Act 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Hey, Regarding the "Resurrection" thing and the WT denial of the Mt 27:51-53 incident...
by FragrantAddendum 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Vanderhoven7
-
aqwsed12345
Church Father about Matthew 27:52-53 @KalebOutWest
First, let's address the translation of the Greek word "HAGION" as "saints." The use of "saints" in this context is widely accepted and does not pose an issue of correctness. The argument presented about flip-flopping on the translation is irrelevant because "saints" accurately reflects the Greek term in question. This term is consistently used in the New Testament to refer to holy or consecrated persons.
The primary issue revolves around the sequence of events described in Matthew 27:51-54. Let's break this down:
1. Sequence of Resurrection: According to the text, the resurrection of the saints occurred "after his resurrection" (meta tēn egersin autou). This means that the bodies of the saints came out of their tombs following Jesus' resurrection, not immediately after the earthquake or the tearing of the temple curtain. This is crucial for understanding the timeline. This sequence aligns with Paul's theology in Colossians 1:18, which states that Jesus is the "firstborn from the dead."
2. Centurion's Witness: The centurion and those with him witnessed the earthquake and the events immediately following Jesus' death, such as the tearing of the temple curtain and the rocks splitting. The text does not imply that they witnessed the resurrection of the saints, which occurred after Jesus' resurrection.
Logical Deduction: Since the resurrection of the saints happened after Jesus' resurrection, it is illogical to assume the centurion witnessed this specific event. His declaration, "Truly this man was God’s Son!" was a response to the immediate natural phenomena and Jesus' death.
3. Silence of Other Gospel Writers and Historians:
Historical Context: The argument that other Gospel writers and historians like Josephus are silent about this event does not negate its occurrence. Many events in the Gospels are unique to specific writers and are not corroborated by others. This selective reporting does not inherently disprove an event's historicity.
Unique Accounts: The Gospels often contain unique narratives that reflect different theological emphases and audience needs. Matthew’s inclusion of the resurrected saints highlights the cosmic significance of Jesus' death and resurrection.
4. Questions on the Raised Saints:
Who Were They? The text describes them as "saints who had fallen asleep," indicating they were righteous individuals who died before Jesus' crucifixion. They could be Old Testament saints or other holy persons.
Duration and Nature of Resurrection: The text does not specify how long they were raised or the nature of their resurrected bodies. It is reasonable to assume they had glorified bodies, similar to Jesus' resurrected body.
Faith and Salvation: The theology of their resurrection aligns with the broader New Testament theme that Jesus’ resurrection opened the way for all the righteous dead to be raised. Their faith and righteousness were established in their lifetimes under the Old Covenant.
Who Were the witnesses? Matthew 27:53 states that the resurrected saints "appeared to many" in the holy city. These witnesses were the inhabitants of Jerusalem who saw the resurrected saints.The resurrected saints appearing to many serves as a powerful testimony to the truth of Jesus' resurrection and the inauguration of a new covenant.
Therefore, I would place every event after Jesus' resurrection, except for the splitting of the tombs.
Another JW with whom I previously debated came up with similar objections, such as: "Who were resurrected? Who were the saints? Why was their resurrection necessary? What does it prove? How did they resurrect? What did they look like? Were they injured? As they were buried? Did they have clothes on? Where did they get them from? Where were they resurrected to? On the earth? Should they still be alive?! Could they have been resurrected and later went to heaven?" - This flood of questions, darting around in its confusion, full of verbosity, partly didn't concern Matthew at all, and even if I answer them (which is not difficult), it's entirely secondary to the irrefutable linguistic proof I have shown, namely, that indeed, the bodies of the deceased saints were resurrected and entered the holy city. Now I will answer them one by one, so the JWs have no loophole or cling to anything - but I maintain that many other answers are also possible, to which they will have no further grasp, but must admit that it also makes sense and does not contradict anything - except their own sectarian ideology. So: 1. Deceased saints were resurrected, as the text states. 2. Let's say we call them Eleazar, Nathan, Abiathar, and Bathsheba, who are obviously not the same as those previously known by these names. 3. There was no need for their resurrection, but why should only what is visibly necessary happen? There was no need for the creation of the world either, yet it happened. 4. It proves that at Jesus' death and resurrection, not only the earth trembled, but also the grave and the underworld. 5. They resurrected by an earthquake that cracked their tombs, then perhaps an angel called them by name (see 2). 6. Two of them were young lads, the rising sun's light glinting on their budding mustaches; another was a grown man, and Bathsheba was a little girl. 7. They were not injured; they resurrected as they would have reached that day in an uncorrupted world, which they did not in this corrupted world. 8. Not as they were buried, but much more perfectly. Let's say, in the way Jesus was resurrected according to the accounts. 9. They had clothes on, woven from some otherworldly brightness. But it is also possible that only the viewers saw it that way. 10. Clothes appeared on them as flesh, tendons, and skin on their withered bones. (It almost seems that this JW, in their desperation, opposed everything, even the resurrection they theoretically also believe in.) 11. After being resurrected, they eventually ascended to heaven, just like Jesus did.
And why do no other biblical writers mention it? By this logic, nothing could be a historical fact that only one evangelist reports, e.g., the repentance of one of the crucified thieves or many of Jesus' parables.
"Moreover, other sources do not mention this resurrection either, not even Josephus, who gives quite detailed accounts of events?" - Josephus does not mention a host of other things either, such as Jesus' resurrection. (The Testimonium Flavianum is a Christian interpolation, which no reasonable person can deny today.)
"Why did they rise from this particular cemetery?" - Perhaps because this cemetery had the most undeniable connection to Jesus' death and resurrection.
"Did they get a lucky ticket in the lottery and win everything, even the jackpot; were they the ones chosen and won the grand prize, meaning they were resurrected? Is it really just a matter of luck?" - This adolescently angry outburst falls more into the realm of psychology than theology. It is enough to point out that God's selective will does not require human approval, and if He chose to resurrect those particular individuals alongside Jesus, then the JW can grumble all day, and even spin on their back, but they cannot diminish or challenge God's decree.
"Wouldn't David, Abraham, Elijah, John the Baptist, and the many faithful and prophets mentioned earlier in the Bible have been among them?" - It seems they weren't swept into the mentioned cemetery by the lottery draw's whim. (Perhaps I can put it this way, since the JW resorted to such trivial images to make the natural meaning of the passage distasteful.)
"Didn’t Paul refer to them anywhere, not even in Hebrews chapter 11?" - It is almost certain that Paul did not write the letter to the Hebrews. Besides, these saints probably were not widely known heroes of faith to be used as examples for the audience. What was important about them was that they had died recently, so their relatives were still alive and could recognize them.
"Why didn't Peter speak about the resurrection of the saints in Acts chapter 2, where Peter specifically mentions who was raised and who was not (Acts 2:32, 34), as strong evidence of Jesus' resurrection?" - Because he did not provide an exhaustive list there, nor did he intend to. By that logic, the JW could also ask why Matthew did not mention Peter or Paul's list of the resurrected.
"If many saw them, then surely many of them were present at Peter’s speech as well?" - Not necessarily, because Peter's audience mostly consisted of Jews who had come from afar and spoke different languages, and they probably did not know those resurrected saints while they were alive.
"Moreover, if many of the resurrected were present, why didn’t Peter refer to them as evidence?" - It’s possible that by then, many of them had already been with Jesus in heaven.
Conclusion: The New World Translation's interpretation of this passage introduces unnecessary complexities and deviates from the straightforward reading of the Greek text. The correct understanding is that the saints were resurrected after Jesus' resurrection, and their appearance in Jerusalem serves to underscore the transformative power of Jesus' victory over death. The centurion's reaction was to the immediate events surrounding Jesus' death, and the silence of other historians does not undermine the validity of Matthew’s account. Theologically, this event fits within the broader narrative of resurrection and the new life inaugurated by Jesus Christ.
-
KalebOutWest
Thank you, Vandehoven and aqwsed.
I knew the answers to the questions I was posting. They are actually asked by scholars and academics when we give tests on this verse.
They also are listed like this (almost) in some Bibles, such as The Ignatius Study Bible New Testament (and its upcoming full Bible release which will be out in November, later this year).
The idea was to show that the two people I was talking to--especially FA--had made mental spaghetti of their own arguments and had not even opened a simple mainstream study Bible where these questions (and the answers) appear. (There are actually far more condensed that what you provided aqwsed, but well done. Vanderhoven, you gave what is called the "Hillel" answer: "What can be said while standing on one foot.")
Peacefulpete knows his stuff. I don't understand what happens during a discussion sometimes, but I think my time here is mostly wasted. I've said that before, but I think I truly mean it now.
I understand the meaning of POMI in some people, being out of the Watchtower but never being able to escape it for one reason or another. And I am truly sorry. It's not my job, I know, to help rescue anyone, either inside or out, neither do I feel that. (People will be insulted thinking I am talking about anyone in particular, I am sure.)
The teacher in me is very exact and demanding. But he comes out when others tend to challenge and demand, claiming they "know" and "understand" and I do not. I have learned to just try and let them. They will have to stay in this state.
Most of you here do understand the difference. You don't have to know a lot. You don't have to have a degree. You don't have to be an academic or a teacher or a Jew or religious or anything like that.
You merely have to avoid claiming you know something that you don't--while avoiding getting in the face of someone who does and may be just trying to help.
There are a lot of helpers here. And there are a few people with big sticks running around clobbering them on the heads when they try and help.
It's a shame.
Over and out--Kaleb.
-
Rattigan350
Jesus' death caused an earthquake, not a resurrection.
There is no point in having a resurrection there.
People need to stop reading that text at face value and just THINK. Think with the brain.
What would be the point of a resurrection at that time?
There is none. None at all.
And then what happened with those people?The Watchtower's explanation is the only one that makes sense.
-
FragrantAddendum
such as The Ignatius Study Bible New Testament (and its upcoming full Bible release which will be out in November, later this year).
lol - i just read an excerpt from that
the study notes are ridiculous! (for instance, look at what he said regarding Mt 1:3-6)
which is what one would expect from a bible named after an apostate like ignatius
the fact that the guy publishing that wants to make money off god's word
shows he's a fraud and full of 💩
just like the wt gb
-
FragrantAddendum
the faithful jews of old looked forward to a future resurrection
as you mentioned, @kaleb, a standing up again in the flesh
all things are possible with god
if he can resurrect the dead
he can resurrect someone's faith too