How to refute the Crucifixion/Resurrection deniers?

[PRmerger]

I was born into the Catholic faith.

But I think the point being made is that as an adult, you must choose whether you accept or reject Catholicism.

What is it that you use to discern Catholicism’s truth?

The answer should be: faith AND reason.

 

[Tim_D]

But I think the point being made is that as an adult, you must choose whether you accept or reject Catholicism.

What is it that you use to discern Catholicism’s truth?

The answer should be: faith AND reason.

Actually, being raised in the faith, I never once questioned what the Church teaches. It did not require an effort on my part to determine whether Jesus was really resurrected or not; the Church taught that he was, I believed it then, and I believe it now.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, being raised in the faith, I never once questioned what the Church teaches. It did not require an effort on my part to determine whether Jesus was really resurrected or not; the Church taught that he was, I believed it then, and I believe it now.

This describes a blind faith, Tim.

That’s not a good thing to have.

We Catholics should “always have a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you”–1 Peter 3:15

If one hasn’t questioned, then one has no answer when he is questioned.

 

[Tim_D]

This describes a blind faith, Tim.

That’s not a good thing to have.

We Catholics should “always have a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you”–1 Peter 3:15

If one hasn’t questioned, then one has no answer when he is questioned.

I have plenty of answers should one ask, thank you very much. The fact that you don’t approve of the method for which I have reached them doesn’t interest me in the least. The ideal of Christian belief is to believe as a child, not a laboratory scientist. How many have turned from the faith because of the cleverness of their own rationalizations?

Tell me, by what* reason* do you arrive that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist or that he rose from the dead on Sunday morning?

 

[PRmerger]

I have plenty of answers should one ask, thank you very much.

Excellent.

It sounded like you were saying exactly the opposite: you don’t examine your faith. You believe it only because you were told.

But now that you’ve clarified, that’s

You SHOULD have answers, and that means you’ve questioned.

 

[PRmerger]

Tell me, by what* reason* do you arrive that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist or that he rose from the dead on Sunday morning?

I use a lot of reason, Tim, to come to the conclusion that Jesus actually resurrected.
(Let’s defer the Eucharist discussion for now–perhaps start another thread on this).

And if one can’t defend that Jesus rose on the dead, except by saying, “Because the Church said so”, then one can often be led astray.

1. the empty tomb
2. the fact that the witnesses were tortured and died horrific deaths for this, yet not a single one recanted their story. Rather, they died singing the praises of Christ.
3. the fact that women were the first evangelists–this certainly can’t be something 1st century Jews would make up, since women were not seen as reliable testifiers.
4. all of the other explanations (mass hallucination, Jesus fainted and didn’t really die, the apostles were dumb and didn’t really know that Jesus wasn’t resurrected, the apostles actually knew he was dead but were just lying) border on laughable.

 

[Tim_D]

I use a lot of reason, Tim, to come to the conclusion that Jesus actually resurrected.
(Let’s defer the Eucharist discussion for now–perhaps start another thread on this).

And if one can’t defend that Jesus rose on the dead, except by saying, “Because the Church said so”, then one can often be led astray.

1. the empty tomb
2. the fact that the witnesses were tortured and died horrific deaths for this, yet not a single one recanted their story. Rather, they died singing the praises of Christ.
3. the fact that women were the first evangelists–this certainly can’t be something 1st century Jews would make up, since women were not seen as reliable testifiers.
4. all of the other explanations (mass hallucination, Jesus fainted and didn’t really die, the apostles were dumb and didn’t really know that Jesus wasn’t resurrected, the apostles actually knew he was dead but were just lying) border on laughable.

All of that can easily be refuted. None of it is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[PRmerger]

The ideal of Christian belief is to believe as a child, not a laboratory scientist.

Just so you know: the Church doesn’t profess an either/or. Either believe as a child OR as a laboratory scientist.

The Church says both/and.

We use faith AND reason.

As Isaiah 1:18 says: Come, let us reason together.
And 1 Thessalonians 5:21: Examine everything, hold on to what is good

And as our great Papa JPII wrote: Faith AND Reason.
Beautiful encyclical, Tim. You should read it.

Believing only because that’s what you’ve been told is actually a heresy called Fideism.

We should reject anyone’s premise who says that he has come to the faith by refusing to use his intellect, and by faith alone.

 

[PRmerger]

All of that can easily be refuted. None of it is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

LOL!

You’ve examined the evidence for the Resurrection and have refuted this?

 

[Tim_D]

LOL!

You’ve examined the evidence for the Resurrection and have refuted this?

My point is/was that the belief in the resurrection is one of faith, not science, not proofs. You cannot “prove” the resurrection through specious statements.

 

[Tim_D]

Believing only because that’s what you’ve been told is actually a heresy called Fideism.

Thanks. I haven’t been called a heretic in at least a couple of days.

We should reject anyone’s premise who says that he has come to the faith by refusing to use his intellect, and by faith alone.

I have never refused to use my intellect, much in the same way that you did not begin your first reading of the bible by finding a way to scientifically or philosophically establish the truth of each statement in the text. Even Augustine said that faith comes first and understanding will follow. Or was he a heretic, too?

 

[Randy_Carson]

There are groups out there that deny that Jesus was crucified, died, and resurrected as the scriptures said.

How do we refute the claims by people like Basilides and Islamic sects who said the Jesus manifested his appearance on Simon and Simon was the one who was crucified by mistake by the Romans because everyone thought it was Jesus?

the Encyclopaedia of Islam writes:

The denial, furthermore, is in perfect agreement with the logic of the Qur’an. The Biblical stories reproduced in it (e.g., Job, Moses, Joseph etc.) and the episodes relating to the history of the beginning of Islam demonstrate that it is “God’s practice” (sunnat Allah) to make faith triumph finally over the forces of evil and adversity. “So truly with hardship comes ease”, (XCIV, 5, 6). For Jesus to die on the cross would have meant the triumph of his executioners; but the Quran asserts that they undoubtedly failed: “Assuredly God will defend those who believe”; (XXII, 49). He confounds the plots of the enemies of Christ (III, 54).

The essence of this claim by Muslims is this:

Allah sent a prophet named Jesus who gathered a group of disciples and taught them for three years. However, when His enemies sought his execution by crucifixion, Allah simply whisked Jesus away leaving His most devoted followers to wonder what had happened.

IOW, Allah allowed Jesus’ own disciples to misunderstand what had happened to the degree that they formed a false religion based upon their mistaken belief that Jesus died and rose from the dead. It would be even worse if Allah actually deceived His own people into believing that an imposter was crucified in the place of Jesus.

Either way, if this version of events is true, what does it say about Allah’s character?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I use a lot of reason, Tim, to come to the conclusion that Jesus actually resurrected.
(Let’s defer the Eucharist discussion for now–perhaps start another thread on this).

And if one can’t defend that Jesus rose on the dead, except by saying, “Because the Church said so”, then one can often be led astray.

1. the empty tomb
2. the fact that the witnesses were tortured and died horrific deaths for this, yet not a single one recanted their story. Rather, they died singing the praises of Christ.
3. the fact that women were the first evangelists–this certainly can’t be something 1st century Jews would make up, since women were not seen as reliable testifiers.
4. all of the other explanations (mass hallucination, Jesus fainted and didn’t really die, the apostles were dumb and didn’t really know that Jesus wasn’t resurrected, the apostles actually knew he was dead but were just lying) border on laughable.

All of that can easily be refuted. None of it is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

If this can be easily refuted, Tim, then would you please do so for us? I’m quite interested to see how this will be accomplished as it appears I may have wasted several years of my life studying these things.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here is an argument put forth by Wintery Knight [slightly reformatted by me]:

1. 
   *]The Qur’an claims that Jesus did not die on a cross. (Qur’an 4:157-158)
   *]The crucifixion of Jesus is accepted as an historical event among non-Muslim historians, including atheist historians.
   *]Therefore, the Qur’an contains error.
   *]To be a Muslim, you must believe that the Qur’an is without error.
   *]But the Qur’an contains error.
   *]Therefore, it does not make sense to be a Muslim.

 

[PRmerger]

My point is/was that the belief in the resurrection is one of faith, not science, not proofs. You cannot “prove” the resurrection through specious statements.

And this is, like so many Protestant (and atheistic) errors, an insertion of an ONLY where none is required.

It continues to puzzle me greatly why oh-so-many folks insert ONLYs and ALONEs where none are required.

Here’s just a few peculiar ones:

• The Bible ONLY folks.
• The Faith ONLY folks.
• The King James Version of the Bible ONLY folks.
• The Latin ONLY folks
• The Communion Should Be In The Hands ONLY folks
• The Science ONLY folks.
• The English ONLY folks.
• The Intercessory Prayer should be done in Private ONLY folks
• The Jesus is Man ONLY folks.
• The Jesus is God ONLY folks.
• The We should follow the words of Jesus ONLY folks
• The We should follow the words of Paul ONLY folks
• God is spirit ONLY

Why, oh, why do people insist on this type of false dichotomy?

So, we don’t believe in the Resurrection based on faith ONLY. We use reason, science, philosophy, logic, history, our intellect as well.

Saying that we shouldn’t use all of what’s available to use to come to an understanding of truth is a particular type of fundamentalism that is NOT part of Catholicism.

 

[PRmerger]

You cannot “prove” the resurrection through specious statements.

We are agreed here. No one should be attempting to prove the resurrection through specious statements.

But we do use all of history, logic, our reason, our intellect. * That’s* how we know we’re not blindly following a false belief.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks. I haven’t been called a heretic in at least a couple of days.

Firstly, I never call anyone a heretic, unless the Church has done so.

That there are people here who have embraced a heresy is not the same thing as declaring them to be a heretic.

Secondly,* if *one were indeed a heretic, it would be a very, very serious thing, and one ought not be so casual about being one.

I have never refused to use my intellect, much in the same way that you did not begin your first reading of the bible by finding a way to scientifically or philosophically establish the truth of each statement in the text. Even Augustine said that faith comes first and understanding will follow. Or was he a heretic, too?

Well! Here you are again saying that it’s NOT faith alone which drives your Catholicism.

It appears as if you can’t decide which argument you’re embracing.

When you say things such as the above, then there’s nothing there which I need to correct.

However, it’s when you argue that your position, such as a belief in the resurrection, has been arrived at through faith alone, and that all the arguments for the resurrection can be refuted, that you need to be corrected.

 

[rstrats]

Tim_D,
re: “As Christ Himself said, if a person won’t believe Moses and the prophets, then they won’t believe one even though he rose from the dead.”

Actually, the Messiah said that it was Abraham who made the statement.

 

[Athanasiy]

This question got me to looking for Non-Biblical documentation/accounts for Christ. Doing so I ran across this article:
Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible? (link)
citing some very ancient documents that seem to support the Gospel accounts of the events surrounding Christ:

The first account cited in this article comes from the secular scholar Thallus (52AD) as quoted by Julius Africanus, attempting to explain the darkness and earthquakes occurring during Christ’s crucifixion.

However, the following section in particular has a convincing support for me in that people do not typically hold on to a myth when tortured and threatened with death (the following also taken from the above link):
Tacitus (56-120AD)
Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his “Annals’ of 116AD, he describes Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

In this account, Tacitus confirms several historical elements of the Biblical narrative: Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.

There are quite a number of other secular/non-Christian documents cited in this acticle that I will let you, the reader, link to: Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible? (link)

With these accounts then it only make sense that the Leaders of the Sanhedrin or the Roman empire would have produced the Body of Christ as soon as the resurrection “myth” started, they would have placed guards at the Tomb, and given the secular documents, I have no doubt that the description in Matthew 27:62-66 where Pilate ordered the Tomb to be secured occurred. Thus, the body of Christ was observed by Roman solders being placed in the Tomb and that Tomb sealed.; thus, most probably preventing the easy theft of Christ’s Body either before or after the burial - these guards would have valued their lives, to fail a task given by the Prefect would have meant scourging if not death for these guards!

Both the leaders of the Sanhedrin and Pilate had much to gain politically by disproving the resurrection of Christ, much more so,. than by allowing the “myth” to continue and would have produced the Body of Christ if they could have done so… and I suspect that they turned the place upside down looking for Christ’s Body! Pilate may not have been a Nobel Piece Prize winner, but he wasn’t stupid, nor were the leaders of the Sanhedrin - they would have known very well that the resurrection of Christ had to be debunked as soon as possible to regain control of Christ’s followers and to quell unrest. Yet we do not see this happening, no indeed, instead we see decades later Nero still dealing with the Christians which doesn’t make any sense of the events if the Crucifixion and Resurrection didn’t occur as related in the Gospels and could have been discredited at the time of the Resurrection.

 

[Reuben_J]

The essence of this claim by Muslims is this:

Allah sent a prophet named Jesus who gathered a group of disciples and taught them for three years. However, when His enemies sought his execution by crucifixion, Allah simply whisked Jesus away leaving His most devoted followers to wonder what had happened.

IOW, Allah allowed Jesus’ own disciples to misunderstand what had happened to the degree that they formed a false religion based upon their mistaken belief that Jesus died and rose from the dead. It would be even worse if Allah actually deceived His own people into believing that an imposter was crucified in the place of Jesus.

Either way, if this version of events is true, what does it say about Allah’s character?

I have not stopped being amazed by this - how they could believe the illogic. I have heard, until they cannot explained the bizarre belief that Allah would purposely deceive which resulted in two religions, Christianity and Islam, with opposing belief on the resurrection, because the Quran says so.