Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[pocaracas]

Fair enough.

So you made it up?

Or you saw some studies which demonstrate that “Empiricism is all we have to be as sure as we can about anything.”

Which is it?

Please cite your sources.

Yeah… I made it up… of course…
Just like every scientist makes it up for himself…
It’s one of those things… reality imposes itself upon us. Not us upon it.

 

[pocaracas]

“That sounds like a man-made religious rule!” said poca.

But now, it turns out, you can’t even fathom what a non-man-made religious rule would look like.

It turns out that this was a rather inutile objection then, eh?

Well then… it just means they all sound man-made!
One would expect godly rules to be a bit more… general… wise… not petty, like the one I said sounded man-made:
“- blasphemy of the holy spirit… and a refusal to repent from it.”

What would I care if an ant said I was some big bad monster?

I think, given your track record here, you should just have that be your default position.

You might be right…

Uh, no…poca.

You need to cite a magisterial document with the Church’s teaching from the past, and then a magisterial document with the Church’s teaching from the present.

Suffice it to say, poca, that you cannot cite second party references if you want to talk about Church teaching.

cuf.org/2002/11/pillar-and-bulwark-of-the-truth-the-infallibility-magisterium-of-the-catholic-church/:
“”
Jesus did not leave His people vulnerable to the doctrinal whims of competing leaders. Rather, He built the Church on the solid foundation of the apostles (cf. Eph. 2:19-20). He gave the Church His Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, to enable her to be “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
“”
And yet…

cuf.org/2004/04/inquisition-in-the-catholic-church/
“”
Despite these facts, Pope John Paul II warns us:

Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weakness of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: ‘The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.’
“”

It seems the Holy Spirit failed.
And it can be argued that this wasn’t the only failure of the holy spirit… but let’s not there… it’s of no use.

 

[pocaracas]

Do you know any other Jew who fits the bill?

Someone whose clothes were torn and divided by casting lots? Who was mocked and jeered, scorned and despised? Who had his hands and feet pierced?

Someone whose death was a retelling of an old psalm?

 

[PRmerger]

Does this view of the soul over the body’s importance still stand?

Well, *first *you’ll have to offer the Church document which states that the soul is more important than the body.

Then we can chat.

 

[PRmerger]

Yeah… I made it up… of course…
Just like every scientist makes it up for himself…
It’s one of those things… reality imposes itself upon us. Not us upon it.

Well, it does indeed sound like you don’t have any Empirical Proof to support your doctrine.

That’s quite amusing.

And ironic.

And double-standardy.

I certainly hope in our future discussions you never ask for any kind of evidence for our beliefs.

Because, of course, all we will have to do is refer you back to this post.

“I believe something just because a lot of other -]people/-] scientists believe it. Even if I can’t offer any empirical proof for it.”

 

[PRmerger]

Pope Leo XIII:

“Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.”

This would refer, I assume, to any discrepancy between our ‘two overlapping magisteria’. Leo appears to agree that science will trump the church whenever it can be shown that science has proved its case.

I’m assuming that this would refer to matters such as geocentrism, evolution etc.

I notice you didn’t cite a source.

Could you please do so?

And then we can chat.

 

[pocaracas]

Well, *first *you’ll have to offer the Church document which states that the soul is more important than the body.

Then we can chat.

CCC
“”
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232
“”

“Greatest value in him”?

 

[PRmerger]

Someone whose death was a retelling of an old psalm?

So you’re saying that it’s not even true that man named Jesus who walked the earth 2000 years ago was actually crucified?

I have to say that this puts you in the same category as the 6000 year old earthers, the anti-vacciners, the geocentrists.

That is: you are a member of a fringe minority.

Almost no credible, educated person–even atheists–will deny that there was a historical Jesus who was crucified by the Romans.

 

[PRmerger]

CCC
“”
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232
“”

“Greatest value in him”?

Amen!

But where does it say that the soul has more value than the body?

It appears to say that the body has the same dignity: “shares in the dignity”

And where is the change?

Please cite the document which is contrary to the above.

Thanks.

 

[pocaracas]

Well, it does indeed sound like you don’t have any Empirical Proof to support your doctrine.

Doctrine, huh?
Let me try to get this straight… you are asking me to give you empirical evidence to the fact that one can only be sure of the reality of anything through the usage of empirical evidence?
Have fun discerning anything of the world around you without the use of your senses…

 

[PRmerger]

Well then… it just means they all sound man-made!
One would expect godly rules to be a bit more… general… wise… not petty, like the one I said sounded man-made:
“- blasphemy of the holy spirit… and a refusal to repent from it.”

So, again, give an example of what you would expect a “godly rule” to look like.

What would I care if an ant said I was some big bad monster?

I don’t know what this means.

Is this an analogy?

Are you able to cite analogies but not able to receive them?

You might be right…

Oh, p-shaw. There you go again!

How many times has this been already?

cuf.org/2002/11/pillar-and-bulwark-of-the-truth-the-infallibility-magisterium-of-the-catholic-church/:
“”
Jesus did not leave His people vulnerable to the doctrinal whims of competing leaders. Rather, He built the Church on the solid foundation of the apostles (cf. Eph. 2:19-20). He gave the Church His Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, to enable her to be “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
“”
And yet…

cuf.org/2004/04/inquisition-in-the-catholic-church/
“”
Despite these facts, Pope John Paul II warns us:

Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weakness of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: ‘The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.’
“”

It seems the Holy Spirit failed.
And it can be argued that this wasn’t the only failure of the holy spirit… but let’s not there… it’s of no use.

Oh, dear.

I didn’t realize that I needed to start so far back at the beginning.

When we ask for a Church document, we mean something from the Magisterium.

Something that comes from the Church’s teaching authority–something from a Pope, in an official document. Or something from a Church council. Something from the bishops in union with the Vicar of Christ (that is, the Pope).

A good resource is this: papalencyclicals.net

Not a website that claims to summarize Church teaching.

 

[pocaracas]

So you’re saying that it’s not even true that man named Jesus who walked the earth 2000 years ago was actually crucified?

I have to say that this puts you in the same category as the 6000 year old earthers, the anti-vacciners, the geocentrists.

That is: you are a member of a fringe minority.

Almost no credible, educated person–even atheists–will deny that there was a historical Jesus who was crucified by the Romans.

Oh?
“”
“And they said we have killed the Messiah Isa son of Maryam, the Messenger of God. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him. On the contrary, God raised him unto himself. God is almighty and wise.”
— Quran surah 4 (An-Nisa النساء) ayah 157-158[215]
“”

Maybe Mo was just an uneducated Bedouin, huh?
“no credible educated person”… tss tss tss.

 

[PRmerger]

Doctrine, huh?

Yes, sir.

Let me try to get this straight… you are asking me to give you empirical evidence to the fact that one can only be sure of the reality of anything through the usage of empirical evidence?
Have fun discerning anything of the world around you without the use of your senses…

LOL!

Again, Empiricism is great.
Empiricism is our friend.

Catholicism embraces empiricism.

It is only when you assert your dogma that “Empiricism is **all we have **to be as sure as we can about anything” that it gets foolish…

and self-refuting.

For it to be true, you would have to offer some…

Empirical Evidence…

to support your view.

What study shows this?

Please cite your sources, and make sure the study is peer-reviewed, reproducible, and is, well, empirical.

 

[pocaracas]

But where does it say that the soul has more value than the body?
It appears to say that the body has the same dignity: “shares in the dignity”

Are you kidding me?

And where is the change?

Please cite the document which is contrary to the above.

The change is in the behavior towards those who are heretical. How many protestant sects are now allowed to thrive in Europe?
What would have happened to them during the inquisition?

 

[PRmerger]

It is only when you assert your dogma that “Empiricism is **all we have **to be as sure as we can about anything” that it gets foolish…

As Blaise Pascal said, paraphrasing: 2 errors: to exclude empiricism, and to exclude all but empiricism.

That’s what makes Catholicism so formidable to refute.

We use the Both/And so very often.

There is no reason to be locked in a stable (oops…here I go with an analogy again. I think it will be able to be digested and applied. fingers crossed)…and claim that the ONLY thing we can use to get out is our teeth.

Why not use everything we have at our disposal?

Fundamentalists so very often are limited by their extremist views–

Bible ONLY!
Faith ONLY!
Jesus was a man ONLY!
English ONLY!

“I am going to study the Islet of Langerhans ONLY!”

Ummm…ok. But why? Why not look at everything we have?

Think of how much of a wider perspective it give someone when he removes the ONLY where it does not belong.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you kidding me?

Deadly serious.

The Catechism says that the body and soul share equally in dignity.

That’s pretty clear.

You don’t see that?

The change is in the behavior towards those who are heretical. How many protestant sects are now allowed to thrive in Europe?
What would have happened to them during the inquisition?

No, poca.

You said the Church changed her teaching.

So you showed the present day teaching that says that the body and soul share equally in dignity.

Now we need the old teaching which states something contrary to that–that the soul is superior to the body.

Please, again, use a legitimate, official document as your source.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh?
“”
“And they said we have killed the Messiah Isa son of Maryam, the Messenger of God. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him. On the contrary, God raised him unto himself. God is almighty and wise.”
— Quran surah 4 (An-Nisa النساء) ayah 157-158[215]
“”

Maybe Mo was just an uneducated Bedouin, huh?
“no credible educated person”… tss tss tss.

Fair enough.

Islam claims that he was fake-crucified.

You’re saying that the entire thing was a myth. None of it happened.

Is that still your story, that you’re sticking to?

 

[Gorgias]

I know who the man is… but I didn’t get the reference to his voice, or why it’s relevant… but I guess it’s not important…

It’s a line he used, a number of times, in presidential debates, when his opponent kept making the same tired arguments.

Are you telling me that none of the NT texts were ever suspected of being heretical?

virtualclaritymagazine.org/how-were-the-new-testament-books-chosen/

Your citation doesn’t talk about ‘heresy’, but only about ‘authoritative’ (and apostolic!) teaching.

Some were concerned about James because it appeared to contradict Paul on the relationship between faith and works. Questions were also raised about 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the book of Revelation.

We were talking about the Gospels, weren’t we?

It may be argued that Jesus was an Essene…

It may. The argument doesn’t hold up well, though, for a variety of reasons (one of which is that Essenes lived in communities and Jesus was an itinerant preacher)…

Are you saying that everyone in the region was jew?

Nope. Merely that the Jews there would have understood the reference.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yeah… I made it up… of course…
Just like every scientist makes it up for himself…
It’s one of those things… reality imposes itself upon us. Not us upon it.

Well, no. I would argue that empiricism is us imposing our subjective experience on reality.

 

[PRmerger]

Some were concerned about James because it appeared to contradict Paul on the relationship between faith and works. Questions were also raised about 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the book of Revelation.

Again, this is a good argument to present on a Bible Alone forum.

But it’s otiose here, because we Catholics understand that the ONLY way we know something is theopneustos is because we defer to the authority of the CC.

You can tell the Bible Alone Forum members that the ONLY way they know something is theopneustos is because they tacitly defer to the authority of the CC too…and see what happens when you do so.