h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just a quick question - interesting to see perspectives on these things...

The dead getting up and walking around when Jesus actually died. Really happened?

Which dead would you be referring to?

You mean Lazarus?

Nah - the ones when he died - when the curtain broke - its in one of the gospels - can't remember which...

I think you mean Matthew chap 27v 50 to 53

I don't claim to understand it but the Bible does make clear that dead were raised when Jesus died. It doesn't elaborate. It must have been an exciting and puzzling experience for all involved but there is no other mention of it that I know.

The gospels speak of Jesus raiing Lazarus and Jairus daugher (specifically noting that Jairus daughter was dead not sleeping). They speak of Jesus raising the centurion's servant without being there (so his presence was not needed). When Jesus performed miracles it wasn't to show off or impress folk. It was to confirm that He is Gods Son, the Christ, and that he had the authority of God.

All these other resurrections of course fade into insignificance when you consider Jesus being raised from the dead and why He died (to pay the price for sin). Once you look to that then the others become less of a problem (not no problem)

While we can and should study other things and questions folk have, the core of the good news about Jesus is his death and resurrection so I'm likely to mention it from time to time if given the opportunity

erm, I have a problem with this too (as Lucinda does.) I find it hard to accept that these people (Matt 27 vv 50-53)

That's one of the reasons I am not a Biblical Literalist, - I believe in Godbut not (necessarily) the Bible. I tend to think that this other resurrection is sort of a metaphor. Maybe.

From Della the Cat woman: (Answers on the back of an aluminium pie plate - 25 words or fewer)

> That's one of the reasons I am not a Biblical Literalist, - I
> believe in God but not (necessarily) the Bible. I tend to think that
> this other resurrection is sort of a metaphor. Maybe.

My take on this would be that on the one hand, I regard myself as a Biblical Literalist - at any rate, I believe the Bible to be true, reliable, accurate, etc. On the other hand, I was reading that particular passage only this morning, and...yeah, I can see why people might have problems with it - I think for me, the main issue is, any report of someone being raised from the dead kind of detracts from Jesus' uniqueness (although with Him there's also the issue of a transformation taking place at some level - both able to pass through locked doors and *able* to sit down and have fish with his friends), whereas with (e.g.) Lazarus one gets the impression that it's the same body, just restored from death to life.

But on the third hand (oh heck, I've got three hands. I've turned into Zaphod Beeblebrox - somebody stop me), if you "believe in God" (messy phrase, I've always been uncomfortable with it, but we'll go with it for the mo), do you believe that God has the power to raise people from the dead? If not, then you're placing limits on God that might be unjustified (especially if He's meant to be omnipotent and all of that). But if you believe that He's *capable* of it (and I certainly do), then where's the problem with accepting the narrative in Matthew as being accurate?

Although it could be a metaphor *too*. I can certainly seeing that working.

David.

> "where's the problem with accepting the narrative in Matthew as being accurate?"

No records (except the bible) speak of such a thing. One would imagine that the dead getting up and walking around the city would have been mentioned in the local papers...

From Lucinda (et al):

> No records (except the bible) speak of such a thing. One would
> imagine that the dead getting up and walking around the city would
> have been mentioned in the local papers...

Well, find me a local paper from 1st Century Palestine and I'll give you a medal.

Seriously, though, we're just into arguments from silence. The fact that there are no records (at least, no extant records - how do we know that there weren't other documents recording these particular events that simply didn't survive?) of an event occurring outside of the Biblical record doesn't make the Biblical record unreliable.

David.

>>do you believe that God has the power to raise people from the dead? If not, then you're placing limits on God that might be unjustified (especially if He's meant to be omnipotent and all of that). But if you believe that He's *capable* of it (and I certainly do), then where's the problem with accepting the narrative in Matthew as being accurate?<<

I take your point, David and I think you make a good case, but on the whole, I still think I'd go with the metaphor thing - perhaps its purpose is to *emphasise* the transformation, not just just of Jesus, but of the ?

From Della the Cat woman: (Answers on the back of an aluminium pie plate - 25 words or fewer)

>> do you believe that God has the power to raise people from the
>> dead? If not, then you're placing limits on God that might be
>> unjustified (especially if He's meant to be omnipotent and all of
>> that). But if you believe that He's *capable* of it (and I
>> certainly do), then where's the problem with accepting the
>> narrative in Matthew as being accurate?

> I take your point, David and I think you make a good case, but on
> the whole, I still think I'd go with the metaphor thing - perhaps
> its purpose is to *emphasise* the transformation, not just just of
> Jesus, but of the ?

Not quite sure what you're meaning is regarding "the transformation...of the " - could you elaborate a bit on that?

I think I was thinking more in terms of a metaphor for the disciples - the actions of the ex-corpses mirrors that of the disciples in that after the resurrection they go into the "holy city" (I presume this just means Jerusalem) and appear to many people (the disciples went to Jerusalem and preached the Good News to many people after the resurrection - and moreso after the ascension).

There's possibly an extended metaphor for the lives of Christians in general - i.e., we're dead (in our sins) but brought to life by Jesus's death, after which it's our responsibility to appear before many people (to witness and testify concerning Jesus). After all Matthew 27:51 (the curtain in the temple splitting in two) has a metaphorical/symbollic meaning for Christians as well, so there's no reason why the corpses being brought to life couldn't have similar interpretation behind it.

But like I say, I don't think the metaphorical interpretation has to rule out the literal interpretation - it just makes for a more colourful sermon..!

David.

>>Not quite sure what you're meaning is regarding "the transformation...of the " - could you elaborate a bit on that?<<

What I was thinking of, is that the world begun a transformation with the Resurrection - everything changed then, tho' the change is taking 1000s of years to complete.. As you may know, I believe in Christian Reincarnation - we are all an *on-going* part of the change..