Tertia Pars
Lecture 126: The Resurrection of Christ: Manifestation and Wounds

Transcript
================================================================================

It says thus, it seems that the body of Christ ought not to rise with the, what, wounds? Yeah. For it's said in 1 Corinthians 15 that the dead will rise and uncorrupt it. But scars, I guess, and vulnerable wounds pertain to a certain corruption and defect. Therefore it's not suitable that Christ, who is the author of resurrection, should rise with his wounds, right? Moreover the body of Christ rises, what, whole. But the openings of wounds are contrary to the integrity of the body. Because through them the body is discontinued. Therefore it does not seem suitable that in the body of Christ the openings of wounds remain. Even though there remain there certain signs of the wounds, right? Which suffice for sight. To which Thomas believed, to whom it is said, because you have seen me, Thomas, you believe. Moreover, Damascene says in the fourth book that after the resurrection of Christ, some things are said of Christ, truly, not according to nature, but according to dispensation, to certify that he himself, what, suffered. The body itself has suffered, right? He's resurrected as the wounds are for this purpose, huh? But seizing the cause sees the effect. Therefore it seems that the disciples having been certified about the resurrection, the wounds further he would not have, right? But it is not suitable to the unchangeableness of glory, that he assumed something that in him would not remain forever. Therefore it seems that he ought not to have taken a body with wounds in his resurrection. But against this is what the Lord says to Thomas. Thomas, take your finger here and see my, what, hands? And put your hand in my side, huh? Well, Thomas says, I answer you, it should be said, that it was suitable that the soul of Christ in the resurrection of the body, in the resurrection, would resume the body with its, what? Scars or wounds. First, on account of the glory of Christ himself. That's interesting, he begins at that, huh? For be, this says, upon Luke, that it's not from the lack of power, the impotency of curing, huh? The wounds, right? Oh, I did say that, yeah, curing wounds, that he kept wounds, yeah. But as a perpetual, what, triumph, a victory? Trophy, yeah. You might carry them around. Carry them for it. Carry them for it. Once Augustine says in the 22nd book of the City of God, that perhaps in that kingdom, right, in the bodies of the martyrs, huh, we will see the, what? Scars. Scars of the wounds, which they underwent for the name of Christ, huh? Not as a deformity in them, right, but as a, what? Dignity. And some, although in the body, not of the body, but the beauty of virtue will, what? Shine. That would be some interesting thing. We see somebody with the head in, we have to see some other way. Turn their head around like that. Secondly, to confirming the hearts of the disciples about the faith of the resurrection, right? That's the one reason you think of primarily, right? But Thomas gives that second, that's kind of interesting. Third, that, what? Supplicating the Father for us. Yeah. That, but what genus of death he underwent for man would always be, what? Showing them. Showing them how much he loved us, huh? Fourth, that by his death, right, huh? Those redeemed whom, mercifully, he, what? Assisted. Assisted. By the signs of his own death proposed, he might, what? Okay, how mercifully. Yeah. Showing them. Yeah, okay. So the first one is more in terms of the glory of Christ, right? Yeah. The second one is, this third one is in terms of us, right? Saying, how much he underwent for us? For what reason? And last, that in the judgment, those who are justly condemned, right? They might announce this, right? That in the judgment, how justly they are damned, right? This would announce that, right? Whence as Augustine says in the book on the creed, the symbol, Christ knows wherefore the wounds in his own body are, what, reserved? Yeah. For just as he demonstrated Thomas not believing, unless he touched and saw, right, huh? So also to his enemies, right, huh? He would demonstrate his wounds, right? As convincing them, as truth says, huh? Behold the man whom he crucified, huh? You see the wounds which you, yeah. You know the side that you pierced, huh? Through you, an account of you was opened. But nevertheless, you do not wish to enter, huh? Yeah. That's powerful, yeah. It's terrible. Can you see that? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the wounds that remained in the body of Christ do not pertain to corruption or defect, right? But to a greater heap of glory. Yeah. In so far as they are signs of, what, virtue, right? And in those places of the wounds, a certain special, what, beauty appears. So that's interesting to see, right, huh? That's also why the saints probably, the martyrs all, who want to be invisible sometimes, huh? They want to see how, see the beauty of your wounds, huh? And another one wants to see the beauty of your wounds. And it was, you know, it kind of struck me in the context that we expect a mortal body to have wounds. We don't expect a mortal body to have wounds. It's like a perpetual source of wonder among the saints. Why does he still have these wounds? All these reasons of wonder. Yeah, but they'll also be beautiful in some way, right? Yeah. They'll be signs of his virtue, his excellence, huh? To second, it should be said that those openings of the wounds, right, although they are there with a certain solution of the continuity of the body, right, huh? Nevertheless, this will be recompensed through a greater beauty of glory, right, huh? So that the body is not less integral, but more, what? Perfect. Thomas not only saw, but also touched the wounds, huh? Now, sometimes the up in the open is if Thomas, you know, did touch the wounds, or he made his confession before that, right? But here it seems to say they not only saw, but he also touched the wounds, huh? It suffices to him, for his own faith, right, to see what he saw, but he worked for us that he might touch what he saw, right? Dr. Carroll always points out that it's providential that he was sent to India to evangelize the country that seems to be afflicted with the plague of the mind that sort of says that annual reality, it isn't real. Yeah, and here's the main thing, I touched those wounds, you can't tell me it. You call them Thomas Christians, I guess. Yeah. To the theory, it should be said that Christ in his body wished the scars that you pick? Of the wounds, yeah. To remain, huh? Not only to certify the faith of the disciples, but also on account of the other reasons that we've given, I suppose, in the body of the article. Which it appears that always in his body, right, huh? Those scars remain, huh? Because, as Augustine says to Consentius, yeah, about the resurrection of the flesh, that the body of the Lord in heaven, I believe to be, right, as it was when it ascended in heaven, right? And Gregory XIV in Morales says that if something in the body of Christ after the resurrection was able to be changed, it would be against the true sentence of Paul, right? That after the resurrection, Christ would return to death, right? Being death, the change, being a kind of death, right? Which, that someone should say, or stupid should be, unless the one who denies the true resurrection of the flesh. Once it is clear that the wounds which Christ, after resurrection, showed in his body will never, what? Be removed. Moved from that body, huh? That's a good place to stop, maybe? God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Praise God. Help us to understand what you have written. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. So we're up to question 55, which is the third question, I guess, on the manifestation of the resurrection, right? Then we're not to consider about the manifestation of the resurrection. And about this, four things are asked. First, whether the resurrection of Christ ought to have been made known to all men, or only to some, what? Special men, huh? Secondly, whether it was suitable that they seeing it, he rose, right? Apparently they didn't see him rising, right? Third, whether after resurrection, he ought to, what? Right. Spend time with, huh? A verse with his disciples, huh? Fourth, whether it was suitable that he appeared to his disciples in a, what? Alien? Yeah. Effigy, right? Yeah. I suppose that's the, it emits, huh? But also, you know, I suppose they made it at first, right? He doesn't recognize them. Five, whether he ought to make known his resurrection by arguments, huh? Curious, huh? And apparently he must be answering yes, because the sixth question is, the sufficiency of those, what? Arguments are proof that he is rose. To the first, therefore, one proceeds thus. Thus, it seems that the resurrection of Christ ought to be made known to all. For just as for a public sin, there is owed a, what? Public punishment, according to that of 1 Timothy 5. Refute, you might say, the one sinning before all, right? So also for public merit, there ought to be a public, what? Reward. Since therefore, and he's quoting Augustine now, the clarity of the resurrection is the reward of the humility of the, what? Passion. As Augustine says upon John, Since therefore the passion of Christ was made known to all, in that he suffered, what? In public, right? In the open. It seems then that the glory of resurrection ought to be made known to all, right? Moreover, as the passion of Christ is ordered to our salvation, so also is his resurrection, according to that of Romans chapter 4. He rose on account of our, what? Justification. But that which it pertains to the common utility ought to be made known to all. Therefore, the resurrection of Christ ought to have been made manifest to all, and not especially just to, what? Some. Moreover, those to whom was made known the resurrection were made witnesses of the resurrection. Whence it is said in Acts 3 by one of the apostles, maybe Peter, I don't know, whom God rose, raised from the dead, of which we are, what? Witnesses, huh? But this testimony should be, what? Made public, right? By preaching, right? Which does not belong to women, huh? To get up there and preach, yeah? Thomas is quite clear about this. According to that of 1 Corinthians 14, a woman should be silent in the churches, huh? And 1 Timothy 2, I do not permit a woman to teach, huh? See, this is the academy today, but it's been trouble, right? Docere mulieri non permittal. Said Burkwest in 15. Therefore, it seems unsuitable that the resurrection of Christ was made known first to women, then to men, huh? In common, huh? Okay? It was a reason for a woman being first, and Mary Magdalene and the others. But against this is what is said in Acts chapter 10, that God rose up, was vivified on the third day, and he gave him, what? To be made known, not to all the people, but to just some witnesses, preordained by God, huh? So, qu'e adeo sunt, qu'e adeo sunt, things which are from God are ordered, right? I answer, it should be said, that of those things which are known, some are known by the common law of nature, and some are known from a special gift of, what? Grace, huh? Just as those things which are divine revealed, of which, as Dionysius says in the book on the celestial hierarchy, this is the law divinely, what? Instituted. That from God, immediately, they're revealed to the, what? Higher ups, huh? By means of which, or as mediators, they are, what? Brought down to the lesser, right? Christ is clear in the ordering of the celestial spirits, huh? See, he had them passed down from one to the other, right? But those things which pertain to future glory exceed the common knowledge of men, this natural knowledge, huh? According to that of Isaiah chapter 64, that I is not seeing God without you, the things that you have prepared for those loving you, huh? And St. Paul kind of has a statement of that again, right? I think it's in the first epistle of the Corinthians. And therefore, things of this sort are not known by men, except as they are revealed divine by God, huh? As the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 2, huh? That God revealed these to us through the Holy Spirit, huh? Because therefore, Christ rose by a glorious resurrection, right? Therefore, his resurrection was not made known to the whole people, but just to some, right? By his testimony, it was, what? Carried over, you might say, to the knowledge of, what? Others, huh? So God wants to do those things in a certain, what? Order. Order, yeah. Now what about Christ's death being, what? Made known to all. To the first therefore, it should be said that the passion of Christ was carried out in a body still having a, what? A passable nature, a nature that couldn't suffer. Which, by the common law, is known to, what? All, right, huh? And therefore, the passion of Christ is able to be made known immediately to the whole people, right? But the resurrection of Christ was made through the glory of the Father, as the Apostle says. And therefore, it was not immediately made known to all, but only to some, huh? Ah, now that those publicly sinning is imposed a public punishment should be understood about the punishment of the present life, huh? And similarly, the public merits are publicly rewarded that others might be provoked, right? In this life, huh? But the punishments and rewards of the future life are not made publicly, are not manifested in public to all. But especially to those who are pre-ordered, huh? To this task, right? By God, huh? So the male teacher, Kassirka used to say, God hates equality. But even there's a kind of more general reason, you know, I was saying before, why has God made, say, St. Augustine or St. Thomas or people like this so much wiser than us, you know? So we have to be, what, learners and they're teachers, right? Well, it's partly because God wants to make something like himself, right? So if he made us all equal, there's no one like God who's superior to all of us, right? In being what's superior to somebody else, right? But here there's a special reason for this here, too, right? It's interesting that even in terms of philosophy, we're very much dependent upon Aristotle, and even Thomas was, and Euclid, and so on, right? Sudden minds, and these great things. Now what about being made known to all, he says, in reply to the second objection. At the resurrection of Christ, just as is for the common salvation of all, so it did arrive in the knowledge of all. But not in this way that immediately was made known to all, right? But to some in particular, to whose testimony it was deferred to what? To all. Okay, that's what he said in the body of the article, right? Okay, now what about the woman there, getting this first? To the first it should be said, there's not permitted to the woman to publicly teach in the, what? Church, huh? But it's permitted to him, to her, privately, right? To instruct some by a, what? Domestic admonition, right, huh? And therefore, I'm quoting what August, or what Deconic said, you know, he believed in God's existence more from what his mother had told him, than what he'd learned from Thomas, right? So your mother has a big effect upon you, right? In these things. And therefore, as Ambrose says, to those, the woman are sent, who are, what? Of the household, right? Domestics. Not however, where are they sent, that they might give testimony of the resurrection to the whole, what? People, right? But, for this reason, he first appeared to the woman, that the woman, who, what? Was the beginning, bringing the beginning of death to man, right? Started with her. First, also would announce the beginnings of, what? The rising, risen Christ in glory, right? His part to redeem them, right, huh? When Cyril says, the woman, who once was a minister of death, right, huh? To venerate the mystery of the resurrection, first she perceived this and announced it, right, huh? Before she, the feminine race, you might say, was able to, what? To death. Yeah, of the ignominy, yeah, and the impudiation of the curse upon them, right, huh? Like the famous one there in Shakespeare's play there, Symboline, right, where the husband, right, thinks his wife has been unfaithful, right? He's dedousing the whole source of evil speaking, woman. But at the same time, through this is shown that as far as pertains to the status of, what, glory, the feminine sex undergoes no, what, detriment, right, huh? But if they are fervent by a greater charity, right, they will enjoy a greater glory from the, what, divine vision, right? In that the woman who more, what, fully or intensely loved the Lord, right, huh? In that, so much so that from her is a tomb, you might say, right, huh? The disciples receding, right? They did not recede, right? They stayed there, right? They first, therefore, saw the Lord rising in, what, glory, right, huh? So the first shall be last, and the last shall be first, right, huh? Go to daily mass, if I'm a woman there than men, maybe it's part of the, because they don't have to work, but even Saturdays, too, you know? You've got to watch, it's got to be too hard on a woman, you know, because there's more of them in heaven than men, I don't know. We'll see. Now, the second article, the second one proceeds thus, it seems that it was suitable, it would have been suitable that the disciples would see Christ to rise. I'm interested in raising this question, right? For to the disciples, it pertained to witness, to testify to the resurrection of Christ, according to that of the Acts chapter 4, verse 33. With a great power, right, the apostles rendered testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, our Lord. But the most certain is the testimony of what? Sight, huh? Therefore, it was suitable that they were to see the resurrection of Christ himself, huh? Like an Obramara or whatever it is, they see the thing being knocked down. Moreover, in order to have certitude of faith, the disciples saw the ascension of Christ, right? Saw him going up there, and they kept on looking up there, you know, until the angels came down and said, well, they just saw him going up, they see him coming again. And likewise, it's necessary for them to have a certain, a sure faith about the resurrection of Christ, right? Therefore, it seems that the disciples seeing Christ ought to have, what? Risen, right? Before their sight. More! This is very interesting. The resurrection of Lazarus, huh? Was a certain sign of the future resurrection of Christ, huh? But the disciples seeing this, huh? The Lord revived, huh? Lazarus, right? Therefore, it seems that also Christ ought to rise, but the disciples seeing them. Are you convinced, huh? It's interesting, huh? It's nice to, you know, to go from this back and read the Gospels and the alternation of the two, huh? War with, okay. But against this is what is said in Mark 16, 9, huh? That the Lord, rising in the morning, huh? First day of the Sabbath, the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalene, huh? But Mary Magdalene did not see him, what? Rise, huh? But when she saw him in the tomb, huh? She heard from the angel that the Lord has risen, he's not here. Therefore, no one saw him rise, huh? Shy, what was it? Yeah. I answered, it should be said that as the Apostle, now there we have the St. Paul being named by what? Yeah. As the Apostle says, Romans 13, 1, The things which are from God are, what? Ordered, huh? Wisdom orders all things suit thee. But this over is the order divinely instituted, that those things which are above man, or above men, are revealed to men through angels. As is clear through Dionysius, in the fourth chapter's Lester hierarchy. So you have the angels singing there to the shepherds, right? Okay. Now Christ rising did not return to the life commonly known to all, right, huh? But to a certain immortal life, huh? A life conformed to God, according to that of Romans 6. That the one who lives, lives to God. And therefore, the resurrection of Christ ought not to be immediately seen by men, but ought to be, what? Announced to them by, what? Angels. That's interesting, Thomas. Seizes, huh? Whence Hillary says upon Matthew, That, therefore, the angel before is a, what, index, a sign, I guess, a herald, yeah, of the resurrection, that by certain, what, what? Yeah, that the resurrection would be, what, announced, huh? It's interesting, huh? You know, because you don't realize, I guess, the law of the Old Testament was given to, what, the angels, right? To us, you know? It comes out when you read the Church of Others. What about the first objection here, about the testimony of the eyes? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the apostles could witness the resurrection of Christ even by, what, sight. Because Christ, after the resurrection living, they saw with the, what, yeah. I guess the Latin there seems to be, aculata fide, with the, what, yeah. Yeah, with an eye in faith, right? I know. How do you translate that in your English there? That's just like, aculata is like, it's, it's, it's modifying fide, right? Yeah, right. The seeing faith, right? You know, faith is a thing that's seen, right? But there's seeing in the eyes. Faith, whom they, they, they had known, what, did, right, huh? But just as to the blessed vision, one arrives through the hearing of faith, right? Faith is from hearing. So, to the vision of Christ, what, risen, men arrive through those things which they first hear from the, what? Angels. Angels, huh? You've got to believe before you can see, right? Belief is from, what? Hearing, right? Fide sex auditum. Well, it reminds a little bit of Thomas there, right, huh? Because, you know, Thomas, he says, my Lord, my God, he sees the risen Christ, right? He doesn't see his divinity, right? But he believes both, right? So, there's a, aculata fide, right? There's a kind of mixture there of the eye with the, with the, with the faith, huh? So, no, it's this, quaea deo sun, ordinata sun. It is into both the body of the article there in article one and in article, what, two, right, huh? So, the angels first and then the apostles and then the rest of us here. Now, what about this, being present at ascension, right? To the second it should be said that the ascension of Christ, as regards the term from which it takes place, right, does not transcend the common knowledge of men, right, but only in the term to which. And therefore, the disciples are able to see the ascension of Christ, as regards the term from which it takes place, right? That is, according as it is elevated from the earth, but they do not see it, as regards the term to which he goes, right? Because they do not see in what way he is received in what? Heaven, right? But the resurrection of Christ transcends the common knowledge, both as regards the term from which, according as the soul, what, turns from hell, four parts, and the body from the sepulcher, closed, right, goes forth, right? And as regards the term to which, according as he obtains a glorious life. And thus, it is not able, or it's not be, that the resurrection would be, what, such that it would be seen by men, right, huh? And what about this Lazarus now? Well, Thomas has a similar answer. He was resuscitated, he might return to such a life as he had before, which does not transcend the common knowledge of men, that life that he returned to, right? And therefore, there's not the similarities that's interesting the way he solves that up. Good to have a master like this around, huh? Did you get the Thomas Aquinas College newsletter, kind of, I think he sent out? Because they were quoting the Pope there about St. Thomas a little bit. Yeah, there's one line in there, yeah, about that, yeah. I'll be real. In harmony with the people. You say that's from the President of the United States? Yeah, yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah. And the head of one of the congregations there, too, one of the cardinals there, they're quoting him, too. Okay, now, the third article. To the third one proceeds thus. It seems that Christ, after the resurrection, ought to continuously, right, spend time with the disciples, right? For this reason, Christ, to the disciples after the resurrection, appeared. He might make them, what? Certain, right? About the faith of the resurrection, right? And he might give them consolation for them to be disturbed, right? According to that of John, chapter 20. They rejoiced, I guess, the disciples, seeing the Lord, right, huh? But they would be more, what? Certain of his resurrection, and consoled if he continually showed them his, what? Presence, right? Therefore, it seems that continuously with them, he ought to have conversed, right? I don't know, I mean, how often he did, but, you know, like, the times when Thomas was not there, and then when he was, right? It's like, almost like a week there, right, before he's not, uh, right? Yeah, so he has to wait a week, you know, in a sense, to get a chance to see if he was in Christ, Thomas, huh? The daughter, because he was present at first. That was the first day, that was the first day, I think. And he was with them 40 days. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but not continuously. Yeah, well, why this, right? Moreover, Christ rising from the dead did not at once ascend to heaven, but after 40 days, right? But in that intermediate time, huh? In no other place would he be more suitably to be than where the disciples were, what? Gathered together, yeah. Therefore, it seems that continuously with them he ought to, what? Converse or spend time, right? Moreover, on the very day of the resurrection of the Lord, the Lord's Day, quinquies, huh? Five times, right? Christ is, it's read, appeared, right? As Augustine says in the book on the agreement of the Gospels. First, to the woman at the monument, right? Secondly, to some, right, going back from the monument on the journey. Third, to what? Peter, that's mentioned in Luke. Fourth, to the two going to the castle that's in Emmaus. And first, and five, to many in Jerusalem, where, as was the apostles, right? Where Thomas was not, huh? Okay? Therefore, it seems also that on other days, before his ascension, he ought to appear at least many times, huh? The president of the... On an inaugural at night, he's got a pair of all these different dances, and he's got to go from one to the other, you know. Thank all his great supporters and so on. I think he had a resurrected body. More than one at the same time. Yeah, it would be no problem for him to get one place to another. Moreover, the Lord, before the parishion, said to them, After I resurrect, I will precede you in what? Galilee, you know? Well, which also the angel and the Lord himself at the resurrection said to the woman, right? But nevertheless, before, he was seen by them in Jerusalem, right? And on the very day of the resurrection, he has been said, right? Of these five things. And also again, the eighth day, the time now, I guess, when Thomas was present, right? Therefore, it does not seem that in a suitable way, after the resurrection, he was, what, conversing with the disciples, huh? But against this is what is said in John chapter 20, that after eight days, Christ appeared to the disciples. He did not, therefore, continuously, right? Uninterrupted? Converse with them, huh? The answer should be said, huh? About the resurrection of Christ, Christ, two things were to be declared by, or to the disciples, right? To it, the truth itself of the resurrection, and secondly, the glory of the one, what? Rising. So those are two different things, right? Now, to the truth of the resurrection manifest in that, it suffices that many times he appeared, right? And that he spoke with them in a familiar way, huh? And that he even ate and drank, right? To show his true human flesh. And that he offered himself to be touched with them, right? But, for manifesting the glory of his resurrection, he did not wish to continually, what? Converse with them, just as he had done, what? But, previously. Lest it would seem that to such a life he had risen, as before he, what? That's pretty good what he says, huh? Whence Luke chapter 24 says, these words which I, what? Spoke to you when I was still, what? With you. But then he was with them, with a bodily presence, huh? But before, when he was with them, not only was he there by bodily presence, but also by a likeness of mortality, huh? Whence Bede, huh? Expounding or laying out the forcible words. When I was still with you, right, huh? That is when I was with you in mortal flesh, in which you are. Well, then in the same flesh, he was resurrected, but he was not with them in the same, what? In the same mortality, yeah. Okay, Thomas, that's pretty good, huh? Now, it reminds me of the question, you know, why did he not remain upon this earth, right? And they say, well, if he had remained upon this earth, there was such an emphasis upon his humanity, that his divinity would be, what? Ignored, right, huh? So one of the reasons why he ascended, right, was in order to, what? Lead us to contemplate his divinity more, right? And even the Holy Spirit would not be sent, right? Because they would be too immersed in the, what? Material, right? It's a little bit like that, huh? Okay. Now, to the first, it should be said that the frequent appearance of Christ suffices to, what? Certifying and making sure the disciples about the truth of the resurrection, right? He appeared enough times, right? And for enough time to make them sure that he had risen, right? And so they were no doubt when they went out to preach after it that he had risen, right? But a continual, right, presence with them would be able to, what? Could lead them into error, right, huh? If they believe that he, what? Resurrected for a similar life which he before, what? Had, huh? Now, the consolation of his continual presence, he promised them in another life, right? According to that of John 16, again, I will see you and your heart will rejoice and your joy no one will take from you, right? That's in that movie I was mentioning earlier there that she says to her sister there when they're getting parted, you know, when they're going into the convent and so on, you know, you'll see me again. It's kind of paraphrasing what scripture says here. Your father says something like that, you know, you know, when finally Teresa's going into the convent. This life doesn't last very long, he says, you know. We'll soon see each other again. So again, that in a way is touching upon what the body of the article touched upon. To the second, what about being there 40 days? What is he doing? To the second, it should be said that Christ did not therefore, what? Continually converse with the disciples because he, what? Regarded himself to be more suitably somewhere else, and that's not the reason, right? But because he judged this, right? To be more suitable for instructing the disciples if he did not continually, right? Converse with them for the foresaid reason, right? But it's unknown in what places in the intermediate time he was a body, right? Because scripture does not treat it as and in every place is his, what? Domination. What about appearing so much in the first day and not on the later days? To the first, therefore, it should be said that on the first day he appeared more frequently, right, huh? Because by many signs or indices they were to be, what? Yeah. that from the beginning they might receive the faith of the, what? Resurrection. But after, when they had already now, what? Received it, right, huh? It was not necessary for them to be made certain by yeah, to be instructed by so frequent apparitions, right, huh? Once they were once they were. Whence in the gospel it is not read that after the first day he appeared to them except, what? Five times, huh? Because another five times that are mentioned, right? After that first day, huh? The first day there were five months, right? For as Augustine says in the book on the agreement of the gospels after the five apparitions on that first day, huh? They were numbered before or numbered before. The sixth he appeared where Thomas saw him, right, huh? Seventh appearance was on the sea of what? Tiberias in the capture of the fishes, right? That's like at the end of John's gospel. The eighth time