Help with Resurrection

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicgamer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholicgamer

Guest
I need some help with this.

The left side of my brain is resisting the resurrection and I need some guidance, education and reasonable points to the fact that Jesus did this. It just hasn’t clicked yet. Is there a good resource (…book, podcast, video…) that would help me out. Can any of you?

I need something that will click with the strong scientist in me. Something that will plant that seed that will eventually give me that “eureka” moment…if there is such a thing with an issue like this.

Thanks a bunch, 👍
Darren
 
catholicgamer said:
I need some help with this.

The left side of my brain is resisting the resurrection and I need some guidance, education and reasonable points to the fact that Jesus did this. It just hasn’t clicked yet. Is there a good resource (…book, podcast, video…) that would help me out. Can any of you?

I need something that will click with the strong scientist in me. Something that will plant that seed that will eventually give me that “eureka” moment…if there is such a thing with an issue like this.

Thanks a bunch, 👍
Darren
Click to expand...
Shroud of Turin you can start at . There are supposed contradictions however , they can easily be argued . You may here some claim that it was mid-evil, however , the sample that they took from the carbon testing was from mid evil times .Confused? let me explain: when they did the carbon testing they failed to realize that they were taking a sample from a fixed area . The Shroud at one point had parts ruined and need to be fixed in some areas this happened in the mid evil time period . They failed to test from a real area of the Shroud . My blog has more points about it www.defendingthefaith-frankie.blogspot.com
 
catholicgamer said:
I need some help with this.

The left side of my brain is resisting the resurrection and I need some guidance, education and reasonable points to the fact that Jesus did this. It just hasn’t clicked yet. Is there a good resource (…book, podcast, video…) that would help me out. Can any of you?

I need something that will click with the strong scientist in me. Something that will plant that seed that will eventually give me that “eureka” moment…if there is such a thing with an issue like this.

Thanks a bunch, 👍
Darren
Click to expand...
Also read the story of Doubting Thomas . The Shroud had markings consistent with the markings on Jesus described .
 
Defender1 said:
Shroud of Turin you can start at . There are supposed contradictions however , they can easily be argued . You may here some claim that it was mid-evil, however , the sample that they took from the carbon testing was from mid evil times .Confused? let me explain: when they did the carbon testing they failed to realize that they were taking a sample from a fixed area . The Shroud at one point had parts ruined and need to be fixed in some areas this happened in the mid evil time period . They failed to test from a real area of the Shroud . My blog has more points about it www.defendingthefaith-frankie.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
The word is “medieval”. 😉
 
catholicgamer said:
I need some help with this.

The left side of my brain is resisting the resurrection and I need some guidance, education and reasonable points to the fact that Jesus did this. It just hasn’t clicked yet. Is there a good resource (…book, podcast, video…) that would help me out. Can any of you?

I need something that will click with the strong scientist in me. Something that will plant that seed that will eventually give me that “eureka” moment…if there is such a thing with an issue like this.

Thanks a bunch, 👍
Darren
Click to expand...
I advise these 2 links for articles:

tektonics.org/rezhub.html

and

reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=scholarly_articles_historical_Jesus (Requires registration).

Here are some good books too:
The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright
The Resurrection of Jesus by Mike Licona.
 
I’d also like to strongly recommend Dr. William Lane Craig’s website, Reasonable Faith. He has excellent articles on the resurrection. He defends it using a very good historical argument. There are also several very good books along those lines: The Case for the Resurrection by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona. Their argument is a more in depth look at the case provided on Craig’s website. Licona has another book, using very minimal historical facts to establish the resurrection: The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Also, NT Wright’s work on the resurrection: The Resurrection of the Son of God . As a warning, those last two are very scholarly works and quite long, while the first one is definitely written for the layperson.

Here is an example: youtube.com/watch?v=tKb6tmxljr4
 
"…THE TWO WAYS of studying the Resurrection of Christ–in the light of reason and in the light of faith–are complementary. Unlike, say, Catholic doctrine on the Trinity or grace, the article of faith in our Lord’s Resurrection, while it is certainly a matter of revealed truth, has never been considered by the Church as one of those truths which are knowable only by revelation and are intrinsically inaccessible to unaided human reason.

The Church has always regarded the rational evidence for Christ’s Resurrection as one of the “motives of credibility” for the Christian faith as a whole and thus insists that an openminded inquirer can become convinced of the historical truth of the Resurrection without any appeal to the authority of the Magisterium or to the inerrancy and inspiration of the New Testament records.
Against the nineteenth-century fideism of those who held that a rational basis for faith is unnecessary and that all Catholic dogmas should be accepted unquestioningly only on faith, the Holy See insisted that one has no right to expect an unbeliever to admit the Resurrection of our divine Savior before giving certain proofs–proofs which are deduced from the oral and written tradition of Christianity…"

EXPLAINING AWAY JESUS’ RESURRECTION
FIRST OF THREE PARTS

PART 2

PART 3

This should help, catholicgamer.
 
Defender1 said:
Shroud of Turin you can start at . There are supposed contradictions however , they can easily be argued . You may here some claim that it was mid-evil, however , the sample that they took from the carbon testing was from mid evil times .Confused? let me explain: when they did the carbon testing they failed to realize that they were taking a sample from a fixed area . The Shroud at one point had parts ruined and need to be fixed in some areas this happened in the mid evil time period . They failed to test from a real area of the Shroud . My blog has more points about it www.defendingthefaith-frankie.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
You cannot use the Shroud to prove the Resurrection. Its not evidence of anything. It is simply a cloth with an image which has not been declared authentic by the Church.
 
The procedure to verify the resurrection by scholars like NT Wright and William Lane Craig is: 1). to establish 3 historical facts on the basic of the evidence and then, 2). to argue that the best explanation of those facts is the Resurrection. So a brief summary follows:

I. The Three historical facts.

A). Jesus’ Burial and discovery of his empty tomb three days later.
  1. The discovery of the empty tomb in multiply attested in early, independent sources. The pre-marken passion source, Paul’s letter to Corinthians mentions it, Matthew is an independent source since he includes the guard at the tomb, which is not in Mark.
  2. Mark’s story is simple and lacks significant legendary development. (esp. compared to later Gnostic gospels which are real legends.
  3. The empty tomb was discovered by women. Women were not regarded as reliable witnesses, so their presence indicates the account is probably legit, since no one would invent women as discovers of the empty tomb.
  4. The earliest Jewish allegation that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body (Matt. 28.15) shows that the body was in fact missing from the tomb. The only reason to put that story there was if the Jews were really claiming that Jesus’s followers stole his body, by which they admitted the tomb was empty.
  5. The disciples could never have preached the resurrection unless the tomb were really empty.
  • For these and at least 3 other reasons, Gary Habermas found in a survey that 75% of scholars admit the empty tomb. “Experience of the Risen Jesus” Dialog 45 (2006):292.
B. Appearances of the risen Christ on multiples occasions to multiples individuals.
  1. “The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances which is quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15. 5-7 guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, the 500 brethren, and James.” (cited from WLC)
  2. The gospels account for multiples appearances, including to the women. The latter are probably reliable for the reason given above. They would not have been made up.
  3. The appearances were physical. Paul in Corinthians implies this, Jesus invites Thomas to touch his side, Jesus eats a fish. If the appearances were not physical, the disciples would not have said Jesus was raised, they’d say they saw his ghost.
  • Even the radical skeptic Ludemann agrees that these appearances happened. He simply disagrees on the best explanation of them, by arguing that they are simply hallucinations.
C. The Origin of Christian belief. The disciples came to believe, in spite of every reason not to, that Jesus was really raised from the death.
  1. The ancient world always used the work “Resurrection” to mean a physical bodily resurrection. And they universally, from Plato, to Homer, through ancient Greece and Rome, agreed that Resurrection in this sense did not happen.
  2. The sole exception was the Jews, who came to believe there would be a Resurrection of all the just, at the end of time.
  3. Yet Christians claimed that 1). God raised Jesus, ahead of time, 2). that this man was the messiah, and the 3). resurrection was something to which they could contribute in the present life. 4).Early Christians had no spectrum of belief about the Ress. Rather there was virtually unanimous agreement on what it meant.
  4. Beliefs in life after death tend to be very conservative (they are very precious to people). For Christians to 1). show such changes and 2). agree almost completely, this demands explanation.
Part II- The explanation of these three facts.
The most probable explanation of these three facts is that Jesus of Nazareth really did rise from the dead leaving behind an empty tomb.

Please Note- none of these arguments assume the Bible was written early or that it was written by the first generation. I only claim that it is sufficient, when treated as a historical source, to establish the facts listed above.

Suggested reading and links.

NT Wright- Surprised by Hope (chap. 3-4), The Resurrection of the Son of God, ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm
William Lane Craig- The Son Rises (book), Reasonable faith chap. 8, reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351
 
I second people’s suggestions to look at Wright, Craig, and a few others. There is alot of good stuff out there.
 
Thank you so much everyone. I found N.T. Wright literally after I posted this…but there is lots of stuff you all mentioned that I was not aware of.

I’ve got lots of reading and searching to do.

I shall now give you all a virtual “high five”:

high five

😃
 
If you’d like, I can provide you with a non-canonical Gospel deemed part of Holy Tradition by the Church which will show what Jesus did after He died, and before He rose, coming from those who were dead in the grave and vouched for by Joseph of Arimathea(the one who lent his tomb to Jesus). 🙂
 
catholicgamer said:
I need some help with this.

The left side of my brain is resisting the resurrection and I need some guidance, education and reasonable points to the fact that Jesus did this. It just hasn’t clicked yet. Is there a good resource (…book, podcast, video…) that would help me out. Can any of you?

I need something that will click with the strong scientist in me. <–I doubt that will ever happen. Something that will plant that seed that will eventually give me that “eureka” moment…if there is such a thing with an issue like this.

Thanks a bunch, 👍
Darren
Click to expand...
I think the search for carnal, scientific, worldly evidence is failed at the start; possibly by Divine intent because without those things we are left to rely on faith and the inner knowledge of God that lives in all of us; which is what God wants us to do. The Bible speaks of faith so much because that’s what God wants.

Faith raises us above carnality, beyond our five senses and helps us make the leap from carnal to spiritual.

Even if you found something that you considered evidence or proof, what would that accomplish in the long run? You would still be basing your faith in something spiritual on something found in the carnal.

Science cannot prove God. Better to work on faith than rely on science…in my opinion.🙂

HEBREWS 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
 
babylonsfalling said:
I think the search for carnal, scientific, worldly evidence is failed at the start; possibly by Divine intent because without those things we are left to rely on faith and the inner knowledge of God that lives in all of us; which is what God wants us to do. The Bible speaks of faith so much because that’s what God wants.

Faith raises us above carnality, beyond our five senses and helps us make the leap from carnal to spiritual.

Even if you found something that you considered evidence or proof, what would that accomplish in the long run? You would still be basing your faith in something spiritual on something found in the carnal.

Science cannot prove God. Better to work on faith than rely on science…in my opinion.🙂

HEBREWS 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Click to expand...
I’m not looking for proof, because I know that is a dead end. Science is certainly the wrong way to approach this question. What I’d like is reasonable and scholarly points that would help build the foundation of faith that I’m ultimately looking for…if that makes any sense.

Like I said, I’m a strong left brain type. My current thought process is giving that part of me something to munch on…something to meditate on in order to get to where I need to go.

I disagree with you that you cannot satisfy “left-brain” thinking, which I characterized as the “strong scientist in me”. Clearly the NT Wrights and William Lane Craig of the world are making serious attempts to do so. Not “proof” in the scientific sense, but very strong clues that point to a very strong case that the resurrection of Christ actually did happen.

…I’m getting there. Just taking a bit of time. 🙂
 
catholicgamer said:
I’m not looking for proof, because I know that is a dead end. Science is certainly the wrong way to approach this question. What I’d like is reasonable and scholarly points that would help build the foundation of faith that I’m ultimately looking for…if that makes any sense.

Like I said, I’m a strong left brain type. My current thought process is giving that part of me something to munch on…something to meditate on in order to get to where I need to go.

I disagree with you that you cannot satisfy “left-brain” thinking, which I characterized as the “strong scientist in me”. Clearly the NT Wrights and William Lane Craig of the world are making serious attempts to do so. Not “proof” in the scientific sense, but very strong<—The STRENGTH of the clue is relative to the eye of the beholder…in my opinion. clues that point to a very strong case that the resurrection of Christ actually did happen.

…I’m getting there. Just taking a bit of time. 🙂
Click to expand...
It’s good that you’re not looking for “proof” and would ultimately be better is all of us could not worry about “reasonable and scholarly points”, because what’s reasonable and scholarly to one person is silly and dumb to another.

But since we’re carnal and spiritually stupid in this fallen world, and since we rely on our five senses, and the limited worldly knowledge that comes from those senses…none of us have this trick perfected. It’s hard not to value carnal knowledge because we’re overloaded with carnal (name removed by moderator)ut from our senses and this works to stifle our spiritual sense…the one which connects us with God.

God wants faith which will fire your spiritual connection with Him, and which has nothing to do with “left-brainism”😃

Christianity (especially the resurrection) is not reasonable or scholarly by human standards, it contradicts everything we think we “know” about death throughout all our history. Christianity will never humor the human need to feel smart…that’s just ego anyway.🙂
 
babylonsfalling said:
It’s good that you’re not looking for “proof” and would ultimately be better is all of us could not worry about “reasonable and scholarly points”, because what’s reasonable and scholarly to one person is silly and dumb to another.

God wants faith which will fire your spiritual connection with Him, and which has nothing to do with “left-brainism”😃

Christianity (especially the resurrection) is not reasonable or scholarly, it contradicts everything we “know” about death throughout all our history. Christianity will never humor the human need to feel smart…that’s just ego anyway.🙂
Click to expand...
I tend not to be too relativistic when it comes to respected Catholic scholarship…which is what I’m looking for in the end.

I think God has asked us to seek Him with heart, soul AND the mind, and ultimately that is what I’m aiming for. I admit, I live too much in my head and that has to be addressed; however, I think it’s perfectly natural for us to want to understand the current thinking on all of these matters.

…thanks a bunch for the (name removed by moderator)ut Babylon 😉
 
catholicgamer said:
I tend not to be too relativistic when it comes to respected Catholic scholarship…which is what I’m looking for in the end.

I think God has asked us to seek Him with heart, soul AND the mind, and ultimately that is what I’m aiming for. I admit, I live too much in my head <—Since you admit that you live TOO MUCH in your head, maybe it would be good not to humor that tendency and that has to be addressed; however, I think it’s perfectly natural for us to want to understand the current thinking on all of these matters.

…thanks a bunch for the (name removed by moderator)ut Babylon 😉
Click to expand...
Lots of Christians (myself included) are drawn toward believing that God asked them to ______________ <—(fill in the blank with whatever the individual likes to do anyway). It’s an ego based tendency to re-make God in our own personality, a subconscious presumption I think that God must naturally value what we value. I think this is a trap that haunts everyone to various degrees, so I’m not singling you out or eliminating myself from this failing. I have it too. It’s just way too easy to presume God wants the same things we want and all we really end up doing is serving our ego instead of God’s will.

What God really asks is that we become like children:
Luke 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
Click to expand...
…not scholars or whatever else we like to think of ourselves as.
 
While I agree wholeheartedly that our faith in Jesus Christ should not rest on the shifting sands of evidence, and should instead have as its firm basis the witness of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church is very clear that faith and reason must go hand in hand.

Fides et Ratio

The resurrection is an excellent example. It was an historical event that occurred in history. We can build the same case for it that we can for, say, Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon or Sargon’s victory in the Battle of Uruk. Such things can be used to strengthen faith and to help witness to others about Christ but should never be the foundation of our faith.
 
babylonsfalling said:
It’s good that you’re not looking for “proof” and would ultimately be better is all of us could not worry about “reasonable and scholarly points”, because what’s reasonable and scholarly to one person is silly and dumb to another.

But since we’re carnal and spiritually stupid in this fallen world, and since we rely on our five senses, and the limited worldly knowledge that comes from those senses…none of us have this trick perfected. It’s hard not to value carnal knowledge because we’re overloaded with carnal (name removed by moderator)ut from our senses and this works to stifle our spiritual sense…the one which connects us with God.

God wants faith which will fire your spiritual connection with Him, and which has nothing to do with “left-brainism”😃

Christianity (especially the resurrection) is not reasonable or scholarly by human standards, it contradicts everything we think we “know” about death throughout all our history. Christianity will never humor the human need to feel smart…that’s just ego anyway.🙂
Click to expand...
Oh really? How is God raising Jesus from the dead unreasonable? What we “know” from past human history is that, left to natural causes, dead people stay dead. However, Christians have never claimed that Jesus rose *naturally *from the dead. We claim that God raised Jesus from the dead by supernatural means. We have no reason to think that God couldn’t raise Jesus from the dead if He wanted to. The question then becomes, do we have good evidence the Jesus was seen alive after He was dead? And the answer to that question is certainly “yes”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top