"They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people"
So why arent there any written confirmations of zombies rising from the graves? I am sure the Romans would have recorded it. Or is your entire "scripture" a lie Christcucks
There appears to be some literary funny business in the passage. The passage reads more smoothly without verses 52-53, and the timing is clumsy. The tombs are said to open due to an earthquake that happens the moment of Jesus' death, but since it is problematic to have the dead people come to life at that moment (several days ahead of Jesus' own resurrection, which would defeat the point!), the writer adds that they came out "after Jesus' resurrection" — which has yet to occur in the story. The events that continue from verse 54 are once again set at the moment of Jesus' death, and not after Jesus' resurrection.
My guess is that vv. 52–53, like certain other famous passages, was an interpolation added later on.
trumpanzees got real quiet here
>>17858511 (OP)I think I remember some priest explaining that "appeared" implies here the same experience that Apostles had with Christ - that he would approach them looking completely different and only after a while they would realize who they were talking to. Even if some of the people that this happened to knew how to write, this experience doesn't really lend itself to description (and preservation too well). What would they write? "I swear my uncle came back for a little bit but in a new body"?
I'm so hoping I'm not making this up.
>>17860526no, it's actually the case, in John 20 Mary turned around to see who was behind her and saw Jesus but did not recognize Him. Then again, she witnessed the calvary and crucifixion, so she probably expected Jesus to look absolutely brutalized, not as He was ordinarily.
