Do you believe in zombies?

[Zymologist]

LOL, look at all these stupid Christians who believe in zombies.

[Cow Poke]

I would just like to point out for future reference from which of us it is that the insults and incivility originates.

I have been incredibly patient with you, Jim - you're the one who started the accusation that I was being disingenuous. You're going to see what you want to see, so...

[Sparko]

I give up. Believe what you want. I have asked repeatedly for you to provide the actual text, but all you do is repeat the same thing over and over and only provide your own "version". Troll on!

So JimL thinks they were resurrected when Jesus died and then sat around in their tombs for three days before coming out when Jesus was resurrected?

He will twist and turn so much to not just admit he was wrong. It is hilarious to watch.

[Sparko]

It actually would make a difference in light of Jesus being "the first-fruit" of resurrection.

All of this is so silly anyways. Jim is trolling and we all know it.

He was the first to be raised in Glory. Others had been raised to life before his resurrection, like Lazarus. But they then lived out their natural lives and died like all men do.

[mossrose]

He was the first to be raised in Glory. Others had been raised to life before his resurrection, like Lazarus. But they then lived out their natural lives and died like all men do.

Yeah. I sort of said that later on.

[Adrift]

I don't know. Ive read both explanations. Jesus would not be first-fruit, in my mind, if they were glorified.

I tend toward a resurrection into an earthly body that died again later, like Lazarus.

Yeah, same.

[Cow Poke]

So JimL thinks they were resurrected when Jesus died and then sat around in their tombs for three days before coming out when Jesus was resurrected?

His argument has shifted, and I've lost track.

He will twist and turn so much to not just admit he was wrong. It is hilarious to watch.

I was just surprised how much of this he got wrong.

[Sparko]

His argument has shifted, and I've lost track.



I was just surprised how much of this he got wrong.

He obviously didn't come up with this on his own but is parroting someone else on an atheist website, and didn't bother to actually read the verses in question.

[Cow Poke]

He obviously didn't come up with this on his own but is parroting someone else on an atheist website, and didn't bother to actually read the verses in question.

I think that's pretty apparent.

[Teallaura]

I think if you read the whole thing in context, from the death of Jesus to the resurrection of Jesus, from Matthew 27:50 on thru Matthew 28 you will find that 27:52 is not taken out of chronological order. It's clear that Jesus death coincided with an earthquake, and its also clear that his resurrection coincided with an earthquake. And the circumstances surrounding the two events differ so there should be no mistaking the one event from the other. But I understand that people will make of it what they will, so we will just have to agree to disagree on that

Given context and the clause, I think 27:52 is probably a parenthetical - that fits contextually and with the other synoptics. Greek didn't use punctuation much if at all (none that I remember reading about) and there are places where that complicates translation - this most like is one of those. My guess is that had parenthesis been invented 2000 years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That's not 'making whatever I want' out of it - it's applying knowledge and reason to the problem.

There is a rational case for your view - but here we both have the same limitation that we have to work from an English translation and Matt got wordy in a bad spot. If that's the reading you think is correct that's perfectly fine - just realize it's not self-evident and therefore other views are not necessarily invalid.

But my original question concerned resurrection in general, whether christians actually believed that dead corpses were raised, physically fully intact, or did they believe that the resurrection was a spiritual event. Many seem to believe its a spiritual resurrection, but this passage in Matthew would seem to contradict that idea.

Orthodox (little o if it weren't at the beginning of the sentence) Christianity accepts the physical resurrection of the saints. Here, the question is type of physical resurrection - most of us going with the non-glorified version (glorified bodies don't later die). Very few Christians buy 'spiritual resurrection' although it is an attractive idea to those who want to harmonize Christianity with naturalism. Most Christians here are orthodox and do not accept spiritual resurrection.

[One Bad Pig]

I love you, too, brother. But Jesus cleared the temple out, twice, with a scourge. And He condemned the religious leaders for their hypocrisy and their terrible dealings with widows and orphans. Over and over again He condemned them for their corruption and evil ways.

Absolutely. Those he cleared out were not abiding by the law, but twisting the letter for their own financial gain. He condemned the religious leaders for their hypocrisy, not for the law they were to follow. Note that he did not condemn the Pharisees for following the law (indeed, he commended it), but for their hypocrisy (Mat. 23:23).

This incident was no different.

This is where we highly disagree. He notedly did not condemn the system in that passage, was circumcised under the system, was presented in the temple under the system, and sent the lepers he healed to be verified clean by the system. He did not come to destroy the system, but to fullfil it (Mat. 5:17). Paul also refused to condemn the law, merely pointing out that it could not of itself save.

My notions are not preconceived, but have come with study and, yes, prayer, for the Spirit to give me understanding of His word.

Perhaps you should take a look at what others have said about the passage. I have admittedly not read many commentaries on Matthew, but I have never seen your POV expounded before. It seems to be a reading into the text, and rather fly in the face of evidence elsewhere.

(I intended to get to this earlier, but my computer froze mid-post and I had to move on to other things.)

[mossrose]

Absolutely. Those he cleared out were not abiding by the law, but twisting the letter for their own financial gain. He condemned the religious leaders for their hypocrisy, not for the law they were to follow. Note that he did not condemn the Pharisees for following the law (indeed, he commended it), but for their hypocrisy (Mat. 23:23).

This is where we highly disagree. He notedly did not condemn the system in that passage, was circumcised under the system, was presented in the temple under the system, and sent the lepers he healed to be verified clean by the system. He did not come to destroy the system, but to fullfil it (Mat. 5:17). Paul also refused to condemn the law, merely pointing out that it could not of itself save.

Perhaps you should take a look at what others have said about the passage. I have admittedly not read many commentaries on Matthew, but I have never seen your POV expounded before. It seems to be a reading into the text, and rather fly in the face of evidence elsewhere.

(I intended to get to this earlier, but my computer froze mid-post and I had to move on to other things.)

Wow, OB One! Jim amened you! What an honour!

I have no disagreements with you on Jesus' upbringing under the law, but the condemnation of the religious leaders and their corruption of the Mosaic covenant is rife throughout the gospels.

There is no overt reading of that point in this incident, but taken with the whole of scripture, it can be presumed that, although Jesus may be commending the woman for her piety, His pointing it out to the disciples also speaks to the horrendous state of the poor in that system, preyed upon by the religious leaders.

You can take the lesson of sacrificial giving if you like, and that is not wrong. However, the reverse side of that point is the sanctimonious and prideful giving of the Pharisees.

Gosh, I wish Jim would amen me sometime.

[Christianbookworm]

Hmm... back to the horrible situation in Haiti where people are ruled by fear, the power of the Holy Spirit beats the power of demons. So, do not be afraid!

[mossrose]

Thank you, Jim!

You made my day!

[JimL]

So JimL thinks they were resurrected when Jesus died and then sat around in their tombs for three days before coming out when Jesus was resurrected?

No, I don't think that at all, but I do think that's what it says. What do you suppose happened to them anyway? What do you think they did at the holy city, did they physically ascend up to heaven?