Debating the Resurrection

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu —

I know Matthew 27: 51-53 may mean something else to conservatives Christians, but I am curious as to how the early Christians and Church Fathers who came into contact with this text would have thought, believed, remembered, and taught this text to mean...

"And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent. And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many."

The current theological reading of this text comes under the heading of a paratactic text, (from the Greek: 'the act of placing side by side') that is, one that refers (in this case obliquely) to another.

Matthew follows Mark in the description of the Crucifixion, but fills the text out with references from his rabinnic heritage (we hold the final redactor of Matthew was probably a well-educated Rabbi convert to Christianity — certainly a skilled writer in the Hebrew literary tradition, and the rabinnic method of argument, utilising many of their stock phrases). In this way Matthew continues his practice of showing the events in the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ fulfill the prophecies of Scripture.

This verse echoes the eschatalogical and apocalyptic vision of Scripture:
"Thy dead men shall live, my slain shall rise again: awake, and give praise, ye that dwell in the dust: for thy dew is the dew of the light" Isaias 26:19

"And he said to me: Prophesy concerning these bones; and say to them: Ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will send spirit into you, and you shall live." Ezekiel 37:4-5

"And many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake: some unto life everlasting, and others unto reproach, to see it always." Daniel 12:2.

This, according to my source (New Jerome Biblical Commentary and the NJB) was how the early church interpreted the verse, and the Fathers followed. A quick search of my own books have turned up nothing.

It's not unreasonable to assume the "holy city" spoken of is the Heavenly Jerusalem of the Apocalypse.

For sure, much, much more was made by the Fathers of the symbolism of the rending of the veil than of the opening of tombs.

My own semi-symbolic speculation:
Quite involved, but I (currently) believe that Satan hoped to bring Christ down before He achieved his Messianic mission, and assumed that by the Crucifixion he had achieved his objective — to separate man from God utterly and absolutely.

The darkness gathering over the land, from the sixth to the ninth hour, was all the evil in the Cosmos gathering in one place to take possession of the Crucified Saviour's mortal soul.

Jesus' cry, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" was, on one level, they cry of a fully human desperation, but again, in quoting the Psalm 21, is also an anthem of victory ... the Psalm ends:
"And to him my soul shall live: and my seed shall serve him. There shall be declared to the Lord a generation to come: and the heavens shall show forth his justice to a people that shall be born, which the Lord hath made" (21:31-32 — it's worth reading the whole Psalm).

The earthquake is a psychic event manifest in the material world, for the Resurrection involves the material as well as the spiritual ...

The rending of the veil, as I say, has produced reams of theological speculation. The opening of the tombs ... the risen dead following their Saviour into Paradise ... very little ...

I think, possibly as the Fathers thought, that in that single and singular moment in the cataclysmic history of the Cosmos, anything was possible, so I wouldn't rule it out.

So there must be some other explanation that Christians who believe in the material resurrection of Jesus must believe this verse to mean.

Not sure what you're getting at here?

Thomas

 

[mee]

I have a quick question for Thomas and anyone who is interested.

I know Matthew 27: 51-53 may mean something else to conservatives Christians, but I am curious as to how the early Christians and Church Fathers who came into contact with this text would have thought, believed, remembered, and taught this text to mean. Some quotes from them would be nice. These saints, who lived according to God's will, were raised from the dead. Matthew implies that Jesus' resurrection had begun the events of the last days, so the general resurrection had just begun. Also, Paul commented that Jesus was the "first" to rise (Colossians 1:18). Resurrected people do not die. So there must be some other explanation that Christians who believe in the material resurrection of Jesus must believe this verse to mean. It seems to be a good point in the "will the real Jesus stand up?" debate, yet William Craig only seems to say that conservatives do not take this verse as historical, and then makes no other comment on it confused.

The moment Jesus breathes his last, a violent earthquake occurs, splitting open the rock-masses

When an earthquake happens it can move the ground so much that the graves can show the dead bodies

when the verse says that they then went to the holy city it was not meaning the dead bodies it was refering to those who were around at the time in the grave yard, it was not meaning the dead bodies went anywhere.

they were raised up out of the ground because of the earthquake it is not refering to the resurrection of dead bodies ,




(Matthew 27:51-53) And, look! the curtain of the sanctuary was rent in two, from top to bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rock-masses were split. 52 And the memorial tombs were opened and many bodies of the holy ones that had fallen asleep were raised up,
53
(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.




Passersby who see the dead bodies that have been exposed enter the city and report it.


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)


This view of the event harmonizes with Bible teachings.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, the apostle Paul gives convincing proof of the resurrection, but he completely ignores Matthew 27:52, 53.

So do all other Bible writers. (Acts 2:32, 34) The corpses raised up at Jesus’ death could not have come to life in the way Epiphanius thought, for on the third day thereafter, Jesus became "the firstborn from the dead." (Colossians 1:18)

Anointed Christians, also called "holy ones," were promised a share in the first resurrection during Christ’s presence, not in the first century.—1 Thessalonians 3:13; 4:14-17.

 

[Thomas]

when the verse says that they then went to the holy city it was not meaning the dead bodies it was refering to those who were around at the time in the grave yard, it was not meaning the dead bodies went anywhere.

Really? Isn't that something of a narrative leap? There's no mention of passersby in the text, so this is obviously your own narrative fabrication ...

I suggest your scholars missed the point, and have been obliged to invent a plausable explanation — but that's not what the text says.

Let me repeat, Matthew's text draws on OT parallels to affirm that Jesus is the Lord. And again — who are we to say what God can do, and cannot do?

+++

In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, the apostle Paul gives convincing proof of the resurrection, but he completely ignores Matthew 27:52, 53.

Er ... maybe because Matthew hadn't been written yet?

We can date 1 Corinthians to 57AD. This text of Matthew was composed after Mark, so after 70AD — probably towards the latter half of 90AD ... seems the more likely reason to me.

The corpses raised up at Jesus’ death could not have come to life in the way Epiphanius thought, for on the third day thereafter, Jesus became "the firstborn from the dead." (Colossians 1:18)

So what about Lazarus, raised from the dead ... or the Son of the widow of Nain ... or Jairus' daughter ... or what about Elijah raising the dead child (1 Kings 17:17-24) or Elisha doing the same (2 Kings 4:18-37) ... or the Prophets who 'walk with God' Enoch and Elijah ... or how can Moses and Elijah appear with Christ in the Transfiguration?

So either the Gospels are wrong, or St Paul is wrong, or you're interpretation is wrong ...

Thomas

 

[mee]

We can date 1 Corinthians to 57AD. This text of Matthew was composed after Mark, so after 70AD — probably towards the latter half of 90AD ... seems the more likely reason to me.



Thomas

MATTHEW .....Writing Completed: c. 41 C.E.
Time Covered: 2 B.C.E.–33 C.E.

1 CORINTHIANS​

Writing Completed: c. 55 C.E.

 

[mee]

So what about Lazarus, raised from the dead ... or the Son of the widow of Nain ... or Jairus' daughter ... or what about Elijah raising the dead child (1 Kings 17:17-24) or Elisha doing the same (2 Kings 4:18-37) ... or the Prophets who 'walk with God' Enoch and Elijah ... or how can Moses and Elijah appear with Christ in the Transfiguration?

So either the Gospels are wrong, or St Paul is wrong, or you're interpretation is wrong ...

Thomas

On the third day following his violent death on a torture stake Jehovah raised him (JESUS)from the dead, not as a corruptible human whose body can waste away, but as an immortal spirit creature. Regarding this the apostle Peter wrote: "For Christ himself died once for all, for sin, an upright man for unrighteous men, to bring us to God, and was physically put to death, but he was made alive in the spirit."—1 Pet. 3:18, AT.


Lazurus died again so did the others , they did not have what Jesus had imortality


Being the first of Jehovah’s creatures to receive immortality, he was, at the time the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, the only creature possessing it.


the one alone having immortality,

1 Tim. 6:15, 16.



and the transfigaration is not what you think

 

[Thomas]

Hi Mee —

MATTHEW Writing Completed: c. 41 C.E.
1 CORINTHIANS Writing Completed: c. 55 C.E.

No, I don't think that can be right. The text of Matthew we have today was composed after Mark, as most of Mark is repeated in Matthew.

Mark was written in Rome, and from the internal evidence is placed probably in the latter half of the 60s ... so Matthew must be later than that.

If you have evidence to suggest Matthew was completed by 41AD, I'd be interested to know what it is.

Thomas

 

[mee]

Hi Mee —




If you have evidence to suggest Matthew was completed by 41AD, I'd be interested to know what it is.

Thomas

Matthew wrote his account in Palestine. The exact year is not known, but subscriptions at the end of some manuscripts (all later than the tenth century C.E.) say that it was 41 C.E. There is evidence to indicate that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in the popular Hebrew of the time and later translated it into Greek.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Mee —

You haven't addressed the question. How does a Gospel, written c60AD — Marks — appear in its entirely in a Gospel you say was written in 41AD?

Matthew wrote his account in Palestine.

I follow most scholars and place the author in Judea, but there are others who locate him from Antioch or Edessa, down through Tyre and Sidon, Judea, and on to Alexandria in Egypt.

The exact year is not known, but subscriptions at the end of some manuscripts (all later than the tenth century C.E.) say that it was 41 C.E.

I don't know to what texts you're referring, but again, as they would have to refer to the same sources we have, I don't see how they can make that claim.

I'd love it to be 41AD, but I just can't make that fit the facts.

All we know for sure is that there was a Greek Gospel of Matthew in existence by 110AD because Ignatius of Antioch refers to it.

There is evidence to indicate that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in the popular Hebrew of the time and later translated it into Greek.

That all traces back to Papias (125AD) who says "Matthew compiled the Sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could".

There is no evidence however that Matthew translated that document into Greek.

I follow the hypothesis that Matthew the disciple compiled a document of sayings, the Beatitudes, for instance, which a later scribe, utilising Mark for a timeline, and oral tradition, wove the whole thing together, and that is the Greek Gospel we now have. But the original Aramaic Matthew is no longer extant.

Anyway, I think we can reliably say 41AD is really way too early.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Mee —

... not as a corruptible human whose body can waste away, but as an immortal spirit creature.

Well, we must tread carefully here, Scripture is quite explicit on the fact that Jesus Christ rose in the body ... just to clarify that point for anyone who might be led astray. But yes, His body was immortal and incorruptible, among other things.

If you read 1 Peter beyond your citation, it says "and, in spirit, he went to preach to the spirits in prison" which is where we found our belief that He descended into hell prior to the Resurrection ...

Lazurus died again so did the others, they did not have what Jesus had imortality

I know. That's because He took on mortality to save us ... that's how it works.

And again, as the Gospels and St Paul and others testify, it is by Jesus we are saved, in Him we are saved, through Him we are saved ... and if Jesus is not God, how dare He claim the authority of God, and the power of God, as His?

Nobody would suggest 'faith' in Jesus can save us if Jesus is not God — the Prophets of Israel never said "believe in me", and nor would a good Jew profess to believe in anyone other than God, why would they? That's why Saul of Tarsus was so intent in tracking down the Christians.

To have faith in anyone other than God is blasphemy ... unless they thought Jesus was God.

Being the first of Jehovah’s creatures to receive immortality, he was, at the time the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, the only creature possessing it.

Well, that's your tradition — Jesus is not a creature in mine, nor is He a creature in Scripture. The idea that Jesus was a creature ... not quite man, not quite God ... was sorted long, long ago.

and the transfiguration is not what you think

I think it is what Scripture says it is.

So are you going to tell me where Scripture is wrong about that, too?

Thomas

 

[mee]

I think it is what Scripture says it is.



Thomas

very true
the one alone having immortality,



Lit., "deathlessness." Gr., a·tha·na·si´an; Lat., in·mor·ta·li·ta´tem.



after lazurus was resurrected he died again ,but not Jesus

 

[mee]

Hi Mee —

You haven't addressed the question. How does a Gospel, written c60AD — Marks — appear in its entirely in a Gospel you say was written in 41AD?



Thomas

Writer: Mark
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed: c. 60–65 C.E.
Time Covered: 29–33 C.E. ​

Writer: Matthew
Place Written: Palestine
Writing Completed: c. 41 C.E.
Time Covered: 2 B.C.E.–33 C.E. ​

Writer: Luke
Place Written: Caesarea
Writing Completed: c. 56–58 C.E.
Time Covered: 3 B.C.E.–33 C.E. ​

Writer: Apostle John
Place Written: Ephesus or near
Writing Completed: c. 98 C.E.
Time Covered: After prologue, 29–33 C.E.​

 

[Thomas]

very true
the one alone having immortality,

There you go, you agree, and then invent texts and meanings where there isn't one.

Wisdom 6:19
"And the care of discipline is love: and love is the keeping of her laws: and the keeping of her laws is the firm foundation of incorruption: And incorruption bringeth near to God."

Romans 2:7
"To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life"

1 Corinthians 15:42, 50, 53-54:
"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption.

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God: neither shall corruption possess incorruption.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality. And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory."

Ephesians 6:24 "
Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption. Amen"

2 Timothy 1:10
"But is now made manifest by the illumination of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath destroyed death, and hath brought to light life and incorruption by the gospel"

And you still haven't addressed the questions that point to your erroneous interpretations of Scripture.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Writer: Mark
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed: c. 60–65 C.E.
Time Covered: 29–33 C.E. ​

Writer: Matthew
Place Written: Palestine
Writing Completed: c. 41 C.E.
Time Covered: 2 B.C.E.–33 C.E. ​

Writer: Luke
Place Written: Caesarea
Writing Completed: c. 56–58 C.E.
Time Covered: 3 B.C.E.–33 C.E. ​

Writer: Apostle John
Place Written: Ephesus or near
Writing Completed: c. 98 C.E.
Time Covered: After prologue, 29–33 C.E.​

No, simply repeating what has been demonstrated to be wrong is not an answer, all it shows is that you're clinging to something that has been shown to be erroneous, and you simply shut your eyes and ignore the evidence, and continue to plough your own furrow. You are free to do so, but don't expect anyone to follow you.

Thomas

 

[17th Angel]

Lazarus.... Why was he raised from the dead? What did Lazarus have to do? Was their a purpose/reason for Lazarus to walk on this Earth again? If this is a temporary state, then surley it would of been in Lazarus' interest to stay in gods memory til judgement day?

Or was it simply, jesus had lost a friend so used his skills to raise the man from death? But, if he were perfect, why didn't god tell jesus to raises those that could assist and make the place better? Instead of one of his chums? I just find it very curious to what the point is behind that story.

 

[Thomas]

Lazarus.... Why was he raised from the dead?

Why does anything happen in Scripture? That all might be fulfilled.

It was with the news of the resurrection of Lazarus that the authorities decided that Jesus must die.

Thomas

 

[17th Angel]

So that was the needed last nail in the coffin?

 

[wil]

It was with the news of the resurrection of Lazarus that the authorities decided that Jesus must die.

Namaste Thomas, where do I read this?

 

[Ahanu]

Mee, Paul ignores Matthew 27: 51-53 because the book of Matthew was not yet written, so he does not know about it.

Thomas, liberals and conservatives take Matthew 27: 51-53 to mean two different things. Liberals say that it is a parable, but conservatives, from what I have read, are unsure.

I liked the quotes you took from the Old Testament that Matthew could have used as a backdrop for his story. I thought Ezekiel 37: 4-5 was originally speaking to the exiles [them].

Ezekiel 37: 6-8 goes on to say:

I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.
So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.

Also, I was thinking that if Lazarus was resurrected, then he would still be alive, unless he ascended to heaven with Jesus at His bodily ascension, as I have read online that St. Augustine believed. It is as simple as that.


Perhaps it was not a resurrection. Either Lazarus was really resuscitated or it was a parable, according to the early Christians. This is why he is no longer around or it did not really happen, just as the parable of the Good Samaritan is not historical.

I do have another speculation.

Why is it that when Jesus is debating the resurrection, He says that the resurrection is proven because scripture says that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? What kind of proof is this?! "When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching." Did I miss something? I am trying to picture myself in the crowd that is listening to Jesus prove the Sadducees wrong. Well, “He is the God of the living, not the dead,” says Jesus (Matthew 22: 31-32). So was Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob already believed to be resurrected? How about Moses? See the transfiguration, for instance. Moreover, in Luke 16: 19-31 there appears to be a belief that Abraham is not dead. He tells people “if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” After a dead person physically rises from the dead, who would not be convinced?! I assume that Abraham has already overcome death, or do they have to wait for the end just like everybody else? It just does not seem to fit with the belief that the resurrection is only an end-of-time event.

 

[mee]

Lazarus.... Why was he raised from the dead? What did Lazarus have to do? Was their a purpose/reason for Lazarus to walk on this Earth again? If this is a temporary state, then surley it would of been in Lazarus' interest to stay in gods memory til judgement day?

Or was it simply, jesus had lost a friend so used his skills to raise the man from death? But, if he were perfect, why didn't god tell jesus to raises those that could assist and make the place better? Instead of one of his chums? I just find it very curious to what the point is behind that story.

Jesus showed on a small scale how with power from God great things can be acomplished ,it was to show how the power of God was working though Jesus .

 

[mee]

Mee, “He is the God of the living, not the dead,” says Jesus (Matthew 22: 31-32).

He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him."

it makes no difference to God if a person dies because he has the power to resurrect them.