What happened to Matthew's zombies?

[Phatt Matt s]

In Matthew's account of the crucifixion he tells us that just as the moment of Jesus' death

At that moment the temple curtain was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook. The rocks split. Tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs. After Jesus was raised to life, they went into the holy city. There they appeared to many people. (27:51-53)

In all my reading during years, decades, as a Christian I have never seen anyone try to deal with this question, and to be truthful I never thought of searching for an answer.

So, what did happen according to believers?

Did these "zombies" die again?

If so, how long did they live before returning to the tomb?

Or did they get taken up bodily into heaven like Elijah and Jesus in the bible's three-decker universe?

Or what?

Raptured

[RobbyPants]

I did before I posted. Among scholars there is often some degree of disagreement and/or skepticism. Quoting: "Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear[12]," and "there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9]" Those two quotes should be enough to determine what Josephus said about Jesus. My contention is not that Josephus spoke of Jesus as the Christ, but rather spoke of Him from a historical perspective. It is my understanding that is not in question.

My understanding is it in question.

One of the reasons the works of Josephus were copied and maintained by Christians was that his writings provided a good deal of information about a number of figures mentioned in the New Testament, and the background to events such as the death of James during a gap in Roman governing authority.[14] Because manuscript transmission was done by hand-copying, typically by monastic scribes, almost all ancient texts have been subject to both accidental and deliberate alterations, emendations (called interpolation) or elisions. It is both the lack of any original corroborating manuscript source outside the Christian tradition as well as the practice of Christian interpolation that has led to the scholarly debate regarding the authenticity of Josephus' references to Jesus in his work. Although there is no doubt that most (but not all[69]) of the later copies of the Antiquities contained references to Jesus and John the Baptist, it cannot be definitively shown that these were original to Josephus writings, and were not instead added later by Christian interpolators. Much of the scholarly work concerning the references to Jesus in Josephus has thus concentrated on close textual analysis of the Josephan corpus to determine the degree to which the language, as preserved in both early Christian quotations and the later transmissions, should be considered authentic.

Not definitive, but up for debate, nonetheless.

[Chas]

It's the ......... "What we do know for sure" ...............part that makes it art.

I'm stating that given the text, that is what we know for sure. In other words what is not speculation but rather derived from the text is what we know for sure.

We know no such thing. We do know that the text was written long after the events, we know that it is not reliable, we know that eyewitness accounts are unreliable, etc.

So, no, we don't know any of that story for sure. Only the gullible and uncritical and delusional say they do.

[orangebox21]

---

I did before I posted. Among scholars there is often some degree of disagreement and/or skepticism. Quoting: "Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear[12]," and "there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[9]" Those two quotes should be enough to determine what Josephus said about Jesus. My contention is not that Josephus spoke of Jesus as the Christ, but rather spoke of Him from a historical perspective. It is my understanding that is not in question.

My understanding is it in question.

One of the reasons the works of Josephus were copied and maintained by Christians was that his writings provided a good deal of information about a number of figures mentioned in the New Testament, and the background to events such as the death of James during a gap in Roman governing authority.[14] Because manuscript transmission was done by hand-copying, typically by monastic scribes, almost all ancient texts have been subject to both accidental and deliberate alterations, emendations (called interpolation) or elisions. It is both the lack of any original corroborating manuscript source outside the Christian tradition as well as the practice of Christian interpolation that has led to the scholarly debate regarding the authenticity of Josephus' references to Jesus in his work. Although there is no doubt that most (but not all[69]) of the later copies of the Antiquities contained references to Jesus and John the Baptist, it cannot be definitively shown that these were original to Josephus writings, and were not instead added later by Christian interpolators. Much of the scholarly work concerning the references to Jesus in Josephus has thus concentrated on close textual analysis of the Josephan corpus to determine the degree to which the language, as preserved in both early Christian quotations and the later transmissions, should be considered authentic.

Not definitive, but up for debate, nonetheless.

---

[Rob_W75]

This would make a great Christian film. I am going to write the screenplay and send it to Kirk Cameron!

[Jenny A]

Do you have ANY proof this happened - by mention OUTSIDE of the bible?

Do you have any proof that 2+2=4 outside of math?
Do you have any proof of evolution outside of science?
Do you have any proof of the law of non-contradiction outside of the laws of logic?

The bible clearly states things that are NOT TRUE. Once you accept that the bible is NOT always true - the actual truth of any passage rests upon the proof OUTSIDE of the bible.

Example - the bible gives at least TWO different BLOODLINES of the christ

Bloodlines in that era ONLY went through men (Who supplied the seed - the entire basis for the child - women only were carriers)

Both bloodlines say that the christ's blood father was Joseph.
The religion claims the christ had NO human blood father

So - both of these statements are false as far as xtianity is concerned
IT is clear from the bible text - that Joseph had NO marital relations with Mary until after the christ was supposedly born - so he could NOT had been the blood father anyway.

For every alleged untruth in the Bible there is a truthful interpretation. The accounts you are referring to, in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, are not in contradiction if viewed in the understanding that Matthew is naming the successive heirs to the kingdom from David to Jesus, while Luke gives Joseph's private genealogy or actual descent. Or in the light that Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy and Luke gives Mary's.(Paraphrased from Haley, John. Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. pg. 323) Why do you choose to interpret it the way you do?

I expect that YOU would not accept a long list of Koran quotes to prove a muslim point - why do YOU list a bunch of bible quotes that are equally noit proven?

I do not judge Koran based upon how 'proven it is'. I judge it as to what it claims. Mohammad did not claim to be God as Christ did, but rather the final prophet of Jehovah. So I test him as the Bible tells me to test a prophet. In doing so I would judge his prophecy against the Bible to test it's consistency. It is not consistent with what the scriptures teach even to the point at times it denies what the Bible says. That is why it is to be rejected.

Having said that - the problem is that there is NO reason to believe the christ actually lived - to have risen from the dead. THERE remains not a single mention of him or his "parents" in the historical record of his supposed time - so claiming that OTHERS were brought back from the dead - when there is NO mention of that in other writings is just as comical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Is that really the best you can do? It's special pleading. I don't think there is any other matter on which you would consider this kind of evidence---oh except that we often do exactly the same thing to support political dogma.

---

Lek.. I would like to know how do u trust someone that we dont even know who wrote the bible?

I didn't read the bible and then decide to become a christian. I first heard of the experiences of others with God and how he changed their lives. I looked at my own life and the world I live in and opened myself up to him. Sometimes I listen to you all and it causes me to confirm to myself the reasons I believe. I believe Jesus and he believed the scriptures, and that really makes me view the bible in a different light. But the biggest reason for believing is my experience with God in my own life and seeing how others are transformed by God in their lives.

People are easily delude by "experiences." But, if belief creates something positive in your life, I wouldn't try too hard to dissuade you. But if you believed in UFO's and it created something positive in your life I wouldn't try to dissuade you. ---- Tell me science should not be taught, or that you have proof and I'll get testy.

[theophilus]

If someone had made up the story of people coming out of the tombs they would have given more details and told what happened to these people. On the other hand someone who reports such a thing actually happening often can't tell us the things we want to know because he doesn't know himself. It is likely that Matthew didn't actually see any of these people but simply recorded what he had been told.

If Matthew's gospel had been rewritten to support the beliefs of an established church those who did the rewriting would have noticed the problems with this story and done something to correct them. They would either have omitted the whole thing or added details to make the story seem more reasonable.

This incident is evidence that Matthew was reporting something that actually happened and that his original writing has been accurately copied.

[vorlon13]

So it's believable because it is so unbelievable as written ??

[theophilus]

So it's believable because it is so unbelievable as written ??

Anyone writing this story as fiction would have tried to make it sound believable. Someone reporting an actual event, if he is honest, will report exactly what he finds out even if it seems unreasonable.

[vorlon13]

Maybe Matthew had ergotism.