Do you believe this? Really?

[vicwestlad]

ProdiglArchitect:

It is not that they were “in bonds,” they were there because the gates of Heaven hadn’t been opened yet.

If they weren’t “in bonds” why does your Catechism say they were “in bonds”?
ProdiglArchitect:

also… why would they be startled? It’s not like they wouldn’t have had a warning…

Ahh so after thousands of years had passed on earth, someone went to Hades and told Moses and Elijah, you guys are going to be back on earth for a few hours to talk with Jesus. Then you’ll be coming back to Hades for a few more days. Ok
ProdiglArchitect:

They weren’t walking around town, they were on the mountaintop, talking with Christ.

You’re confused. When I’m talking about Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration, I’m not referring to the dead saints in Matthew who all rose at the point of Jesus’ death. As I’ve made clear, it’s not stated who the risen saints were who went into town and appeared to people.
ProdiglArchitect:

There were, to my knowledge, very few paintings / engraving made of the OT Prophets, so there was very little way to corroborate that they were who they said they were.

If no one recognized these once dead people, how would Matthew know they were Jewish saints from the past?
ProdiglArchitect:

It’s really not a stretch to conclude that they weren’t talked about simply because people thought they were crazy.

But the other three gospel writers and the writer of Acts wouldn’t have thought they were crazy. My question was why wouldn’t Paul or Peter, who wouldn’t have thought they were crazy, not have referred to these once dead saints who were now alive when they were trying to persuade people that resurrections could happen?
ProdiglArchitect:

We cannot claim to know anyone’s particular judgment, but it is my personal supposition that people who lived by the Natural Law, being God’s laws as they had been revealed and inscribed into the souls of all men, would have received a favorable particular judgment

Right, so Jesus isn’t necessary for a favourable judgment. Ok
ProdiglArchitect:

The final judgement does not change anyone outcome. It is when both your sins and good deeds will be laid bare before humanity. I’m not super well versed in it, but my understanding is that it will be the final demonstration of God’s justice, showing all why the damned were damned and why the saved were saved; and making us once and for all fully aware of how our choices affected those around us (I don’t think that’ll happen at the particular judgment, but I’m not positive…)

So no one is actually judged at the final judgement. It’s just a time where God shows what everyone did and how it affected people. That doesn’t seem to agree with traditional doctrine. You might be on pretty shaky ground here

 

[vicwestlad]

Usagi:

Your primary incredulity seems to involve how the souls in waiting occupied themselves during whatever passage of time they experienced. Once again, aside from “waiting” and “being comforted,” we have not been told. It seems they were able to interact with other deceased folk, presumably including relatives they’d missed and honored ancestors like Abraham.

Thank you Usagi. Yep, it does seem a little farfetched to me.

Usagi:

Elijah and possibly Moses (along with the little-mentioned Enoch) may be a special case. Enoch and Elijah were taken to the afterlife bodily, apparently without dying in the usual sense. Moses died normally, but God took custody of his body and there are hints (the New Testament book of Jude relates a story from a non-canonical work entitled

Good points. And this is a little odd too. Why did Elijah and Moses go straight to heaven and not Noah, or Joshua, or Abraham. And why are so many of your colleagues saying that Moses and Elijah went to Hades and not straight to heaven? It does all seem a little confused and messy.

Usagi:

As for the “bodies of the saints” that rose up and walked after Jesus’ crucifixion, we’re told nothing of who they were or how long they remained alive. I would be inclined to think they were local holy people of recent years rather than Old Testament celebrities, precisely because their raising was given only a passing mention.

Another good point. Although, if this is the correct interpretation, it seems there were rather a lot of “saints” if just locally and in the recent past “many” saints had lived.

 

[ahs]

Nope. Doesn’t have to be exactly the same.

And you just keep asserting the same thing without addressing the points I make or explaining what you could be referring to.

What assertions have I made that I keep making, other than my recently pointing out your assumptions? Please provide the repeated quotes from me.

Look at what I wrote:

I’ll add this quote:

They were conscious since death till Jesus freed them from where they had been held captive. As per Luke 16 they could interact and communicate as well as suffer. If Adam and Eve were held captive, this means it involves time. And if people were suffering on an on-going basis this involves time. I don’t see how you can argue otherwise, and in fact you actually haven’t. I haven’t heard an actual argument from you yet, despite all the points I keep bringing up. Repeating assertions isn’t making an argument.

Again, I don’t know what assertions of mine you are talking about. I also don’t see how any of your points are relevant to whether it’s reasonable to believe your OP.

Here’s something you may not have realized. Church fathers believed …So your idea of this being on some other dimension without time doesn’t comport with tradition.

Again, I don’t see how any of that is relevant to believing what you provided in the OP. I also never said this was “some other dimension without time”. Those are your words, and I assume it is your assumption that what I actually said must necessarily result in YOUR words. I don’t believe such is necessary.

That’s because you haven’t read her book, as I’ve suggested.

So, is it your assertion that, because I have seen no evidence, that I therefore have not read a particular book? In other words, are you saying that, had I actually read the book, I necessarily would be convinced by the so-called evidences within it? That’s a bit of far reaching, don’t you think. Your postion says that if a person reads a book, then the person will necessarily be convinced by the material in a book. I don’t consider myself that naive to buy into everything I read. I’m sure you feel the same about yourself. Your logical fallacy on this particular point is going nowhere.

I’ll make it clear where your logic is lacking. Here’s your argument in syllogistic form.

Premise 1: If a person believed they witnessed something and was willing to die for that belief, that belief has to be true.

Premise 2: People who claim to have witnessed Jesus alive after his death were willing to die for this belief.

Conclusion: Jesus rose from the dead.

That’s not my postition at all, and it’s not what I said, nor does it represent what I wrote. If you can’t maintain logical integrity and honest debate, how do you expect to convince anyone of your position?

Let me ask you this. Is there not one single other person in history that claimed to have witnessed an event and was willing to die for this belief other than Christian martyrs?

I’ll let you think about that.

I’m not aware of any, but it’s a strawman argument at best. You are arguing against a false representation of what you said my position is. You are being intellectually dishonest. How do you expect to engage in convincing debate wihle misrepresenting people’s positions and then arguing against your misrepresentations of them? It’s not a convincing way to try to argue a point.

 

[vicwestlad]

ahs:

What assertions have I made that I keep making, other than my recently pointing out your assumptions? Please provide the repeated quotes from me.

You keep implying that no concept of time existed in Hades and therefore no need to answer my question as to what people were doing in Hades from the time they died to the time Jesus descended there to free them. If you accept time did exist in Hades then say so. If you want to maintain no time existed, then specifically address my points.

I’ll make them again for you:

They have consciousness. They can communicate in sentences (Luke 16). How can you put one word or thought transference be put before another if there is no time? How can one respond to a previous communication if there is no time? They can experience suffering or relative bliss. How can someone suffer on an ongoing basis if there is not time? Please address these questions.

They were conscious in Hades from the time they died to the time Jesus descended into Hades. How does this not imply a period of time?

Augustine said:

Augustine:

“As to the first man, the father of mankind, it is agreed by almost the entire Church that the Lord loosed him from that prison” (Letter 164, ch.3).

How can he have been “held” in prison if no time exists?

The Catechism says:

“Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him” (paragraph 635).

How can they “live” in darkness and subsequently be freed if there is no time?

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

“Since the coming of Our Lord, “the Bosom of Abraham” gradually ceased to designate a place of imperfect happiness, and it has become synonymous with Heaven itself.”

“Since” implies time. Gradually “ceasing” to be a place of imperfect happiness denotes time. How can this be otherwise?

ahs:

Again, I don’t see how any of that is relevant to believing what you provided in the OP. I also never said this was “some other dimension without time”. Those are your words, and I assume it is your assumption that what I actually said must necessarily result in YOUR words. I don’t believe such is necessary.

If it wasn’t another dimension without time, and tradition (as I pointed out with the quotes) says that Hell is below or within the earth, then it’s not only part of the universe but in our solar system and time exists. If you don’t believe it was another dimension without time, then time existed in Hades. If you accept this, then answer my question as to what the inhabitants would have been doing in Hades for thousands of years.

ahs:

So, is it your assertion that, because I have seen no evidence, that I therefore have not read a particular book?

I merely point out that what you have presented as evidence for you belief is called into question by the book. According to Moss, the notion of Christian persecution and martyrdom has been overstated.

ahs:

That’s not my postition at all, and it’s not what I said, nor does it represent what I wrote. If you can’t maintain logical integrity and honest debate, how do you expect to convince anyone of your position?

“At all”. Oh come on now, ahs. I think the syllogism is at least a fair assessment of your argument. If not, then simply amend the wording of the syllogism to be in line with your argument. Then I can assess the premises. I think it’s logically flawed but I’d like to see it in syllogistic form so I can make the flaws clear.

And your ad-hominen attack does not exclude me from critically assessing any poor logic.

ahs:

I’m not aware of any, but it’s a strawman argument at best. You are arguing against a false representation of what you said my position is. You are being intellectually dishonest.

I’ve made what I honestly thought to be a good syllogistic representation of your argument. Now I’ve given you the opportunity to amend the syllogism. Not sure how this is intellectually dishonest. Really, there’s no need for that kind of name calling. And no need to get upset. Just address the points I’ve made.

 

[ahs]

You keep implying that no concept of time existed in Hades and therefore no need to answer my question …

No, you are misrepresenting what I wrote. I asked you to quote me. I believe the reason you did not is because you weren’t able to find the words that you keep putting in my mouth. I’m not interested in having discussions with people who do this.

…How can you put one word or thought transference be put before another if there is no time?

I never said there was “no time”. You are misrepresenting me, presumably [an assumption on my part] because you have a weak argument, if one at all, and must necessarily twist people’s words to make it seem like you have made some point. But I could be wrong and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t do it intentionally. But since you’ve done it repeatedly now, regardless of intention, I won’t be discussing it further with you after this post.

How can one respond to a previous communication if there is no time?

Again with the misrepresentation.

How can someone suffer on an ongoing basis if there is not time?

Again, misrepresenting me. And again, you won’t be able to quote the words you are trying to put into my mouth, because I never said [typed] them.

They were conscious in Hades from the time they died to the time Jesus descended into Hades. How does this not imply a period of time?

Still misrepresenting me. This is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty.

How can he have been “held” in prison if no time exists?

Still more misrepresentation…

How can they “live” in darkness and subsequently be freed if there is no time?

…and still more…

“Since” implies time. Gradually “ceasing” to be a place of imperfect happiness denotes time. How can this be otherwise?

…never claimed otherwise, you are misrepresenting me and assuming that “time” is experienced exactly the same both here and there. I don’t assume that, as I have stated several times now. Probably the only assertion I made in fact, was that “I don’t assume” and “you assume”.

I merely point out that what you have presented as evidence for you belief is called into question by the book. According to Moss, the notion of Christian persecution and martyrdom has been overstated.

And I disagree with Moss and am not convinced by the so-called evidences. If you choose to assume it’s because I have not read the book and assert that reading a book necessarily results in the reader accepting the position and evidence of the author, you are free to assert that. I, however, do not believe this.

“At all”. Oh come on now, ahs. I think the syllogism is at least a fair assessment of your argument…

No, it isn’t. You continue to misrepresent me. I have no interest in discussing things with people who do that. Perhaps sometime in the future you’ll choose to have an intellectually honest discussion, and perhaps at that time I’ll join in again.

Unsubscribed.

 

[vicwestlad]

ahs:

No, you are misrepresenting what I wrote

Lol. Hardly. You’ve gone a bit off the rails here.

Instead, the truth is that I repeatedly asked you to state what your position is on time in Hades and you wouldn’t answer. It’s hard to debate with someone who refuses to state their position. I certainly wasn’t trying to misrepresent you but, in fact, you actually did imply a position which I’ll demonstrate so anyone can see there’s no misrepresentation deliberate or otherwise.

Here’s what REALLY happened:

In answer to my question, “What do you think they were doing all this time?” you said:

ahs:

What makes you think they experienced “time” in terms of linear years after the conclusion of their earthly lives?

This would imply that you’re taking the position that they didn’t experience time in Hades in the same way we do. This would mean, of course, that you then wouldn’t have to answer the question as to what they were doing all that time.

I repsonded with this:

me:

I’m not saying they marked days and nights on a calendar but, if they were conscious and experienced feelings of suffering or relative bliss, as the Rich man and Lazarus suggests, then surely some form of time would be involved since they had these experiences for extended periods covering their death to the time of Jesus’ death. They were conscious of their surroundings. Not sure how you could actually argue otherwise.

Clearly I’m agreeing that it wouldn’t be exactly the same but argued that “some form of time” would be involved. I followed this with specific quotes and examples as to why this would be the case, none of which you addressed.

It’s actually YOU who misrepresented ME by subsequently claiming that I said it was the same. I even pointed out that it obviously wouldn’t involve nights and days so clearly I’m saying it’s not the same.

You then responded thus:

ahs:

What makes you think I am arguing otherwise? I am asking what makes you think they experienced time and space as we (who are here and now) experience time and space.

You then further cited GEddie and even said he “explained” your position with this quote:

GEddie:

The afterlife domains presumably have no time in the collinear sense, which is why repentance after death does not work. (emphasis mine)

See, the afterlife domains presumably have “no time” in a linear sense, in other words, as we do. Again, I agreed with this and argued that it would involve some form of time.

I then presented about 6 examples of why I thought this had to be the case and you would not address them even though I brought it to your attention that you hadn’t.

Now really, ahs, who’s misrepresenting whom?

ahs:

I never said there was “no time” You are misrepresenting me,

But you said Geddie “explained” it when he said there was “no time”.

And again you fail to address any of my specific arguments that you asked for.

ahs:

No, it isn’t.

But, ahs, we both know I gave you the opportunity and asked pointedly that, if you don’t like the wording of my syllogism, to please amend the wording to properly represent your argument so I could asses it for flaws. Why haven’t you done this? Well, I think we both know.

ahs:

I have no interest in discussing things with people who do that. Perhaps sometime in the future you’ll choose to have an intellectually honest discussion, and perhaps at that time I’ll join in again.

Not surprised you’re looking for a way out to save face at this point.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I said just the opposite.

Thank you for making this point. So these Jewish heroes of the past all coming back to life at the point of Jesus’ death and still alive to talk about what it was like being dead for hundreds or thousands of years would have made extremely powerful evidence for Jesus’ divinity. Yet they are not mentioned anywhere outside of one solitary gospel, not in Acts when Peter and Paul were trying to convince their audience that resurrection was possible, not in any of Paul’s letters. Silence. It’s more than a little suspect if you’re thinking critically.

You don’t really believe that, do you?

“Thinking critically” is an Internet-era buzzphrase designed to present the appearance that the poster is the only one who is applying the tools of scholarship, of research, and using the elements of formal logic. Don’t insult yourself or your objectives by misusing the term.

And I said just the opposite. I identified two sources outside the Gospel that appear to refer to this. We know of numerous events within the early Church that are referred to by the patristic fathers that are not referenced by Peter or Paul, including miraculous events.

Of course, this more likely refers to Lazarus, and the other two raised by Jesus. The saints who came back at the point of Jesus death wouldn’t have been raised by Jesus since Jesus had just died.

It may have referred to the three named, but could also refer to the referenced event. It was an event tied to the death and resurrection of Jesus, otherwise why would it be described in the Gospel, Vic? You may deny the event happened based on your idiosyncratic methodological bias, but based on the viewpoint of the authors of the two texts, of course it was an event tied to Christ. Part of “critical thinking” is understanding the context of the narrative.

Do you have a reason or cite for your argument that this “more likely” refers to the three rather than the referenced event, other than methodological bias? If so, on what basis?

Yep, I’m familiar with that quote and it, once again, demonstrates the problem of Paul and Peter trying to convince their audience that resurrections were possible and yet never referred to these Jewish heroes who all came back to life and lived on for ages.

Tell me, Mike, do you think these once long dead saints got jobs, got married, had kids?

You realize that Peter also raised people from the dead, post-Resurrection, and also through the power of Christ. Paul never used this to convince his audience that resurrections were possible (in the texts we have). So, should we discount Peter’s resurrection from Acts because Paul (writing to express his particular evangelical focus) didn’t feel the need to describe what Luke already had?

Is that “critical thinking” on your part?

What they did after their resurrection? Perhaps they spent their time preaching, until their second death. We do not have primary textual evidence on that. We do have such extra-Biblical evidence, from those relaying on primary oral sources that those Jesus raised from the dead lived a long time, and that these were physical, not spiritual resurrections.

Again, on what textual evidence do you claim that these are “long-dead” saints? Do you have a cite?

 

[vicwestlad]

Arizona Mike:

I identified two sources outside the Gospel that appear to refer to this. We know of numerous events within the early Church that are referred to by the patristic fathers that are not referenced by Peter or Paul, including miraculous events.

Not of this magnitude, though. The question that I have been asking regarding Matthew’s risen saints is why such an astounding event and proof of Jesus’ divinity would not be even alluded to by Mark, Luke, or John. I just think that’s a bit of a stretch.

And here’s a quote from Paul:

“But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?”

Obviously some were saying that people don’t resurrect form the dead. So why wouldn’t Paul present the amazing example of the many Jewish heroes, saints, who came back to life and appeared to many. And, as you point out, many of whom would still be alive.

And in Acts, chapter 23. Peter is preaching to a large audience a mere few weeks afterward. He is specifically addressing the Jews in the crowd in an attempt to convert them. But, for some inexplicable reason, he doesn’t seem to think they would be impressed by the fact that their own heroes from scripture were brought back to life at the moment of Christ’s death and are currently living among them as witnesses to Jesus’ divinity.

It’s a bit hard to swallow Mike. Just sayin’
Arizona Mike:

Do you have a reason or cite for your argument that this “more likely” refers to the three rather than the referenced event, other than methodological bias? On what basis?

I actually stated it clearly but I’ll repeat it for you. The quote you cited said that those who were raised “by Christ”. This would make sense for the three that Christ raised while alive on earth doing miracles. Matthew’s dead saints, on the other hand, were raised when Christ died, so conventional thinking is that they were raised by God, as the thinking is that God raised Jesus from the dead and not that Jesus raised himself from the dead, for obvious reasons.
Arizona Mike:

You realize that Peter also raised people from the dead, post-Resurrection. Paul never used this to convince his audience that resurrections were possible (in the texts we have). So, should we discount Peter’s resurrection from Acts because Paul (writing to express his particular evangelical focus) didn’t feel the need to describe what Luke already had?

It’s a fair point. However, there’s a distinction which is significant. Peter’s raisings were singular and of ordinary citizens. The people had only just died. With Matthew’s saints we’re talking about mass resurrections of “saints”, Jewish heroes, some of whom would have been dead for decades, or hundreds, or thousands of years. Big diff I’d say.
Arizona Mike:

What they did after their resurrection? Perhaps they spent their time preaching, until their second death.

But if they live on for a long time, they would have to have a livelihood. Unlikely that all of them made a living from preaching (not a lucrative profession like today’s televangelists). But I asked further, do you think some of them would have gotten married, had kids, had jobs? What do you think?
Arizona Mike:

Again, on what textual evidence do you claim that these are “long-dead” saints? Do you have a cite?

Oh come on Mike. You think there were “many” “saints” in the immediate vicinity who had just died in the past few years? You can believe that if you like but it really cheapens the term “saint”.

And you say that like it makes it more plausible. How would it be more plausible if they were only dead for several years? Don’t see why you’re opposed to the idea of them being dead for hundreds of years. What do you think?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Not of this magnitude, though. The question that I have been asking regarding Matthew’s risen saints is why such an astounding event and proof of Jesus’ divinity would not be even alluded to by Mark, Luke, or John. I just think that’s a bit of a stretch.

You’re welcome to think that. As atheist arguments go, it’s a rather weak one. We know that different writers had different foci, and not every event is described by every one of the Gospel writers, including events that are far more astounding as proof of the divinity of Jesus. You will agree, I think that the appearance of a multitude of angels in the sky attendant upon Jesus’s virgin birth certainly was an unusual event, yet it is not in every gospel.

In a way, your argument can be considered a kind of unintentional defense of the Faith. The fact that not every book of the New Testament repeats the same exact story, in lockstep, reflects that many elements of the narrative were already known within the Christian community, and it was not necessary to recount each event in every epistle (like a character in a poorly written novel, who provides exposition by lighting his pipe and saying, “as you know…”) The epistles themselves were not meant to be an intro to Christianity, Peter and Paul did that through oral preaching. They were meant as corrective letters to remind the faithful of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The epistles do not provide all of the elements of the Faith already known through the oral tradition shared by the apostles and their successors. There are a large number of miraculous events in the life of Jesus and His Resurrection that are not referenced by either Peter or Paul.

Had the epistles and the Gospel been written in the style you would seem to prefer - with each text endlessly repeating the information already known to everyone in the community, atheists would argue collusion. Textual preservation was also expensive at the time, you had to keep the text tight and comparatively short, so some information would have to be excluded.

Obviously some were saying that people don’t resurrect form the dead. So why wouldn’t Paul present the amazing example of the many Jewish heroes, saints, who came back to life and appeared to many. And, as you point out, many of whom would still be alive. And in Acts, chapter 23. Peter is preaching to a large audience a mere few weeks afterward. He is specifically addressing the Jews in the crowd in an attempt to convert them. But, for some inexplicable reason, he doesn’t seem to think they would be impressed by the fact that their own heroes from scripture were brought back to life at the moment of Christ’s death and are currently living among them as witnesses to Jesus’ divinity. It’s a bit hard to swallow Mike. Just sayin’

Acts does not include every sermon preached (praught?) by Peter or Paul - you are aware of this, right?

There are other possibilities that may improve your ability to swallow. As the Lucan texts were written prior to Matthew, there is a possibility that the author of Matthew had access to a source with whom neither Peter nor Paul were familiar at the time. It is also possible that this was not an event that was known widely at the time of Luke and Acts. We know only that the resurrected (how many?) came and spoke to “many.” How many witnesses is that? 5? 10? 100? 1000? We have no idea. As the early Christians still were living in an environment uncongenial to the new Faith, in either the religious or the political sense, widely proclaiming what had happened would be dangerous, especially if one were to claim that the respected dead repudiated the beliefs of the pharisees, and such a miraculous event might only be shared carefully within the nascent Christian community around Jerusalem, until later years. I don’t now how likely that is, but it’s a possibility.

It is also possible, of course, that those described in Matthew 27:53 were solely spiritual, non-corporeal manifestations, and that the people I described in the two non-Biblical cites as living long lives were solely those Jesus raised from the dead prior to his crucifixion, as well as those raised from the dead by Christ acting through the apostles. In such a case, there would be (obviously) less physical evidence, and it might be seen as less persuasive evidence by Paul and Peter, and not worth bringing up. Both events would still be miraculous, but Paul does not cite every miracle in Christ’s life. His epistles were not introductions to the Faith (“Catholicism 101”), they were pastoral documents to correct errors and reinforce concepts in the newly developing churches.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It is also possible that Paul and Peter were aware of the event, did discuss it as evidence for the resurrection, and that these references were not written down, only mentioned in sermons, or were included in one of the lost Pauline epistles, such as the first Epistle to Corinth (referenced at 1 Corinthians 5:9) the third Epistle to Corinth (referenced at 2 Corinthians 2:4 and 2 Corinthians 7:8–9), the earlier Epistle to the Ephesians referenced at Ephesians 3:3–4, or the Epistle to the Laodiceans referenced at Colossians 4:16. Neither Peter nor Paul say anything contradicting Matthew’s account in the texts we have, and we know they preached on many things during their lives to which we do not have access. In this case, we would have to say that absence of further evidence (aside from the one, possibly three textual sources) is not evidence of absence.

Others of the early Christian church referenced the event as truth and obviously believed it happened, like Irenaeus and Ignatius of Antioch, neither of whom were afraid to call a spade a spade if they doubted something. Ignatius, who was martyred for the truth, received the truth directly from John the Apostle. So it seems unlikely that John, who knew the Gospels and experienced the events directly, ever took Ignatius aside and told him, “You know, (looks around carefully) that whole business about the tombs opening up was just, umm,* a pious fiction*. I don’t believe it”). Think about that. Ignatius’s teacher* was present at the Crucifixion*. Do you see why we think that Ignatius accepting this event is powerful evidence that it happened? Ireneaus was taught by Polycarp, who was himself taught by John. Again, good strong evidence from 1st and 2nd generation sources, who would be in a position to know if it was false, yet proclaimed it as truth.

I actually stated it clearly but I’ll repeat it for you. The quote you cited said that those who were raised “by Christ”. This would make sense for the three that Christ raised while alive on earth doing miracles. Matthew’s dead saints, on the other hand, were raised when Christ died, so conventional thinking is that they were raised by God, as the thinking is that God raised Jesus from the dead and not that Jesus raised himself from the dead, for obvious reasons.

Okay. “Conventional thinking” is that Jesus is God, in our view. There is only one God, one divine nature, existing in three persons, the Trinity, yes? I think you may be conflating two concepts, or you may not have a full understanding of the concept of the Trinity. We say that “God” resurrected Jesus’s body (Rom. 10:9, 1 Pet. 1:21), yes. But when you typed “God,” were you trying to say that you think Christian theology says God the Father, acting alone in some fashion, raised his son Jesus, unilaterally? No. God raised Jesus from the dead, but when we say God, that also includes Jesus. Jesus, through His divine nature, even while His human body lay dead, was capable of raising Himself from the dead, as scripture teaches, absolutely. Jesus, speaking of His body said “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19). But Scripture also teaches that the Father raised Him (Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:17,20). Even the Holy Spirit is said to have raised Him (Romans 8:11). So, the act of raising Jesus from the dead was not done by one person within the Trinity, but was a cooperative act done by the power of the divine substance. The fact that the Bible teaches that God raised Jesus from the dead, and also that Jesus raised Himself is yet another testament to Christ’s divinity. We can say that “God” raised him, or the Father, or Christ himself, or the Holy Spirit. All are true, and I thank you for raising the point.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It’s a fair point. However, there’s a distinction which is significant. Peter’s raisings were singular and of ordinary citizens. The people had only just died. With Matthew’s saints we’re talking about mass resurrections of “saints”, Jewish heroes, some of whom would have been dead for decades, or hundreds, or thousands of years. Big diff I’d say.

Your source for the “mass resurrections” statement?

But if they live on for a long time, they would have to have a livelihood. Unlikely that all of them made a living from preaching (not a lucrative profession like today’s televangelists). But I asked further, do you think some of them would have gotten married, had kids, had jobs? What do you think?

Hard to say. John Nolland speculated on that issue in *The Gospel of Matthew: a commentary on the Greek text * (2005). I’d refer you there. Nolland apparently did not consider the two texts I cited as relevant to the issue, and thought that after a brief time on earth, they were translated bodily into Heaven, like the prophet Elijah.

Other commentators have made the argument that “the Holy City” in Matthew refers to Heaven, not Jerusalem, but that’s problematic.

Oh come on Mike. You think there were “many” “saints” in the immediate vicinity who had just died in the past few years? You can believe that if you like but it really cheapens the term “saint”.

Okay, again. A “saint” in Catholic terminology is a person who went to Heaven. Your great-grandmother or your 2nd grade science teacher, if they passed away and went to Heaven, is by definition a “saint.” So yes, in the community many of those who died would be considered “saints.”

And you say that like it makes it more plausible. How would it be more plausible if they were only dead for several years? Don’t see why you’re opposed to the idea of them being dead for hundreds of years. What do you think?

I’m not really opposed to the idea. It’s just not relevant to the discussion.

On your larger original point - how could you crazy Christians believe that Jesus went into Hell to rescue those who were trapped there? - how could anyone not know that we believe that? Everyone who recites the Apostolic Creed with conviction believes that. The event, known as the Harrowing of Hell, is a key motif in both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology (although the Churches diverge on Christ’s purpose on the descent - for an excellent exposition of the Orthodox viewpoint, read Archbishop Hilarionb Alfeyev’s Christ the Conqueror of Hell (2009).

It is also a key motif in literature (Dante name checks it), music, and art:



(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Of course I believe it.

 

[vicwestlad]

Arizona Mike:

As atheist arguments go, it’s a rather weak one. We know that different writers had different foci, and not every event is described by every one of the Gospel writers, including events that are far more astounding as proof of the divinity of Jesus.

As apologetics go, that’s a rather weak one

No, of course I’ve heard the differing foci argument before. I think, Mike, you’d have to be more specific and state, for example, what audience Mark was writing for and why, because of this, he’d be unlikely to have included this astounding event. I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning here.
Arizona Mike:

You will agree, I think that the appearance of a multitude of angels in the sky attendant upon Jesus’s virgin birth certainly was an unusual event, yet it is not in every gospel.

Rather unusual, yes. Of course, for me, this was a later embellishment from Mark’s because virgin births and wise men were motifs of the period that people expected to hear in god stories.
Arizona Mike:

In a way, your argument can be considered a kind of unintentional defence of the Faith. The fact that not every book of the New Testament repeats the same exact story, in lockstep, reflects that many elements of the narrative were already known within the Christian community

Well I’d disagree there because, as critics will posit, each added embellishments. For example, the story of Thomas (“embellished”) in the later gospel of John is extremely powerful evidence of the physicality of Jesus’ body, yet not present in the others. Not sure it adds up that, because Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, he would think Jews wouldn’t care much about that.
Arizona Mike:

Had the epistles and the Gospel been written in the style you would seem to prefer - with each text endlessly repeating the information already known to everyone in the community, atheists would argue collusion.

Em…a good point but, I don’t think they were so short on writing material that they wouldn’t be happy to include something as astounding as this event which, I think, is one of the most powerful evidences that Jesus was divine in nature. And this is a good place to ask: when you said more astounding events were left out, can you give me an example of a more astounding event?
Arizona Mike:

It is also possible that this was not an event that was known widely at the time of Luke and Acts.

See here is where we really diverge. I can’t imagine that “many” Jewish heroes coming back to life appearing to many would not be very well known event by every Christian, especially to chroniclers of Jesu’s death. Let’s take my example of US presidents. Let’s say tomorrow there was an earthquake and Ronald Reagan, JFK, George Washington, and FDR all came back to life and started appearing to people in DC. I’m guessing they’d be pretty big celebrities and pretty well known. Americans would be descending on DC in droves just to catch a glimpse. I doubt that a relatively few years later, this story would be unknown to historians of Obama’s presidency. What do you think?
Arizona Mike:

As the early Christians still were living in an environment uncongenial to the new Faith, in either the religious or the political sense, widely proclaiming what had happened would be dangerous, especially if one were to claim that the respected dead repudiated the beliefs of the pharisees, and such a miraculous event might only be shared carefully within the nascent Christian community around Jerusalem, until later years.

Here’s maybe another flaw in your position. Wouldn’t these non-believing Jews be impressed by the sight of their saints brought back to life? Instead of Christians wanting keep it from the pharisees, I think they would be happy to present these Jewish heroes to the pharisees. I think they’d be pretty impressed if Joshua (or name your saint) told them what it had been like to be dead and that he, Noah, and others were all brought back to life at the same time, which was when Jesus died (or any saint who had been dead for tens, hundreds, or thousands of years). I’d say even the pharisees would be persuaded. But then again, the pharisees may have had some pretty stubborn apologists
Arizona Mike:

It is also possible, of course, that those described in Matthew 27:53 were solely spiritual, non-corporeal manifestations, and that the people I described in the two non-Biblical cites as living long lives were solely those Jesus raised from the dead prior to his crucifixion, as well as those raised from the dead by Christ acting through the apostles.

Yep, although I’m not sure, in a spiritual, non-corporeal case, what the point would be in coming out of the graves and walking into the city. Why not just appear out of thin air in the city?

 

[vicwestlad]

Arizona Mike:

It is also possible that Paul and Peter were aware of the event, did discuss it as evidence for the resurrection, and that these references were not written down, only mentioned in sermons, or were included in one of the lost Pauline epistles

That’s certainly possible.
Arizona Mike:

Okay. “Conventional thinking” is that Jesus is God, in our view. There is only one God, one divine nature, existing in three persons, the Trinity, yes? I think you may be conflating two concepts, or you may not have a full understanding of the concept of the Trinity. We say that “God” resurrected Jesus’s body (Rom. 10:9, 1 Pet. 1:21), yes. But when you typed “God,” were you trying to say that you think Christian theology says God the Father, acting alone in some fashion, raised his son Jesus, unilaterally?

Yeah, I thought you might say something along those lines. Now, I know William Lane Craig isn’t a Catholic, but he’s one of the foremost defenders of the resurrection and when he debates the resurrection he’s at pains to say that Christians don’t believe Jesus raised himself from the grave. They agree that would be absurd, he says. Instead, they believe God raised Jesus from the dead. I have to say it’s a bit of a conundrum for me. How could Jesus raise himself from the dead if he was truly dead?

I agree saying Yahweh did it alone would be problematic, but I’m not sure it’s any better to say it was a cooperative 3-way effort. First, if Jesus was doing it, was he not able to do it completely himself because he was weakened like Superman with kryptonite or something like that? Why did he need Yahweh? I’d be interested in your thoughts on this.
Arizona Mike:

Your source for the “mass resurrections” statement?

Oh just the “many” quote. Is “mass” overstating it? Ok, I’ll keep it to “many”.
Arizona Mike:

Hard to say. John Nolland speculated on that issue in The Gospel of Matthew: a commentary on the Greek text (2005). I’d refer you there. Nolland apparently did not consider the two texts I cited as relevant to the issue, and thought that after a brief time on earth, they were translated bodily into Heaven, like the prophet Elijah.

Isn’t it only resurrected bodies that can get into heaven? I think that’s why many apologists argue that Elijah was not actually taken to heaven. He was deposited somewhere else. Because, Jesus was the first of the new heavenly bodies.

I was referring to your beliefs though, since you argued that, according to church writings, they lived on for a long time. Ok, you say you don’t know about the married and kids part. Fair enough. However, I have to say I find it hard to swallow the notion of one of the dead saints gathering people round in the evening to tell them what it had been like to have been dead for hundreds of years. I realize it works for you.
Arizona Mike:

Okay, again. A “saint” in Catholic terminology is a person who went to Heaven.

Yeah, but these saints hadn’t been to heaven so they must have been saints for some other reason. So let me ask you, is there any reason these saints could not have been Noah, Adam, Joshua, or Moses?
Arizona Mike:

On your larger original point - how could you crazy Christians believe that Jesus went into Hell to rescue those who were trapped there? - how could anyone not know that we believe that? Everyone who recites the Apostolic Creed with conviction believes that. T

Arizona Mike:
My larger original point was more about who was in Hades and what they’d been doing there from the point of their death to the point where Jesus lived, died, and went to take them to heaven. Any thoughts?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

No, of course I’ve heard the differing foci argument before. I think, Mike, you’d have to be more specific and state, for example, what audience Mark was writing for and why, because of this, he’d be unlikely to have included this astounding event. I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning here.

What was in Mark’s mind when he decided to leave this out? I have no idea. It could also be a chronological issue, as Mark may have been the first of the Gospels to be composed. Matthew could have had a source which Mark did not - as I said, this may not have been something that was widely known, or shared.

Rather unusual, yes. Of course, for me, this was a later embellishment from Mark’s because virgin births and wise men were motifs of the period that people expected to hear in god stories.

I hate to keep harping on this, but can you point out some contemporaneous sources for these claims, without reaching into later post-Christian, Neo-Platonist borrowing of Christian thematic material? It’s to easy to make broadly sweeping statements like that without a primary textual source.

Well I’d disagree there because, as critics will posit, each added embellishments. For example, the story of Thomas (“embellished”) in the later gospel of John is extremely powerful evidence of the physicality of Jesus’ body, yet not present in the others. Not sure it adds up that, because Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, he would think Jews wouldn’t care much about that.

I think the issue of why some incidents were in some Gospels and not in others was addressed. You would characterize these as “embellishments,” but many others would not. Again, it depends on your starting viewpoint.

Em…a good point but, I don’t think they were so short on writing material that they wouldn’t be happy to include something as astounding as this event which, I think, is one of the most powerful evidences that Jesus was divine in nature. And this is a good place to ask: when you said more astounding events were left out, can you give me an example of a more astounding event?

For the reasons I stated earlier, Paul and Peter did not use their epistles to teach the basics of the Faith. They do not include some quite amazing miracles (the resurrection of Lazarus, Jesus walking on the water, and so forth) because a) that was not the purpose of the epistles, and b) Paul was notably reticent about describing things in depth that he did not himself witness. There were others who could do that, because they had witnessed the events. Paul also does not mention the other miraculous events associated in Matthew with the Crucificixion, such as the rending of the veil in the Temple.

See here is where we really diverge. I can’t imagine that “many” Jewish heroes coming back to life appearing to many would not be very well known event by every Christian, especially to chroniclers of Jesu’s death. Let’s take my example of US presidents. Let’s say tomorrow there was an earthquake and Ronald Reagan, JFK, George Washington, and FDR all came back to life and started appearing to people in DC. I’m guessing they’d be pretty big celebrities and pretty well known. Americans would be descending on DC in droves just to catch a glimpse. I doubt that a relatively few years later, this story would be unknown to historians of Obama’s presidency. What do you think?

I think you’re right, and I think it would be likely that people collecting and writing history like John, Matthew, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Papius, and others would have heard of the event through primary sources, and believed based on that evidence. That seems to have happened.

Here’s maybe another flaw in your position. Wouldn’t these non-believing Jews be impressed by the sight of their saints brought back to life? Instead of Christians wanting keep it from the pharisees, I think they would be happy to present these Jewish heroes to the pharisees. I think they’d be pretty impressed if Joshua (or name your saint) told them what it had been like to be dead and that he, Noah, and others were all brought back to life at the same time, which was when Jesus died (or any saint who had been dead for tens, hundreds, or thousands of years). I’d say even the pharisees would be persuaded. But then again, the pharisees may have had some pretty stubborn apologists

Yeeeeah, you might want to ask St. Stephen about how that would be likely to go…

Yep, although I’m not sure, in a spiritual, non-corporeal case, what the point would be in coming out of the graves and walking into the city. Why not just appear out of thin air in the city?

Saying they came out of their graves could be a lyrical way to describe the dead returning to speak with the living, if we are talking about a spiritual manifestation. It doesn’t have to mean the 1st Century Jews witnessed something out of a Jimmy Sangster Hammer flick, or whispy figures scooting out of an open mausoleum like Casper.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

That’s certainly possible.

Sure.

Yeah, I thought you might say something along those lines. Now, I know William Lane Craig isn’t a Catholic, but he’s one of the foremost defenders of the resurrection and when he debates the resurrection he’s at pains to say that Christians don’t believe Jesus raised himself from the grave. They agree that would be absurd, he says. Instead, they believe God raised Jesus from the dead. I have to say it’s a bit of a conundrum for me. How could Jesus raise himself from the dead if he was truly dead?

I can’t really help you with the statements of Prof. Craig, who differs with Catholic theology on several issues of which I am aware. I have no idea if he even said that or in what context, but I’ll take your word for it. I guess the best answer to your conundrum is that Jesus being dead isn’t being “dead” dead like the materialist’s conception of personal extinction.

I agree saying Yahweh did it alone would be problematic, but I’m not sure it’s any better to say it was a cooperative 3-way effort. First, if Jesus was doing it, was he not able to do it completely himself because he was weakened like Superman with kryptonite or something like that? Why did he need Yahweh? I’d be interested in your thoughts on this.

My thought is that you’re confusing the Trinity with polytheism (and DC comics), buddy.

I was referring to your beliefs though, since you argued that, according to church writings, they lived on for a long time. Ok, you say you don’t know about the married and kids part. Fair enough. However, I have to say I find it hard to swallow the notion of one of the dead saints gathering people round in the evening to tell them what it had been like to have been dead for hundreds of years.

You obviously have never been to one of my family reunions.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I realize it works for you.

Sure. Is it critical to my faith in the Resurrection and Salvation through Jesus to believe it? It’s not essential, but for the reasons I gave above (multiple attestations from reliable 1st and 2nd generation sources), it seems to me more reasonable to believe it than to not believe it. Your mileage may vary.

Could Matthew be describing an event out of chronological context? Well, St. John’s is the only Gospel to describe the resurrection (after 4 days) of Lazarus, and chapter 12 says this event was widely known and the reason why a crowd gathered to greet his arrival into Jerusalem with palm branches and cries of “Hosanna!” This puts events into context: Jesus has brought a man back from the dead, the news spreads far and wide, of this Jesus displaying the power of God, so he must be King in the eyes of the greeters.

By Vic’s logic, such a miraculous, pivotal event, and one tied to Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem should have been mentioned in every Gospel…but no, only John mentions it. (Matthew 11:5 contains an off-hand reference) Why?

Perhaps Matthew was referring to the Lazarus event (and possibly, the other resurrections) non-chronologically in the post-crucifixion resurrections, which he seems to do, grouping events by topical category (a not uncommon literary trope in the ancient world) rather than by strict timeline. Matthew does this in grouping the Sermon on the Mount (chapters 5-7), miracles of Jesus (8-9), parables (chapter 13), Jesus’s addresses to the apostles (10), doctrines of the kingdom (17:24-20:16), prophecy of the end of times (24-25), and concludes with the death and resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection of Lazarus, so close in time to Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem and crucifixion, may have seemed appropriate to Matthew to group thematically with Jesus’ own Resurrection. This would answer a lot of the questions you had about why no one seems to have known about this - according to John, a primary witness, many did, as this was the primary event that triggered the adulation of the crowd upon His entry into Jerusalem.

So if Matthew and Luke (who provides Jesus’s parable (?) of Lazarus, where we also meet Abraham in the anteroom of Hades, and hear Abraham talk about one who rises from the dead) leave this open whether the post-crucifixion event refers to Lazarus or not. John, who always seems to want to set the record straight as an eye-witness, ties the whole thing up with his description of the Lazarus event. We learn from the Patristic fathers that Lazarus, and the other pre- and post-crucifixion resurrected people survived for a good long time.

Would Lazarus have become a travelling side-show attraction / evangelist in 1st century Palestine? Well, it would have been risky, based on the description of his dinner with Jesus 6 days before Passover and Jesus’s crucifixion. Jesus and Lazarus attracted a lot of attention among the Jews, and John said the Pharisees considered arresting Lazarus and putting him to death because so many people were beginning to believe in Jesus on account of this miracle (John 12:9-11). As to what he did in the time of his second life, there are numerous narratives in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, and a possible tomb. I won’t recount them all here but they are described in the Wikipedia entry on St. Lazarus: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_of_Bethany He may have been the first Bishop of Marseille.

Just a thought. Not sure how convinced I am that this is the correct explanation of the passage in Matthew.

Yeah, but these saints hadn’t been to heaven so they must have been saints for some other reason. So let me ask you, is there any reason these saints could not have been Noah, Adam, Joshua, or Moses?

Well, Moses made an appearance at the Transfiguration. Other than that, I have no idea.

My larger original point was more about who was in Hades and what they’d been doing there from the point of their death to the point where Jesus lived, died, and went to take them to heaven. Any thoughts?

Sounds like you’re asking for speculation from me? The virtuous dead, who spent their time praying for deliverance, maybe?

 

[vicwestlad]

Arizona Mike:

What was in Mark’s mind when he decided to leave this out? I have no idea. It could also be a chronological issue, as Mark may have been the first of the Gospels to be composed.

I was challenging you more on the different foci angle, specifically as to why Mark’s particular focus would mean this event wasn’t thought important enough to include but you say you basically you don’t know. Fair enough.
Arizona Mike:

I hate to keep harping on this, but can you point out some contemporaneous sources for these claims, without reaching into later post-Christian, Neo-Platonist borrowing of Christian thematic material? It’s to easy to make broadly sweeping statements like that without a primary textual source.

For the virgin births and wise men motifs? Em…I believe I got that from a few sources including Carrier. I’d have to look into it. I’d have to get back to you on that one.
Arizona Mike:

They do not include some quite amazing miracles (the resurrection of Lazarus, Jesus walking on the water, and so forth) because a) that was not the purpose of the epistles, and b) Paul was notably reticent about describing things in depth that he did not himself witness.

Actually my question there was about the gospels and saying they weren’t short on paper so really no reason to exclude the many dead saints rising but anyway, in my view, I don’t think they would have excluded it if they knew about it. You think they had good enough reason. Nowhere to go from there so enough said.
Arizona Mike:

Yeeeeah, you might want to ask St. Stephen about how that would be likely to go…

Lol, ok. Still, I think the sight of these saints would be too overwhelming even for the pharisees. I guess we’ll just disagree on that.
Arizona Mike:

Saying they came out of their graves could be a lyrical way to describe the dead returning to speak with the living, if we are talking about a spiritual manifestation.

That is possible.
Arizona Mike:

I guess the best answer to your conundrum is that Jesus being dead isn’t being “dead” dead like the materialist’s conception of personal extinction.

So basically he wasn’t dead. His physical body simply stopped functioning. Spiritually he was just hunky dory?
Arizona Mike:

My thought is that you’re confusing the Trinity with polytheism (and DC comics), buddy.

Hope not since I grew up Catholic. I found it confusing even as a believer. But my question was why would Jesus need Yahweh’s help? That’s what I’m struggling with. I mean, if you say “God”, along with Jesus, raised him, you must be referring, at least in part, to Yahweh, who is Jesus, as well as Jesus himself (who is also Jesus)…oh I’m confused again. What was my question? Oh yeah, why would Jesus need Yahweh’s help?
Arizona Mike:

You obviously have never been to one of my family reunions.

Ahhh…sounds like we have something in common.
Arizona Mike:

By Vic’s logic, such a miraculous, pivotal event, and one tied to Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem should have been mentioned in every Gospel…but no, only John mentions it. (Matthew 11:5 contains an off-hand reference) Why?

I’m thinking, the others had at least one story of Jesus raising someone from the dead so don’t have to put John’s. I realize you think I’m making your argument for you here but, as I see it, there’s still a significant diff between one person dead a few days and many “saints” dead for years and possibly hundreds or thousands of years coming back at the same moment. I know you don’t think it’s enough of a diff so once again we’ll just disagree on that.
Arizona Mike:

Perhaps Matthew was referring to the Lazarus event (and possibly, the other resurrections) non-chronologically in the post-crucifixion resurrections, which he seems to do

Perhaps. However, I doubt you’d get many theologians backing you on this. Not saying you’re wrong. Just, you know. It was interesting reading though.
Arizona Mike:

Would Lazarus have become a travelling side-show attraction / evangelist in 1st century Palestine? Well, it would have been risky, based on the description of his dinner with Jesus 6 days before Passover and Jesus’s crucifixion.

Fair point.
Arizona Mike:

Well, Moses made an appearance at the Transfiguration. Other than that, I have no idea.

Yeah, others have said Moses came up from Hades. Maybe Moses came up from Hades and Elijah came down from heaven. I guess anything’s possible.
Arizona Mike:

Sounds like you’re asking for speculation from me? The virtuous dead, who spent their time praying for deliverance, maybe?

Boy that’s a long time to sit there in the darkness praying for deliverance. Thousands of years? Wow, I’d be bored stiff. Mind you, I’d be in the bad part suffering horribly.

 

[Gorgias]

First of all, I’m not sure what “rest” could mean in this context. Not sure you could make sense of that. Second, it wasn’t just a place of comfort and happiness. There was also a part where people were suffering.

First, you’re still being anachronistic, in that you’re insisting on conflating ‘Hades’ with ‘Bosom of Abraham’. That’s an interpretive error. It’s like me asking you how a person living in Georgia could be considered both a rebel (a citizen of the Confederate States of America) and a U.S. citizen in good standing. Naturally, you’d laugh and remind me that the CSA haven’t been a going concern in 150 years. Same deal here – you’re insisting on conflating descriptions of Hades with those of Hell and the Bosom of Abraham.

Well specifically Moses and Elijah. It may not stretch your imagination but then anyone can rationalize anything they want to.

And anyone can be intransigent in the face of a reasonable argument, too. Why would Moses and Elijah be a special case that would worry you? But, since you ask… let’s look at what the potential problems might be. Might it be that God is ‘hostage’ to the boundaries of his own creation? No, that doesn’t make any sense: God created everything, and so, he created the Bosom of Abraham. That being the case, why is it you’re suggesting that God couldn’t have allowed Moses and Elijah to appear alongside Jesus?

Maybe you’re suggesting the problem isn’t with God the Father, but with Jesus. Nahh… that doesn’t make sense either, for the same reasons. OK, then… maybe you’re saying that Moses and Elijah were having too much fun in the BoA that they wouldn’t want to leave, at Jesus’ summons? Nope… that’s silly, too. So, then… why are you having problems with this suggestion? (Now, don’t say “cause it’s Hades” – after all, we’ve already established that the BoA/Hell was a successor construct to Hades; so, if you go back to that tired old excuse, we’ll realize that you don’t really have a case here…

So, Moses and Elijah were “resting” in Hades. Then suddenly they’re back on the earth on a mountain talking with Jesus as if they know him well. Then, apparently, after a talk (hope that’s not offensive) they are put back into this shawdowy realm where they’re held “in bonds” like Adam and Eve for a few more days till Jesus takes them out again.

If would be fascinating to know what they talked about. Hmmm….

If you read your Bible, you’d know.

Remember – “Moses and Elijah” are representative of “the law and the prophets”… which, if you read your Bible, you’d know that this is a phrase that means “the bases of Jewish belief”. So, their presence there shows that connection between the faith of the Israelites and Jesus’ ministry. But, if you’re too busy snarking, you’d have missed that…

You may think the above is “snarky” sarcasm but given the scenario of their brief excursion from the dark underworld, I think anything would be problematic.

‘dark underworld’ is, again, an anachronism. You need to stop using descriptions of Hades in the context of the Bosom of Abraham. in any case, take a look at Luke 9:28ff for the answer to your questions about the subject matter of their discussion.

No you should learn to read better. I didn’t say they were in punishment. They were in the good part of Hades.

LOL! No, they were in the Bosom of Abraham, not the ‘good part of Hades’. You should read what your interlocutor is telling you, instead of getting it completely wrong and backwards…

How can someone suffer if they don’t experience time? How can someone be thrown into bondage in tartarus, as the Bible says, until judgment, if there’s no time?

I’m not the one suggesting there’s nothing analogous to temporal extension in this context. Again… read what your interlocutor has asserted!

 

[Gorgias]

vicwestlad:

Ok, sure, what’s your exegisis?

Nice technique. I asked you how you interpreted it, and in order to evade my question, you ask it back at me.

Here’s Matthew’s quote:

Actually, that’s not a good rendering of the passage. The New International Reader’s Version isn’t one that a Catholic would utilize. You might consider the renderings in the New American Bible or the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition:

“And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.” (NAB)

“And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” (RSV-CE)

(Incidentally, the Greek of Mt 27:52-53 is καὶ τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν καὶ πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν, καὶ ἐξελθόντες ἐκ τῶν μνημείων μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν καὶ ἐνεφανίσθησαν πολλοῖς.)

Please note the differences between these translations and the one you provided. First, yours presupposes that, on Good Friday, the bodies themselves were raised to life. The actual Scripture only says that they ‘arose’ (ἠγέρθησαν), not that they ‘were raised to life.’ Moreover, your translation implies that, on that day, “they came out of the tombs,” and then separates it temporally from their appearance (“and after Jesus’ resurrection”). However, the original Greek doesn’t make this claim. Rather, it links the verb ‘having gone forth’ (ἐξελθόντες) with the prepositional phrase ‘after his resurrection’ (μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ); therefore, the ‘having gone forth’ only happens at some unspecified time after Easter Sunday. Moreover, the original passage leaves open the question of what, exactly, “the holy city” (τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν) is. One might reasonably assert that, if ‘the holy city’ refers to a ‘locale’ in heaven, there’s no reason to presume that the dead were walking around the city of Jerusalem.

In other words, when looking at the original Greek, one cannot make the presumption that an uncorroborated-by-contemporaries ‘zombie walk’ in Jerusalem is what the Evangelist was asserting.

OK… your turn: you’ve made claims that I’ve demonstrated are unreasonable to assert. The ball’s in your court…

Tell me what you think happened?

I think you encountered an atheist take on Mt 27:52-53, accepted it uncritically and without thinking through it, and have attempted to use it against us here.

 

[vicwestlad]

Gorgias:

First, you’re still being anachronistic, in that you’re insisting on conflating ‘Hades’ with ‘Bosom of Abraham’. That’s an interpretive error.

I don’t conflate it. Christians do. It’s a popular Christian belief.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“According to the Jewish conceptions of that day, the souls of the dead were gathered into a general tarrying-place the Sheol of the Old Testament literature, and the Hades of the New Testament writings (cf. Luke 16:22; in the Greek 16:23). A local discrimination, however, existed among them, according to their deeds during their mortal life. In the unseen world of the dead the souls of** the righteous occupied an abode or compartment of their own which was distinctly separated by a wall or a chasm from the abode or compartment to which the souls of the wicked were consigned.**”

The dead went to Sheol, or Hades. They were distinct compartments in Hades where they existed according to their deeds. These compartments were referred to when Jesus spoke of Lazarus and the Rich Man in the realm of the dead, one suffering and one in comforted by Abraham.

After death, Jesus descended into Hades. From your Catechism:

“Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek” (paragraph 633).

He went to free the souls of good people held in hades, like Adam and Eve, Lazarus, and Abram who comforted him after his death.

I know the eternal “Hell” is differentiated from the temporary Hell of Hades but the temporary Hell is what we’re discussing here.

Also from the Catechism:

637 In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.

As the Catechism says the realm of the dead is Sheol, Hades in the Greek. The “just who had gone before him” were there. That would include Adam, Eve, Abraham, Lazarus, etc?