Ressurection Question for Protestants

[Contarini]

I’ve been chewing on this for a week now and I must say that what is wrong with the Church is those who do not defend the Pope when he proposes logical and beautiful theories that can only help strengthen the faith of those in Christ’s Church.

Catholics are supposed to be defending tradition, not tearing it down. There are huge problems with simply throwing aside Mark 16:9-16, especially when the explicit statement there is fully in keeping with the impression one gets from reading the other resurrection narratives.

If Catholicism means that you follow any wacky theory proposed by a Pope, then you really are “papists” and not Catholics in the theological sense at all. (Note the “if”: I do not find most Catholics in fact taking this approach.)

Edwin

 

[adstrinity]

Catholics are supposed to be defending tradition, not tearing it down. There are huge problems with simply throwing aside Mark 16:9-16, especially when the explicit statement there is fully in keeping with the impression one gets from reading the other resurrection narratives.

If Catholicism means that you follow any wacky theory proposed by a Pope, then you really are “papists” and not Catholics in the theological sense at all. (Note the “if”: I do not find most Catholics in fact taking this approach.)

Edwin

And this is what I mean by correction. We do not throw aside Mark 16:9-16. We read it in context of the other four Gospels and see that He appeared to her who went to see Him. We see that she saw Him, “first,” but, do we trust that or do we trust any one of the other Gospels that say others were with her…Mt 28, Lk 24, and John 20…how did it happen for sure? HOW is this reconciled in general?

What this theory (the one I erroneously proposed as tradition) says is that Jesus went to His Mother first. What the Gospels cover is that Mary Magdalene was one of the first followers of Jesus to go to His tomb.

 

[jmcrae]

And this is what I mean by correction. We do not throw aside Mark 16:9-16. We read it in context of the other four Gospels and see that He appeared to her who went to see Him. We see that she saw Him, “first,” but, do we trust that or do we trust any one of the other Gospels that say others were with her…Mt 28, Lk 24, and John 20…how did it happen for sure? HOW is this reconciled in general?

Four women (at least) went to the tomb and found it empty. The others returned to tell the Apostles that the body was missing; Mary Magdalene remained behind because of her grief; she was alone when Christ appeared to her.

Mary the mother of Jesus already understood that He was about His father’s work, and she already knew that He was resurrected, because she was the “Blessed” who believed without seeing.

 

[dougfreed]

You’re joking right? The scripture is the writen word of GOD. Unless The POPE says Different, ight?

Yes, the Gospels all say that it was Mary Magdeline, but, Catholics and Orthodox believe, and it makes sense to believe, that Jesus would appear to the Woman who chose to say Yes to God, to the Woman who raised Him, and to the Woman who gave Him life and watch Him die.

This belief (Jesus going first to His Mother) is not found in the Bible, but, it is widely believed. I ask for this reason: because it makes sense and is believed – That He went to Her to tell Her, ‘I’m Okay…Dad sends His Love…’, OR, can you not accept this because it’s not recorded in the Bible?

 

[Publisher]

deleted…wrong thread