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.

[JehovahsWitness]

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?

Do YOU find it objectionable theologically if observers who witnesses inanimate bodies expulsed from tombs (by an earthquake) were the people who went into Jerusalem?

JW

[Zzyzx]

.

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?

Do YOU find it objectionable theologically if observers who witnesses inanimate bodies expulsed from tombs (by an earthquake) were the people who went into Jerusalem?

Question dodge noted by readers.

Since I do not think "theologically", I find ALL "interpretations" and the tale itself to be incredible / beyond belief / fable / legend / fiction / religion promotion. I would consider myself very gullible and naive to accept such things as truthful and accurate (no matter how much effort is put into massaging the tale to make it seem reasonable).

Why would anyone believe such tales when they know that such things do not happen in the real world?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by postroad]

I saw a documentary on this. It was called "Weekend At Bernie's"...

It's funny how that passage never comes up in conversation. It's like people just want to forget that it is in the Bible...

I believe it was an attempt to show fulfillment of prophecy.

Ezekiel 37:13-15New International Version (NIV)

13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’�

That's a logical hypothesis. The writers of the NT were quick to fulfill things said in the OT, and this could be another example of that.

It may have also been an attempt to show that the gates of heaven were now open for business, and all those who died but were in "purgatory" could now move on (if I remember my catholic grade school upbringing rig anyways)...

[Student]

I believe it was an attempt to show fulfillment of prophecy.

Ezekiel 37:13-15New International Version (NIV)

13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’�

I think you come very close to hitting the nail on the head. According to Nestle-Aland, Matthew 27:52 contains allusions to:

Ezekiel 37:12 [NRSV] Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord God: I am going to open your graves, and bring you up from your graves, O my people; and I will bring you back to the land of Israel.

Isaiah 26:19 Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a radiant dew, and the earth will give birth to those long dead

Daniel 12:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Wasn't he an assiduous soul, our Matty.

[JLB32168]

I basically debate theology for two reasons. I want to expose other Christians to theological interpretations of which many Christians in the East are unaware. I also like to clear up what I classify as “bad� theology.

For the skeptic, I don’t debate him/her to convince him I’m right. I debate in those cases to expose what are usually fallacious arguments. I also debate to debunk the often proffered assertion that disabuse of religion for atheistic secularism is our panacea. Yes – that argument is routinely brought to the table by atheists (many but not all) – protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

[postroad]

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?

Do YOU find it objectionable theologically if observers who witnesses inanimate bodies expulsed from tombs (by an earthquake) were the people who went into Jerusalem?

JW

Being agnostic I do not really hold a theological position but rather test theological positions.

I find it difficult to believe that the author had no theological implication intended in this text, having placed it at the culmination of Christ's purpose on earth.

I and others have shown textually what that could have been.

You insist that it must be considered neutral due to some grammatical difficulties which others have shown to be non existent.

Neither have you supported textually why such a resurrection would be problematic to Christian doctrine.

Which leaves me more and more curious as to what difficulties this text presents to the Jehovah's Witness position in particular.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 44 by Student]

Why would anyone "massage the data" to make their story fit earlier stories-- unless it did not fit?

Evidently Jewish people who told the original stories don't think the new "interpretations" and characters are genuine.

Tangled webs?

[JehovahsWitness]

I find it difficult to believe that the author had no theological implication intended in this text

The intention of the author (any author) can only be assumed, it would be presumptious to for you or anyone to be dogmatic on this. A discussion on the theological intentions of the author would be interesting but since we are in C&A and not in theology & dogma it is not one that I will engage in.

You insist that it must be considered neutral due to some grammatical difficulties.

I have not "insisted" on any theological conclusion. I have simply presented some facts about the grammatical structure of the verses and proposed that the majority of English translations have presented the verses in an accurate way which happens not to not be conclusive as to subject (s) of the verbs in verse 53

The rules governing greek grammar or that of any language cannot reasonably considered be "problematic" they simply are what they are, but they can present some challenges when translating from one language to another. Matthew 27:52, 53 is considered to be one of the most challenging verses in the Christian Greek scriptures to translate but in itself is not theologically problematic for anyone seeking to understand the bible's overal harmony.

Which leaves me more and more curious as to what difficulties this text presents to the Jehovah's Witness position in particular.

See above.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

[Danmark]

For the skeptic, I don’t debate him/her to convince him I’m right. I debate in those cases to expose what are usually fallacious arguments. I also debate to debunk the often proffered assertion that disabuse of religion for atheistic secularism is our panacea. Yes – that argument is routinely brought to the table by atheists (many but not all) – protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

I think that is an excellent approach, "I don’t debate him/her to convince him I’m right. I debate in those cases to expose what are usually fallacious arguments. " It's helpful to just go after the faulty logic, or false claims upon which such arguments are based. For example:

"The often proffered assertion that disabuse of religion for atheistic secularism is our panacea," is a claim offered without evidence. Adding "protests to the contrary notwithstanding," is a make weight claim that is meaningless, tho' it is offered as if sprinkling magic powder over an argument makes it impervious to criticism.

MY claim is that the number 1 argument atheists make is that there is no evidence for the claim of God's existence, or other claims of the supernatural. I have NEVER heard an atheist, or anyone else, claim "atheistic secularism is our panacea." Never.

Rather, I have frequently heard cogent arguments, based on specific facts, that this or that act of terror, murder, denial of civil rights, or war, stems in large part to specific religious beliefs. There is no 'panacea' to society's ills. Removing each cancerous belief, whether religious or not, is merely one example of many for improving society. Simplistic political and economic ideologies, as well as some religious beliefs represent only some of the causes of social problems.

As for panaceas, If everyone really did act like they loved their neighbor, that might be one.

___________________________
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. "
_ Mohandas K. Gandhi [possibly]

[postroad]

I find it difficult to believe that the author had no theological implication intended in this text

The intention of the author (any author) can only be assumed, it would be presumptious to for you or anyone to be dogmatic on this. A discussion on the theological intentions of the author would be interesting but since we are in C&A and not in theology & dogma it is not one that I will engage in.

You insist that it must be considered neutral due to some grammatical difficulties.

I have not "insisted" on any theological conclusion. I have simply presented some facts about the grammatical structure of the verses and proposed that the majority of English translations have presented the verses in an accurate way which happens not to not be conclusive as to subject (s) of the verbs in verse 53

The rules governing greek grammar or that of any language cannot reasonably considered be "problematic" they simply are what they are, but they can present some challenges when translating from one language to another. Matthew 27:52, 53 is considered to be one of the most challenging verses in the Christian Greek scriptures to translate but in itself is not theologically problematic for anyone seeking to understand the bible's overal harmony.

Which leaves me more and more curious as to what difficulties this text presents to the Jehovah's Witness position in particular.

See above.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

I do not know any Greek so I had to do some research on the subject.

First off the evidence suggests that this text was accepted by the Church Fathers from the beginning and was understood to mean the saints be raised to life. Furthermore the word raised is used elsewhere to indicate a raising from the dead.

Matthew uses the same Greek term egeiro (“raised�) to describe Jesus’ resurrection just a few verses later in 28:7 (“He has risen from the dead�). This same term also describes Jesus’ resurrection in Acts 10:40 (“God raised Him on the third day�) and 1 Corinthians 15:14 (“If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain�)

Are you indicating that the Church Fathers spoke presumptuously and their opinions on the text be discounted?