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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 126 by Goose]

Zombies, by definition, arent brought back to life. They are commonly depicted as the undead or the walking dead.

I could show pics from anime/manga where zombies aren't just shambling Romero zombies.







Although yes, there are still plenty Romero type "BWAINZZ" types in anime, especially in High School of the Dead. Yes I have that on Blu-ray and yes, I bought it for the physics-defying breasts.

[marco]

[Replying to post 129 by Goose]


Allow me to avoid joining you in the ludicrous discussion of the Planet of the Apes as if this were some progression from Matthew. I have no objection to people presuming to "teach me logic", but let me first see evidence that they have that qualification.

The pertinent part of what we might call your argument is that if people wish to satirise Matthew's active corpses, they must first familiarise themselves, as you have courageously done, with the subtleties of Jewish superstition. You don't object to the tale of corpses getting up and being characterised as holy. No - it's the method of walking chosen by the corpse that leads you to suppose Matthew, who knew better, would not be dealing with a Jewish concept. Now why would the corpses themselves defer to Matthew's preconceptions as to how they should conduct themselves?


I am defending the aptness of a word, used with an amusing degree of irony. The anachronism is part of the irony, but it's the part you prefer to quibble over. Around us are dead bodies, risen to life by Matthew's imagination. You ignore these as if it's an expected occurrence and settle instead for a treatise on Jewish views of risen bodies. It is not about whether they rose, but in what manner. Most would question the rising not the method of walking.

You see no absurdity in your line and to enhace the quality of your research, you introduce the Planet of the Apes, presumably to show you too go to the cinema. It is a digression too far. You protest you are willing to debate the OP properly but that seems to mean introducing irrelevances and inviting us to comment on them. I wish you well.

[Goose]

Allow me to avoid joining you in the ludicrous discussion of the Planet of the Apes as if this were some progression from Matthew.

Its an analogous argument that shows how ludicrous the zombie mischaracterisation is and how it also leads to a false conclusion when used in an argument. But Im not surprised you wish to avoid the analogy. Of course you do.

The pertinent part of what we might call your argument is that if people wish to satirise Matthew's active corpses, they must first familiarise themselves, as you have courageously done, with the subtleties of Jewish superstition.

You got it. Otherwise, one will likely be arguing illogically.

Now why would the corpses themselves defer to Matthew's preconceptions as to how they should conduct themselves?

Because its Matthew, an ancient Jew, telling a story to a Jewish audience about a Jew(s) who has(have) risen from the dead.

I am defending the aptness of a word, used with an amusing degree of irony.

But its no more apt than the word telephone. And in defending the use of the word zombie in use with Matthew you are defending the use of a fallacy. Youve been doing it for several pages now.

The anachronism is part of the irony, but it's the part you prefer to quibble over.

Its not merely quibbling to point out a fallacy. Fallacies can cause us to arrive at false conclusions. This doesnt seem to bother you.

Around us are dead bodies, risen to life by Matthew's imagination.

Exactly! So why then are you imposing the concept of zombie, a modern concept foreign to ancient Jews, on Matthew? Thats illogical. Theres no point arguing with a person that argues by fallacy and then defends the fallacy.

You protest you are willing to debate the OP properly but that seems to mean introducing irrelevances and inviting us to comment on them.

Marco, you were the one who stopped arguing about Matthews intended meaning of the risen saints. You were the one who instead chose to spend your effort defending the zombie mischaracterisation. If you want to get back to our discussion on Matthews intended meaning Im happy to do that.

[The Nice Centurion]

It's almost like the story is complete fiction.

Almost?

By the way, not only did Pontius Pilate not bother reporting it, but neither did Mark, Luke, John, Paul, or any other authors of the New Testament save for Matthew. Apparently he was the only one who knew about it. As you point out, if the others knew about it they most certainly would have mentioned it. This would have been a major event to report for sure.

But the Bible doesn't lie, does it?

The Bible doesn't do anything. But the people who wrote it may have done just that.

If you were Pontius Pilate and had a Zombie Invasion of your Capital Residence on your hands, would you really stumble High over Heels to report it to the Emperor in Rome?

The silence of that 3 evangelists is another matter.
But it could also be explained with good historical apologetic.

Perhaps they saw the problem that Christs resurrection looks better as a standalone and ignored the walking dead.