A difficult question sorry in advance

  • Thread starter Thread starter Struggling1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t know I guess I just don’t understand why it wouldn’t have been extremely well documented
Extra biblically. I’m sorry for being difficult!
 
Struggling1 said:
Why wouldn’t the resurrection have been a bigger deal if someone came back from the dead regardless of cost
Click to expand...
It did not needed to be a “bigger deal” than it was! 😍

Jesus did not want people just to believe in His resurrection. It was, so to speak, a good 'selling point, but He wanted more! He wanted for us to believe the whole package!

There is a reason for His death and resurrection. We are Christians because of that reason, not only because of the bare fact of the resurrection.
 
Last edited:
Struggling1 said:
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!
Click to expand...
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm
 
Also remember, things like the gospels and Paul’s letters. Who were they being written to? They were being written for people who had experienced these things in their lifetimes. The whole point of the gospels, for example, was to get this stuff on paper before everyone died out-- either through martyrdom or old age-- because the earliest Christians genuinely expected a second coming within their lifetimes. Jesus died around AD 33-36. Peter, John, and James were martyred in the 60’s. Mark was written around AD 70; Matthew and Luke around the 80’s or the 90’s.

So, it’s more like the gospels were people writing about 40-50 year-old history. So, if someone was to write, in 2018, their memoirs of the Beatles, or of Vietnam, or of animating Scooby Doo, or the moon landing, or Apollo 13-- there are still plenty of people who can tell the difference between “Oh! Yes!” and “You’re making this stuff up-- what space program?”
 
Struggling1 said:
I’m sorry for being difficult!
Click to expand...
No, you are not difficult. Tell me one single reason why should it have been a ‘media frenzy’, well the contemporary form of it, about the Resurrection? The Good News was to be spread slowly, step-by-step as the church grew, among those who were to believe.
 
Because those that have died never come back if it happened in modern times whoever came back from the dead would absolutely be worshipped!
 
Struggling1 said:
whoever came back from the dead would absolutely be worshipped!
Click to expand...
You have to see the face of Jesus. He did not want to be worshipped. He wanted to save you. He wanted to give you a chance to believe. Why do you think Jesus wanted to be worshipped? He did not want it! This would be a very demeaning accusation against Him!
 
Last edited:
Jesus died and he rose again. It was pretty obvious.

If we see a dead person, who has been dead and buried, then alive and is with us, what is there to explain or prove (that he has risen from the dead)?
 
As people said how Jesus didn’t want to appear to the people for them to worship him, its also good to note that he did miracles for people who started to believe with their faith in him. It was never for malicious intent which is why when scribes and Pharisees demanded such mircales, he never gave it to them. Like he said “your faith has saved you”. Just something to add to the thread.
 
Try reading “Why We’re Catholic” by Trent Horn. He does a great job explaining it in one of the chapters
 
I’m going to pick up that and answering atheism once I find a new job 🙂 thank you for the response! I hope you know how much you have helped! Even if it doesn’t seem like I’m getting anywhere!
 
I think His death by crucifixion is what really needed a good documentation which we already have in sufficient detail. Besides, the historical records of the Gospels are in line with outside sources such as that of the famous Jewish Scholar Josephus’ (i.e; Jesus the man, who claimed to be the Messiah, was executed, then the 70AD temple destruction, the rule of Pontius Pilate under King Herod, etc…) The reason why I say that is because His resurrection was naturally grand, I mean think about it, we are talking about “cowards” becoming “warriors” almost overnight! All of the apostles ran to their death for the sake of proclaiming His resurrection and the Gospel! As bold as it gets! They couldn’t even keep it to themselves. They had everything to lose and nothing to gain (earthly gain that is). But what strikes me the most is Saul, and his conversion as St. Paul.
 
I’ve always found it fascinating how the Bible gets so much scrutiny when other historical sources do not. The Bible has been proven correct more times than the engerizer bunny has gone.
 
How so? I know the historical accounts have mostly been disproven on a mass scale like the flood, no evidence of the Jews in Egypt, no chariots in the Red Sea or even evidence of a battle.
 
  1. There is geological evidence of a flood
  2. The Red Sea may have referred to a series of inland waterways
  3. Amos I and Thutmoses III wrote about capturing slaves in the Levant.
 
It’s an old news article from almost 10 years ago, that just came across my feed this week, about how the Mediterranean Sea dried up 5.6 million years ago and then refilled in a flood about 5.3 million years ago.
“Although the flood started at low water discharges that may have lasted for up to several thousand years, our results suggest that 90 percent of the water was transferred in a short period ranging from a few months to two years.”
Previous studies have suggested that it could have taken between 10 and several thousands of years to fill the Mediterranean, according to the depth of the Gilbraltar strait.
Click to expand...
So, yeah. The earliest pre-human fossils range from 6 million to 2 million years ago, and you get your first homo sapiens fossils around 350,000 years ago. although it’s not until you get to about 100,000 years ago that you start running into things like “culture” and “art” and “language”. You get agriculture and civilization in the last 12,000 years.

So-- the point being, if you have something like the Zanclean Flood, is it outside the realm of possibility that similar deluges could happen to a more concentrated group of people, a la Noah’s ark or the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Atrahasis Epic or the Enuma Elish or Deucalion and Pyrrha? Some people think to focus on the Black Sea flood around 7,000 years ago. Others prefer to look at a flood around 5,000 years ago. There have been many floods… and some of them have been extremely epic. 🙂
 
Yes we do trust in “second hand” information.

Faith in God and faith in the Christian Community are so intermingled as to be inseparable.
But then there is also the witness of the HS within us as to the truth and reasonability of the matters passed down to us.

In the end its faith.
If you have it you have it.
If you don’t pray for that gift.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top