You did not ask for any proof. You instead made a judgment that my reasoning is fallacious without you giving any sensible reason for your judgment, except to rant.Statement 1: This is an addition by men to the text.
This is simply an assertion. You offered no proof of this whatsoever.
First off I did not rant. There was nothing noisy, excited, or declamatory about the manner in which I addressed you. And of course I made a judgement...You do it just like me and everyone else. And your right I didn't ask for proof, thats why what you did is called an assertion. Most people support their claims with proofs.
The proper thing to do is to ask for the reasons for my statements. It is improper to give truths to those who prejudge the matter and the speaker before examining the case. In fact it is a sin spoken of in the bible.
Brother...you're not making much sense. I did examine the claim you made and found it rather wanting. As far as what I did being sin...again your declarations would hold much more weight if you provided proofs.
No single matter is complete proof in itself but collectively they all point to the same thing, that the scripture has been invented and inserted into the text by evil men.
You see, I do not care if you believe what I am going to say or not. I am quite interested in the subject for myself, as I do not post for the benefit of anyone else . Experience has taught me that the Lord opens eyes and also blinds people according to their own decisions to walk with Him in Spirit and in truth or not, so that many become quite knowledgeable of scripture yet walk in darkness and do not know it, being blind to their own public declaration of it.
You don't post for the benefit of anyone else??? What, do you do it just because you like to hear the clanging of your own gong? Experience huh...Well I guess I can't argue with that. Can't even verify your experiences. How about some scriptures to back up what you say.
The scripture --Statement 2: It has no support from any other scripture and contadicts scripture.
Being the only instance in scripture does nothing to negate it's value as accurate. It only means that there was one account. And it only contradicts scripture if your understanding of scripture is limited to a wooden sense of literalism.
Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Mat 27:54 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.
Look at the context.
Here is other accounts of the time—
Mar 15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
Mar 15:38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
Mar 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Luk 23:45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
Luk 23:47 Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.
The two insertions are—
Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many
Once again...this proves nothing. Maybe you should ask someone you trust about this. Cause I don't think I'm going to sway you. There are plenty of other accounts in the Bible only recorded once and never spoken about elsewhere in the Bible. This does not negate an event.
You might like to explain how you know my method of interpretation when you admit that you do not know what it is.Statement 3: The statement itself contradicts itself.
Based on your method of interpretation...which you have never even explained, which makes this assertion unconvincing in and of itself. You'll need to explain how this VERSE contradicts ITSELF.
Who said I knew your method of interpretation? Not me. Let me break it down...WHATEVER method of interpretation you are using...which I don't know...it is not convincing enough that you can simply make an assertion and expect me to accept it.
The verses contradict themselves by –
Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many
The graves are opened and the saints arise from the dead , yet did not come out of their graves until after the resurrection, 3 days later.
I guess I could see how a KJV could make you think that. One of the things about the KJV is that each verse is set aside as a paragraph in itself. Something that does not happen in other translations. By the way...there is nothing in vs. 52 that says that the saints arose before Christ. It simply says that they arose. Then vs. 53 comes along in a parenthetical manner and explains vs. 52. Matter of fact the author goes to the effort to add the fact that they didn't come out of the graves till after the resurrection. Silly thing to point out if it wasn't relevent don't you think. You need to remember that these things were written many years after the events. It is the events that are important. The cronology takes second fiddle.
We are being asked to believe that these saints who arose from the dead, did so before the resurrection of Christ.
Nope...Read previous answer.
We are also expected to believe that only many of the saints and not all of them arose. Now what qualified the few to this rising from the dead to the exclusion of others.
It was for effect buddy...signs and wonders. Like the earthquake and the veil being torn. Simply physical things to represent the greater spiritual things surrounding this event.
David is declared by Peter to be still in his grave at the time of Pentecost. Would he not have been more qualified to arise than most?
David still being in the grave in no way contradicts what was said in Matt. 27.
There is no record in the bible of anyone being raised from the dead, without some communication from one who possesses such an authority and Jesus Himself was dead at the time of these saints rising and no other communication is recorded as happening at that time.
In logic this is what is known as "confusing cause and effect." It proves nothing and does nothing for your argument.
If many saints did arise from the dead and were seen by many then it ought to have made quite a stir which is neither mentioned elsewhere at the time in the bible , or recorded by any historian.
Again...In logic this is what is known as "confusing cause and effect." It proves nothing and does nothing for your argument.
There is no prophetic word in the OT concerning these saints raising, nor any mention of them in the NT writings afterward.
Again...In logic this is what is known as "confusing cause and effect." It proves nothing and does nothing for your argument.
Neither are they typed by anything in the Temple worship.
It was also not the event which God wanted men to be drawn to notice at the time.
If any of these raised from the dead saints were alive after the resurrection of Jesus then surely they would have been in the company of the other saints, but nothing is mentioned of them.
The impossibility of them being raised in bodies, the same as that of the resurrection of Jesus should be obvious. Therfore they were mortal bodies.
AGAIN...Again...and again...In logic this is what is known as "confusing cause and effect." It proves nothing and does nothing for your argument.
Then I ask you to provide this evidence from other sources.Statement 4: There is no evidence of this occuring from other sourses either.
We don't disagree. Although this adds nothing to your argument.
Evidence for what??? WE DON'T DISAGREE. Evidence is something I would provide if I were to disagree with you. Helllloooooo!!!
Thanks.
Arthur.