Resurrections

[Jack Terrence]

I thought it would be fair for me to list a proper Scriptural parallel to Matthew 27:53.

Mark 8:31
And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.

"After" here is the Greek word meta and "three days" is accusative.

In Mark 8:31 meta is not accompanied by a genetive noun. Moulton says that meta means "with" when accompaied by a genetive noun. It is accompanied by a genetive noun in Matthew 27:53 and in Revelation 20:4.

This fulfills Christ's "NOW is" mandate regarding resurrection. There had to be a resurrection near to the time Christ spoke those words whether or not it was "with" or immdiately after.

Catch you tomorrow!

 

[Jig]

This is a weak argument. The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear arranges it with the pronoun first next to the preposition:

καὶ ἐξελθόντες ἐκ τῶν μνημείων μετὰ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἔγερσιν εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν καὶ ἐνεφανίσθησαν πολλοῖς.

Do you know what the difference is between a normal interlinear and a "reverse interlinear"?

A reverse interlinear constructs the Greek based on the English translation is is based on. This means the word order you provided is not the original Greek order.

Have you not noticed the little numbers by each Greek word (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.)? Notice how they are typically out of order. This is because they represent the original word order in the Greek texts.

I have attached a screenshot of my reverse interlinear (look at the orange numbers).


Click to enlarge.

My argument is not weak. You are simply wrong. Sorry.

 

[Jig]

In Mark 8:31 meta is not accompanied by a genetive noun. Moulton says that meta means "with" when accompaied by a genetive noun. It is accompanied by a genetive noun in Matthew 27:53 and in Revelation 20:4.

meta in Matthew 27:53 is ALSO not accompanied by a genitive. This means Moulton is correct, but you are wrong.

meta in Matthew 27:53 is accompanied by an accusative. You have failed to properly show that this is not the case. All you have shown is that you do not know how to "read" a reverse interlinear.

http://www.crossway.org/blog/2005/07/what-is-reverse-interlinear/

 

[Jig]

I've decided for clarity sake I would post pictures of some of my various Greek texts. In all such texts, μετὰ is connected to τὴν ἔγερσιν "resurrection" (an accusative) and not αὐτοῦ "His" (a genitive).

In such a case μετὰ should be translated "after". This is why every major English translation does the same!

Please don't let you theological bias interfere with the plain facts, Boxer.

Click on each to enlarge.

This is from the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (27th edition):


This is from the The New Testament in the Original Greek (Byzantine Text, 2005):


This is from the Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (1894):


This is from the The Greek New Testament (SBL Edition):

 

[Jack Terrence]

I've decided for clarity sake I would post pictures of some of my various Greek texts. In all such texts, μετὰ is connected to τὴν ἔγερσιν "resurrection" (an accusative) and not αὐτοῦ "His" (a genitive).

In such a case μετὰ should be translated "after". This is why every major English translation does the same!

Please don't let you theological bias interfere with the plain facts, Boxer.

Click on each to enlarge.

This is from the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (27th edition):
View attachment 129978

This is from the The New Testament in the Original Greek (Byzantine Text, 2005):
View attachment 129979

This is from the Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (1894):
View attachment 129980

This is from the The Greek New Testament (SBL Edition):
View attachment 129981

Jamiesson-Faucett-Brwon Commentary:

52. And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose-These sleeping saints (see on [1377]1Th 4:14) were Old Testament believers, who-according to the usual punctuation in our version-were quickened into resurrection life at the moment of their Lord's death, but lay in their graves till His resurrection, when they came forth. But it is far more natural, as we think, and consonant with other Scriptures, to understand that only the graves were opened, probably by the earthquake, at our Lord's death, and this only in preparation for the subsequent exit of those who slept in them, when the Spirit of life should enter into them from their risen Lord, and along WITH Him they should come forth, trophies of His victory over the grave. Thus, in the opening of the graves at the moment of the Redeemer's expiring, there was a glorious symbolical proclamation that the death which had just taken place had "swallowed up death in victory"; and whereas the saints that slept in them were awakened only by their risen Lord, to ACCOMPANY Him out of the tomb, it was fitting that "the Prince of Life … should be the First that should rise from the dead" (Ac 26:23; 1Co 15:20, 23; Col 1:18; Re 1:5).

Matthew 27:52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Deleted/non-applicable

 

[Jack Terrence]

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Jig,[/FONT]​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]I submit that they were raised with Christ. Revelation 20:4 says that the martyrs both came to life and reigned with Christ. At best you prove only that their entering into Jerusalem was after Christ's resurrection.[/FONT]​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]and exiting from the tombs, after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and were revealed to many.[/FONT]​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Source:[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]"Regardless of when the holy ones were actually raised, v.53 makes it clear that they did not enter into the holy city until [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]after [/FONT]Jesus’ resurrection—though some feel that the phrase meta. th.n e;gersin auvtou is a later addition meant to harmonize Matthew’s account with the theology of 1 Corinthians 15"[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]http://jmsmith.org/downloads/Matt-27-Open-Tombs-and-Walking-Dead.pdf[/FONT][/FONT]

Revelation 20:4 is CLEAR! It says that they "came to life...with Christ." The verb is aorist. They both came to life and reigned with Christ.[/FONT]​

 

[Jig]

In Mark 8:31 meta is not accompanied by a genetive noun. Moulton says that meta means "with" when accompaied by a genetive noun. It is accompanied by a genetive noun in Matthew 27:53 and in Revelation 20:4.

Boxer, are you serious??

You made a very specific claim. You stated that in Matthew 27:53 the Greek word "meta" was connected to a genitive (the Greek word for "His"). However, I have clearly demonstrated that this is false. You had been reading your reverse interlinear wrong. The Greek word "meta" in Matthew 27:53 is really connected to an accusative (the Greek word for "the resurrection").

You decided to not even address this issue in your last two posts. Why? Did you realize you were wrong, but didn't want to admit it?

I don't mind having a discussion with you. I just don't appreciate the fact that you completely dismissed my comments.

 

[IvinViljoen]

Isn't it possible we may get confused with so many raptures and resurrections being taught in different circles. My head hurts sometimes trying to grasp it all.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Boxer, are you serious??

You made a very specific claim. You stated that in Matthew 27:53 the Greek word "meta" was connected to a genitive (the Greek word for "His"). However, I have clearly demonstrated that this is false. You had been reading your reverse interlinear wrong. The Greek word "meta" in Matthew 27:53 is really connected to an accusative (the Greek word for "the resurrection").

You decided to not even address this issue in your last two posts. Why? Did you realize you were wrong, but didn't want to admit it?

I don't mind having a discussion with you. I just don't appreciate the fact that you completely dismissed my comments.

Hi Jig,

I am not retracting my original statement. I was only showing that you have not disproven that those saints were not resurrected with Christ. For the word "meta" could refer to the time of their appearance in Jerusalem rather than to the time of their resurrection. It seems that you and I have two different agendas. I want to show that they were resurrected with Christ and I can do this with or without connecting meta to the pronoun "his." You, on the other hand, are interested only in a single grammatical point.

The Reverse Interlinear says that Greek is not dependent upon word order. So grammmatically the preposition "meta" may be connected to the pronoun "his." Furthermore, it says that there is nothing that prohibits from growing accustomed to reading the Greek lines as presented in the Interlinear.

From the Preface:

"A reverse interlinear displays an English translation as the primary text and then weaves the corresponding Greek words between the English lines. So the word order of the English translation is untouched, but the Greek words are rearranged to correspond with the English. This means that hte English lines are readable and the text can be used as a working everyday English New Testament.

Furthermore, since Greek is not dependent on word order as in English, often the Greek found in an interlinear is also readable. This means that there is nothing prohibiting someone from reading the English lines and growing accustomed to reading the Greek line as well. One of the features of this reverse interlinear is that the Greek words are numbered according to their original order. This provides an easy reference to the original for situations where the Greek word order could make a difference."

You have not shown that μετὰ MUST be connected to ἔγερσιν as word order is NOT the determining factor. There are examples of this in the new testament.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Isn't it possible we may get confused with so many raptures and resurrections being taught in different circles. My head hurts sometimes trying to grasp it all.

There are not "so many" raptures and resurrections. There are only two resurrections; the firstfruits who were raised with Jesus and then the rest of the harvest at His coming.

Paul is the FINAL word! He said that each man would be resurrected in his own group. He mentiond only two.

Group 1: The firstfruits of which Christ was "a firstfruits"
Group 2: They that are Christ's at His coming

The firstfruits were raise up with Christ. This was the "first" resurrection. They would have ascended with Him the 40 days later. The rest are raised up at His coming. Those who are alive will be changed.

Jesus spoke of a resurrection which "NOW is." Those who were resurrected with Christ meet His "NOW is" mandate. They were called by the voice of the Son of God Himself.

But the rest are not resurrected with Christ. He comes back with those firstfruits saints to resurrect the rest of the saints. They are called by the voice of the attending archangel.

That's it! So simple!

When I was a student at the Moody Bible Institute I had a Dispensationalist professor in my Eschatology class. He said this,

"Dispensationalism is complicated with its order of events and its several resurrections. The more complicated a theology is the more true it is."

I will never forget that statement. It left several of us in the class scratching our heads.

 

[Jig]

I am not retracting my original statement. I was only showing that you have not disproven that those saints were not resurrected with Christ. For the word "meta" could refer to the time of their appearance in Jerusalem rather than to the time of their resurrection. It seems that you and I have two different agendas. I want to show that they were resurrected with Christ and I can do this with or without connecting meta to the pronoun "his." You, on the other hand, are interested only in a single grammatical point.

I am interested in this single grammatical point only because you were originally using it as Scriptural affirmation in support of your argument. However, I quickly noticed that this argument contradicted virtually every known English Bible ever published (I still have not found a single translation - in any language - that is in agreement with you on this point). Upon investigating this matter further I found conclusive and strong textual evidence that you were wrong.

My agenda is to make sure others reading this thread know that you are rendering a false translation of the original Greek text to bolster biased theological speculation. I have posted objective proof that you were in error. It appears, however, that you do not want to admit you were incorrect.

The Reverse Interlinear says that Greek is not dependent upon word order. So grammmatically the preposition "meta" may be connected to the pronoun "his." Furthermore, it says that there is nothing that prohibits from growing accustomed to reading the Greek lines as presented in the Interlinear.

This statement tells me that you have not studied Greek syntax. Greek is an inflected language - while word order might play a lesser role (than in English), this is not an issue because the endings on the word determine which is the subject and which is the object. You are spouting out information like you know what you are talking about here, but it is obvious you do not. Meta simply is not associated with "His". This is NOT a subjective issue here.

Please explain why ALL English Bibles disagree with you?

From the Preface:

"A reverse interlinear displays an English translation as the primary text and then weaves the corresponding Greek words between the English lines. So the word order of the English translation is untouched, but the Greek words are rearranged to correspond with the English. This means that hte English lines are readable and the text can be used as a working everyday English New Testament.

Furthermore, since Greek is not dependent on word order as in English, often the Greek found in an interlinear is also readable. This means that there is nothing prohibiting someone from reading the English lines and growing accustomed to reading the Greek line as well. One of the features of this reverse interlinear is that the Greek words are numbered according to their original order. This provides an easy reference to the original for situations where the Greek word order could make a difference."

You have not shown that μετὰ MUST be connected to ἔγερσιν as word order is NOT the determining factor. There are examples of this in the new testament.

I have shown it! You just refuse to believe in the plain facts. It's hard to blame you though - if you admit you're wrong then the text refutes the very theological claim you are attempting to make. You are handcuffed into denying my objective evidence, unless you wish to change your subjective beliefs.

 

[Jack Terrence]

My agenda is to make sure others reading this thread know that you are rendering a false translation of the original Greek text to bolster biased theological speculation.

Jig,

I am prepared to concede the grammar now because I see it now. But I don't appreciate the statement by you above. It is not true! I am always guided by the analogy of faith and not by a single point of grammar. I could not harmonize the grammar with the scriptures. But upon much reflection I can now reconcile the grammar with the scriptures.

They were still resurrected with Jesus even though it was not in the same moment but after.

A farmer gathers his first stalk of corn with the rest of the firstfruits even though the rest are not gathered in the same moment but after. So the grammar changes NOTHING theologically. I have provided some eminent commmentators who say that those saints were resurrected with Jesus. Yet they were resurrected "after" in the way that the firstfruits of corn are gathered after the first stalk picked. It all was done quickly for they all appeared in Jerusalem.

I do sincerely thank you for pushing me to think it through though I am disappointed that you attributed wrong motives to me.

And no damage is done to my position which you call "speculation" for Paul clearly said that Christ was raised up in a tagma (rank, group).

"Each man in his own tagma: Christ a firstfruits...."

 

[Jig]

Jig,

I am prepared to concede the grammar now because I see it now. But I don't appreciate the statement by you above. It is not true! I am always guided by the analogy of faith and not by a single point of grammar. I could not harmonize the grammar with the scriptures. But upon much reflection I can now reconcile the grammar with the scriptures.

They were still resurrected with Jesus even though it was not in the same moment but after.

A farmer gathers his first stalk of corn with the rest of the firstfruits even though the rest are not gathered in the same moment but after. So the grammar changes NOTHING theologically. I have provided some eminent commmentators who say that those saints were resurrected with Jesus. Yet they were resurrected "after" in the way that the firstfruits of corn are gathered after the first stalk picked. It all was done quickly for they all appeared in Jerusalem.

I do sincerely thank you for pushing me to think it through though I am disappointed that you attributed wrong motives to me.

And no damage is done to my position which you call "speculation" for Paul clearly said that Christ was raised up in a tagma (rank, group).

"Each man in his own tagma: Christ a firstfruits...."

Boxer,

I tend to be quite stern and passionate when involving myself in such dialogue. I truly only want to know the truth (like yourself). It doesn't help that tone and emotion don't communicate well in text-only discussions. So, while my comment was rather blunt, I did not intend it to be rude. Please forgive me. I might have overstepped my bounds by assuming your motives.

I, also, appreciate your concession on the grammatical issue - and I will later re-read your posts to see if I can add anything further to the discussion concerning your other points.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Boxer,

I tend to be quite stern and passionate when involving myself in such dialogue. I truly only want to know the truth (like yourself). It doesn't help that tone and emotion don't communicate well in text-only discussions. So, while my comment was rather blunt, I did not intend it to be rude. Please forgive me. I might have overstepped my bounds by assuming your motives.

I, also, appreciate your concession on the grammatical issue - and I will later re-read your posts to see if I can add anything further to the discussion concerning your other points.

 

[winifred]

Bro in Christ
Sky pair
Jig
Laurabenson
Jig
The Boxer

Hello there,

Forgive me that my response has been so poor, I could not keep up.
I hope the discussion has been beneficial to you.
Thank you for all your input.

In Christ Jesus
Win.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Hi there,

1) Just how many resurrections are spoken of in Scripture?
2) Which one do you identify yourself with?

In Christ Jesus
Winifred

Interesting question I've never answered before.
There is a resurrection of the morning and a resurrection of the evening. And perhaps one more after that.
But there are at least 5 resurrection events.
1 Resurrection with Christ.
2 Resurrection of Daniel 2 & 12.
3 Resurrection of Daniel Dan 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
4 Resurrection of the people at the time of the two witnesses of Rev and Zech 4.
5 Resurrection of everyone including the wicked in Rev 20:5,13.

I identify with the 2nd resurrection event which is still the resurrection of the morning - those who are resurrected in Christ.

 

[RevelationTestament]

1. Jesus
2. church
3. two witnesses
4. First resurrection of millennium
5. Last resurrection of millennium

The millennial resurrections involve judgment by works.

I am part of the church.

Hi, wow you are kinda close to my view.
But the two witnesses are during the last seal ie "the millenium"