Knowledge of the Resurrection

  • Thread starter Thread starter Will_Storm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Will_Storm

Guest
The Church teaches the use of faith and reason together in discovering truth. Sometimes it is our faith that keeps our reason in check. But, there are also times when our reason keeps our faith in check.

I am curious how the historical evidence of the resurrection fits into this dynamic.

It seems that we would say you cannot demonstrably prove that the resurrection took place. Rather, if we were to keep all else the same and say the resurrection was fabricated, we would be left with some very strange behavior and accounts of early christendom.

What does the Church teach about what comes from reason and what is known purely by faith?
 
Will_Storm said:
The Church teaches the use of faith and reason together in discovering truth. Sometimes it is our faith that keeps our reason in check. But, there are also times when our reason keeps our faith in check.

I am curious how the historical evidence of the resurrection fits into this dynamic.

It seems that we would say you cannot demonstrably prove that the resurrection took place. Rather, if we were to keep all else the same and say the resurrection was fabricated, we would be left with some very strange behavior and accounts of early christendom.

What does the Church teach about what comes from reason and what is known purely by faith?
Click to expand...
“Thou hast learned to believe Thomas, because thou hast seen me. Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet learned to believe”. Bishop Sheen wrote the following regarding this passage:

“Thomas thought that he was doing the right thing in demanding the full evidence of sensible proof; but what would come of future generations if the same evidence was to be demanded by them? The future believers, the Lord implied, must accept the fact of the Resurrection from those who had been with Him. Our Lord thus pictured the faith of believers after the apostolic age when there would be none who would have seen it; but their faith would have a foundation because the Apostles themselves had seen the Risen Christ.”
 
yankee15 said:
“Thou hast learned to believe Thomas, because thou hast seen me. Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet learned to believe”. Bishop Sheen wrote the following regarding this passage:

“Thomas thought that he was doing the right thing in demanding the full evidence of sensible proof; but what would come of future generations if the same evidence was to be demanded by them? The future believers, the Lord implied, must accept the fact of the Resurrection from those who had been with Him. Our Lord thus pictured the faith of believers after the apostolic age when there would be none who would have seen it; but their faith would have a foundation because the Apostles themselves had seen the Risen Christ.”
Click to expand...
And how do we know that the Apostles saw the Risen Christ?
 
Will_Storm said:
And how do we know that the Apostles saw the Risen Christ?
Click to expand...
Dont forget that it wasnt only the apostles that saw the risen Jesus. The whole village did too. After His ressurection He stayed with the apostles for a few months and even made them breakfast etc.

Also, would the apostles have died for a lie? Would Christianity be as strong as it is thousands of years later if it was all a lie?
 
TheHolyGhost said:
Dont forget that it wasnt only the apostles that saw the risen Jesus. The whole village did too. After His ressurection He stayed with the apostles for a few months and even made them breakfast etc.

Also, would the apostles have died for a lie? Would Christianity be as strong as it is thousands of years later if it was all a lie?
Click to expand...
According to the Gospels, Christ stayed with the apostles for awhile, yes.

I am suspicious of the “would the apostles died for a lie” argument. A person or group of people dying for a cause does not immediately lend credence to that cause.

Islam is pretty strong.
 
Will_Storm said:
The Church teaches the use of faith and reason together in discovering truth. Sometimes it is our faith that keeps our reason in check. But, there are also times when our reason keeps our faith in check.

I am curious how the historical evidence of the resurrection fits into this dynamic.

It seems that we would say you cannot demonstrably prove that the resurrection took place. Rather, if we were to keep all else the same and say the resurrection was fabricated, we would be left with some very strange behavior and accounts of early christendom.

What does the Church teach about what comes from reason and what is known purely by faith?
Click to expand...
Faith, whether in the resurrection or other truths revealed by our faith, is a supernatural gift which doesn’t contradict reason but transcends or goes beyond what reason may be able to ascertain on its own.
 
Will_Storm said:
According to the Gospels, Christ stayed with the apostles for awhile, yes.

I am suspicious of the “would the apostles died for a lie” argument. A person or group of people dying for a cause does not immediately lend credence to that cause.

Islam is pretty strong.
Click to expand...
It may not prove it as absolutely true, but it does show that they believed in it.

Muslims who die for their faith do so because they wholeheartedly believe it.

If the apostles died proclaiming Christ’s death and resurrection and willing to take that to their murdered end, it should at least show that they believed in it. And if they believed in it, having been there with Christ before and after his crucifixion, then that should give credence to their stories. Their testimony would be less trustworthy if they didn’t know Jesus personally.
 
bzkoss236 said:
It may not prove it as absolutely true, but it does show that they believed in it.

Muslims who die for their faith do so because they wholeheartedly believe it.

If the apostles died proclaiming Christ’s death and resurrection and willing to take that to their murdered end, it should at least show that they believed in it. And if they believed in it, having been there with Christ before and after his crucifixion, then that should give credence to their stories. Their testimony would be less trustworthy if they didn’t know Jesus personally.
Click to expand...
Right. Your thoughts here are consistent with how I usually explain the resurrection narrative: every other position is more ridiculous than a resurrection.
Is that a proper explanation?
 
Will_Storm said:
Right. Your thoughts here are consistent with how I usually explain the resurrection narrative: every other position is more ridiculous than a resurrection.
Is that a proper explanation?
Click to expand...
There is no set way to look at it. One can take it that way, but one can also take it on faith of the Church, or faith in the Apostles as trustworthy men.

Also remember that along with Christ, those who were in Abraham’s Bosom were resurrected with Christ and were seen by many walking around and likely told their stories as well. And these were people who had been dead for years, and many saw them. Stories of this would be passed along quickly. And with such specific supernatural activity, the necessary parts of the story would likely not be mistaken or misunderstood.
 
Will_Storm said:
According to the Gospels, Christ stayed with the apostles for awhile, yes.

I am suspicious of the “would the apostles died for a lie” argument. A person or group of people dying for a cause does not immediately lend credence to that cause.

Islam is pretty strong.
Click to expand...
The difference of course is that the apostles died for what they witnessed. Suicide bombers who die for islam dont do so based on their experience, but rather based on indoctrination.

The apostles were grown men and were not indoctrinated. Their deaths do lend plenty of credence.
 
TheHolyGhost said:
The difference of course is that the apostles died for what they witnessed. Suicide bombers who die for islam dont do so based on their experience, but rather based on indoctrination.

The apostles were grown men and were not indoctrinated. Their deaths do lend plenty of credence.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. But, there is still no way to prove it, I don’t think. So, when we apply reason alone, we say there is a high degree of certainty, and (at least for me) faith fills in where reason steps out.

Is that right? I mean, there is no way to understand it entirely by reason?
 
Will_Storm said:
That makes sense. But, there is still no way to prove it, I don’t think. So, when we apply reason alone, we say there is a high degree of certainty, and (at least for me) faith fills in where reason steps out.

Is that right? I mean, there is no way to understand it entirely by reason?
Click to expand...
Why are you looking for proof? Has your faith deserted you?
 
Will_Storm said:
That makes sense. But, there is still no way to prove it, I don’t think. So, when we apply reason alone, we say there is a high degree of certainty, and (at least for me) faith fills in where reason steps out.

Is that right? I mean, there is no way to understand it entirely by reason?
Click to expand...
I would not necessarily agree that faith is a substitute for reason. Faith is rather the choice to follow that reason.
 
Will_Storm said:
The Church teaches the use of faith and reason together in discovering truth. Sometimes it is our faith that keeps our reason in check. But, there are also times when our reason keeps our faith in check.

I am curious how the historical evidence of the resurrection fits into this dynamic.

It seems that we would say you cannot demonstrably prove that the resurrection took place. Rather, if we were to keep all else the same and say the resurrection was fabricated, we would be left with some very strange behavior and accounts of early christendom.

What does the Church teach about what comes from reason and what is known purely by faith?
Click to expand...
Faith does not keep reason in check but takes over when reason fails or falls short. Faith is the theological virtue by which we assent to what God has revealed to us.

CCC 1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself.

I have faith because God touched me in a very real and personal way and proved to me that he is real, therefor I trust- assent to what he has revealed even if seems to be unreasonable.

The unreasonable becomes reasonable only through faith.

-Tim-
 
Will_Storm said:
And how do we know that the Apostles saw the Risen Christ?
Click to expand...
For one they were terrified and for the other Jesus had to convince them he wasn’t a ghost. In other circumstances this could have been funny.
 
Will_Storm said:
And how do we know that the Apostles saw the Risen Christ?
Click to expand...
Many things in life we have to belive by faith. I know when I was born, not because I remember it happening, but because my parents told me the day and time.

In order to believe Christianity from a philosophical view, I have had to first ask whether there is a God. And it only makes sesne that there has to be a creator forthere to be creation. So that is an easy one for me. Then I have to consider that if God created us then He would wantto reveal Himself to us. I see that happening through the Christian Faith, first to people in the Old Testament, especially prophets. Then I see God taking it a step fursther and becoming like us a man, Jesus. Then I see the Church as being an ideal instrument for Him to get very close and personable with us! And I also feel Him in my own life! I know He has transformed my life and done things through me, restored some many things in my life.
 
It seems that Faith is NOT a choice, but a gift.

And my Faith is strong, but I have difficulty explaining the resurrection to others.
Namely, I get hung up on, “What makes your faith stronger than other opposing faiths?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top