Do you believe in zombies?

[JimL]

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!

The texts all say the same thing CP, so you're just being disingenuous. There are 2 quakes, one upon jesus death and the saints resurrection, and one after the sabbath upon jesus resurrection.

[Cow Poke]

The texts all say the same thing CP, so you're just being disingenuous.

I don't think you know what that word means.

There are 2 quakes, one upon jesus death and the saints resurrection, and one after the sabbath upon jesus resurrection.

Like I said, troll on!

[rogue06]

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!

Always a red flag when someone keeps refuses to cite the readily available text but insists on providing their interpretation of what it says instead.

[Teallaura]

There are obviously 2 earthquakes CP, the saints are resurrected at jesus death (Matthew 27:51-52) during the first earthquake, "the tombs were opened and the bodies of many saints were raised." Jesus isn't resurrected until three days later after the sabbath (Matthew 28:2) during the second earthquake when the women came back to see the tomb. Yes it says they came out of their tombs after jesus resurrection, but it clearly says that they were resurrected prior to his resurrection.

The passage doesn't support two earthquakes. I do see why you think the resurrections are before Christ's but I suspect this is an artifact of the Greek - the clause appears much later than an English clause normally would.

Theologically, this is a non-issue - if you think they were raised and stayed in their tombs until after Christ was raised, fine. Seems silly to me on a couple other bases but it isn't significant to the doctrine. Even if we assume you're correct - so what? it does no harm to the doctrine of resurrection that there were some strangely raised saints who were extraordinarily patient.

[JimL]

I don't think you know what that word means.



Like I said, troll on!

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

[mossrose]

The passage doesn't support two earthquakes. I do see why you think the resurrections are before Christ's but I suspect this is an artifact of the Greek - the clause appears much later than an English clause normally would.

Theologically, this is a non-issue - if you think they were raised and stayed in their tombs until after Christ was raised, fine. Seems silly to me on a couple other bases but it isn't significant to the doctrine. Even if we assume you're correct - so what? it does no harm to the doctrine of resurrection that there were some strangely raised saints who were extraordinarily patient.

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.

[Adrift]

He's technically correct - if all you cited were cases. Case law isn't strictly speaking a 'law' and certainly not an affirmative law. He's saying that no legislature has enacted a law making abortion legal. He might be right - dunno or care because that's a mistake. Rights are presumed unless contravened by law - there aren't many affirmative laws and in our system, few would be necessary.

He's stuck on 'for' - which indicates an affirmative law. Your point, that abortion has been legalized, is perfectly valid and correct - you guys are talking past each other here.

Ah, that may be. I'm speaking of law in a very general way. Abortion is lawful in the United States. Separation of Church and State has seen public displays of the Ten Commandments as unlawful in many (most?) states. Leadership of prayer by teachers in public schools as well as loudly praying by students in class has been made unlawful in many (most?) states. But again, this misses the whole point, that Tassman is the one fretting about these things. His real argument is with Tassman, not me. I doubt he'll discuss it with Tassman though.

[JimL]

The passage doesn't support two earthquakes. I do see why you think the resurrections are before Christ's but I suspect this is an artifact of the Greek - the clause appears much later than an English clause normally would.

Theologically, this is a non-issue - if you think they were raised and stayed in their tombs until after Christ was raised, fine. Seems silly to me on a couple other bases but it isn't significant to the doctrine. Even if we assume you're correct - so what? it does no harm to the doctrine of resurrection that there were some strangely raised saints who were extraordinarily patient.

I don't see how you see only 1 earthquake. Are you saying that the earthquake mentioned at Jesus death on the cross, is the same quake mentioned at his resurrection when the women returned to his tomb.

[Cow Poke]

Always a red flag when someone keeps refuses to cite the readily available text but insists on providing their interpretation of what it says instead.

EGGzackly... I don't know how much more patient and "ingenuous" I could have been, but it doesn't matter - he thinks he's found something that should cause all Christendom to come crashing down to defeat.

[Teallaura]

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.

Yeah, I suppose - but since they don't come out of the graves before Him, eh, maybe not. It's such a tortured reading that I'm not overly concerned - I think the doctrine can survive poor reading just fine.

Jim's answering better - no, I don't think he's just trolling. Overly combative, probably - but most everyone in this thread has been.

[Adrift]

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.

Eh, yes and no. That's actually something a number of scholars have brought up, but since these saints were merely resuscitated to earthly life, and not resurrected into their glorified bodies Jesus is still the first fruit. Unless you believe they were resurrected to their glorified bodies. Is that a view you hold?

[Teallaura]

I don't see how you see only 1 earthquake. Are you saying that the earthquake mentioned at Jesus death on the cross, is the same quake mentioned at his resurrection when the women returned to his tomb.

I presume you mean Matt 28:2? If you (general) read it the way you (personal)are trying to, you can make a case for two earthquakes. The original passage, as I stated, does not support this (this is why CP keeps harping on citing the passage so we can see what exactly you mean). Taken together, I think the correct reading is that 27:52 is out of chronological order (common in ancient texts) and only one earthquake occurs - and that the saints are raised subsequent to the Resurrection.

[JimL]

I presume you mean Matt 28:2? If you (general) read it the way you (personal)are trying to, you can make a case for two earthquakes. The original passage, as I stated, does not support this (this is why CP keeps harping on citing the passage so we can see what exactly you mean). Taken together, I think the correct reading is that 27:52 is out of chronological order (common in ancient texts) and only one earthquake occurs - and that the saints are raised subsequent to the Resurrection.

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

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.

[Sparko]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25716[/ATTACH]

[mossrose]

Eh, yes and no. That's actually something a number of scholars have brought up, but since these saints were merely resuscitated to earthly life, and not resurrected into their glorified bodies Jesus is still the first fruit. Unless you believe they were resurrected to their glorified bodies. Is that a view you hold?

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.