Do you believe in zombies?

[JimL]

Perhaps you're unaware that each of the Gospels was from a different writer with a different perspective to a different audiences. If they all wrote the same thing, we wouldn't need four of them. John basically coves 7 "signs", and doesn't cover a lot of things the synoptic gospels cover.

Kudos, though, for more properly referring to them as 'the resurrected saints'.

Obviously I understand that the gospels have different authors, that's why I asked the question "why didn't the other authors mention such a remarkable event?" This, if it were true, would be quite the ommision for an historian to omit. Besides, they did all write about the same things, the same events,they all wrote about the crucifixion, but only Matthew wrote about the earthquakes and the resurrected saints at the crucifixion.

[Cow Poke]

Obviously I understand that the gospels have different authors, that's why I asked the question "why didn't the other authors mention such a remarkable event?" This, if it were true, would be quite the ommision for an historian to omit. Besides, they did all write about the same things, the same events,they all wrote about the crucifixion, but only Matthew wrote about the earthquakes and the resurrected saints at the crucifixion.

Since you're so interested in what each of the Gospel writers wrote, here's a fairly good comparison showing that John wrote about a whole bunch of things the others did not, and some things were recorded by all four. The synoptic Gospel writers often wrote about things John didn't reference at all. Luke wrote about some things none of the others did, as did Matthew and Mark.

They all talk about Jesus, which is the real focus of the NT, Jim.

[Teallaura]

That doesn't explain why such a real life event such as earthquakes and many saints climbing out of their graves wasn't mentioned by the other three gospel authors, not to mention secular historians of the time. Why do you think they neglected to mention it?

They didn't include a lot of things - usually as relevant to their particular audiences. Here, Matt alone addresses the Jews and includes details they could have easily debunked. It supports Matt's theses where it would be extraneous to the others who are addressed to peoples further away or, as with John, have a different purpose.

[RumTumTugger]

Oh, I don't think anyone here is angry either. I do think that people who troll want to make people angry though.

On a side point, what is up with the phrase "nothing burger"? Where did that come from all of a sudden? I hear people saying it all the time now. It's the strangest expression.

It is from a project veritas undercover video where Van Jones from CNN(I think it was one of the videos in their Amerian Pravda ) said that the trump russia collusion controversy was a big nothing burger

about 1:46 is when the phrase is used

[RumTumTugger]

I've wondered the same thing about nothingburger. I've seen it used by Hillary describing the email scandal, but it apparently goes way back to the '50's and '60's. Hollywood gossip columnist Louella Parsons used it to describe a person or idea that's essentially a whole lot of nothing. Then it was picked up by Cosmopolitan editor Helen Gurley Brown.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25730[/ATTACH]

See my reply to Adrift

[Cow Poke]

See my reply to Adrift

That's a revival of the term - it was used back when I was a kid, just not as frequently. Of course, I didn't have internetzweb back then.

[Zymologist]

That doesn't explain why such a real life event such as earthquakes and many saints climbing out of their graves wasn't mentioned by the other three gospel authors, not to mention secular historians of the time. Why do you think they neglected to mention it?

Obviously because they didn't believe in zombies either. Checkm8 Christians!

[Jedidiah]

Likening the resurrection body to zombification is misinformed at best and dishonest at worst.

No, dishonest at best and more likely intentionally blasphemous.

[JimL]

Since you're so interested in what each of the Gospel writers wrote, here's a fairly good comparison showing that John wrote about a whole bunch of things the others did not, and some things were recorded by all four. The synoptic Gospel writers often wrote about things John didn't reference at all. Luke wrote about some things none of the others did, as did Matthew and Mark.

They all talk about Jesus, which is the real focus of the NT, Jim.

Still doesn't explain why they would neglect to record such a remarkable event, unless you're suggesting that they had no idea it happened? Is that what you are suggesting?

[mossrose]

Jim, why did you start this thread using the word "zombies"?

Frankly you know we consider it blasphemous when referring to Christ. You are not engaging honestly here.

Give me one good reason why I shouldn't delete this thread and point you for blasphemy.

[Tassman]

To start, it needs to be noted that the notion of some sort strict separation of secular and sectarian is totally missing in the ancient world. There are no strictly "secular" sources -- none. There are of course non-Biblical sources but none of them would qualify as being "secular"

Now, very, very little exists in way of contemporary sources from the middle of the first century A.D. As the historian Edward Musgrave Blaiklock put it: "From the forties A.D., through the sixties, very little survives. Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from those significant years." IOW, the reason we have a lack of extant non-biblical documentation is due to nothing more than a lack of extant non-biblical information -- about anything.

And keep in mind that we don't have any contemporary accounts concerning Hannibal which in your world means he never existed and everything he did is some sort of fairy tale. The same goes for the assassination of Caesar since it wasn't until a half a century later that we have the first written account.

There are other factors corroborating such events as Caesar’s assassination and Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps. Such corroboration doesn’t exist for the alleged “resurrection of the saints”, which was beyond merely extraordinary by anyone’s standards. Unlike Caesar and Hannibal, which were natural events, the resurrection of bodies allegedly seen by many don’t rate a mention anywhere except in one gospel, which was written some 50 to 60 years after the events and very likely subject to embellishment. Nor do the surrounding natural events such as the renting of the temple veil and alleged earthquake. In short, there’s no good reason to believe any of it.

[rogue06]

That's a revival of the term - it was used back when I was a kid, just not as frequently. Of course, I didn't have internetzweb back then.

But we had that cool telephone made from two cans, two buttons and a length of string

[rogue06]

Jim, why did you start this thread using the word "zombies"?

Frankly you know we consider it blasphemous when referring to Christ. You are not engaging honestly here.

Well there's a surprise

Give me one good reason why I shouldn't delete this thread and point you for blasphemy.

Because I made two posts that I've bookmarked for later use.

[Cow Poke]

Because I made two posts that I've bookmarked for later use.

Save 'em in a text file.

[Cow Poke]

But we had that cool telephone made from two cans, two buttons and a length of string

And when we ran some of Mom's paraffin up and down that string, it made for high speed data!