If the bible is true....why didn't some contemporary historians get around to mentioning the zombie apocalypse as described in matthew? [Spirituality & Religion]

"and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many."
Matt 27:52

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Deadcutie · 18-21, F

An absence of historical record is not necessarily proof it's untrue. There are logical reasons you don't see it in historical records.
1. The region has been decimated by 4000 years of almost constant war and disaster. There are entire cities they can't find. Even Rome's own history has gaps and speculation. The great libraries were burned and destroyed over and over.. it was a dark dark period and many things were lost. Take for example the technology of concrete. Romans used it extensively, yet after the fall of Rome, the technique was lost untill rediscovered in early 1900s. It is not illogical to accept that many of these documents are lost forever..
Many ancient societies are missing massive amounts of history. Just because you can't find a newspaper for June 15th 761a.d. Doesn't mean events didn't occurre at that time.

2. It's quite Possible that the Jews themselves forbade or censored the event. Think about it, you are the religious leader of hundreds of thousands of people you are about to lose to a man that just proved he was God.. what are you going to do?
These guys were corrupt and not above making the whole situation disappear and bullying Those who kept on insisting it was true to stay in power.

3. The cathlic church may have the documents hidden in thier vaults in the Vatican.
We know they have a huge archive, and artifacts that went missing historicaly. Only a few people can even go down there, so who knows?
You might argue why would the Catholics hide something that would prove Christ's existence ? But the simple answer is fear and power.
Just like the Jews , if Christ is proven without doubt to be real and god, then they lose. Thier doctrines expose them as the frauds they are and they lose thier power base. They are like the drug industry, content on milking money and power by treating the disease instead of rolling out the cure..

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Deadcutie · 18-21, F

@Celine yeah, but there is one problem, Catholicism is a difrent brand of religion that Christ actualy taught. They held on to Christ's name, and that's about it. The cathlic church make no mistake about it is a enemy of Christ. If you look at what Christ actualy said and the doctrines of Catholics and modern Christians, they are almost opposites of eachother.
For example Christ taught a resurrection for all the dead at one time in the future, catholic doctrine pushes you go to heaven , hell or purgatory or whatnot. If Christ is proven real, and those saints were resurrected, then it kind of takes the sail out of the cathlic doctrines.
Same with the trinity, baptism, the nature and spirit of the godhead, even the commandments..

imagine the millions who would feel betrayed that thier loved ones are not looking down at them from heaven? That thier leaders lied and deceived them all this time.

I'm not saying any of these are it or there could be another, I'm just saying there are possable logicaly sound explanations why we don't see more historical collaboration.

By the way, I lean more towards the passing of time, Wars and disasters myself. But I don't discount the other possibilities. And who knows maybe it's just waiting beneath the ground for Indiana jones

Reject · 26-30, M

Well I'm reading this and it does say "after His resurrection" perhaps that hasn't happened yet?

View 14 more replies »

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Deadcutie · 18-21, F

@Celine a saint in the Bible is difrent than a saint recognized by the church. In early Christian culture, a saint was simply one who followed christs true teachings alive or dead. Those Christ recognized as having the Holy Spirit after babtism. These could have been lowly peasants to church elders. No slaying of dragons or miracles required

Reject · 26-30, M

@Celine It's hard to say. As big a deal as all that was to Jerusalem, I feel like many other places in the world can also claim incredible things from their history. Hence the presence of so many religions. The point I'm making is that the actual content of history no matter how accurate or mythical it may be, is still so far back there is no way to know for sure as records were not as concrete or significant as they are now. Much could have been lost or the truth could have been stretched or maybe it wasn't. We have no way of knowing for sure because back then there was no way to create absolute proof and evidence that could last. It all seems very unlikely, especially considering how since then, we've gained much technology that makes evidence more substantial and no other greater powers have made themselves known since, but still, witnesses were the best you had then, and they've all long since expired. So we cannot say it didn't happen as we don't know, but we also can't rightly say it did. Perhaps there was a point when these religions didn't have to be faith, but as of right now? They abolsitely are until any higher powers choose to reveal themselves again, if they ever did before.

RealtaReoite · 61-69, M

Not that I'm trying to defend Matt, but:

a) I doubt the "zombies" would have been shambling around after reporters muttering "Mmmmmm, brains!!!". Seems out of character for a dead "saint". Now that I think about it, most reporters would seem to have a natural immunity during a zombie apocalypse anyhow, but that's going rather far afield.

b) reporting on such would have been looked upon VERY unfavorably by those in power at the time. I'll bet they'd make Trump look like a piker.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

RealtaReoite · 61-69, M

@Celine

a) me too. That's what induced me to answer your question in the first place. Plus it made me smile. "Zombie Apocalypse" indeed. *snork*

b) Oh, I think it would have been VERY unfavorable indeed. Both the Roman and Jewish authorities had a strong interest in ensuring that nothing related to this "Jesus of Nazareth" fellow smacked of divinity. I think I remember something about the Romans putting guards on his tomb so that "his followers would not steal the body and claim he had risen from the dead" or something like that. And I don't think the "saints" were very popular with those in power. Or very well-known in the general population who didn't hold with such nonsense.

How successful the authorities might have been at suppressing this sort of news is, for sure, debatable. It seems like it would be fairly newsworthy and a tough thing to cover up. But I don't think any reporter would keep his job as "Chief Sanhedrin Correspondent" very long if he started printing that sort of rumor.

So that kind of leaves the early Christians, and they were pretty busy just trying to stay alive -- and not faring very well at that either -- so I have no idea what records might have been made (or might have survived). Interesting question, though. Sometimes I almost wish I knew something about it.

Nature3 · 56-60, M

I often wondered that myself. The bible mentions many things that have little to no evidence of ever happening. Period. It's why I don't think the Bible is any word from some god or higher power. Shit, the least thing this so called higher power can do is give us the damn cure for cancer. I guess that is too much to ask.