Do you believe this? Really?

[vicwestlad]

Gorgias:

But, since you ask… let’s look at what the potential problems might be. Might it be that God is ‘hostage’ to the boundaries of his own creation? No, that doesn’t make any sense: God created everything, and so, he created the Bosom of Abraham. That being the case, why is it you’re suggesting that God couldn’t have allowed Moses and Elijah to appear alongside Jesus?

No, these are straw men. Since you believe Moses and Elijah were in heaven (if I have you right), this isn’t a problem for you. I was talking to others who believed they were in Hades, awaiting Jesus’ rescue. I would find it odd for them to be “in bonds” in Hades, then taken out for a chat on the mountain and put back in. Seems rather fanciful to me. That’s all I’m saying.

Gorgias:

If you read your Bible, you’d know

The Bible doesn’t state what Jesus, Moses, and Elijah were talking about. It only mentions Yahweh’s comment about being proud of Jesus. Despite your unwarranted contumely, here, I think it would be interesting to know what their little chat was about. Since you claim to know, tell me what you think they were saying. Feel free to put it in a form like this:

Jesus: " "
Moses: " "
Elijah: " "

Thanks.

Gorgias:

‘dark underworld’ is, again, an anachronism. You need to stop using descriptions of Hades in the context of the Bosom of Abraham.

Well the Catechism says it’s dark and shadowy:

“Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him” (paragraph 635).

Augustine also called it a prison and said they were “in bonds”. Doesn’t mean they were suffering. See next…

Gorgias:

LOL! No, they were in the Bosom of Abraham, not the ‘good part of Hades’. You should read what your interlocutor is telling you, instead of getting it completely wrong and backwards

You continue to compound your sloppy error. I was responding to this statement of yours:

Gorgias:

Again, your assertion that saying that Moses and Elijah were ‘in bonds’ means that they were in eternal punishment is a crass misunderstanding.

Never said that. Don’t think it. Never said that “in bonds” means Moses and Elijah were in eternal punishment. You can’t find it because I never said it.

Really, Georgias, when you make such a whopping error, and it’s pointed out to you, you should have the humility to admit you were wrong instead of doubling down on your lazy error.

Gorgias:

I’m not the one suggesting there’s nothing analogous to temporal extension in this context. Again… read what your interlocutor has asserted!

Tell me then, do you accept that there was temporal extension in Hades?

Gorgias:

Nice technique. I asked you how you interpreted it, and in order to evade my question, you ask it back at me.

Again, you don’t seem to be paying attention. I’ve been clear that I think Matthew meant that Jewish saints who had died previously came back to life at the point of Jesus’ death and walked into the city and appeared to many. No evading going on here.

Gorgias:

Actually, that’s not a good rendering of the passage. The New International Reader’s Version isn’t one that a Catholic would utilize. You might consider the renderings in the New American Bible or the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition:

The most popular apologetic I get from believers, by far, is “that’s not a good translation” no matter what version I’m using. Just sayin’. Anyway…

Gorgias:

The actual Scripture only says that they ‘arose’ (ἠγέρθησαν), not that they ‘were raised to life.’

Lol. So when the text says, “The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised,” it means they weren’t raised back to life? Raised to what then, just the corpses raised out of the ground still dead? Not sure what you’re trying to say here but you might want to include a link to a respected scholar who thinks Matthew is saying they weren’t raised back to life when they were raised.

I can provide you with links to lots of scholars who say that the correct interpretation is that they were raised back to life at the point of death but just that they didn’t actually go into the city till after the resurrection. That’s the generally accepted interpretation. Here’s a couple.

Robert Horton Gundry said:

Thus Matthew probably means that the saints stayed in their tombs for several days even though their bodies had been raised to life” (Eerdmans, 1994, p.576).

Four revered apologists, including Walter Kaiser and F. F. Bruce wrote:

“The righteous dead are raised by the power of the crucifixion, according to Matthew, but they do not go into the city yet…They wait in their tombs until his resurrection occurs and then leave the tombs” (Hard Saying of the Bible, InterVarsity Press, 1996, p. 402).

Gorgias:

I think you encountered an atheist take on Mt 27:52-53, accepted it uncritically and without thinking through it, and have attempted to use it against us here

Nice try. Now you’ve told me what you think might have happened. But I asked you what you thought actually happened. So, let’s here it.

 

[Usagi]

Vic,

I’m still not seeing your endgame here.

If someone says, “Yup, it sure seems that some souls spent hundreds or thousands (or hundreds of thousands or millions, depending on which of our hominid ancestors had rational souls) of years waiting in the afterlife for Jesus to open Heaven” … what then? We already believe that every soul is going to spend all eternity in either Heaven or Hell, and while many of us probably see that as something of a timeless existence, there’s plenty of scriptural and traditional language that suggests something analogous to time and space existing in those realms, too. What you find inherently silly about Hades is unlikely to faze anyone who believes in any sort of conscious afterlife.

Likewise, with the “risen saints in Jerusalem” sideline, you first insist that we are talking about named Old Testament celebrities (which I don’t believe has ever been the Christian claim) and then try to lead us into acknowledging the silliness of these raised folks embarking on ordinary lives. I certainly imagine that’s what Lazarus did (though he had the advantage of only missing four days), so I imagine the same would be true of those raised as a sign at Jesus’ death, assuming they got entire new lives and weren’t supposed to be only miraculous signs who would soon perish again.

The question of “Why doesn’t anyone else mention these physical raisings from the dead” is actually a good one, but you seem more fixated on getting us to admit that certain things you find silly are, indeed, silly.

Usagi

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t conflate it. Christians do. It’s a popular Christian belief.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: “the souls of the dead were gathered into a general tarrying-place the Sheol of the Old Testament literature, and the Hades of the New Testament writings”

The dead went to Sheol, or Hades.

Notice, however, that these are different names, for different times (and beliefs): Sheol in the OT and Hades in the NT. Moreover, the notion of Hades differed from that of Sheol in that Sheol was an undifferentiated ‘abode of the dead’, whereas Hades carried the notion of eternal rest or eternal suffering depending on the merits of their life. Now, given that these are unembodied souls, it’s moot to discuss which ‘side’ of Hades they are ‘in’; it’s sufficient to say that the two groups are not in direct contact. If you wish to ridicule the notion of the ‘good part’ of Hades and the ‘bad part’, then first you need to explain why it’s reasonable to take that assertion literally, and not just in the spirit that it’s offered.

These compartments were referred to when Jesus spoke of Lazarus and the Rich Man in the realm of the dead, one suffering and one in comforted by Abraham.

Actually, Jesus spoke about two distinct places: the poor man, in the ‘bosom of Abraham’ and the rich man, in the ‘netherworld’ (Hades).

As the Catechism says the realm of the dead is Sheol, Hades in the Greek. The “just who had gone before him” were there. That would include Adam, Eve, Abraham, Lazarus, etc?

Putatively, yes. (Lazarus, the character in the parable, might just be a character in a story, rather than a real person, btw…)

 

[Gorgias]

No, these are straw men. Since you believe Moses and Elijah were in heaven (if I have you right), this isn’t a problem for you. I was talking to others who believed they were in Hades, awaiting Jesus’ rescue.

No – no one was in heaven prior to Jesus’ resurrection. Moses and Elijah would have been in (as you like to put it) ‘the good part of Hades’, or the ‘Bosom of Abraham’.

I would find it odd for them to be “in bonds” in Hades, then taken out for a chat on the mountain and put back in. Seems rather fanciful to me. That’s all I’m saying.

My contention is that the ‘bondage’ mentioned isn’t literal, but allegorical. They weren’t in chains, if this is what you’re picturing (after all, as I’ve mentioned, they aren’t embodied, so ‘chains’ make no sense); rather, they had not yet experienced the freedom of heaven. Therefore, in a certain sense, they’re still in the ‘bondage’ of not being able to experience God’s presence immediately. If your incredulity is based on your assumption that the Church is talking about literal chains, please put your mind to rest; it isn’t.

The Bible doesn’t state what Jesus, Moses, and Elijah were talking about. It only mentions Yahweh’s comment about being proud of Jesus.

Seriously? And you scoff at our ability to read and comprehend? Let me quote for you, then: “And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem.” (Luke 9:30-31).

Now, the passage doesn’t provide a literal narrative, but clearly, it’s telling us what they discussed – and it wasn’t the “hey! it stinks in Hades! Let us out!” that you so facilely presented here. Rather, given that Moses took part in an exodus from slavery to the Promised Land, and Elijah in an exodus from the Promised Land to exile and back again, Jesus is talking to them about his exodus, in which he’s traveling to Jerusalem in order to attain for humanity the Promised Land of everlasting life.

There. Good enough? Can we finally dispense with the snarky commentary on the Transfiguration scene?

Despite your unwarranted contumely, here

Oh, I might be willing to cop to ‘contumely’, but ‘unwarranted’? That’s in the eye of the beholder, and I think you’ve been snide enough in your skewering of our religious beliefs that a little turnabout is fair play…

Well the Catechism says it’s dark and shadowy:

Do you think that it’s a literal darkness that’s being talked about? Remember: disembodied souls…! God is often described of as ‘the light’; this reference, then, is speaking to the lack of God’s immediate presence before them. Also, the ‘shadow of death’ is a poetic turn of phrase used throughout the Bible; it refers to the general condition of the dead, rather than literal shadow.

You continue to compound your sloppy error. I was responding to this statement of yours:

Never said that. Don’t think it. Never said that “in bonds” means Moses and Elijah were in eternal punishment. You can’t find it because I never said it.

Fair enough; you don’t say ‘eternal punishment’, but rather, temporary ‘captivity’ in Hades:

vicwestlad:

I would suggest it’s rather strange to think of Moses and Elijah in Hades with Adam and Eve “in bonds” and then let out for a brief period and sent back down to serve out their “captivity” down in Hades.

If all you’re objecting to is duration, then that’s a quibble; rather, the issue here is that you’re attempting to say that Moses and Elijah were experiencing something rather unpleasant – akin to punishment – in the Bosom of Abraham, which is not what we’re asserting at all.

Tell me then, do you accept that there was temporal extension in Hades?

It’s not a dogmatic assertion, but it stands to reason that there may be something akin to temporal extension in Hades, but only inasmuch as we – as humans with limited perspective and understanding – cannot wrap our heads around the way that a person might be conscious but devoid of the consciousness of the passage of time. I can’t provide a scientific explanation of how it works, of course, but we can discuss the notion philosophically.

 

[Gorgias]

continuing: on your discussion of Matthew 27:52ff…

Again, you don’t seem to be paying attention. I’ve been clear that I think Matthew meant that Jewish saints who had died previously came back to life at the point of Jesus’ death and walked into the city and appeared to many. No evading going on here.

OK; fair enough. I have two thoughts on that. First, you’re clearly misreading the Gospel passage: as I demonstrated earlier, the ‘appearance to many’ happens after Jesus’ resurrection, not at the point of His death. Talk about ‘unacknowledged whopping errors’! Secondly, I appreciate that this is your viewpoint; however, can you make the case that your take on it is the only possible reading of the text? I’ve provided a few questions that raise the possibility that your literalistic, on-its-face reading isn’t the only possible interpretation. Can you demonstrate that it is the only one possible? If not, then I don’t have to buy into your assumptions and argue against your points about the lack of contemporary witnesses to that event…

The most popular apologetic I get from believers, by far, is “that’s not a good translation” no matter what version I’m using. Just sayin’. Anyway…

That’s why I gave you the original Greek, Vic – so that you couldn’t claim that I was simply being difficult. See, I not only claimed that your translation was deficient, but I showed you why, using the original text. You can shrug your shoulders all you want, but if you refuse to look at the texts themselves, then I guess you’ll never be convinced…

Lol. So when the text says, “The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised,” it means they weren’t raised back to life? Raised to what then, just the corpses raised out of the ground still dead?

Picture New Orleans at the time of Katrina. If you have an earthquake that splits rocks (including stone tombs, presumably), that would likewise presumably bring the bones of the dead to the surface.

Not sure what you’re trying to say here but you might want to include a link to a respected scholar who thinks Matthew is saying they weren’t raised back to life when they were raised.

Sure. See Matthew 27:52-53 as Apocalyptic Apostrophe: Temporal-Spatial Collapse in the Gospel of Matthew, by Kenneth Waters Sr, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol 122, No 3 (Autumn 2003), pp 489-515.

I can provide you with links to lots of scholars who say that the correct interpretation is that they were raised back to life at the point of death but just that they didn’t actually go into the city till after the resurrection. That’s the generally accepted interpretation.

“Generally accepted”? By whom? The Catholic Church?

Robert Horton Gundry said: Thus Matthew probably means that the saints stayed in their tombs for several days even though their bodies had been raised to life” (Eerdmans, 1994, p.576).

Yet, Gundry asserts that Matthew isn’t attempting to write a strictly historical work (a position that got him in hot water with the Evangelical Theological Society); if this is the case – that there is midrash in the Gospel – then we can dispose of your criticism of the historicity of this passage. In a similar vein, Michael Licona discusses the historiography of the resurrection experience, and makes similar claims.

Even from a theological perspective, though, Gundry’s assertion is problematic. Jesus is the ‘firstborn of the dead’; if we posit that these are literally resurrected Jews, then we’re saying that they were raised prior to Jesus, which presents a theological dilemma. Gundry’s assertion here provides more contradictions than solutions.

Four revered apologists, including Walter Kaiser and F. F. Bruce

Interesting. All three sources that you cite are Evangelical American scholars. You realize, of course, that their tradition requires them to hold to a literalistic (i.e., fundamentalist) hermeneutical approach to Scripture, right? In other words, they proceed from the grounds that everything in Scripture must be true historically and on the face of the text. Therefore, there’s nothing surprising in the assertion that they believe the passage in Matthew speaks to a literal resurrection, nor does it prove the reasonableness of their arguments. “Revered apologists”? Within their own tradition, perhaps; but a Catholic wouldn’t hold to the types of things they’d assert about the Scriptures…

Nice try. Now you’ve told me what you think might have happened. But I asked you what you thought actually happened. So, let’s here it.

I think that it’s possible that, given the abrupt shift in the narrative – from the account of the events of Good Friday to events described as ‘after his resurrection’ – the thesis that we’re looking at an insertion of apocalyptic literature (which, naturally, isn’t meant to be treated as historical narrative) is reasonable.

 

[vicwestlad]

Usagi:

I’m still not seeing your endgame here.

If someone says, “Yup, it sure seems that some souls spent hundreds or thousands (or hundreds of thousands or millions, depending on which of our hominid ancestors had rational souls) of years waiting in the afterlife for Jesus to open Heaven” … what then? We already believe that every soul is going to spend all eternity in either Heaven or Hell, and while many of us probably see that as something of a timeless existence, there’s plenty of scriptural and traditional language that suggests something analogous to time and space existing in those realms, too. What you find inherently silly about Hades is unlikely to faze anyone who believes in any sort of conscious afterlife.

Yep, again you make another good point. I think there’s a bit of a distinction, though, and I’ll see if I can articulate it. Here’s what you said in a previous post about Hades:

Usagi:

It seems they were able to interact with other deceased folk, presumably including relatives they’d missed and honored ancestors like Abraham.

In heaven, everything has be resolved. Everyone knows what’s going on and everyone is free to do whatever they like and it’s all fun, presumably.

However, the way Hades is described in Catholic doctrine, it’s nothing like that. And, if you will, the devil is in the details and few believers delve into these details. If you accept that good people, like Abraham, Adam, Eve, are there and can communicate, then how about good people who died in other parts of the world, like southern Africa, or souther America, or what’s now called Canada? Can you imagine Abraham talking with a nice Inuit family? Wouldn’t they be a bit confused? Would Abraham tell them about Yahweh? Would they believe him? Would the Inuit tell Adam and Eve about snow fishing? Other questions like, why wouldn’t Yahweh come visit them?

Just seems really hard to believe for me. Fell free to tell me I’m nuts , but seems to me rather fanciful at best.

Usagi:

Likewise, with the “risen saints in Jerusalem” sideline, you first insist that we are talking about named Old Testament celebrities (which I don’t believe has ever been the Christian claim) and then try to lead us into acknowledging the silliness of these raised folks embarking on ordinary lives.

Actually I don’t insist on it, though I’m not sure why it wouldn’t involve people like Abraham, Noah, etc. If not them, then who and why are they “saints”? I’m open to the idea of these risen saints not being Noah or Adam and Eve but my question to you would be, why would you object to this? Why would it make the story more credible to be local people only dead a few years instead of hundreds. And, and if not more credible, then why object to it being Noah, Adam, and Eve? Is the objection just because it seems absurd?

Usagi:

The question of “Why doesn’t anyone else mention these physical raisings from the dead” is actually a good one, but you seem more fixated on getting us to admit that certain things you find silly are, indeed, silly.

Maybe not so much admit, 'cause that’s not going to happen, but maybe have people just think about it a bit.

Thanks Usagi

Vic

 

[vicwestlad]

Gorgias:

Notice, however, that these are different names, for different times (and beliefs): Sheol in the OT and Hades in the NT. Moreover, the notion of Hades differed from that of Sheol in that Sheol was an undifferentiated 'abode of the dead', whereas Hades carried the notion of eternal rest or eternal suffering depending on the merits of their life.

This appears, though, to reflect, not only a development of the idea of the abode of the dead, but the influence of Greek culture and the fact that the NT was written by Greek speaking believers. Sheol was a very poorly developed concept in Hebrew writings.

"For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not any thing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten” (Eccl. 9:5).

Fast forward to Greek influence, and the word, Hades, as you know connoted a vague, shadowy place in Greek culture. Christianity seems to have, a little clumsily in my view, merged the two.

But here’s the thing. The quote I gave from the Catholic Encyclopedia says there are two compartments in Hades. Surely this means one part was where the unrighteous go to suffer and the other where the righteous go to wait for Jesus’ victory over sin. Abraham’s bosom, then, would be a compartment in Hades. That’s why some theologians have determined that, when Jesus took the righteous out of Hades to heaven, he took Abraham’s bosom with him.

Gorgias:

Now, given that these are unembodied souls, it’s moot to discuss which ‘side’ of Hades they are ‘in’; it’s sufficient to say that the two groups are not in direct contact. If you wish to ridicule the notion of the ‘good part’ of Hades and the ‘bad part’, then first you need to explain why it’s reasonable to take that assertion literally, and not just in the spirit that it’s offered.

Is it not Catholic doctrine that, when a person died before Jesus he/she would be face judgment where the unrighteous, like enemies of Israel would tarry in a place of suffering, whereas the righteous, like Abraham would go to a place of bliss awaiting Jesus victory? Seems your church takes the realm of the dead literally and differentiates between two fates after death (before Jesus died).

Gorgias:

Actually, Jesus spoke about two distinct places: the poor man, in the ‘bosom of Abraham’ and the rich man, in the ‘netherworld’ (Hades).

They were both in Sheol which, according to Catholic doctrine, apparently, is as Hades:

“Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek” (paragraph 633).

I don’t see the Catechism making a clear distinction there, or any in fact.

Gorgias:

No – no one was in heaven prior to Jesus’ resurrection. Moses and Elijah would have been in (as you like to put it) ‘the good part of Hades’, or the ‘Bosom of Abraham’.

Seems good compared to the other part and seems to me you take a distinction literally yourself. Ok, so you believe Moses and Elijah were “in bonds” (as the Catechism says) in Hades from the time they died till thousands of years later when Jesus/Yahweh took them out for a few hours and then put them back? They don’t seem at all startled to be back on earth talking to Jesus after being in Hades for all that time. Seems a bit strange to me. The whole idea of taking them out for a few hours after a thousand years seems strange, fanciful, etc.

Tell me, if they’d been in bonds in Hades, how did they know Jesus? Do you think Jesus would have communicated with them while in Hades?

Gorgias:

My contention is that the ‘bondage’ mentioned isn’t literal, but allegorical. They weren’t in chains, if this is what you’re picturing (after all, as I’ve mentioned, they aren’t embodied, so ‘chains’ make no sense); rather, they had not yet experienced the freedom of heaven.

Sure, I don’t take it to mean literal chains either. But what would you say is meant by “in bonds” or as Augustine said, “in prison”? In what way might they have been restricted? Movement? Speech? What?

Gorgias:

Therefore, in a certain sense, they’re still in the ‘bondage’ of not being able to experience God’s presence immediately.

So, in bondage or prison in Hades means just not able to experience God’s presence? But what would stop them from experiencing God’s presence? Why couldn’t God just visit them in Hades and commune with them? Were they in Hades wondering what is going on, or would God have visited them to let them know they’re only there temporarily until his son got killed?

 

[vicwestlad]

Gorgias:

Now, the passage doesn’t provide a literal narrative, but clearly, it’s telling us what they discussed – and it wasn’t the “hey! it stinks in Hades! Let us out!” that you so facilely presented here. Rather, given that Moses took part in an exodus from slavery to the Promised Land, and Elijah in an exodus from the Promised Land to exile and back again, Jesus is talking to them about his exodus, in which he’s traveling to Jerusalem in order to attain for humanity the Promised Land of everlasting life.

Really? Can you give me scriptural quotes that demonstrate Jesus was talking to them about his “exodus”? Second, he’s traveling to Jerusalem but where is the “exodus” from?

And third, I actually find, among believers, a variety of answers including that Jesus was telling Moses and Elijah to prepare the righteous in Sheol, and that he was telling them how soon it was till his death. But most say we just don’t know. How do you know you’re right and these believers are wrong about what was said between Jesus and Elijah and Moses?

Gorgias:

God is often described of as ‘the light’; this reference, then, is speaking to the lack of God’s immediate presence before them. Also, the ‘shadow of death’ is a poetic turn of phrase used throughout the Bible; it refers to the general condition of the dead, rather than literal shadow.

So since it uses terms like dark and shadowy, what, in your estimation was the general condition of the departed souls in the realm of the dead?

Gorgias:

It’s not a dogmatic assertion, but it stands to reason that there may be something akin to temporal extension in Hades, but only inasmuch as we – as humans with limited perspective and understanding – cannot wrap our heads around the way that a person might be conscious but devoid of the consciousness of the passage of time. I can’t provide a scientific explanation of how it works, of course, but we can discuss the notion philosophically.

I think you put your finger on it. We, as humans, cannot wrap our heads around it. In other words, we can’t make sense of it. If they were conscious and experienced time and could communicate, then my question comes back to what were doing or talking about from the time they died till Jesus’ resurrection? What would Moses, Elijah, Noah, Adam and Eve be talking about? It’s more than a bit of a puzzle, I’d say.

Gorgias:

First, you’re clearly misreading the Gospel passage: as I demonstrated earlier, the ‘appearance to many’ happens after Jesus’ resurrection, not at the point of His death. Talk about ‘unacknowledged whopping errors’!

Once again, it’s you who’s made the error. Nowhere did I say they came into town at the point of Jesus’ death. I even provided you with scholarly quotes that were clear that the appearances were after Jesus’ death. I never thought or suggested otherwise. Once again, read more carefully to avoid these errors.

Gorgias:

Secondly, I appreciate that this is your viewpoint; however, can you make the case that your take on it is the only possible reading of the text?

I go by what Christian scholars say and the majority agree with the position I took. The main disagreement is about wether or not it’s literal or apocalyptic imagery.

Gorgias:

See, I not only claimed that your translation was deficient, but I showed you why, using the original text.

You didn’t show why my translation was deficient. You think why you believe the scholars who translated the NIV were deficient in their translation. I doubt you have that kind of authority.

Gorgias:

Matthew 27:52-53 as Apocalyptic Apostrophe: Temporal-Spatial Collapse in the Gospel of Matthew

Can you provide a quote from that article that says they were raised but not back to life at the point of death?

Gorgias:

Even from a theological perspective, though, Gundry's assertion is problematic. Jesus is the 'firstborn of the dead'; if we posit that these are literally resurrected Jews, then we're saying that they were raised prior to Jesus, which presents a theological dilemma.

No it doesn’t as long as they were not raised in perfected bodies.

Gorgias:

Interesting. All three sources that you cite are Evangelical American scholars. You realize, of course, that their tradition requires them to hold to a literalistic (i.e., fundamentalist) hermeneutical approach to Scripture, right?

No it doesn’t. William Lane Craig thinks it’s apocalyptic language and not literal.

Gorgias:

“Revered apologists”? Within their own tradition, perhaps; but a Catholic wouldn’t hold to the types of things they’d assert about the Scriptures.

Can you show me that the Catholic church does not think this is literal? Eusebius believed it to literal and said many of the saints lived a long time afterwards, “even unto our time” is something like the quote he gave.

Gorgias:

I think that it’s possible that, given the abrupt shift in the narrative – from the account of the events of Good Friday to events described as ‘after his resurrection’ – the thesis that we’re looking at an insertion of apocalyptic literature (which, naturally, isn’t meant to be treated as historical narrative) is reasonable.

Hmmm…and how do you know the sky going dark for three hours and the curtain tearing in the temple aren’t both apocalyptic literature as well?

 

[Gorgias]

This appears, though, to reflect, not only a development of the idea of the abode of the dead, but the influence of Greek culture and the fact that the NT was written by Greek speaking believers. Sheol was a very poorly developed concept in Hebrew writings.

How so? In what way do you perceive the notion of OT Sheol as ‘very poorly developed’? As an assertion of the fact that it isn’t as theologically subtle as the notion of the ‘bosom of Abraham’ and the awaiting of the world for its savior?

But here’s the thing. The quote I gave from the Catholic Encyclopedia says there are two compartments in Hades. Surely this means one part was where the unrighteous go to suffer and the other where the righteous go to wait for Jesus’ victory over sin.

Right, but… when we say ‘compartments’, we’re implying physical extension. The souls in Sheol / Hades / the Bosom of Abraham HAVE. NO. PHYSICAL. EXTENSION. Maybe that’s why your line of thought here seems so picayune to me and is so confusing: yes, there are differences between the ways that the just and unjust experience the afterlife prior to Jesus’ salvific sacrifice; yet, to get hung up on the notion of where the ‘border’ is, or what it means to have a ‘border’… just seems to miss the point of it all.

Seems your church takes the realm of the dead literally and differentiates between two fates after death (before Jesus died).

Sure. So what? There’s a distinction. We express that distinction in terms that make sense to us, as embodied persons. What’s your point?

Ok, so you believe Moses and Elijah were “in bonds” (as the Catechism says) in Hades from the time they died till thousands of years later when Jesus/Yahweh took them out for a few hours and then put them back? They don’t seem at all startled to be back on earth talking to Jesus after being in Hades for all that time. Seems a bit strange to me. The whole idea of taking them out for a few hours after a thousand years seems strange, fanciful, etc.

No, it doesn’t seem strange to me. Moses and Elijah were awaiting the promised Messiah. When he showed up – even to say “let’s have a chat” – that’s exactly what they’d been hoping for!

Tell me, if they’d been in bonds in Hades, how did they know Jesus? Do you think Jesus would have communicated with them while in Hades?

The Gospels are full of descriptions of people who understood that there was something special about Jesus, just upon seeing him! In fact, in the Transfiguration story, what was most notable was that Jesus appeared in glory – he literally undergoes a metamorphosis and his face “shone like the sun”. You’re telling me that, if you’re in Sheol / Hades / the Bosom of Abraham, awaiting the Messiah, and you see someone who shines like the sun, you’re not going to be clued in to the fact that there’s something amazing going on here?

Sure, I don’t take it to mean literal chains either. But what would you say is meant by “in bonds” or as Augustine said, “in prison”? In what way might they have been restricted? Movement? Speech? What?

Movement deals with physical extension, as does speech, so ‘no’. As I’ve mentioned, it has to do with the fact that they’re not in the presence of God, which is what ‘heaven’ is…!

So, in bondage or prison in Hades means just not able to experience God’s presence? But what would stop them from experiencing God’s presence?

God’s immediate presence – they aren’t experiencing the Beatific Vision, which is the experience (without any mediation) of God.

Why couldn’t God just visit them in Hades and commune with them?

I didn’t say that God couldn’t; but it’s the teaching of the Church that this is reserved to Heaven, and humanity wasn’t able to experience heaven until Jesus’ death and resurrection. It’s not a limitation of God, but a consequence of sin and death.

Were they in Hades wondering what is going on, or would God have visited them to let them know they’re only there temporarily until his son got killed?

That’s a good question.Their expectation, perhaps, may have been what their understanding of God’s plan was, while they were alive. I would say that God did not visit them personally, although perhaps they were given the knowledge of the impending appearance of Christ.

 

[steve_b]

Jesus told his disciples that, just as Jonah was in the belly of a fish for three days and three nights, Jesus would be in the “heart of the earth” for three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40).

Ever thought about what he was doing during this time? Well, you don’t have to. The Catechism is pretty clear. It says he went to a temporary realm of the dead called Hades (or Sheol) to free those who had been kept there in captivity (many evangelicals believe this too).

This solves a well known Christian problem: If Jesus is the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the father except through Him, what happened to good people, such as Joshua or Abraham, who died before Jesus came to save the world? Jesus himself gives us a clue in Luke:

It appears, from Jesus story, that there are two parts of Hades, a place of torment where bad people went, and a place of non-suffering where the souls of good people went. So the tradition is that Jesus went to bring up the spirits of good people from Hades between his death and resurrection.

Here are some key quotes:

Paragraph 633 of the catechism tells us:

In a letter to his friend Evodius, Augstine said:

So the question is, do you really believe this?

Without Divine revelation, we would have no clue that there truly is life after death of the body. Without Divine revelation, one could make up any story they wanted. It wouldn’t matter, because it couldn’t be proved.

 

[Gorgias]

Really? Can you give me scriptural quotes that demonstrate Jesus was talking to them about his “exodus”?

Seriously? That’s why I pointed you toward Luke 9:28ff! Anyway:

“And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem.” (Luke 9:30-31)

Second, he’s traveling to Jerusalem but where is the “exodus” from?

It’s the exodus of the people of God, from the death of the body to the eternal life of the soul. Just as Moses took the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt into freedom in the Promised Land, Jesus (at this point in the narrative) is preparing to take humanity from slavery to sin and death into the freedom of the Kingdom of God.

And third, I actually find, among believers, a variety of answers including that Jesus was telling Moses and Elijah to prepare the righteous in Sheol, and that he was telling them how soon it was till his death.

Good for them. How do they reach this conclusion? Is it Scripturally based? Is it a devotional belief (which might be a pious way to think about it, but not an attempt to make a theologically sound assertion).

But most say we just don’t know. How do you know you’re right and these believers are wrong about what was said between Jesus and Elijah and Moses?

'Cause I’m reading it in the Bible.

So since it uses terms like dark and shadowy, what, in your estimation was the general condition of the departed souls in the realm of the dead?

We don’t know. After all, what we know is what people thought Hades/Sheol was like (in their descriptions of the OT), but unlike Greek mythology, there are no Scriptural descriptions of Sheol from people who had been there and come back. What we do know are the descriptions of Heaven, Hell, and the Bosom of Abraham. In any case, a description of Sheol would seem to be immaterial, since we now know (with more certainty, given the NT witness) more details about our final destination…

If they were conscious and experienced time and could communicate, then my question comes back to what were doing or talking about from the time they died till Jesus’ resurrection? What would Moses, Elijah, Noah, Adam and Eve be talking about? It’s more than a bit of a puzzle, I’d say.

To tell you the truth, it hasn’t really been a major part of my thought. They experienced it (I didn’t and I won’t). They’re now in heaven (and I hope to be, too). So, whether it’s a ‘puzzle’ or not, it doesn’t really seem to have much bearing on my life and my hopes for heaven, but rather, just a historical note.

 

[Gorgias]

Once again, it’s you who’s made the error. Nowhere did I say they came into town at the point of Jesus’ death.

No, you stated it as a continuity of events (“I’ve been clear that I think Matthew meant that Jewish saints who had died previously came back to life at the point of Jesus’ death and walked into the city and appeared to many”), and although you claim it as ‘generally accepted’, you don’t mention that it’s the point from which you’re arguing… until I let you know that

I even provided you with scholarly quotes that were clear that the appearances were after Jesus’ death.

Time out: you provided quotes from Evangelical scholars who are making claims that fly in the face of Catholic theological thought. That doesn’t equate to a proven conclusion that “the appearances were after Jesus’ death” (by which I presume you mean 'beginning with a resurrection on Good Friday and culminating with post-Easter appearances)!

Yet, you never intimated that this was your perspective; and, in fact, by describing yourself as a (former) Catholic (implying that you’re now a non-believer), you expect us to simply presume that this is the position from which you’re arguing? Really?

I go by what Christian scholars say and the majority agree with the position I took.

See what I mean? First time you’ve mentioned that this is your stance. If you want to claim I’m ‘sloppy’, that’s your prerogative; I prefer not to make assumptions about people’s arguments until they make assertions themselves.

However, there’s another problem with your methodology. The putative fact that the ‘majority’ state your position isn’t compelling, and I’ve already called you on it once. You quote Evangelical scholars. That’s not going to hold water here. If you have some Catholic theologians who make the claims that you’re making, that’s a different story. However, I’ve never run across a Catholic exegete who makes the claim that the dead in Matthew 27:52 were resurrected on Good Friday but didn’t walk around until after Easter. (As others have likewise mentioned, that creates the theological difficulty that Christ wasn’t actually the “first-born from the dead” (Colossians 1:18, 1 Cor 15:20, 1 Cor 15:23, Rev 1:5).

You didn’t show why my translation was deficient. You think why you believe the scholars who translated the NIV were deficient in their translation.

You realize that you just said the same thing, twice, and claimed that they mean different things? By ‘your translation’, I mean ‘the translation you presented to us for consideration.’

I doubt you have that kind of authority.

Don’t need it. I’m relying on the authority of the Catholic Church, who approves of the NAB and RSV-CE, and which translates that verse differently… Moreover, I might point out that the NIV doesn’t even sit with the majority of translations on this verse; looking at this collection of renderings of that verse from many translations, only a small handful make the explicit assertion of rising to life.

Can you provide a quote from that article that says they were raised but not back to life at the point of death?

"points will be argued in this study of Matt 27:52-53, namely, that the passage is fundamentally a fragment of pre-Matthean Christian apocalyptic;that the raising of the saints in this passage refers not to an event of Matthew’s past but to the general resurrection at the end of time; that both the opening of the tombs and the raising of the saints occur not before but after the resurrection of Jesus Christ;that the holy city is not the historic city of Jerusalem but the new Jerusalem of Rev 21:2;that the saints who are raised are not the Jewish saints of antiquity but the Christian martyrs of Rev 20:4, 6; that the “many"to whom the martyrs appear in the holy city are not residents of first-century Jerusalem but an eschatological community of Jews analogous to the 144,000 in Rev 7:4, 14:1; and finally that Matt 27:51-54 as a temporal-spatially conflated passage is not an altogether unique phenomenon in Jewish and Christian literature.”

You’re welcome. Happy to do your research for you…

No it doesn’t as long as they were not raised in perfected bodies.

Aah. The ‘Lazarus argument’. You’re claiming, then, that as long as it wasn’t a resurrection, but only a resuscitation, then it doesn’t run counter to the verses which I quoted above? Well, if you’re standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the scholars you quoted, then you are asserting what you cited: “the righteous dead are raised by the power of the crucifixion”. Yet, the power of the crucifixion is what saves us and offers us salvation. Are you asserting that there’s a kinda-sorta-but-not-really ‘power of the crucifixion’ which resuscitated some dead bodies, but a really-truly-I’m-not-kidding-this-time ‘power of the crucifixion’ that’s distinct, which allows us to be saved? This line of thought – again – requires us to go down the rabbit hole of conjectural eisegesis, rather than staying on the straight and narrow with reasonable Scriptural exegesis…

No it doesn’t. William Lane Craig thinks it’s apocalyptic language and not literal.

He wasn’t one of the guys who you held up as examples; you pointed only to Gundry, Kaiser, and Bruce, all who claim literalistic interpretations.

 

[Gorgias]

Can you show me that the Catholic church does not think this is literal? Eusebius believed it to literal and said many of the saints lived a long time afterwards, “even unto our time” is something like the quote he gave.

The Catholic Church doesn’t offer a doctrinally-binding interpretation of this verse. Some have preached on it, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a doctrine of the Church.

And, I think you might be mis-remembering your Church Fathers. Are you certain that you don’t mean Cyril, rather than Eusebius? In “Explorations in a Christian Theology of Pilgrimage”, Peter Walker writes, “Eusebius and Origen before him… had interpreted the difficult verses in Matthew (27:52-3), which describe resurrected saints appearing in the ‘holy city’, as a reference to their appearing in the heavenly Jerusalem”, referring to Eusebius’ Commentary on Psalm 88 (cf p. 88).

Hmmm…and how do you know the sky going dark for three hours and the curtain tearing in the temple aren’t both apocalyptic literature as well?

Easy. In Matthew, the notion of the darkness is presented eight verses earlier – still in the context of the narrative of Good Friday, without any breaks in the action. Moreover, the darkness and curtain are presented in Mark (cf 15:38) and Luke (cf 23:45), without the apocalyptic interpolation.

 

[vicwestlad]

Gorgias:

How so? In what way do you perceive the notion of OT Sheol as ‘very poorly developed’? As an assertion of the fact that it isn’t as theologically subtle as the notion of the ‘bosom of Abraham’ and the awaiting of the world for its savior?

There are few verses in the Hebrew Bible referring to Sheol. When it is mentioned there’s little or no description.

I gave you an example. You chose to ignore it. Here it is again:

"For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not any thing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten” (Eccl. 9:5).

I’d like you to address this.

I can give you another couple for your thoughts:

Psalm 94 tells us death just brings silence: “Unless the Lord had given me help, I would soon have dwelt in the silence of death” (94:17)

Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” (Eccl. 3:20-21).

The Christian concept of Hell was fairly well developed but not Sheol in the Hebrew Bible.

Gorgias:

Right, but… when we say ‘compartments’, we’re implying physical extension. The souls in Sheol / Hades / the Bosom of Abraham HAVE. NO. PHYSICAL. EXTENSION. Maybe that’s why your line of thought here seems so picayune to me and is so confusing: yes, there are differences between the ways that the just and unjust experience the afterlife prior to Jesus’ salvific sacrifice; yet, to get hung up on the notion of where the ‘border’ is, or what it means to have a ‘border’… just seems to miss the point of it all.

I don’t even CARE where the “border” is. I’ve been merely pointing out that there were compartments in Hades, according to Catholic doctrine, and one was a place of torment the other relative bliss. You may mock me saying one was good and the other bad but seems pretty obviously correct.

Gorgias:

Sure. So what? There’s a distinction. We express that distinction in terms that make sense to us, as embodied persons. What’s your point?

Well if you’d just concede the point about the two abodes of the dead in Hades, then we can drop this and move on. I’ll take this as a concession, finally.

Gorgias:

No, it doesn’t seem strange to me. Moses and Elijah were awaiting the promised Messiah. When he showed up – even to say “let’s have a chat” – that’s exactly what they’d been hoping for!

They were hanging around in the prison of Hades for thousands of years hoping to go up to a mountain for a few hours to chat with Jesus? And you don’t think this is strange? Frankly, I don’t even think it’s fathomable.

Gorgias:

The Gospels are full of descriptions of people who understood that there was something special about Jesus, just upon seeing him! In fact, in the Transfiguration story, what was most notable was that Jesus appeared in glory – he literally undergoes a metamorphosis and his face “shone like the sun”. You’re telling me that, if you’re in Sheol / Hades / the Bosom of Abraham, awaiting the Messiah, and you see someone who shines like the sun, you’re not going to be clued in to the fact that there’s something amazing going on here?

Yeah, but you’re missing the point a bit. It’s not like there was a look of awe and amazement at meeting Jesus for the first time and recognizing him as a god. That’s just not in the text at all. Instead, the sense you get from 9:28 is that they’re previously acquainted. Do you disagree with this?

Gorgias:

Movement deals with physical extension, as does speech, so ‘no’. As I’ve mentioned, it has to do with the fact that they’re not in the presence of God, which is what ‘heaven’ is…!

Mmmm…don’t think that’s adequate. Saying someone is “in bonds” and “in prison” connotes more than just not in someone’s presence surely. I know they aren’t restricted physically but they “congregate” here (as the Jewish Encyclopedia states) and are severely restricted in some sense. Doesn’t sound very pleasant to me. Once again, the whole thing seems hopelessly riddled and confused.

 

[vicwestlad]

Gorgias:

That’s a good question.Their expectation, perhaps, may have been what their understanding of God’s plan was, while they were alive. I would say that God did not visit them personally, although perhaps they were given the knowledge of the impending appearance of Christ.

Seems a good, honest answer. I have to tell you, it’s unsatisfying to me. Not sure how they obtained the knowledge. Plus, if they were true believers, like Noah, Adam, and Abraham, not sure how they could be in a pleasant condition for all that time while having no contact with their beloved creator. Care to meditate on that?

In fact, as I think about it, it sounds like the modern concept of hell which tends now to be equated with simply a separation from God (not the burning torture of medieval Christianity). I just impressed myself. Interesting.

Gorgias:

It’s the exodus of the people of God, from the death of the body to the eternal life of the soul. Just as Moses took the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt into freedom in the Promised Land, Jesus (at this point in the narrative) is preparing to take humanity from slavery to sin and death into the freedom of the Kingdom of God.

Ok, you through me off with the word “exodus”. I do see that it says they did talk about his death (departure). Sorry.

But, the text indicates they were there for a while talking. I don’t think there’s a credible conversation you could imagine (word for word) that wouldn’t sound absurd, especially if, as you say, Elijah and Moses had just been whisked out of Hades for the day. I realize you disagree.

Gorgias:

What we do know are the descriptions of Heaven, Hell, and the Bosom of Abraham.

I’d say we don’t know much about Heaven, unless you take recent popular books seriously (you don’t do you?) Moreover, the same could be said for Hell since Christians disagree greatly on what Hell would look like. And this has also changed over time.

Gorgias:

To tell you the truth, it hasn’t really been a major part of my thought. They experienced it (I didn’t and I won’t). They’re now in heaven (and I hope to be, too). So, whether it’s a ‘puzzle’ or not, it doesn’t really seem to have much bearing on my life and my hopes for heaven, but rather, just a historical note.

That’s fair. I’m a bit inquisitive when it comes to claims of the supernatural, and the afterlife.

Gorgias:

No, you stated it as a continuity of events (“I’ve been clear that I think Matthew meant that Jewish saints who had died previously came back to life at the point of Jesus’ death and walked into the city and appeared to many”),

Uh uh. That’s the way you interpreted what I said. Never said they went into town before the resurrection. I’ve always known that wasn’t the correct interpretation. That’s why I’ve argued in the past that it’s a strange vision to think of these freshly resuscitated corpses siting around the cemetery waiting for Jesus to resurrect.

Gorgias:

Time out: you provided quotes from Evangelical scholars who are making claims that fly in the face of Catholic theological thought.

No, my allusion to the quotes was to demonstrate that I never thought they went into town before the resurrection. Why would I provide those quotes if I disagreed with the interpretation?

Gorgias:

You realize that you just said the same thing, twice, and claimed that they mean different things? By ‘your translation’, I mean ‘the translation you presented to us for consideration.’

Huh? I merely pointed out that you don’t have the authority to say that other translations by teams of actual scholars are deficient.

Gorgias:

You're welcome. Happy to do your research for you

That doesn’t say they were raised at the point of Jesus’ death but not to life. It says Matthew merely alluded to the general resurrection at the end of time. No one was actually raised at all at the point of Jesus’ death, AFAICT.

Gorgias:

He wasn’t one of the guys who you held up as examples; you pointed only to Gundry, Kaiser, and Bruce, all who claim literalistic interpretations.

You stated their problem was due to them being evangelical literalists. I pointed out that WLC is too but he accepts this example as not literal.

Gorgias:

And, I think you might be mis-remembering your Church Fathers. Are you certain that you don’t mean Cyril, rather than Eusebius?

Don’t think so. This comes from Ecclesiastical History. In book four, Eusebius quotes an early apologist, named Quadratus, who appears to have testified to this:

“ Those who had been cured or rose from the dead did not just appear to have been cured or risen but were ever present, not only during the Savior’s stay on earth but also after his departure. They remained for a considerable period, so that some of them even reached our times.” (IV.3.2.)

Gorgias:

Easy. In Matthew, the notion of the darkness is presented eight verses earlier – still in the context of the narrative of Good Friday, without any breaks in the action. Moreover, the darkness and curtain are presented in Mark (cf 15:38) and Luke (cf 23:45), without the apocalyptic interpolation.

Not sure why 8 verses earlier is significant. But the second part would indicate that if Jesus walking on water only happened in the narrative of one of the synoptics we’d have reason to question it’s literalistic interpretation. Not sure you could use that consistently.

 

[Gorgias]

Ok, you through me off with the word “exodus”.

Really? Why? That’s the word that shows up in the original (ἔξοδον – exodon).

I do see that it says they did talk about his death (departure). Sorry.

‘Death’? What translation are you looking at now? You’re still having translation problems, I’m afraid…

But, the text indicates they were there for a while talking. I don’t think there’s a credible conversation you could imagine (word for word) that wouldn’t sound absurd, especially if, as you say, Elijah and Moses had just been whisked out of Hades for the day.

Now we get to the meat of the matter. What does it mean, do you think, to say that there’s a vision of a non-physical being? After all, Elijah and Moses weren’t physical at that point. Therefore, what could it mean to say that they were ‘out’ of Hades? In other words, what’s to say that Elijah and Moses knew that they were ‘out’ of Hades? After all, this conversation could have occurred ‘in’ Hades (whatever ‘in’ might imply), and Jesus simply allowed the apostles to witness that conversation! If that were the case, then there’d be no reason to assert your incredulity at this occurrence, right?

Uh uh. That’s the way you interpreted what I said. Never said they went into town before the resurrection.

Fair enough. However, the assertion that they rose on Good Friday but didn’t walk into town until Sunday just reads too much into the text that’s not there. You might argue that a certain subset of Christian scholars makes that argument, but pointing to them just doesn’t make it more reasonable (nor does it make it the interpretation that Catholics would argue for). Sorry…

I’ve always known that wasn’t the correct interpretation. That’s why I’ve argued in the past that it’s a strange vision to think of these freshly resuscitated corpses siting around the cemetery waiting for Jesus to resurrect.

Maybe that’s because they’re not ‘freshly resuscitated corpses’.

Huh? I merely pointed out that you don’t have the authority to say that other translations by teams of actual scholars are deficient.

Perhaps; yet, I can make the claim based on the authority of the Catholic Church, who lends its authority to certain translations and withholds its approval from others.

Don’t think so. This comes from Ecclesiastical History. In book four, Eusebius quotes an early apologist, named Quadratus, who appears to have testified to this: “Those who had been cured or rose from the dead did not just appear to have been cured or risen but were ever present, not only during the Savior’s stay on earth but also after his departure. They remained for a considerable period, so that some of them even reached our times.” (IV.3.2.)

What’s your basis for applying this quotation to the narrative of Matthew 27? Your quotation leaves out an important element: “But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:—those that were healed and those that were raised from the dead…”. In other words, Quadratus is talking about resurrections that Jesus performed. In the Gospels, there were many such healings and resurrections. Looking just at the resurrections: Lazarus, the son of the widow of Nain, and the daughter of Jairus; therefore, it’s not necessary to include the narrative of Matthew 27 in Quadratus’ assertion. Moreover, according to the exegesis of the scholars that you cited, the raising of the saints is something that’s accomplished by God, not by Jesus. On all counts, then, your quote isn’t talking about Matthew 27. I still hold that you’re mistaking Eusebius’ thought on the matter, unless you can demonstrate more convincingly that your assertion holds.

Not sure why 8 verses earlier is significant.

Because it appears before the temporal interpolation, and therefore, fits within the context of the narrative of the events of Good Friday.

But the second part would indicate that if Jesus walking on water only happened in the narrative of one of the synoptics we’d have reason to question it’s literalistic interpretation. Not sure you could use that consistently.

Not at all. I’m simply pointing out that we have corroborating evidence: in two other Gospel narratives, we have the description of these events (curtain, darkness) that occur outside of any context of anything that might be construed as apocalyptic interpolation; therefore, we can put these side-by-side and suggest that the description of these as found in Luke is not part of his interpolation.

 

[vicwestlad]

Gorgias:

After all, Elijah and Moses weren’t physical at that point. Therefore, what could it mean to say that they were ‘out’ of Hades? In other words, what’s to say that Elijah and Moses knew that they were ‘out’ of Hades? After all, this conversation could have occurred ‘in’ Hades (whatever ‘in’ might imply), and Jesus simply allowed the apostles to witness that conversation!

So even though they were standing on a mountain talking with Jesus, they may have been in Hades all along? Did they think Jesus was visiting them there? Wouldn’t they be asking, how come you’ve never came down to visit us before Jesus? Anyway, since the disciples saw them on the mountain, they would just have been visions and not Elijah and Moses (cause the disciples can’t see into Hades) and that’s not what believers really believe. Honestly, Gorgias, I think this idea just makes it stranger still. I don’t think this idea helps.

Gorgias:

Fair enough. However, the assertion that they rose on Good Friday but didn’t walk into town until Sunday just reads too much into the text that’s not there. You might argue that a certain subset of Christian scholars makes that argument, but pointing to them just doesn’t make it more reasonable (nor does it make it the interpretation that Catholics would argue for). Sorry

True but a non-literal interpretation goes against the flow of the narrative and it should have been explained by Matthew to avoid all the confusion. “God is not the author of confusion” as the Bible states. I think this, and other passages surrounding Hades, clearly show that’s not the case.

Gorgias:

Perhaps; yet, I can make the claim based on the authority of the Catholic Church, who lends its authority to certain translations and withholds its approval from others.

That’s true. You can claim that authority which protestant denominations cannot. It doesn’t make your exegesis correct, but you can claim authority.

Gorgias:

What’s your basis for applying this quotation to the narrative of Matthew 27? Your quotation leaves out an important element: “But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:—those that were healed and those that were raised from the dead…”. In other words, Quadratus is talking about resurrections that Jesus performed. I

Yes, that’s one interpretation and, in my opinion should be the preferred one as it avoids the problem of having to surmise what these risen saints were doing for decades afterwards. However, as I’m sure you know, it is often interpreted the other way, as has been done by colleagues of yours on this very thread. I know that doesn’t make you wrong. Just a point.

Gorgias:

Not at all. I’m simply pointing out that we have corroborating evidence: in two other Gospel narratives, we have the description of these events (curtain, darkness) that occur outside of any context of anything that might be construed as apocalyptic interpolation; therefore, we can put these side-by-side and suggest that the description of these as found in Luke is not part of his interpolation.

How is it that the earth going dark for three hours during the middle of the day could not be construed as apocalyptic interpolation? And this question is particularly valid in light of the fact that such an apocalyptic event is recorded nowhere else outside Christian literature. The Romans were very good chroniclers of that period and no one records such a dramatic event. Do you think if, at 12 noon next Wednesday, the earth went completely dark for 3 hours, it wouldn’t cause an utter sensation?

 

[Gorgias]

So even though they were standing on a mountain talking with Jesus, they may have been in Hades all along?

I admit, it’s speculative, but it addresses an important metaphysical question: when we exist only as souls – without bodies – what does it mean to say that we are ‘in’ a place? Souls have no physical extension, right? So, what does it mean, on a philosophical level, to say that they were ‘transported’? ‘From’ Hades? ‘To’ the site of the Transfiguration? See what I’m getting at? The Scripture passage only requires us to understand that the apostles saw Jesus transfigured, and Moses and Elijah there talking with him!

Did they think Jesus was visiting them there? Wouldn’t they be asking, how come you’ve never came down to visit us before Jesus?

Again, it’s all speculation, right?

Anyway, since the disciples saw them on the mountain, they would just have been visions and not Elijah and Moses

That’s just the thing: in what sense are you asserting that visions aren’t really the people who are appearing? In a very real sense, given that they were only souls, a vision is, in fact, the totality of what they ‘are’, and the miracle of the moment is that the apostles were granted the grace of seeing them!

True but a non-literal interpretation goes against the flow of the narrative

Now you’re getting it! These verses do go against the flow of the narrative! Exactly! So, there’s a ‘literal’ interpretation – there were resurrections from the dead, and there were appearances (to unspecified witnesses), but why does that necessarily imply that the resurrections took place in Jerusalem and were witnessed by living Jerusalemites? In fact, it doesn’t necessarily imply that this is what was happening! That’s just one interpretive reaction to that text, and not something that the text imposes on us!

and it should have been explained by Matthew to avoid all the confusion. “God is not the author of confusion” as the Bible states.

You’re proof-texting, Vic! That’s never helpful! (In fact, 1 Cor 14:33 uses the word * ἀκαταστασίας* (akatastasias, a ‘disorder’ or ‘commotion’, not a ‘confusion’), and it’s not meant in that passage as implying that the meaning of the Bible is always clear on the face of the letter! (In fact, it’s great that you brought up that passage, since it’s telling us that interpretation of prophecy is a matter of the Church – when one gives prophecy, he should defer to the interpretation found in the assembly (the ‘ekklesia’ or the Church)!

In any case, any exegesis that starts off with “the writer of Scripture should have done this or should have done that” is more an imposition of our will upon God, than it is an acceptance of a revelation of God’s will unto humanity…

However, as I’m sure you know, it is often interpreted the other way, as has been done by colleagues of yours on this very thread. I know that doesn’t make you wrong. Just a point.

Really? Someone in this thread asserted that Eusebius – or the early Church Fathers – made the claim that the witnesses to the ‘resurrections’ of Mt 27:52 were present in the Church in the 1st century A.D.? Are you certain? I don’t recall seeing that claim…

How is it that the earth going dark for three hours during the middle of the day could not be construed as apocalyptic interpolation?

Because it is claimed to have been witnessed by the centurion in charge of the crucifixion detail, who was only present at that time! Moreover, it appeared to him to be an event that wasn’t natural, but rather, indicated that Jesus was truly the Son of God!

And this question is particularly valid in light of the fact that such an apocalyptic event is recorded nowhere else outside Christian literature.

It’s a reasonable question. Yet, if it was something supernatural and not a naturally occurring phenomenon, why would we assert that it was something that happened regionally (and not locally), such that it would attract the notice of a chronicler?

The Romans were very good chroniclers of that period and no one records such a dramatic event.

Perhaps. And yet, unless you’re saying that there are Roman records of that day’s events that exist and fail to mention the darkness, then you’re really just asking us to make excuses for a lack of documentation. ‘Absence of evidence’ and all that…

Do you think if, at 12 noon next Wednesday, the earth went completely dark for 3 hours, it wouldn’t cause an utter sensation?

I’m sorry… does the Bible say that the entire earth went dark for three hours? With all due respect, there’s a really substantial amount of interpretative assumption built into your understanding of these passages!

 

[vicwestlad]

Gorgias:

I admit, it’s speculative, but it addresses an important metaphysical question: when we exist only as souls – without bodies – what does it mean to say that we are ‘in’ a place? Souls have no physical extension, right? So, what does it mean, on a philosophical level, to say that they were ‘transported’? ‘From’ Hades? ‘To’ the site of the Transfiguration? See what I’m getting at?

Yep. Furthermore, what does it mean that they were even “in” Hades? And how can they be in “compartments” if they are not physical? It’s very hard to make sense out of and that’s kind of my point.

Gorgias:

The Scripture passage only requires us to understand that the apostles saw Jesus transfigured, and Moses and Elijah there talking with him!

True.

Gorgias:

Again, it’s all speculation, right?

Agreed

Gorgias:

That’s just the thing: in what sense are you asserting that visions aren’t really the people who are appearing? In a very real sense, given that they were only souls, a vision is, in fact, the totality of what they ‘are’, and the miracle of the moment is that the apostles were granted the grace of seeing them!

Hmmm…so you’re making no distinction between a vision and a soul. And, again, I think we’re back to what is a soul and does it make any sense to speak of something called a “soul” if we can’t define it? Even if we say, it’s the essence of someone, one could say, what does “essence” mean, and so on.

Gorgias:

Now you’re getting it! These verses do go against the flow of the narrative! Exactly!

No, I mean the reverse. I don’t think they do go against the flow. I think they fit right in and so should be taken literally, as do so many believers, the majority of Christians I believe.

Gorgias:

So, there’s a ‘literal’ interpretation – there were resurrections from the dead, and there were appearances (to unspecified witnesses), but why does that necessarily imply that the resurrections took place in Jerusalem and were witnessed by living Jerusalemites?

That’s the standard understanding of the “holy city”. I know you interpret it otherwise.

Gorgias:

Really? Someone in this thread asserted that Eusebius – or the early Church Fathers – made the claim that the witnesses to the ‘resurrections’ of Mt 27:52 were present in the Church in the 1st century A.D.? Are you certain? I don’t recall seeing that claim…

Seems like it. You can check out post #45 and subsequent interaction.

Gorgias:

Because it is claimed to have been witnessed by the centurion in charge of the crucifixion detail, who was only present at that time! Moreover, it appeared to him to be an event that wasn’t natural, but rather, indicated that Jesus was truly the Son of God!

It’s a reasonable question. Yet, if it was something supernatural and not a naturally occurring phenomenon, why would we assert that it was something that happened regionally (and not locally), such that it would attract the notice of a chronicler?

Lol. So when Matthew wrote:

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour

He actually meant the sky went dark just around the centurion? Em…that’s a bit of a stretch. it’s a little too convenient to personally interpret “over all the land” to be just visible where the Roman centurion was. Is this a respected, scholarly interpretation or just Gorgias’ interpretation?

Gorgias:

Perhaps. And yet, unless you’re saying that there are Roman records of that day’s events that exist and fail to mention the darkness, then you’re really just asking us to make excuses for a lack of documentation. ‘Absence of evidence’ and all that…

Yeah, nice try. It’s like you claiming the sky went dark during the Olympics in Vancouver and I say well I read about how successful the games were but no one mentioned that bizarre, never before witnessed, terrifying phenomenon. Then you come back with, “well were they covering the events of that day?”

You’re grasping at straws a bit here.

 

[daler]

So even though they were standing on a mountain talking with Jesus, they may have been in Hades all along? Did they think Jesus was visiting them there? Wouldn’t they be asking, how come you’ve never came down to visit us before Jesus? Anyway, since the disciples saw them on the mountain, they would just have been visions and not Elijah and Moses (cause the disciples can’t see into Hades) and that’s not what believers really believe. Honestly, Gorgias, I think this idea just makes it stranger still. I don’t think this idea helps.

True but a non-literal interpretation goes against the flow of the narrative and it should have been explained by Matthew to avoid all the confusion. “God is not the author of confusion” as the Bible states. I think this, and other passages surrounding Hades, clearly show that’s not the case.

I’m a little intrigued by this, folks, and stirred to offer a response. When people speak of a “vision”, it is not a normal visual experience. In one sense, we use the term “insight”, but that does not go far enough. Nevertheless, to “envision”, or have a “vision” outside of normal experience suggests a phenomenon which can hardly be explained in the context of physical settings, whether Hades or Heaven, which are both effectually symbols of a state of existence beyond our ability to adequately convey, other than to those who have had such similar experiences themselves, or so it would seem to me.

.