I guess, for me, it really doesn't matter whether they were figurative or metaphorical, or typologies, or literal events because, for me, what matters is what I believe as to its significance concerning our Father's grace or undeserved kindness. The rending of the curtain in the Temple, literal or not, ended the separation between our God and those earnestly seeking him, wouldn't you agree? Whether Jesus was hung on a cross or on a tree or a stake is beside the point when the point is that he was put to death in our stead, and our lives are no longer our own, but belong to our Father and Purchaser.

I see that you've left some additional responses, and I'll see whether I can reply to them.

But as to this passage, I was only offering my thoughts in consideration of his post asking for some responses about the rather enigmatic passage in Matthew.

I simply do not see evidence that this event is describing a hurling out of bodies of the "holy ones" from their graves because of the earthquake, and that people saw these dead bodies and went to report them to who? in Jerusalem? Nor do I see evidence that these holy ones of Israel's history came to life and themselves went down into the city. Or, that they ascended to heaven afterwards.

What I do see, and what I have tried to show through scriptural examination, is that for three days the seeds Jesus had planted during his earthly ministry were in the ground, as it were, as Jesus lay in Adamic Death. For those three days, all hope was lost to the point that, really, the apostles went back to their former lives. The raising of Jesus to Eternal Life was proof at long last that the common tombs of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve were opened and Death has lost its sting.

And because that is what I come away from this passage with, my faith doesn't require the event to be literal or typological or fulfillment of prophecy when you get down to it. It's beside the point when you can appreciate the significance rather than the math. How do you reach "10" using only two numbers? Well, there's 5+5, 9+1, 2+8, 6+4, and several others. Each will get you to the end. Now, which way is the right way to get to ten?

Off-topic, here's a question in the same vein: how did Peter know what Moses and Elijah looked like so that he could identify them at Jesus' transfiguration? Would you be able to recognize Solomon if you passed him on the street today with clothing and hairstyle typical of our day? We know oodles about Solomon except for no images or motifs or anything. Sure, we can throw out some ideas that we think make the account work for us in our belief system and perspective, but at the end of the day we really don't know. Saying he was inspired to recognize them is an argument from silence, unfortunately.

Alright, let me go look at your responses below. ^_^

--Timothy

 

I'm not clear here if you mean that I wasn't making an argument that the Revelation was/is directed to a Jewish audience, or if you mean there isn't any research available today to help determine who was the intended audience of the Revelation really...?

If you were referring to me, I was presenting scriptural accounts that I feel may have a bearing on the significance of Matthew 27:52-53 for believers today, and suggesting that these things were believed by the Jewish Christians of the first century.

I see nothing disagreeable with your viewpoint. I know plenty of Christians who hold your same perspective when it comes to our Christian Bible, and I know plenty of Christians who look at the Bible differently but similarly. Personally, I have the deepest respect and appreciation for what is today the Christian Bible. It covers the warts as well as the triumphs. The Bible speaks plainly, bluntly, and always with hope. Start to finish. I've come to appreciate through the writings of the apostle Paul those matters closest to his heart, and the complications he oversaw as Gentiles began to join Jews as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, before Jehovah God. Talk about cultural differences! As you mention, individual personalities conveyed through the written word. And there is no question in my mind or reason for me to doubt that the Bible we have today closely and sufficiently represents the text of the original language parchments which have long-since disappeared. I also understand that the Bible you and I use today wasn't even a completed canon until over three centuries following its composition. Sure, some of the "church fathers" would cite from not-yet canonized writings, but most Christians only want to hear about this in support of the writings that finally got "approved" by a church body intent on establishing and retaining its power and authority over believers in their Christendom (Roman Catholic Church). Most dismiss the other side of the coin— those same "church fathers" who cited the "contested" writings yet to be canonized by the Church also can be found citing from what is referred to as "apocryphal" writings.

I'll have to go back and find it. But I don't personally have a problem with you having the view you describe.

If Paul's letters were written specifically to Gentile believers in Corinth, Rome, and Ephesus, why do you reject that Matthew was written to Jewish Christians? From the very opening, the writer of Matthew begins with one of the most important things to an Israelite: genealogy. The family tree of Jesus simply wouldn't have mattered as deeply, naturally, and traditionally to the non-Jew, such as the Gentiles were. The same can be found with the Lukan gospel, which opens with its intent and henceforth talks about the earthly ministry of Jesus with a Gentile eye to details. The Jesus in the Johannine gospel is very differently portrayed from the synoptic gospels Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Why should this be problematic for us as believers, though? I never said or implied that these writings have no relevance to Gentile believers.

Take the events of Matthew 27 leading up to the verse of this discussion. It all means something to us today. It's all relevant and significant for followers of Jesus today. Both as Good News and as a stern, final warning now to the Gentile world.

I think you're right that we have. It'd be off-topic here anyhow, and Baruq already has bunches to read through as it stands, lol!

It would be irrelevant up until the interpretation or explanation of Matthew comes into play. In other words, if one holds the view that it was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE, they will carry that bias over into how they speak from the Matthean gospel. Similarly, if one holds the view that Matthew was written in the ashes of Jerusalem (post-70CE), then they will have that bias impact their understanding of things found in the gospel.

Where you believe Matthew was written before Jerusalem fell, I believe there is sufficient grounds to establish its composition in a post-Jerusalem time of early Christians. Both conclusions impact our approach to Matthew, without a doubt.

--Timothy

 

I'm not sure but you seem to be making an argument from an imagined conflict.

Off-topic here, but the examples you provided would make sense for their exclusivity in Matthew's gospel, since all of those would have had especial interest to a Jewish believer. I'd have to go refresh my memory on the two blind men occasion, but I'm confident that taken within its context, it's fine and doesn't detract or impact the point I was making concerning this opening of the tombs of the "holy ones."

It might save time if you explain who the "holy ones" were for your understanding, and provide some scriptural background to establish that they were each buried in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

Finally, I didn't think I was saying that it wasn't literal because of its exclusivity to the Matthean gospel. My conclusion is that it wasn't a literal event that included who the early Jewish followers of Jesus would have considered "holy ones" or "saints," namely Moses and the Prophets, and probably certain Bible personalities like Noah and Abraham. My conclusion is based on the omission of this event even in Luke, which from its very opening, sets out to provide a true and accurate recounting of Jesus of Nazareth, and then the early Acts of the Apostles of Jesus. And it's not mentioned anywhere in the apostle Paul's writings.

But it's your position that the omission of this group resurrection in every other Christian Greek Scripture we have doesn't prove a thing about verses 52 and 53? That it was, indeed, literal, in the face of absolute silence and exclusion of this tradition in all other Christian writings?

You're also making the argument that I need to dismiss the apostle Paul's own position on this tradition being a literal happening when it took place, when he wrote that those suggesting that it was were like Hymenaeus and Philetus. The bodily resurrection associated with the Last Day was yet to occur as far as Paul was concerned.

I don't believe I suggested he would have. But would you provide the scriptural references that show that it was Roman officers who witnessed the raising of the holy ones? The account shows that the Centurion and Romans guarding Jesus witnessed the earthquake and "all these things," so I suppose it's going to come down here with whether we conclude that "all these things" includes the resurrection of the "holy ones," thus establishing that it needed to be a literal event for the Roman to recognize that Jesus was the Son of God (or, as the Lukan account reports the Centurion saying, "This man was righteous."

Sure, I'm okay with factoring that in here if it will help.

Bible translation comes into play here.

For example, this is probably the rendering you are most famiiar with:

But the army officer and those with him watching over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: "Certainly this was God's Son." —Matthew 27:54 NWT​

Yet notice these alternative renderings:

Now the centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, when they saw the earthquake, and the things that were done, feared exceedingly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. —Matthew 27:54 ASV

But the centurion, and they who were with him on guard over Jesus, seeing the earthquake and the things that took place, feared greatly, saying, Truly this man was Son of God. —Matthew 27:54 Darby

Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. —Matthew 27:54 KJV​

This may be pure speculation on my part, but I am inclined to believe that this Centurion was Cornelius. Acts 10:30-31 recounts how Cornelius had been praying to God, and that God heard his prayer to learn and know more. In the days following that complete upheaval of his worldview that day, when he realized that the man he had (crucified) was a righteous man, the Son of God.

That the writer of Matthew ties this confession by the Roman centurion with the opening of the tombs, especially from a post-70CE vantage point, demonstrates the outworking of Jehovah God's Purpose, not only in opening the tombs and freeing believing men and women from Death's waiting embrace in any lasting sense, but marking the occasion with the first recorded convert from among the Gentiles, a Roman Centurion that I suspect was Cornelius. That the writer of Matthew records this Centurion as "the son of God," stands different from Luke's account, which has the same Centurion recognizing Jesus as a righteous man, and by right undeserving of death by impalement.

Like I said, a speculative understanding, but at least plausible, given the scriptural support.

Alright, my wife is looking at me expectantly and I've really enjoyed having so much time today to pound out all but the initial post I did (which I had been working offline as time allowed this week), but she deserves some of my time now.

With Christian Love to all,
Timothy

 

I guess I'm confused with what you are asking here.

As I think I mentioned in a post of mine earlier in this discussion, setting aside whether this was a literal event or a symbolic one, surely we can both agree that Jesus' death has released us from the Death we have inherited from Adam and Eve, which comes by sin? That, to a follower of Jesus, everyone's tombs have been opened through grace or "undeserved kindness" and after that, it's up to each of us to surrender our lives to our Purchaser and Father?

And I happen to believe that early Christians agree on this point, based on the available evidence.

I guess where I'm lost is what you are asking in relation to the timing of Matthew's gospel and the Romans mentioned.

Matthew is majority-accepted to have been written post-Jerusalem's destruction, along with Luke. The Johannine gospel came some two decades even later, and it shows in the shift of focus on the portrayal of Jesus— distinguishing itself from the earlier gospels entirely. "High Christology," its called in plenty of reference works, but the bottom line there is that most of the accounts in John's gospel are unique to its recounting of Jesus, and he is portrayed in a distinguishable and advanced fashion to how he is portrayed and what is emphasized in the earlier gospels of Jewish Christians. And it makes sense to me because by the time John was written, Jews were pretty much getting {extinctified} by an oppressive series of regimes. If you weren't outside of Judea by the close of the first century, you were in for a hard time. The mantle of responsibility for the gospels about Jesus inevitably passed from Jewish Christian to Gentile Christian.

All of this is a matter of fact and established history verifiable at any local library or online reference site for anyone looking to verify.

Concerning the Roman centurion, why does the writer of Matthew report that the centurion realizes that he had just put the Son of God to death whereas Luke has the centurion only say that Jesus was a "righteous man" (or "innocent" in many Bible translations) in the face of the events in verses 52 and 53 in the Matthean gospel?

To complicate matters further, Luke doesn't even mention the earthquake— much less the "holy ones" either being thrown out of their tombs or coming to life and standing there for three days before going down into the city (like THAT wouldn't have made for some talk!) of Jerusalem. The rending of the curtain, yes. And I want you to note that for a moment:

If one is to argue that the centurion in Matthew's account believed because he witnessed the events of Matthew 27:52-53, then it also has to be argued that he saw the rending of the curtain in the Temple, since the account about the same centurion, in Luke, saw what happened with the curtain in the Temple and believed. (See Luke 23:44-47) Am I to believe that from Golgoltha, I would have been able to see the tearing of the curtain in the Temple?

And, if one somehow manages to successfully argue that discrepancy, there is still the more consterning one:

If Matthew 27:52-53 actually happened, why did everyone go home in sorrow— and why are Mary, Mary of Magdalene, and even John— the beloved disciple of Jesus— just standing there watching from a distance? (See Luke 23:48) Is either an expected response to, for example, seeing a literal resurrection take place? Or, seeing a bunch of dead bodies exhumed by an earthquake which, according to Matthew, were left there the three days Jesus was dead and buried "among the rich," in the tomb of Joseph from Arimathea.

Dead bodies, especially those of the "holy ones," exposed over the Passover would've been anathema to every Jew alive in that day, do we agree on that?

I don't expect the subject to be settled here because it's been a topic of debate for some 2,000 years now while the incongruities remain.

I'll respond to the latter of your two points here first— whether or not the Bible we have today is tainted:

In a separate post, you asked for thoughts on why the 1984 edition of the New World Translation is different from the 2013 edition concerning a verse you cited there. How can this happen if the Bible we have today is the one Jehovah wants us to have? Which one does He want us to use? The 1984 edition or the 2013 edition? Should we use the King James Version or the New King James Version? The New Living Translation or The Message Bible?

Which Bible version did Jehovah preserve for us to use? I don't happen to have any Aramaic scriptures here— and I couldn't read them if I did. Same with the original Greek (although I have a few interlinear Greek Christian Scriptures here in my library).

So which Bible translation is the one that has been "untainted" by imperfect men committing it to parchment and paper and press, or the imperfect men handling the translation, their bias and cultural worldview shaping their preferences.

In short, no, I admit to no longer believing the Christian Bible is the inerrant, infallible "Word of God." I believe it is an honest and candid record of our Creator's dealings with His people, first the Hebrews and then the Israelites by covenant and law. I believe that those who left us these accounts did so as they were inspired of God, but this does not preclude discrepancies or interpolations in subsequent copies that have since made their way into our Bibles today, either as parentheticals, as footnotes, or as rewording of a given verse.

It was men who removed the name Jehovah from the text. I understand your position to be that this was intentional on the part of Jehovah to have men replace YHWH with LORD? Or that it was intentional for the last four places on could find "Jehovah" in the King James Version removed by committee of men?

How is any of this not a tainting of the Christian Bible?

The purpose of the Revelation was different from that of the Matthean gospel and thus would draw more on apocalyptic writings, so how does that render the argument moot? ??

Who is relying solely on the exclusion of the account found at Matthew 27:52-53 amongst every other Christian scripture we have in our Bible as the reason for determining whether it was bodily or not. My goal, really, was to try to establish the symbolism surrounding it, which interests me as a modern-day believer, and along the way share some thoughts.

But when I combine Luke's account with Matthew's, there are illogical responses. The Roman was terrified at what happened, but the Jews went home sad when their "holy ones" were dislodged from their tombs?

In the end, the passage is suspect for me for reasons far more than simply because the account of an earthquake and subsequent appearance of the "holy ones" was only important enough to Matthew to note it in his gospel.

False dilemma. The sensible thing to do would be to look at the passage and consider context and message.

Likewise, it doesn't mean there is one to be found, either.

Okay.

I offered what I felt were some scripturally-sufficient thoughts on why the account appears in Matthew, based on Matthew's overall approach to the good news about Jesus. This in the face of the obvious problems within the text itself. Who were these "holy ones" and why did they remain there at the tombs for three days? Why did the Jews present with Mary, Mary of Magdalene, and John during Jesus' hanging see these "holy ones" and merely go home sad or sorrowful? How did the Roman centurion witness the tearing of the Temple, as attested in Luke's account, subsequently becoming the first Gentile believer in Christian history, from where he stood on Golgotha?

You are welcome to tackle any or all of those elephants in the room, which I feel would benefit Baruq to include in his consideration.

I feel my approach is simpler. Whatever this event was, it wasn't a bodily resurrection because the apostle Paul patently rejects the notion in his letters, which predate even the Markan gospel. Is the writer of Matthew backing Hymenaeus and Philetus on this by including it in the Matthean gospel, some forty years after Paul's death?

And whatever the passage is, it assures us that Jesus had conquered Death, opening the Adamic Tomb to those who place their faith in what happened for us. And isn't that really the important thing to take away from this?

The rest of your response seems to go more into canonization and inspiration, which I feel would take us off-topic from Baruq's question. Maybe we can discuss our thoughts in a separate post, as time allows?

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
Timothy

 

Few weeks ago, I was thinking about Cornelius, and I was asking myself, how is it that a Roman was serving a god of the Jews? Not only him, but all his household. And not only, but he made supplication to God continually. And many gifts of mercy to the people. Why a Roman would do that? Generally, occupants tend to despise the occupied.Your thought could very well be the explanation, even if we will never know. But I like the idea.
Another thing, as JWs, we refuse to have anything to do with war and army, and that is logical. And someone has been disfellowshipped for the simple fact that he works inside a camp of the army, or would delivery some goods to the army, maybe food, or another thing that has nothing to do with war. With that in mind, it is interesting to note that Cornelius was a soldier, and not a simple soldier, but an army officer. And he was the first non-jew christian. And he get baptized immediately, nobody asked him to leave the army, and nowhere in the writings it is said that he then made such a decision.

 

I’ve really enjoyed this discussion.

For many years I have had a problem with scholars, and their dates given for biblical events. I have mentioned this in previous posts. Being a human, aged a bit, I hardly believe I could write accurately about events that occurred twenty to thirty years prior. As an example, I was in the streets of Berkeley, when they sent in the National Guard to quell the so-called “riots”. I have many photographs that I took while reporting for our student newspaper. Yet, for me to remember exactly, it is not possible.

I, personally, do not believe the apostles waited lengthy periods of time before writing their accounts. For instance, why did none of the apostles write about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 C.E./A.D.? In my example, I remember and wrote about the events leading up to the “Peoples Park” event. That led to the protests and the beating and shooting of innocent bystanders. These articles, I wrote the same day. I don’t believe the apostles waited several decades to write the gospel account. As a matter of fact, the account of Acts was written immediately after the death of Jesus, and onward. Personally, I believe that the gospel writers were likely writing their notes during the events. ( Rom 15:4-5 )

Of course, it can be argued that God’s Holy Spirit helped the apostles in writing the Gospels, and other books, long afterward. But, I digress. When speaking of “scholars”, we must look into their backgrounds to see the “5 W’s”. Who, What, When, Where, and Why.

Who are they? This covers their background, education, influences, information available, etc.
What did they write? Thesis, articles, papers, or books. If a thesis, what restrictions or instructions?
When did they study these subjects. Was it recently? 50 years ago, 100 years ago? 1,000 years ago?
Where were they when giving their opinion on scripture? University? Publishing business? Associate of a particular Church?
Why did they write this information? For a particular religious reason or position? For a Degree? For money? Position on university staff?

I always take the advice of Paul, in his second letter to Timothy. “You, however, continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe, knowing from whom you learned them and that from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” ( 2 Tim 3:14-17 NWT )

 

The best that scholars can do is approximate, resulting in ranges when trying to assign dates (usually the approximate year, unless there is non-Biblical evidence that can be brought in to shed light on something). One of the methods that is used is linguistics. Just as an example, if you were living some hundred years (or two) from now, and you were trying to understand what was happening in this country's culture during any given time, you would examine the records left behind by writing. If you came across a period of time when words/expressions like "gnarly" or "gag me with a spoon" are found, you'd conclude that such and such that is being discussed happened sometime during the 80s. Today, we no longer use words like "thee" and "thou" and "hast," but we can approximate-date literature written using these terms. The KJV wasn't written in the first few centuries of Christianity, nor can we place authorship in our day. Even a common expression like "that's awful" can be traced back to when it formerly meant something was such that it caused fullness of awe, before becoming twisted to the exact opposite: meaning something terrible happened.

I am in no position to question your beliefs on these matters, I confess. What I would contribute for consideration is that there would have been no need for them to write anything down immediately following the ascension of Jesus. That's provided that the apostles could write at the level seen in the synoptic gospels in the first. I wholly dispute and reject the notion that because they were fishermen, that they were illiterate and didn't know how to write. If they knew how to read the scrolls, they knew how to write. However, writing was something you employed a scribe to handle because they had the time to do it— everyone else had to work their fingers to the bone to earn a meager living. Not to mention the expense of writing scrolls!!

But as I said, I do not believe there was even the notion that things should be written down—and certainly not in the immediate subsequent years. (they were sent to preach and teach, not to write scrolls that could be reproduced for centuries to come). My reason for this belief is because they were convicted in the nearness of the Day. Who needs to write down for posterity and generations to come things that will be wrapped up soon-any-day-now? If you think it takes a while to pound out a decent post like this— imagine scratching out a scroll using the materials of the first century! Now, I'm specifically referring to the gospel accounts. Oral transmission would've been the primary source of preaching, as the apostles related their experiences from memory, along with the assistance of our Father's holy spirit to help them call to mind those things which were pertinent. It might also be interesting to note that for the majority of the apostle Paul's letters to the various Gentile Christian congregations, he was under the conviction that he would remain until the fulfillment of Judgment Day, when Jerusalem was destroyed. It isn't until his final letters that we find a subtle shift to acceptance on the part of Paul that he would be put to death before the Day of Judgment.

With that all in mind, it makes historical and theological sense that nobody was moved by the holy spirit to begin collating all of these oral accounts (and traditions) together for future generations, some 5 to 10 years before the arrival of Judgment Day— indicating a shift in Jewish Christian view that things to things not necessarily ending with Judgment Day and that a record needed to be left for subsequent generations. The Markan gospel is thus identifiable as our earliest written record of Jesus' earthly life and ministry, even though Paul's writings pre-date it by some 30-40 years. The Lukan and Matthean gospels were composited in the years following the destruction of Jerusalem, either building on or adjusting the pre-70CE views of the Markan gospel concerning the Last Days, to account for "failed" expectations (read: believers's assumptions of interpretation). Today, we continue to see Christian believers re-examining the events of the first century, including the written record found in our Gentile Christian Bibles, interpreting this and that with seasonings of hindsight and a contemporary perspective— the most prevalent approach being a re-defining of the Greek (Gentile) scriptures into a "future fulfilment" of "lesser and greater" typologies— a practice popularized by Darby and now an integral part of many groups of Christians even today.

I find it naive to suggest that Christians in the first century would NOT have gone back to the Law and the Prophets and done the same thing that many Christians are doing today: trying to make sense of failed expectations by re-interpretation. When the End did not result in the ashes of Jerusalem's destruction, Jewish and Gentile Christians were forced to reconsider some of their beliefs and expectations and application of prophecy— just as the Jews had difficulty accepting Jesus was the Messiah owing to his pre-determined necessity to be put to death.

I would not categorically deny that agenda plays a role among scholars. Certainly there must be scholars who are determined to disprove everything— but just as certainly there must be scholars who have such intense, driven love for the scriptures that they approach the Bible with due respect and awareness of what responsibility rests on their shoulders.

A good case in point was brought up recently by JoshuaStone, when he noted that the Watchtower's New World Translation of the Bible used "grand master" in two verses. Why did they? And why would Jehovah inspire them to do so-- given His retention of full control over the Bible's contents? Further, the majority of Watchtower members (and Bible readers at-large) accept that the Bible translation they use is "God-breathed," and thus something a person can place their full, implicit trust in for its inerrancy and infallibility. For quite a long time, there were only two Bibles: the Catholic translation (Latin Vulgate, right?) and the King James Version. Before that, Christian believers weren't even allowed to have and own a personal copy of the Gentile Christian Bible— and all they knew was what the Roman Catholic Church let them know. Today, there simply is no end to the Bible translations available to everyone, all with their "agenda" and application. All of them inerrant and infallible and trustworthy, or so we are supposed to believe.

Two points here that I'd like to make:

First, the "holy writings" of the first century were not inclusive of what makes up our Greek (Gentile) Christian scriptures— the holy writings were the Law (Pentateuch) and the Prophets.

Second, there is absolutely no scriptural indication that any writer of the accounts of the "New Testament" viewed their writing as scripture on par with the Law and the Prophets. Even the apostle Paul clarifies when he's writing something that he believes that the holy spirit is in agreement with him on this matter or that. It was the Gentile believers who came to treat the "New Testament" writings as inspired, and canonized them over the course of three centuries. Today, of course, Christians accept these writings unquestioningly and on the same level (and HIGHER in most cases! than) as the Law and the Prophets, even though the writers never claimed or asserted such. Believers of the first century would disagree with us, including those who wrote the accounts. But that's how it went, nonetheless, because Christianity was entrusted to and taken over by Gentiles (Greeks).

All of which is off-topic from Baruq's original post— my apologies, Baruq.

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
Timothy

 

In the days of the First Century C.E/A.D., many people knew how to write. For example, Luke mentions this in his writing to the person named Theophilus. “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. ( Lu 1:1-4 NASB ) Luke apparently was speaking of the history as being told by word of mouth. There appears to have been some other things added that may have not been true.

It is also believed that it was Luke who authored the records of Acts. “The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach,” ( Acts 1:1 NASB )

There is the recorded account where Peter and John were brought before the chief priests and Sadducees. It says: “Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.” ( Acts 4:13 NASB )

This statement did not mean that Peter and John did not know how to write, but that they had not been educated by the rabbin or philosophical teachings. Actually, they were amazed that Peter and John were knowledgeable of the scriptures and the promise of a messiah whom they were testifying about. This was where they got their power to speak as they did.

So, each of the disciples had the knowledge and ability to write the necessary accounts that, we today, have. All that is available for us to learn was written by them. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, and Paul all had the ability to write and record events as they happened. Peter, in his second letter to the congregations mentions the written letters of Paul.
“. . . as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. ( 2 Pet 3:16 ) See also, all of 2 Pet 3. They will also argue that Peter could have had someone else writing for him; like a secretary. He didn’t write it, he dictated it as God’s spirit told him what to say. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

 

According to our earliest gospel, — written before the fall of Jerusalem—

Seeing but the centurion, that having stood by over against him, that thus having cried he breathed out, said: Truly the man this a son was of a god. —Mark 15:39 Diaglott​

In this earlier account, the centurion stationed over Jesus watches him cry out one last time (we are not told what he said this second time by Mark), and in doing so acknowledges Jesus as truly the son of God. In the absence of the earthquake and tomb-related activities, the Centurion becomes a believer solely on the basis of something Jesus said that second time— and not because there was an earthquake or a mass exhumation of bodies or what-not.

Why do I keep insisting on this? Because of the reactions of those present with the centurion. All the pieces must interlock AND be rational as well as logical.

Putting the three gospels side-by-side, here are the problems with your position which I would invite you to address:

In Luke's gospel, one of the men mocks Jesus as they are all hanging to die; the other man defends Jesus to the mocker, and then asks Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into his kingdom.

According to the Matthean community's gospel, BOTH men mocked Jesus and neither are reported to have repented right to the end.

In the earliest gospel of Mark, the curtain in the sanctuary in the Temple is torn in two AFTER Jesus dies.
Luke shares the same belief about this event, establishing a second witness.

Matthew asserts that the rending of the curtain in the sanctuary took place BEFORE Jesus dies, contradicting Mark and Luke. Is this indicative of a split view on the subject between Jewish and Gentile believers in a post-Jerusalem world? Hmmm.

In the earliest gospel of Mark, the Roman centurion recognizes Jesus as the Son of God. In the post-70CE timeframe, according to the Lukan community of believers, the Roman centurion merely recognizes Jesus as having been innocent— a notable difference, for sure.

And finally, there were women including Mary of Magdalene, Mary (mother of James) and Salome, present when this centurion stood there as Jesus cries out that second time and then exhales his last breath— and it comes to him who this was.

Judging from looking at the gospels in parallel, there were several women who had come out with the above-named followers of Jesus from the city.

Alright, the stage is set:

Earthquake. Curtain is torn in two. Tombs are opened. And this Roman Centurion seeing all of these things, convinced that Jesus was God's son.

So whether we look at this account and see actual living-again "holy ones" walking around their tombs for the three days that Jesus is dead before heading into Jerusalem...

...or we have the bones of the "holy ones" being cast up out of the tombs and seen by people but nobody did anything for three days, which also happened to be the day Jesus was resurrected...

What was the reaction of the women who were there? All these women from Jerusalem that came out wailing alongside John and Mary and another of the followers of Jesus there day day?

How did they react to this earthquake and the tombs being opened...?

According to the earliest gospel account, most of them just went home sad. Luke shares this recollection of the account with Mark's gospel.

Does that even make sense? They see all these tombs shaken open from an earthquake and bodies (alive or not, depending on your perspective), and the first Gentile believer in Jesus being the son of God...

You see all that and you... go home sad?

And IF these were all dead bodies, you'll be hard-pressed to convince me that the Jews would've left them there for three days, only coming to deal with the bodies the same day Jesus is resurrected.

And what of the Marys and John and Salome? Well, they are "watching from a distance," which, to me, implies a decent amount of space between them and the Gentiles putting Jesus to the stauros.

At least that's how Matthew describes it.

The last gospel to come out of the first century, John, contradicts the Matthean version of the event. They were not far off, but rather so near that Jesus could carry on a conversation with them. (John 19:26-27)

They cannot both be right.

So we cannot make a conclusion based solely on the Roman centurion becoming a believer because he saw "all that happened" without discussing all of the above— especially during a discussion about the context of Matthew 27.

The Matthean account contradicts the other gospels throughout this account. And it doesn't stand up to the simplest of tests: the reaction of those present. I cannot personally believe that the women would have just gone home sad after seeing the exact same things Matthew says the centurion witnessed. I cannot personally believe that the Marys, John, and Salome, watching from "a distance," according to the writer of Matthew, had NO reaction to these same phenomenon except to stand or crouch there and watch from a distance.

And three days these "holy ones" hung out around the tombs, either as bones or as humans breathing again.

Three days!

Anyhow, I'm going to pend there and continue to your next point.

Please, though, address the above.

I thought it rather interesting someone made the observance that this Roman centurion, when he was given realization by God that Jesus was the son, simultaneously had it strike him that he and the men under him had been the ones to stake Jesus to the stauros. He had personally killed this man. And the implications shook him to the core... terrifying him.

For what it's worth.

Okay. Let's go with your perspective and explain what they were doing hanging out out there at the tombs for three days, waiting until after Jesus rose from the dead...?

The tombs also were opened and many bodies of the saints who had gone to their rest were raised. —Matthew 27:52 HCSB
​

The word rendered "raised" is egeiro and is used when referring to a wakening of a person, so there is no need to dispute that the writer of Matthew was speaking to a bodily resurrection here. He was.

Now, although these people are living again...

And they came out of the tombs after His resurrection, entered the holy city, and appeared to many. —Matthew 27:53 HCSB​

Why are they hanging out in their tombs following the earthquake (again, not a logical reaction to the situation), and WHY are they hanging out inside their tombs for three days-- not coming out of them until after Jesus is resurrected? And only after that going into Jerusalem to appear to many.

Again, any attempt at cohesion must include the facts provided by other asserted witness accounts, and Matthew contradicts their record.

I'll pick up from here as soon as I can.

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
Timothy

 

Good morning, JoshuaStone,

I have had an utterly insane week with several family crises, so I will be using the weekend to decompress and engage in some bended-knee activities to prayerfully regroup in preparation for a family intervention that needs to happen before things go from really bad to even worse.

I will respond as soon as practical, however.

--Timothy

 

Mark 15
37 But Jesus let out a loud cry and expired. 38 And the curtain of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom.
Matthew 27
50 Again Jesus called out with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.
51 And look! the curtain of the sanctuary was torn in two, from top to bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split.​

So, both are saying that the curtain is torn in 2 AFTER the death.

 

I have to be brief, unfortunately, but I got my gospels mixed up on this one.

Mark and Matthew both report that the curtain of the Sanctuary was torn in two following Jesus' death. It is Luke's gospel which reports that the curtain was torn BEFORE Jesus died:

[From the NWT:]

But Jesus let out a loud cry and expired. And the curtain of the sanctuary was rent in two from top to bottom. —Mark 15:37-38​

Again Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and yielded up [his] spirit. And, look! the curtain of the sanctuary was rent in two, from top to bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rock-masses were split. —Matthew 27:50-51​

- - - - - -

...then the curtain of the sanctuary was rent down the middle. And Jesus called with a loud voice and said: "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit." When he had said this, he expired. —Luke 23:45b-46​

Please forgive my lapse on this one. /facepalm

I do look forward to returning to the discussion as soon as some pressures let up here.

--Timothy