So, are you categorically denying that the saints were raised and appeared physically to many in Jerusalem? I know you have offered some "possible" explanations, but if you harbor the possibility of the saints physically appearing, then please comment on the lack of Josephus' acknowledgment of the story. If you believe that the commonly accepted rendering of the passage is impossible, then you are of course relieved of any obligation to explain.
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. 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. 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. 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.
Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey
Quote:
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.
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. 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. 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. 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.
Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey
