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."
WR: "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."
The phrase "after his resurrection" is considered by many biblical scholars as an interpolation. Even if it isn't, the subject, "many bodies of the saints," doesn't change. There is no reason to think that he is referring to spirits here.
WR: "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."
Although it is not impossible that Matthew was referring to a heavenly Jerusalem, it is very unlikely, given the proximity of the earthly Jerusalem to the alleged crucifixion and his prior use of the term "holy city" to refer to an earthly Jerusalem in Matthew 4. Again, the "appeared" part refers to the bodies of the saints, there has been no change in subject or mention at all of spirits, dreams, visions, or the like. It is also obvious that "many" refers to people, as there is no mention of angels or other heavenly beings, and would be congruous with an eyewitness account.
WR: "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."
Only if he wanted to do so in a convoluted, confusing way that would only be believed by those adamantly clinging to biblical inerrancy. It is preposterous that you believe it, Waterrock, given the text, but when I was a Christian apologist I believed in many things just as crazy as that, so I can't blame you.
Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey
WR: "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."
The phrase "after his resurrection" is considered by many biblical scholars as an interpolation. Even if it isn't, the subject, "many bodies of the saints," doesn't change. There is no reason to think that he is referring to spirits here.
WR: "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."
Although it is not impossible that Matthew was referring to a heavenly Jerusalem, it is very unlikely, given the proximity of the earthly Jerusalem to the alleged crucifixion and his prior use of the term "holy city" to refer to an earthly Jerusalem in Matthew 4. Again, the "appeared" part refers to the bodies of the saints, there has been no change in subject or mention at all of spirits, dreams, visions, or the like. It is also obvious that "many" refers to people, as there is no mention of angels or other heavenly beings, and would be congruous with an eyewitness account.
WR: "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."
Only if he wanted to do so in a convoluted, confusing way that would only be believed by those adamantly clinging to biblical inerrancy. It is preposterous that you believe it, Waterrock, given the text, but when I was a Christian apologist I believed in many things just as crazy as that, so I can't blame you.
Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey
