point is, ridicule is never justified and reveals weakness. If the person ridiculing had good enough arguments to show an opponents position illogical thats all they need to do. Indeed, they would do that rather than ridicule.

Is this supposed to be a counter argument?

Yes it is. It would be a counter argument made by the symbolic view. I'm curious to see if you can properly counter it.

The passage I quoted is from Matthew 27 and concerns the actual passage of events as viewed. The statement you quote is in the FUTURE tense - it is not "similar" - and certainly does not fix a moment in time.

You argued Matthew 27 identifies a spot in time. But Matthew 24:29 does just that " immediately after the tribulation of those days.

The counter argument that Matthew 24:29 is in reference to future events as opposed to the past events of Matthew 27 goes so far as to differentiate the events in terms of past or future. But how is that a meaningful distinction?

It seems this counter argument must assume apocalyptic symbolism cannot be mingled with historical events. I dont see that as necessarily the case. We see what is clearly apocalyptic symbolism in Peters preaching in Acts 2 and these events then seem to be interpreted by Peter as having occurred.

So I think the symbolic view, here on this point of temporal fixation, has a valid counter. At least I dont see how youve properly overturned it.

I wasn't, but that would be a natural deduction given the use of "all".

The word all is not in the Greek text. But lets grab hold of this deduction and run with it for a moment. It seems to me we are then forced to also think that Matthew meant the Roman centurion also saw the curtain of the Temple tear in half. Theres no reason to think the guard could have seen that happen from his vantage point of watching Jesus. When we further consider that the Roman guard Matthew is speaking about is placed among events that occurred at the moment of Jesus death yet the appearances of resurrected Jews in the city occur after Jesus resurrection its difficult to see how Matthew meant the Roman centurion also saw the resurrected Jews. Its easier to think Matthew meant the Roman centurion saw the things which would have been noticeable to everyone " i.e. the darkness and the earthquake. Those two events alone would certainly be enough to frighten the guard and cause him to think there was something divine about Jesus.

[marco]

You arent answering my question. Who else do you think your ridicule scores a hit with if not amateur sceptics?

Your question requires no answer, phrased as it is. And on ridicule, our opinions differ. Satire is a superb form of commentary.

Is this supposed to be a counter argument?

Yes it is. It would be a counter argument made by the symbolic view. I'm curious to see if you can properly counter it.

It would want to be a counter argument but doesn't qualify. I have countered it; I needn't repeat myself.

The counter argument that Matthew 24:29 is in reference to future events as opposed to the past events of Matthew 27 goes so far as to differentiate the events in terms of past or future. But how is that a meaningful distinction?

Really? In the one case we are given a sequence of events, with back-up surrounding details including a live centurion. This means we are dealing with actual events. The mention of time when these things occurred, makes the point more strongly. In the instance you gave Matthew is using the future tense for an event that has no specifically temporal status. It is vague , and admits a symbolic interpretation. The one we are dealing with is precise.

It seems this counter argument must assume apocalyptic symbolism cannot be mingled with historical events. I dont see that as necessarily the case. We see what is clearly apocalyptic symbolism in Peters preaching in Acts 2 and these events then seem to be interpreted by Peter as having occurred.

You are confusing issues and moving to a completely different argument. Historical events relate to what has been. They are not guesses as to what might be. When Nostradamus tells us about Hister, it may well refer prophetically to Hitler, but the statement is not one based on history. I don't see why you are confused here.

So I think the symbolic view, here on this point of temporal fixation, has a valid counter. At least I dont see how youve properly overturned it.

It's the difference between what was and what might happen; between recording events that were and making guesses about the future. The guesswork bit can certainly involve symbolism or figurative language. When we say that Henry dissolved the monasteries, he did. To place some figurative meaning does not remove the fact that he did what was reported.


If Matthew placed some symbolic meaning on the dead rising, similarly it does not nullify the event - it simply interprets things that did happen.

Jesus resurrection its difficult to see how Matthew meant the Roman centurion also saw the resurrected Jews. Its easier to think Matthew meant the Roman centurion saw the things which would have been noticeable to everyone " i.e. the darkness and the earthquake. Those two events alone would certainly be enough to frighten the guard and cause him to think there was something divine about Jesus.

I'm not disputing whether the centurion saw the dead walking to the city. The word "all" as I said, is inclusive of this, but it isn't necessary for my argument. My own view is that Matthew made up the centurion's words, just as Tacitus invented a speech for Calgacus, but that's neither here nor there. The way the passage is written tells us that the writer is reporting events. I see no reason to exclude the extraordinary resurrections from Matthew's intention of reporting actual events. If you ask me again how I know what his intentions were, I go entirely by what is written and how it is written and the details in that writing. You on the other hand are suggesting symbolism, when that requires one to move beneath what is written and enter the writer's head.