Yuku free message boards

Franciscan Monkey~

FM: ... "certainly he [Josephus] would have mentioned formerly dead people arising out of their graves and walking around a city, don't you think? That hardly falls under the "earthquake and meteorological phenomena" category."

In case I wasn't altogether clear, one of the points of my post was that the statement about the bodies of the Jerusalem saints being "raised" didn't necessarily mean that they were resurrected (contra the NIV's paraphrase, "raised to life" -- the words "to life" aren't in the Greek text); it is capable of meaning that the saints' bodies were exposed to view from observers on the surface. Another point was that the statement about the saints' entrance into the holy city and their appearance unto many doesn't necessarily describe bodily entrances into the earthly Jerusalem; it may be a reference to their transition from Sheol to Paradise -- and if "the holy city" *does* refer to the earthly city of Jerusalem, their "appearances" were not necessarily visible to everyone, but to people to whom they briefly visited by way of dreams and visions.

Taken this way, there's clearly no reason why Josephus would mention what he would understand to be the vivid dreams of people who had been living in Jerusalem in A.D. 30.


Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

Franciscan Monkey ~

FM: "So, are you categorically denying that the saints were raised and appeared physically to many in Jerusalem?"

Yes. (Even though I wouldn't say that such an interpretation can be disproven, if you're asking me if I think that Matthew intended to say that the dead bodies of saints got out of their tombs and walked around the earthly city of Jerusalem and appeared to many people, my answer is no.) The bodies of some of the saints in Jerusalem were raised and were exposed to the surface as a result of the earthquake. The saints' "appearance unto many" in the holy city is either a reference to their arrival in heavenly glory after waiting around in Sheol, or (if "the holy city" = the earthly Jerusalem) to manifestations in dreams and visions.

FM: "You admit, at the least, that the physical bodies of the saints raised out of the ground and were visible, even if they were not resurrected, or alive, or animated in any sense."

Yes.

FM: "Then you propose that the writer switches gears, and instead of referring to the physical bodies of the saints, is suddenly talking about them as spirits, or as characters in dreams or visions."

Yes. The author plainly refers to two separate events: one happening concurrently with the earthquake, and another not taking place unto after Jesus' own arising.

FM: "You based this reasoning on words that could have different meanings, and decide to go with those alternate meanings against what would be a clear reading of the text."

The text does not make perspicuous what the "holy city" is, or what Matthew had in mind when he said that they "appeared" to many. If Matthew wished to mention that the tombs of some Old Testament saints in the vicinity of Jerusalem were disturbed by the earthquake, and that these Old Testament saints, as Christ gathered them from Sheol into Paradise, briefly visited many people in dreams and visions after Christ's arising, I figure he could easily say so in the way in which he does say something in this passage.

FM: "Please see my "Better, but still not quite there" response in the other thread, if you haven't already, to see why the use of anistemi would not have clarified the passage at all."

I did, and I hereby agree that neither verb would automatically settle the question of whether the bodies were "raised out of the tombs" or "raised to life."

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock