A difficult question sorry in advance

  • Thread starter Thread starter Struggling1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Struggling1

Guest
Ok so the whole of Christianity or Catholicism rest on the validity of the resurrection. I know the Bible says it happened and the witnesses were the apostles and then the 500 a couple of worries I have are as follows: all the accounts seem to be second hand accounts there’s no documentation on the 500. Also I know it’s unlikely the apostles would have made the tale up because it obviously didn’t benefit them. How can we be assured what they saw wasn’t what they wanted to see? Are there other areas of life we have accepted second hand testament from thousands of years ago and have had it end up reliable? I’m sorry I don’t mean
any offense and I know we are supposed to accept this fully on faith but I’m struggling and trying my hardest to learn!
 
There was no body so either
  1. The Jews or Romans moved it (they would have produced it once the apostles started proclaiming the resurrection)
  2. The apostles stole it (they would have recanted)
 
It’s not really second hand when you have the people themselves among you.

In fact, the Pauline “First to Peter then…” is a VERY early hymn in the Church, demonstrating how quickly the belief that Christ had resurrected was.
 
I wish he would explain the historical basis or even why we can reliably believe the resurrection to be valid. The symbolism is incredible!
 
True but it’s not like there’s a list of 500 just the mention of 500. I’m sorry for being difficult by the way I hope all is well!
 
Yes, but the apostles were there and their students, ink and paper were expensive. Why write down all 500?
Don’t forget they were there and the oral tradition is important.

Also, most historical info is second hand in the way you mean. Most people could not write and read. Historians instead researched into the subject they were writing about instead of it being first person accounts, which would naturally be rare when like around 90% of people couldn’t write anything down.
 
True but I mean in other areas of history there’s also an issue where the people recording it could modify details for stories sake. I.e the battle of Thermopylae everyone now says 300 Spartans versus a million Persians when in reality there were quite a bit more and it just made a better story? Is it at all possible they were wrong? Could they have misunderstood or something? Why wouldn’t the resurrection have been a bigger deal if someone came back from the dead regardless of cost I’m pretty sure humanity would freeze up and attempt to record as much as they could as it never happens?
 
It is like the biggest deal ever.

Recall the Christians were underground and were killed. You had to smuggle the written scrolls from being persecuted, they were that important.
 
I realize that suggesting a book to read is never a very satisfactory answer, but on this occasion it may be better than nothing. I wouldn’t presume to attempt to summarize the book for you in a few lines, but I can assure you that Wright goes through all the arguments very thoroughly, responding to them one by one. In addition, he writes very clearly and very readably, which helps the reader to absorb the information.

 
Last edited:
The way I see it, what better witnessing that the fact that Christians were martyred by large numbers for believing this. Also before 70 AD, Jewish authorities persecuting Christians with Roman help were faced with this same issue and failed to produce a body.
 
But don’t Islamic people and pagans die for their beliefs as well? That’s my biggest issue with the argument the apostles died because of what they witnessed but tons of people die for their beliefs.
 
I have a similar question. I’m not doubting the resurrection happened, I’m really not!! But wouldn’t it have been great if Jesus had shown up back at the Temple and showed everyone he was right?!
 
The difference is that Islamic jihadis do not know that Mohammed was an actual prophet based on actually witnessing it.

The Apostles were first hand witnesses.

You may die for something you think is right without knowing for sure. But, dying for what you know to be a lie is not something most people would do.
 
Mohammed and his companions went ahead and conquered lands around them as warriors they most certainly did not die for their beliefs.
It is not about what happened centuries later it is about the first followers. Big difference.
 
The Resurrection is the reward of Faith, fide.

To see otherwise would be quite a special blessing.

Blessed are those who have not seen…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top