It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Matthew 27: 51-53 Meaning?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 05:32 AM
link   
'51 At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split.52 The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.'

This is a moment after Jesus takes his last breath. Matthew writes it as if it's happening in his time.

I hate to admit it, but I don't understand this passage at all.

Anyone?
edit on 18-2-2016 by Rasalghul because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Rasalghul
The veil of the Temple represents the barrier between God and man, impeding the relationship. Theologically, the barrier is imposed by the existence of sin.
The effect of the completed crucifixion is that the problem of sin is dealt with; the barrier between God and man is taken away, and the right relationship can be restored.
The breaking of the veil is understood to be a symbol of that effect (this has been the standard interpretation, historically).
In consequence , it is possible to have "new life" in God, beginning even now, and that is the symbolic meaning of the resurrections.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Thanks I got the veil symbolism, I'm more interested in the earthquake and resurrection of the saints happening in Matthew's time. He is saying what HAPPENED not what's going too.

That's my question, what the hell is he saying.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Rasalghul
What he seems to be saying is that some of the "saints" (that is, those of Israel who trusted in God even before Christ came) experienced resurrection, apparently just after Christ himself had been raised.
And that this was a sample of the more general resurrection to be expected later, evidence of it to the rest of the people.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Yeah that makes sense. It's just such an odd thing to say. How did Matthew know this? I can't fathom he was witnessing the event he is describing, and he doesn't elaborate at all.

The mystery of scripture! I read the bible every day so when I come across things like this I post a thread.

Gotta keep the spirituality section fresh, ya know!



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Side question. Moses wife was a Cush ite but her father was a Midianite priest, how does that work? Cush is modern day Sudan and some of Ethiopia.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Rasalghul
I see two sets of events in the story.
a) After the death of Jesus, the earthquake breaks open the ground over some of the tombs. This would have been observable.
b) After the resurrection of Jesus, there are reports that some of the recently dead have been seen and recognised in Jerusalem. "Appeared to many" doesn't necessarily mean much more than that.
It looks as though the connection between the two is inferred by Matthew. Nobody says that anyone actually conversed with these people and got definite confirmation.
Since this is all we have, there is obviously no way of knowing what happened to them afterwards.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Rasalghul
Cush may be the Sudan later in the Old Testament, but in the early books it seems to have a much wider meaning.
The Cush of Genesis ch2 v13 cannot be the Sudan, because that would make geographical nonsense of the way the river flows out of Eden.
The Cush of Genesis ch10 is the ancestor of the Mesopotamians, Assyria and Babylon.


edit on 18-2-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Or alternatively or additionally
The tearing of the veil represented the tearin of clothing, something that Jews did to show their distress



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   
The veil was rent in two by our Lord; which symbolized the exit of the old ways (Old Testament) of communication from the Lord to His people which were then only the prophets and priests and the ushering in of the new way (New Testament) promise that God would answer to those who believed in Jesus Christ as their promised messiah/Lord. This is God in three forms, called the Trinity; Father (God), Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit (God active in the world). When one has faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord, His Holy Spirit dwells within the believer showing them the to truth of everlasting life with God through the ways of Jesus Christ. Therein lies Jesus quote, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6). reply to: Raggedyman


edit on 2/18/2016 by Evetwo because: Clarifying my answer.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Rasalghul

The veil was rent in two by our Lord; which symbolized the exit of the old ways (Old Testament) of communication from the Lord to His people which were then only the prophets and priests and the ushering in of the new way (New Testament) promise that God would answer to those who believed in Jesus Christ as their promised messiah/Lord. This is God in three forms, called the Trinity; Father (God), Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit (God active in the world). When one has faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord, His Holy Spirit dwells within the believer showing them the to truth of everlasting life with God through the ways of Jesus Christ. Therein lies Jesus quote, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6).




edit on 2/18/2016 by Evetwo because: Fixing the sequence.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


True, Jesus Christ is the new way. God now revealed through the unveiling as Trinity in form.
Father (God), Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit (God in the world or dwelling within as a believer).



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI
I doubt that. The bible is not accurate in so many places regarding geography. Ham or Khem was father of Cush and the name of Egypt. Cush has always been Sudan/Ethiopia. Canaan went north of Egypt and Cush went south, the bible doesn't ever put cush in Mesopotamia.

It's better to just say the bible has errors than to make stuff up to make it make sense. Why can't a Midianite priest live in Cush?



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Just think, the Tigris and Euphrates exist, but the other 2 rivers in Genesis don't. The bible is not perfect. It's a union of at least 4 traditions and sometimes the reason the stories get told twice and differently is that it's a combination of traditions that had different information.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rasalghul
I doubt that. The bible is not accurate in so many places regarding geography.

Exactly so. And it looks as though one of the anomalies is the use of the name "Cush" in different places.

Read first Genesis ch2 vv10-14
We are told that four rivers have their source in one area- Tigris, Euphrates, Pishon and Gihon.
If Cush is the Sudan in this chapter, that make Gihon the Nile, which is geographically absurd. Just look at an atlas and contemplate the idea of the Nile and the Euphrates having their source in the same region.
What makes much more sense is Eden being the highlands of eastern Turkey, with Euphrates and Tigris flowing out of it south-west and south-east, while Pishon and Gihon flow out of it north-west and north-east, making Cush part of that highland region.

Read next Genesis ch10 vv8-12
We are told that Cush is the father of Nimrod, who is the founder of Babylon and also the founder of Assyria.
Look at the atlas again. This connects Cush with the Mesopotamian region, and it would make sense if Cush belonged originally to the highland region just north of there.

As for the other Cush, consider the possibility that Cush was also the name of the peoples on either side of the Red Sea (by coincidence, or the same people wandering a bit further).
Then the Midianites would be Cushiites as being part of that ethnic group.
Later on, that group would give its name to the region south of Egypt, which is where we find it in the prophets.

It's just a question of grasping that geographical names can move, and they can be in more than one place at the same time, especially if they are really ethnic names.

Obviously you know there is a Perth in Australia. But perhaps you are also aware that there is another Perth in Scotland? See what I mean? Placenames can be duplicated.

edit on 18-2-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Rasalghul
Look at a map of eastern Turkey, the Lake Van region, and you will see one river flowing north into the Black Sea and another flowing north into the Caspian. My proposal is that these are the Pishon and the Gihon.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

All definitely possible. Funny thing, almost no one in Christianity is aware that Nimrod is Osiris. Nimrod was a mighty man indeed. Until Esau killed him.

But the myths of Osiris are almost Identical to the extra biblical myths of Nimrod.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Rasalghul




At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split.52 The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.'


Virginity was lost! The Christ took his bride, and she bled. Hallelujah! The dead are no more! The King is Dead! Long live the King!




edit on 18-2-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Rasalghul




But the myths of Osiris are almost Identical to the extra biblical myths of Nimrod.


Not by a long shot, not even close by any stretch of the imagination.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
All this talk of maps, and none of you consider that there was a worldwide flood, in which the "great fountains of the deep" opened, and the face of the earth was radically changed?

There is absolutely no reason why pre-flood Cush would have to be in the same location as post-flood Cush (though, as Disreili points out, it's also quite likely that one is an ethnic name, the other geographic. I'd agree with this in the instance of Cush).

When English settlers moved to Australia, they named key locations after places they knew back in England. There's a "Richmond" here in Tasmania, where I live, that was no doubt named because the geography and layout of the land reminded them of Richmond back in good old Britannia.

This is a common thing.

Who is to say that those who lived after the flood didn't do the same, naming new places after old people, or after memories of the distant past? I wouldn't be so quick to label the Bible "wrong" based on something like that; particularly given the circumstances.
edit on 18-2-2016 by Awen24 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join