What is the point?

[postroad]

If a simple text can be manipulated from a plain reading into this?

postroad wrote:

I wonder what happened to these individuals?


Matthew 27:51-53New International Version (NIV)

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.


JehovahsWitness wrote
QUESTION : Were people ressurected when Jesus died?

Matthew 27:52, 53 reads that at the moment Jesus expired “the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.�

It is true this is a perplexing verse and quite ambiguious. Firstly, however it should be noted that the verse speaks not of the "dead" but of the 'bodies of the saints' being raised. Strictly speaking, the account does not say that the “bodies� came to life. It merely says that they were raised up or thrown out. The Greek verb e‧gei′ro, meaning to “raise up,� does not always refer to a resurrection. It can, among other things, also mean to “lift out� from a pit or to “get up� from the ground. (Matthew 12:11; 17:7; Luke 1:69).

Also the “they� (that that went into the holy city) could not refer to the “bodies,� because all pronouns in the Greek have gender and “they� in this case is in the masculine, whereas “bodies� is in the neuter gender.

Alternative renderings thus can read:

“Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city.�

and the NWT "many bodies of the holy ones that had fallen asleep were thrown up, (and persons, coming out from among the memorial tombs after his being raised up, entered into the holy city,) and they became visible to many people.�

All of which convey the thought that when Jesus died the accompanying earthquake broke open tombs near Jerusalem and thus exposed corpses to persons who visited the tombs and brought news of the event into Jerusalem.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 30 by Yahu]

Uhh mate...you're in Christianity and Apologetics. NOT the Doctrine subforum.



As for

I could care less how a non-believer tries to interpret scripture. They are reading other people's mail. The NT was primarily letters written by Christians to Christians. I don't expect them to understand spiritual things considering you have to lay down principles line by line and precept by precepts. If you don't have any foundation knowledge, how can any unbeliever understand more advanced topics? It would be like someone trying to take advanced engineering classes without understanding basic math.

Fair enough if that's your honest opinion, but I'd like to chime in that you're painting non-believers with an incredibly broad brush. Unbeliever as a term doesn't really tell us anything about the specific individual, now does it? They could be an unbeliever for various reasons. They could be, as you suggest, not know anything about Christianity, or (in my case) we could be former Christians, who more often than not, have an extensive knowledge of Christianity.
So yeah...it might behoove you to try to understand things from the unbeliever's point of view, to care about how we interpret scripture. Back when I was a believer, I cared what atheists thought...it was what helped me realise the lack of substance in Christian claims.

[Yahu]

[Replying to post 30 by Yahu]

Uhh mate...you're in Christianity and Apologetics. NOT the Doctrine subforum.

I realize that but the OP brought this in from another thread in the TD&D subforum where he was posting to cause conflict and ridicule theology.

My question was why he was even posting in that subforum when he didn't meet the requirements of taking scripture as authoritative for debate in that subforum.

[Student]

Many readers presume that it was the "raised bodies" that subsequently came out of the graves [gravesites]

[font=Times New Roman]Why shouldn't they? It is the raised bodies of the saints that come out of the graves. And what is your justification for adding the word "gravesites"? Can you provide a reference from any lexicon supporting this interpretation of the word μνημεῖον; mnēmeion? Is there an ulterior motive? Is it, as I suspect, simply designed as an aid to your very singular interpretation of the Greek?

You clearly have an unconventional grasp of Greek. For example, you say: [/font]

In Greek all words have gender (feminine, masculine or neuter) which can be expressed in singular or plural forms.

[font=Times New Roman]
Quite simply this is untrue. Not all Greek words have gender. While participles [verbal nouns / verbal adjectives] might have gender [and case], Greek verbs, per se, do not; nor do adverbs, prepositions or particles.[/font]

In this language verbs must agree with the case (gender/number) of subject, this is done by changing the end of the verb.

[font=Times New Roman]This is so much nonsense. Case does not indicate gender or number. Case indicates whether the word is the subject [nominative], direct object [accusative] or indirect object [dative] of the verb, or showing possession [genitive]. Greek verbs agree with their subject in person and number, but do not indicate gender or case.
[/font]

So by looking at the end of the verb we can tell if one (or more than one) are performing the action and whether it was performed by lot of "shes" a lot of "hes" or a lot of "its".

[font=Times New Roman]Let's test your proposition. What gender is indicated by λέγει [legei]? Obviously, it's third person singular, but what gender? Let's examine two examles:

Mark 7:28 ἡ δὲ ἀπεκ�ίθη καὶ λέγει α�τῶ, κ��ιε, καὶ τὰ κυνά�ια ὑποκάτω τῆς τ�απέζης �σθίουσιν ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων τῶν παιδίων.

λέγει [legei] = she says

Matthew 4:10 τότε λέγει α�τῶ � ἰησοῦς, ὕπαγε, σατανᾶ· γέγ�απται γά�, κ��ιον τὸν θεόν σου π�οσκυνήσεις καὶ α�τῶ μόνῳ λατ�ε�σεις.

λέγει [legei] = he [Jesus] says
Notice, it is the same conjugation of the verb, but it is a different gender.

What do you suppose that indicates about your knowledge of Greek, and your ability to correctly interpret any particular text?
[/font]

In greek the word "bodies" (somata: σώματα) is neuter but the verbal adjective EKSELQONTES in verse 53 "came out of "/"came forth from" the graves (gravesite)is masculine. So whatever or whoever it was that came forth - verse 53 (and subsequently when on to the holy city), the language does NOT allow for them to be "the bodies".

[font=Times New Roman]You can only achieve this extraordinary misinterpretation by ignoring the bits that don't fit into your schema, in this case, the masculine plural "saints".

In Matthew 27:52 we are told not just that "bodies" were raised, but that it is the bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep that were raised. The word κεκοιμημένων [ kekoimēmen�n] [had fallen asleep] is a participle: plural, masculine, genitive case. The word it modifies must therefore also be plural, masculine, genitive case. We examine the verse and find τῶν �γίων [t�n hagi�n], the holy [ones], i.e. the saints, conforms exactly to this.

It is "the saints who had fallen asleep" that provide the masculine plural subject [genitive subjective] of the next verb ἠγέ�θησαν [ēgerthēsan] [aorist passive third person plural] "they were raised".

It is these resuscitated, masculine plural "saints" who provide the implied subject for the subsequent verse, including the participle �ξελθόντες [exelthontes] "coming out".

And, after "coming out" of their tombs, we find these freshly re-animated saints going walkabout round Jerusalem, and who, presumably having completed their perambulations, disappear, never to be seen, or spoken of again.
[/font]

[postroad]

[Replying to post 30 by Yahu]

Uhh mate...you're in Christianity and Apologetics. NOT the Doctrine subforum.

I realize that but the OP brought this in from another thread in the TD&D subforum where he was posting to cause conflict and ridicule theology.

My question was why he was even posting in that subforum when he didn't meet the requirements of taking scripture as authoritative for debate in that subforum.

What now? Wasn't I distorting the plain reading of the text or constantly calling into question the validity of the translation. How can debate with scripture as a basis even be possible if the translations are called into doubt at every point in which they conflict with a preheld bias.

I made a rude comment in a moment of exasperation and promptly brought the subject into the correct forum.

My question would be, If someone calls into question the validity of the translation are they not undermining the authority and validity of the text as a basis for debate?

And if so are they not themselves in violation of the rules?

[postroad]

Meant to post "it wasn't I".To late to edit.

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Clarification

General Information: If anyone sees need to edit their post after the edit time has expired they can send a PM to any Admin or Moderator to ask that a change be made.


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[JehovahsWitness]

the bodies did not appear unto many but rather fully human resurrected beings went into the city exactly as the author intended it to be understood.

# But doesn't the the participle [exelthontes] "coming out" (of verse 53) refer to "the saints" rather than "the bodies" of verse 52?

The most one can say is it implied but that reading is NOT imposed by the language nor is this the only one possible reading. Let's look at the sequence of events:

1. Earthquake
2. Bodies [of "saints" who had "Fallen asleep"] were "raised"

verse 53 >>

3. Plural masculines coming out/forth
4. Plural masculines going to Jebrusalem.

Firstly, the fact that the the masculine plural "saints" agrees with the the participle [ kekoimmen] [had fallen asleep] is of no help in identifying the subject of the verb "came out" which occurs in the following verse [53] ? Lets illustrate this, look at the sentences below:

The dogs (of the women that had recently been divorced) barked.
The bodies (of the saints who had Fallen asleep in death) were raised


NOTE: If we were speaking in a language where the subject had to agree with the verb, then naturally we would expect the noun "the women" to agree with the verb "divorced" (While "barked" would agree with "dogs"). But is this of any real help if there is a second sentence added. Let's see first in English staying with the illustration. Our new (illustrative) sentence is:

They chased the postman down the street.
They went into Jerrusalem.

Now this is the million dollar question. WHO chased the postman? The dog? The Women? Someone else that was neither the dog nor the women?

Firstly, just as we can eliminate "the bodies" because they verb and the subject do not agree in Greek, in English (in our example sentence) we can eliminate "the dog" because dog is singular and "they chased" is plural.

>> Okay, Wouldn't we naturally assume it would be "the women"?

That might seem like a reasonable assumption but not a forgone conclusion.

>> But, if neither the dog or the women could it have been other people?

Technically yes. There is nothing in the two sentences that eliminates that possibility.

So lets put all our examples together

The dog (of the women that had recently been divorced) barked.
They chased the postman down the street

The bodies (of the saints who had fellen asleep) were raised
They went forth ... into Jerusalem.

All we can really say (for certain) is

a) bodies were "raised" (see my earlier post for what this could mean) and
b) that SOMEBODY ("people") went into Jerusalem.

No more, no less. We cannot say for sure that those "people" where individuals that had previously been dead or whether they were people that simply had been present to witness the event. What then would be the most reasonable rendition for a translator? Leave the verse "neutral". (refering back to the illustration, don't say "the women chased the postman", certainly don't say "the dog chased the postman" don't even say "the previously divorced individuals" ... just (in English) conjugate the verb in plural "they" or refer to "people" and leave the reader to understand the verse has he so wishes. This is in fact was by far the majority of translations actually do, refering to "they' and NOT saying who "they" ARE since the writer of Matthew himself is not specific.
http://biblehub.com/matthew/27-53.htm

CONCLUSION: The verses in Matthew 27:52-53 are somewhat ambigious about WHO went into Jerusalem, it therefore unreasonable to be dogmatic about what the verse CANNOT possibly mean when those possibilities are an integral part of the text as it stands.




RELATED POSTS



Were corpes moved or bought back to life the day Jesus was executed?
viewtopic.php?p=775237#p775237

Was there a zombie apocalypse the day Jesus died ?
viewtopic.php?p=775340#p775340

Why did Jesus feel abandonned at his death?
viewtopic.php?p=933256#p933256

[postroad]

the bodies did not appear unto many but rather fully human resurrected beings went into the city exactly as the author intended it to be understood.

# But doesn't the the participle �ξελθόντες [exelthontes] "coming out" (of verse 53) refer to "the saints" rather than "the bodies" of verse 52?

The most one can say is it implied but that reading is NOT imposed by the language nor is this the only one possible reading. Let's look at the sequence of events:

1. Earthquake
2. Bodies [of "saints" who had "Fallen asleep"] were "raised"

verse 53 >>

3. Plural masculines coming out/forth
4. Plural masculines going to Jérusalem.

Firstly, the fact that the the masculine plural "saints" agrees with the the participle κεκοιμημένων [ kekoimēmen�n] [had fallen asleep] is of no help in identifying the subject of the verb "came out" which occurs in the following verse [53] ? Lets illustrate this, look at the sentences below:

The dogs (of the women that had recently been divorced) barked.
The bodies (of the saints who had Fallen asleep in death) were raised


NOTE: If we were speaking in a language where the subject had to agree with the verb, then naturally we would expect the noun "the women" to agree with the verb "divorced" (While "barked" would agree with "dogs"). But is this of any real help if there is a second sentence added. Let's see first in English staying with the illustration. Our new (illustrative) sentence is:

They chased the postman down the street.
They went into Jérusalem.

Now this is the million dollar question. WHO chased the postman? The dog? The Women? Someone else that was neither the dog nor the women?

Firstly, just as we can eliminate "the bodies" because they verb and the subject do not agree in Greek, in English (in our example sentence) we can eliminate "the dog" because dog is singular and "they chased" is plural.

>> Okay, Wouldn't we naturally assume it would be "the women"?

That might seem like a reasonable assumption but not a forgone conclusion.

>> But, if neither the dog or the women could it have been other people?

Technically yes. There is nothing in the two sentences that eliminates that possibility.

So lets put all our examples together

The dog (of the women that had recently been divorced) barked.
They chased the postman down the street

The bodies (of the saints who had fellen asleep) were raised
They went forth ... into Jérusalem.

All we can really say (for certain) is

a) bodies were "raised" (see my earlier post for what this could mean) and
b) that SOMEBODY ("people") went into Jerusalem.

No more, no less. We cannot say for sure that those "people" where individuals that had previously been dead or whether they were people that simply had been present to witness the event. What then would be the most reasonable rendition for a translator? Leave the verse "neutral". (refering back to the illustration, don't say "the women chased the postman", certainly don't say "the dog chased the postman" don't even say "the previously divorced individuals" ... just (in English) conjugate the verb in plural "they" or refer to "people" and leave the reader to understand the verse has he so wishes. This is in fact was by far the majority of translations actually do, refering to "they' and NOT saying who "they" ARE since the writer of Matthew himself is not specific.
http://biblehub.com/matthew/27-53.htm

CONCLUSION: The verses in Matthew 27:52-53 are somewhat ambigious about WHO went into Jérusalem, it therefore unreasonable to be dogmatic about what the verse CANNOT possibly mean when those possibilities are an integral part of the text as it stands.

Do you find it objectionable theologically if the saints who having been raised back from inanimate bodies back into personhood, being the people who went into Jerusalem and appeared unto many?

[PghPanther]

.
[Replying to post 1 by postroad]

“Creative interpretation� is often used by Apologists attempting to “explain� how irrational stories “might have happened�.

The point of debating against such tactics is to expose them as being transparent efforts to stretch credulity. Perhaps some Apologists actually believe the “explanations�; however, it is doubtful that they are convincing to readers who apply critical thinking, discernment, judgment to evaluate what is presented.

As mentioned elsewhere, a great deal of word play, amateur translations, and definition warping are employed in such “justification� efforts – and is not likely to escape notice of astute readers. Of course, it the audience is considered to be gullible and naïve, any story will do. I give readers more credit (and intend my comments for their evaluation rather than making any attempt to persuade debate opponents).

Atheist Christian Scholar (yes he refers to himself that way)......Dr. Robert Price often mentions this in his debates with theist as the idea making up an interpretation that is "possible".........and as Price says.......well yes anything is possible but that doesn't mean its true or even probable just that it has to tow the party line of what you believe in forces you to come up with that.

When I hear Christian apologists come up with answer of creative interpretation like that it reminds me of this..........

That old Saturday night live routine on TV.....where Jon Lovitz plays the pathological liar Tommy Flanagan and after pausing when being challenged on coming up with a true answer thinks and obviously makes up something on the spot and says....."yeah that's the ticket".

This is never more graphically illustrated than with the apologist that tries to defend Christ's yelling out on the Cross "My God why have you forsaken me?"........instead of having to deal with the fact that if Christ existed and really said this that it may be a realization that Christ really messed up about this whole messiah thing but instead they come up with.......

"well you see at that very moment on the cross Christ bore all the sins of mankind in all of human history and for that instance God had to turn away and remove himself from Christ's being and for that very moment Christ bore all the pain and sins of the world as just a human being and as a result he yelled this out".............

and in my mind every time I hear that theological excuse being used as a possibility I hear Jon Lovitz says, "yeah that's the ticket" thinking the apologist is thinking the same thing.

[PghPanther]

Another post in another thread which seems to belong in this thread


Yahu wrote

Spiritual things are discerned spiritually. One of the gifts of the Spirit is discernment of spirits. Those that have the gift can discern if teaching aligns with the agreement of the Holy Spirit or it is of some other spirit.

I have that gift and you don't want to know what spirits I sense coming from you. Your only purpose is to disrupt, undermine or discredit scripture.

The area of the study of prophecy isn't for the lay person anyway. Prophecy is to be interpreted and tested by other prophets. Once it is fulfilled, then the lay people will understand that it happened as prophesied. The unbeliever will get nothing from the bible because of the spiritual bondage they are in.

and neither do Christians when they can't get this spirit revelation in agreement with each other to the point with they point the heretical finger of hell to each other because all they cannot agree on the doctrine of this divine revelation........which results reeks of a reality with no personal God or revelation from such a proclaimed being.