Raised?

[Gorgias]

I don’t understand the last sentence. Their bodies rose to heaven or…what?

Do you mean this part: “subsequently, there were visions of the saints by people still on earth”…?

That’s my way of addressing the part of the verse that states that they “appeared to many.” At one extreme, it means that living people on earth saw these revived people (in Jerusalem). At the other extreme, it means that living people on earth saw visions of these saints who had been raised to heaven.

 

[Faith1960]

Do you mean this part: “subsequently, there were visions of the saints by people still on earth”…?

That’s my way of addressing the part of the verse that states that they “appeared to many.” At one extreme, it means that living people on earth saw these revived people (in Jerusalem). At the other extreme, it means that living people on earth saw visions of these saints who had been raised to heaven.

No I mean the part where you said “these saints who had been awaiting their savior were able to ascend to the “Holy city” of God”. I don’t know what that means…did their bodies arise and go to heaven, or their souls, or what? And what is the Holy city of God? Heaven? Or somewhere else?

 

[Gorgias]

No I mean the part where you said “these saints who had been awaiting their savior were able to ascend to the “Holy city” of God”. I don’t know what that means…did their bodies arise and go to heaven, or their souls, or what? And what is the Holy city of God? Heaven? Or somewhere else?

Faith,

That’s the whole problem – we can’t say exactly what it means!

The doctrine of the Catholic Church would say that no, their bodies didn’t go to heaven – we won’t have our bodies with us in heaven until after the second coming. In addition, the passage doesn’t mention either ‘souls’ or ‘bodies’ with respect to the ‘holy city’, thus making it more difficult on us to understand the verse! Finally, it’s reasonable to debate what, exactly, “the holy city” means: Jerusalem? Heaven?

When it comes right down to it, there’s no doctrinal answer. Perhaps Jamal might provide you with a link to the writings which he claims are the “most reasonable.” (I’d disagree with that assertion of ‘reasonability’, but hey, that’s just me talking. )

 

[Gorgias]

My Navarre Commentary states that St. Augustine, Jerome, and Thomas Aquinas favored the explanation that I mentioned above.

More than that, however, it does not say.

Really?

JamalChristophr:

The commentary actually says there were 3 different possible explanations of this occurrence which were proposed by the great Church writers.

Aah… so it does say more…

But the three I mentioned favored the one particular view which seems most reasonable.

But, although the commentary addresses multiple possible interpretations, this is the one particular view you like best. Got it…

 

[Faith1960]

Faith,

That’s the whole problem – we can’t say exactly what it means!

The doctrine of the Catholic Church would say that no, their bodies didn’t go to heaven – we won’t have our bodies with us in heaven until after the second coming. In addition, the passage doesn’t mention either ‘souls’ or ‘bodies’ with respect to the ‘holy city’, thus making it more difficult on us to understand the verse! Finally, it’s reasonable to debate what, exactly, “the holy city” means: Jerusalem? Heaven?

When it comes right down to it, there’s no doctrinal answer. Perhaps Jamal might provide you with a link to the writings which he claims are the “most reasonable.” (I’d disagree with that assertion of ‘reasonability’, but hey, that’s just me talking. )

I tend to think their corpses were shaken out of their graves, but I’m stumped to what Scripture means when talking about entering the city and appeared to many.
I read something that said the ones who entered the city were those who’d seen the corpses shaken out of their graves, but that doesnt really make sense in the context of the text.

 

[Faith1960]

Well, those three did, in any case.

If it is in scripture, then it is true.

Jesus raised Lazarus who had been dead for 4 days I think it was, it should not be too difficult to raise many who had been dead even longer if God wishes to as a sign. Right?

The commentary actually says there were 3 different possible explanations of this occurrence which were proposed by the great Church writers.

But the three I mentioned favored the one particular view which seems most reasonable.

What were the other possible explanations?

 

[Gorgias]

What were the other possible explanations?

“The great Church writers have suggested three possible explanations. First: that it was not a matter of resurrections in the strict sense, but of apparitions of these dead people. Second: they would have been dead people who arose in the way Lazarus did, and then died again. Third: their resurrection would have been definitive, that is glorious, in this way anticipating the final universal resurrection of the dead.”

(from the Navarre commentary on Saint Matthew’s Gospel)

 

[thistle]

After Jesus died and the tombs were opened, where did the bodies of those in the tombs go? Were they glorified? Did they go to heaven or live out their lives all over again?

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

St. Jerome takes notice, that these saints did not rise with their bodies till after Christ was risen; and so it follows, that going out of the graves, after the resurrection, they came into the holy city, (i.e. into Jerusalem) and appeared to many. (Witham) — This event was a prophecy of the fatal destruction that was shortly to fall upon the temple; and also, that it should henceforth give place to things more noble and sublime. It likewise shews that greatness of Christ’s power. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxxix.)

 

[JamalChristophr]

Really?

Aah… so it does say more…

But, although the commentary addresses multiple possible interpretations, this is the one particular view you like best. Got it…

Well, I do like ti best, but the commentary also said it seemed the most probably too. It’s a pretty up in the air verse…I won’t lose sleep over it either way.

 

[Faith1960]

“The great Church writers have suggested three possible explanations. First: that it was not a matter of resurrections in the strict sense, but of apparitions of these dead people. Second: they would have been dead people who arose in the way Lazarus did, and then died again. Third: their resurrection would have been definitive, that is glorious, in this way anticipating the final universal resurrection of the dead.”

(from the Navarre commentary on Saint Matthew’s Gospel)

If they were glorified, as I read is a possibility, can a glorified body return to death? I can’t see them going to heaven, as only God, Jesus and Mary are there.

 

[JamalChristophr]

If they were glorified, as I read is a possibility, can a glorified body return to death? I can’t see them going to heaven, as only God, Jesus and Mary are there.

The problem with this notion is that Jesus was the first born to rise from the dead, as scripture states. How could they have these glorified bodes before Jesus’s resurrection.

 

[Faith1960]

The problem with this notion is that Jesus was the first born to rise from the dead, as scripture states. How could they have these glorified bodes before Jesus’s resurrection.

The tombs were opened but they didn’t rise until after Jesus’s resurrection.

I also read that they could’ve been spirits who rose, rather than actual bodies.

 

[Faith1960]

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

St. Jerome takes notice, that these saints did not rise with their bodies till after Christ was risen; and so it follows, that going out of the graves, after the resurrection, they came into the holy city, (i.e. into Jerusalem) and appeared to many. (Witham) — This event was a prophecy of the fatal destruction that was shortly to fall upon the temple; and also, that it should henceforth give place to things more noble and sublime. It likewise shews that greatness of Christ’s power. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxxxix.)

Do you have any idea of what became of the bodies?

 

[JamalChristophr]

The tombs were opened but they didn’t rise until after Jesus’s resurrection.

I also read that they could’ve been spirits who rose, rather than actual bodies.

But the Catholic faith holds that we don’t get glorified bodies until the general judgement when Christ comes in Glory.

 

[Faith1960]

But the Catholic faith holds that we don’t get glorified bodies until the general judgement when Christ comes in Glory.

It was just a theory I’d read. I also read something from an EWTN priest who said they might’ve not been in their mortal bodies, and were taken to heaven. Don’t know if I agree with that, since only Jesus, God, and Mary are supposed to be there. But he is an EWTN priest.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Until the Last Judgement, we do enter into Heaven (hopefully) but do not yet have any body at all- seems weird doesn’t it.

The particular judgement happens when we die, but the last judgement comes when this world passes away with Jesus coming on the clouds, etc. I probably mentioned that earlier. Sleep deprivation does such things to the brain. Sorry.

 

[CalCatholic]

This is from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - NT (The Gospel According to Matthew):

27:52 saints…were raised: Apart from Matthew’s Gospel, history is silent regarding this event and the OT personalities involved. No indication is given as to who was raised, how long they remained, or what kind of body these saints possessed; yet there would be no reason for Matthew to record it, except that witnesses from Jerusalem verified the facts (27:53). Theologically, it is essential to note that these OT saints were raised after (27:53) Easter morning, since Jesus was the first to be resurrected in glory (Col 1:18).

 

[Faith1960]

This is from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - NT (The Gospel According to Matthew):

27:52 saints…were raised: Apart from Matthew’s Gospel, history is silent regarding this event and the OT personalities involved. No indication is given as to who was raised, how long they remained, or what kind of body these saints possessed; yet there would be no reason for Matthew to record it, except that witnesses from Jerusalem verified the facts (27:53). Theologically, it is essential to note that these OT saints were raised after (27:53) Easter morning, since Jesus was the first to be resurrected in glory (Col 1:18).

Do you have any theories?

 

[EveningSkye111]

Since its only in the one gospel and not mentioned anywhere else, could it be false?

NO!!!

A big, fat, red NO!!!.

Why would you even think or consider the Gospel to be false? Even one word of it? Just because it isn’t in the others???

 

[Faith1960]

​

NO!!!

A big, fat, red NO!!!.

Why would you even think or consider the Gospel to be false? Even one word of it? Just because it isn’t in the others???

Well, that and one would expect that such a spectacular event would get a mention somewhere else, by the writers of the time who mentioned Jesus.