# Is there more to the story on Matthew 27:50-53? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 29, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167 "2012-03-29T15:30:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/41 "2012-04-02T07:35:40Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > canon yes, dogma no. > > The Pope is quite free to have change dogma, as one did when he banned abortion in the late 1800’s Abortion has nothing to do with dogma. Dogma is about belief, not about behaviour; if anything a prohibition would be canonical law. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/42 "2012-04-02T08:45:18Z")
Plus, the notion that the church only banned abortion in the late 1800s is not one that will stand up to critical scrutiny. It was a big no-no from an early date. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/43 "2012-04-02T09:08:02Z")
Cecil addressed this point in a [column](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2817/when-does-human-life-begin) actually. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/44 "2012-04-02T11:18:54Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > You misunderstood me, I guess i wasn’t too clear, I know that the 3 apostles were said to have witnessed the transfiguration of Jesus, but Jesus was seen with Moses,Elijha and I think Abraham at the time, and all three had died centuries before Jesus was said to have been born! How did they know that these three geezers were Moses, Elijah and Abe? Were they introduced formally? Photo ID? Nametags? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/45 "2012-04-02T11:55:15Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > How did they know that these three geezers were Moses, Elijah and Abe? Were they introduced formally? Photo ID? Nametags? That too is a mystery isn’t it? It adds to the wonderment of how they knew, unless Jesus told them afterwards who it was. But it still begs the question of how they could be alive (even as a spirit)if it was necessary for Jesus to die first inorder for them to be saved! ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/46 "2012-04-02T17:34:14Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Plus, the notion that the church only banned abortion in the late 1800s is not one that will stand up to critical scrutiny. It was a big no-no from an early date. There were many changes and although late term abortions may have been banned from an early time early term abortions were allowed several times in history. E.G. St. Jerome wrote: “The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs” Pope Pius IX absolutely is responsible for moving the point of conception as the point where the soul enters in 1869. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/47 "2012-04-02T18:40:49Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I would have to look it up again, I think it was Abraham but I do not remember just that I always wondered why,'If people who had died hundreds of years before Jesus time. were then seen with Jesus, where they had been for all the centuries, since no one was to be saved until Jesus died for them! It was just Moses and Elijah and no, it’s a mistake to think that people could not be in heaven before Jesus was born. Some OT prophets (Enoch, and Elijah himself) were taken up directly into heaven before death. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/48 "2012-04-03T01:34:51Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > There were many changes and although late term abortions may have been banned from an early time early term abortions were allowed several times in history. > > E.G. St. Jerome wrote: > > “The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs” Jerome didn’t think that early abortion was _killing_, but it doesn’t follow that he thought it was _permitted_. Neither he nor the Christian tradition generally thought that abortion was permissible at any stage. > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Pope Pius IX absolutely is responsible for moving the point of conception as the point where the soul enters in 1869. Can you give detail on this? Cecil’s column on the subject, to which **gamerunknown** obligingly links above, doesn’t bear you out on this. No offence, but if I have to choose between placing my faith in the Master or in you, I’ll choose the Master. The view that individual human life commences at conception is indeed a relatively modern one, but that’s because until the microscope was invented there was no evidence to support it. Presenting this as a reinvention of religious dogma is a little disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/49 "2012-04-03T02:44:44Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Jerome didn’t think that early abortion was _killing_, but it doesn’t follow that he thought it was _permitted_. Neither he nor the Christian tradition generally thought that abortion was permissible at any stage. > Can you give detail on this? Cecil’s column on the subject, to which **gamerunknown** obligingly links above, doesn’t bear you out on this. No offence, but if I have to choose between placing my faith in the Master or in you, I’ll choose the Master. > > The view that individual human life commences at conception is indeed a relatively modern one, but that’s because until the microscope was invented there was no evidence to support it. Presenting this as a reinvention of religious dogma is a little disingenuous. It changed many times, “abortion” has been unlawful but what is “abortion changed” It is quite clear that “fetus animatus” was required for St. Augustine or Jerome to think it was murder. Pope Innocent III is documented excusing a monk who had his girlfriend get an abortion because it was before the quickening. Thomas Aquinas claimed > [@](#): > > “The vegetative soul, which comes first, when the embryo lives the life of a plant, is corrupted, and is succeeded by a more perfect soul, which is both nutritive and sensitive, and then the embryo lives an animal life; and when this is corrupted, it is succeeded by the rational soul introduced from without [i.e., by God].” This was confirmed as Catholic dogma by the Council of Vienne in 1312. That “vegetative soul” was not a human yet thus until quickening it was not abortion. Pope Gregory XIV kicked the “quickening” out to 116 days. he was overturning Pope Sixtus V who had said even non-animated fetus were ensouled and thus it was murder just 3 years before. So if Cecil’s column said abortion, up to the point of “quickening” was not ever allowed the column is just wrong. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/50 "2012-04-03T02:51:26Z")
My initial reaction to the verb “appearing” suggested something like ghostly appearances, not bodily resurrections, especially because these old Jewish holy men don’t seem to remain for very long, say much, or do much. Jesus “appeared” to his disciples after his death, which sort of argues for a more physical “appearance” of these Jewish holy men, but Matthew doesn’t mention the story of Lazarus raised from the dead so I’m not sure how much we can learn from comparing it to other instances in Matthew. I’m also not sure how to check if the same word is used in the Greek. It’s a shame **Diogenes the Cynic** has been banned; he’s the only Koine Greek speaker we had on these board, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/51 "2012-04-03T06:07:18Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > You misunderstood me, I guess i wasn’t too clear, I know that the 3 apostles were said to have witnessed the transfiguration of Jesus, but Jesus was seen with Moses,Elijha and I think Abraham at the time, and all three had died centuries before Jesus was said to have been born! Yeah, but you can’t trust TMZ on who is seen with who. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/52 "2012-04-03T06:10:12Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > How did they know that these three geezers were Moses, Elijah and Abe? Were they introduced formally? Photo ID? Nametags? \ Moses was a ringer for Charlton Heston \ ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/53 "2012-04-03T06:24:40Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > That “vegetative soul” was not a human yet thus until quickening it was not abortion. I’m afraid this doesn’t follow at all. If the “vegetative soul” was not human, this would mean that early termination of pregnancy was not murder, but it wouldn’t follow (a) that it was not abortion, or (b) that it was morally permissible. The “abortion is murder” view is, as I say, a pretty modern one; informed by scientific insights not available before the modern era. But the “abortion is a grave moral evil” view is a pretty old, and pretty consistent, one. If, as you say, Pope Innocent III had to excuse a monk who procured an early abortion, that does rather suggest that at this time an early abortion was ordinarly regarded as very seriously wrong; why else the need for papal intervention to save the monk? I don’t think there was ever a time when abortion at any stage was generally regarded as permissible in the Catholic church. There may have been different views as to _why or how_ it was wrong, but it was always seen as wrong, and gravely so. The claim that Pope Pius IX “banned abortion” in 1869 is flat-out wrong, as is the suggesting that he changed dogma in doing so (or that he would have changed dogma if he had done so). ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/54 "2012-04-03T06:34:23Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > I’m afraid this doesn’t follow at all. If the “vegetative soul” was not human, this would mean that early termination of pregnancy was not murder, but it wouldn’t follow (a) that it was not abortion, or (b) that it was morally permissible. > > The “abortion is murder” view is, as I say, a pretty modern one; informed by scientific insights not available before the modern era. But the “abortion is a grave moral evil” view is a pretty old, and pretty consistent, one. If, as you say, Pope Innocent III had to excuse a monk who procured an early abortion, that does rather suggest that at this time an early abortion was ordinarly regarded as very seriously wrong; why else the need for papal intervention to save the monk? > > I don’t think there was ever a time when abortion at any stage was generally regarded as permissible in the Catholic church. There may have been different views as to _why or how_ it was wrong, but it was always seen as wrong, and gravely so. The claim that Pope Pius IX “banned abortion” in 1869 is flat-out wrong, as is the suggesting that he changed dogma in doing so (or that he would have changed dogma if he had done so). Actually going back and reading Cecil’s article it says exactly what I was saying, no matter what you wish it says, the article talks about quickening etc… Clerical celibacy is quite a valid reason for a pope to look into a monk’s girlfriends’ abortion. If going from 14 weeks is OK to no acceptable point after conception isn’t “banning abortion” I have no idea what it is. Abortion has been murder for a very long time in the church, what is abortion has changed. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/55 "2012-04-03T09:19:23Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Actually going back and reading Cecil’s article it says exactly what I was saying, no matter what you wish it says, the article talks about quickening etc… Cecil says exactly the opposite of what you were saying. He says this (bolding mine): [QUOTE=Cecil] The matter [of ensoulment] was debated for centuries, although without much practical impact on church policy; **abortion was always prohibited** for the same reason birth control was prohibited — it interfered with a natural process. **But prior to ensoulment abortion wasn’t homicide**. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cecil] If going from 14 weeks is OK to no acceptable point after conception isn’t “banning abortion” I have no idea what it is. [/QUOTE] The gap in your argument, though, is that you’ve yet to produce any evidence that abortion up to 14 weeks was ever considered acceptable, except allegedly by one pope doing an exceptional favour for a mate. Cecil flatly states that it was not acceptable, and this accords with my understanding. > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Abortion has been murder for a very long time in the church . . . Cite? Not for abortion being wrong, but for abortion being murder, and wrong for that reason. This is a modern view, and if you can find a pre-modern Christian thinker who expresses it, now would be a good time to name him. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/56 "2012-04-03T11:53:53Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > It was just Moses and Elijah and no, it’s a mistake to think that people could not be in heaven before Jesus was born. Some OT prophets (Enoch, and Elijah himself) were taken up directly into heaven before death. Tha still belies the fact that the teachings of Christians is that one could not be saved unless Jesus paid the penalty for their sin they were born with! ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/57 "2012-04-03T14:32:49Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Cecil says exactly the opposite of what you were saying. He says this (bolding mine): > > The gap in your argument, though, is that you’ve yet to produce any evidence that abortion up to 14 weeks was ever considered acceptable, except allegedly by one pope doing an exceptional favour for a mate. Cecil flatly states that it was not acceptable, and this accords with my understanding. > Cite? Not for abortion being wrong, but for abortion being murder, and wrong for that reason. This is a modern view, and if you can find a pre-modern Christian thinker who expresses it, now would be a good time to name him. I never claimed that they said abortion was viewed as a good thing to do, but for long periods of time punishment was less than or similar to masturbation etc…, thus it was allowed or permitted. Even in a pro roe v. wade world we are not cheering women on to go get abortions, but it is allowed. At one point the penance for Oral Sex was 7 years, for a pre-quickening abortion was only 120 days. That changed to instant ex-communication in the late 1800’s for an abortion any point in time after conception which is exactly what the linked article says. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/58 "2012-04-03T14:50:56Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Surely this would be newsworthy for the other Gospels to mention One of many examples of Matthew making shit up. Others include the Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, the Slaughter of the Innocents, and the Flight to Egypt. None of them were mentioned by anyone else, not even Luke, who gave a detailed account of the same time period, and certainly not by any secular accounts. It defies belief that even secular accounts would not mention the Star or the Slaughter, since they had to be widely known. The Magi and Flight may not have been widely known, but they directly contradict Luke’s account, which says that Mary and Joseph did not flee to Egypt and stay away from Jerusalem for the next ten years, but instead took Jesus to Jerusalem when he was six weeks old, publicly presented him in the Temple, and had various holy people declare him the Messiah. This would have caused a sensation if true, and could not have been unknown to Herod. But after all this, according to Luke, they continued on to Nazareth, without a hint of trouble from Herod, and returned to Jerusalem every year after that. I don’t know who baffles me more: professed Christians who aren’t even aware of the contradictions in the very famous passages they read every Christmas, or those who are aware of them, and say they don’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/59 "2012-04-03T14:57:39Z")
> [@hoopified](#): > > Mathew had in mind the believing Jew, one who was looking for raising the dead as a sign of The Messiah. The Jews of that time considered the Messiah to be a leader who would drive the Romans out, not someone who would rise from the dead. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167/60 "2012-04-03T15:03:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Matthew was the fool who based the entire virgin birth myth on a misreading of the Bible. Since the Virgin Birth is one of only a few things that Luke agrees with Matthew on, there seems to be more of a basis than misreading Isaiah. I would guess it was just Christians trying to compete with all the other stories of gods mating with mortals. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-more-to-the-story-on-matthew-27-50-53/617167.md?page=4)