Mat 27.52 bodies of holy ones.Sorry,bro.Franz but YOU'RE RIDICULING US

by aligot ripounsous 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  JosephMalik

  Joseph, your comments are interesting, but inconsistent, both with what I wrote and with regard to Scripture. When the tombstone is rolled away from Jesus' tomb in Matthew 28:2, it does not describe it as "an aftershock" as you characterized it, but as a "severe earthquake." Where in the text did you deduce the theory that this was an aftershock?

  Everastudent,

  What difference does this make? When an earthquake takes place and another takes place a few days later that I called an aftershock does this change anything? No! The scriptures simply identify the event as earthquake. Today we call them aftershocks. And if you use WTS material and do not identify it as such who's fault is that? If it comes from you then it is your information not someone else's. You see that is the problem with following others. You cannot blame the error on them any more than Adam could blame it on his wife. We will be judged individually based on our deeds and not the deeds of others.

  Joseph
• 

  justhuman

  The resurrection in Heaven of the Holy Ones took place after Jesus resurrected. We know that after He died He "preached at the Spirits in Prison" according to Peter. Again the crap theology of the WT says that he preached in Demons...

  Jesus Soul entered in Hades(the place were all the souls waiting for resurrection, and nothing to do with a burning Hell, just to set up things straight) and preached there. When He resurrected He took along with Him the Holy Ones. That is why the gates of Hades couldn't hold Jesus.

  The fact that Jesus was raised by the same body that He died shows that in God's Kindom those who will inherit it they will have a gloryfied body like Jesus has now. That is why when He will come ALL will see Him.

  The resurrection of the Bodies shows that those Saints have a glorified body, that cannot be corrupted the same one Jesus have.
• 

  heathen

  I don't know how mathew could've known what the "holy ones" would have looked like if they were dead for eons and came back to life . I agree that jesus was the first to be resurrected as a member of the kingdom of the heavens and spiritual Israel. When he resurrected people he only brought them back to their same state of imperfect humans ,not as spirit members .You would think that mathew would have made note as to which "holy ones" he was referring to . Could be jacob or david or any old time anointed .That is a very tuff scripture to discern what is meant .
• 

  aligot ripounsous

  Thank you to (in order of appearing) Narkissos, Joseph, Leolaia (fine link) and others, for your very informative contributions, I'm sure Cognac isn't disappointed either. So, this is a difficult passage or, I should rather say, a simple nearly-initial text (earthquake causes tombs opening and corpses being tossed out) which successive additions (resurrection, then holy ones, then entering into the city delayed ) have made it complicated and, to top the whole lot up, dogmatic WTS translators who have made it totally incoherent.
• 

  Narkissos

  So, this is a difficult passage or, I should rather say, a simple nearly-initial text (earthquake causes tombs opening and corpses being tossed out) which successive additions (resurrection, then holy ones, then entering into the city delayed ) have made it complicated and, to top the whole lot up, dogmatic WTS translators who have made it totally incoherent.

  aligot, if the above is meant as a summary of outlined evidence I respectfully disagree. The use of the passive form of egeirô (awaken, raise) as applied to "dead bodies" clearly implies resurrection, right from the start. Compare the use of the same verb in 10:8; 11:5; 12:42; 14:2; 16:21; 17:9,23; 20:19; 26:32; 27:63f; 28:6f. There is no hint either in the text or in the next centuries of ancient and medieval exegesis, afaik, that a mere "tossing out of corpses" could be meant.
• 

  aligot ripounsous

  Narkissos,

  Decisions...One has to make a choice between differing explanations. I found the classical resurrection option satisfactory, for lack of anything better, until I read Leolaia's link and her position, which seems to provide the key for the most blatant difficulties. Again, I don't venture on the expert field, just trying to make an opinion for my own use, as an honnête homme, at a given time, which leaves room for changing my mind ! As for the early Church fathers, my feeling is that they were holding quite diverse views, among which we've got a wide array of options (auberge espagnole, don't know if spanish inn means anything on the other side), so that we'll always find the one that suits us. To make it short, that summing up was, indeed, my-personal-conclusion.