Help with Matthew

[WaldoMcFroog]

Matt 27

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Can any Christians tell me whether we're supposed to believe that the dead literally rose and walked about at the time of Christ's death?

[wizard69]

Strange how such a miraculous event is not mentioned by any other writers of the time.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Exactly. You'd think someone would have mentioned it in the official records or something, but like the fact that the sky darkened for three hours, it appears to have gone unnoticed by the Romans. It's almost as though it didn't happen.

Oh, well, I expect it's 'not meant to be taken literally' or 'it's symbolic' or something. Anything to get around the obvious problems, such as the one you raise.

[China Doll]

Oooh I think I've seen this one!

Night of the Living Dead right?

[wizard69]

its similar to the sun standing still in the sky for a day (Joshua 10) . No other culture of this time records such an event despite the fact that many of them were meticulous astronomers. As you say Waldo, its as if it never happened...

[naomi24]

Maybe since resurrection was obviously so very common in those days, no one else bothered to keep a record. Seen one, seen them all. :o)

[naomi24]

Errr ... just an afterthought. Who were these saints? Were there any saints before the Christian church was established?

[chakka35]

Also amazingly unnoticed by history is the alleged murder of a whole generation of male babies in Bethlehem 'and in all the coasts thereof' at the time of Jesus' birth, the demographic effects of which would have caused havoc for years. Do you think it might all be fictional?

[WaldoMcFroog]

God moves in mysterious ways, Chakka. Do not presume to argue with an omnipotent and proveably unhinged deity.

[Octavius]

Theologists have long pondered over this verse, since it is at odds with the rest of the Chapter. A couple of things have been proffered, but I have neither the time nor inclination for debate or dispute.

1. Some Bibles use the tem Holy Men instead of Saints, probably meaning the likes of Joshua, Josiah or Jeremiah from the OT. But similarly that could not fit since Jesus was according to scripture the first fruit from the dead.
2. The text uses the word �bodies� perhaps this could be taken as a spiritual body rather than a mortal body.
3. The use of �resurrection� is also curious, but perhaps when translating from Greek they substituted the word egerais meaning �awakening from a sleep� or �arising�.

As you have said yourself it is probably symbolic - and quite likely added after Mattew had written his script.

As regards Herod, he was known as a vicious and cruel man. Herod�s infamous crimes were many. He put to death several of his own children and some of his wives whom he thought were plotting against him. Emperor Augustus reportedly said it was better to be Herod�s sow than his son, for his sow had a better chance of surviving in a Jewish community. Bethlehem to the Romans was a small town at the time and insignificant, the death of say 20 or 30 babies in such a place would quite easily been uneventful enough to be recorded.

[naomi24]

Fictional Chakka? The very idea!

[Octavius]

�uneventful enough to NOT be recorded�.

[chakka35]

Something odd here!
That post of mine also mentioned that there is nothing in the bible about Jesus' being born in a stable.
That has been edited out.
Why do you think that could be?
Does the AB Editor have a child appearing in the Nativity Play this year and doesn't want the boat rocked?
Intriguing, don't you think?