Resurrection and Ascension

[Psychotheosophy]

How do we know Jesus,
Rose from the dead, and
Ascended to heaven?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Just adding my signature.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Psych,

We know that Jesus is alive because he appeared to many people after his resurrection, about 65 grandfathers ago. This has been transmitted to us through an interrupted chain of relatives, teachers, clergy, saints and martyrs. With God’s grace we have accepted this truth and will transmit it to others. We are witnesses to the resurrection, just as the people the apostles talked to.

Bona fide apologists do not talk this way of course. The will say, for example, that the alleged witnesses to the resurrection had nothing to gain and everything to lose through persecution, torture and death. These arguments are valid, but they do not convince skeptics. What convinces is the faith of Christians living a Christian life because they see Christ as a real living person.

What do you think?

Verbum

 

[Fidelis]

The resurrection is one of the most well documented events in ancient history. We have it from four independent sources; the writers of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Apostle Paul. They in turn relate contemporary eyewitness accounts.

Many other events we unhesitantly believe (such as Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon) have less corroborating evidence for, and the evidence we do have for them is further removed in time and original eyewitnesses than the New Testament evidence, sometimes by hundreds of years, while the Gospel accounts were written only a few years after the events occured while we can presume the eyewitnesses were still alive.

To not accept the New Testament accounts as historical documentation of actual eyewitness accounts because they are “religious texts” is to have a pre-existing predjudice against their value as historical documents and to employ a double-standard that a competant historian or any reasonable person would not have.

 

[spockrates]

For one, we know because there were reliable witnesses:

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

(2 Peter 1:16)

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

(1 Corinthians 15)

 

[thistle]

How do we know Jesus,
Rose from the dead, and
Ascended to heaven?

How can you be a Catholic and ask a question like that?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

What do you think?

For me, this quote says it well…

“The wondrous unity of the Bible, considered as a single document, could not have been achieved or approximated unless one splendidly equipped and marvellously intelligent author had written the whole work. But the human authors of the Bible were very many. They were widely different in time, education, culture, language. No one of them, or certainly not more than a very few, could have written their part of the Bible with knowledge that it was to be joined to other parts; no one of them could have consciously prepared his part as a logical and requisite section of the Scriptures, taken as a whole. And yet the sections fit together in such a way as to make the unity of the Bible the wonder of scholars. Therefore, the true authorship of the Bible is more than human; it is divine.”

Apologetics: A Philosophical Defense And Explanation Of The Catholic Religion
By
RT. Reverend Monsignor Paul J. Glenn

 

[redhen]

Hi Psych,

We know that Jesus is alive because he appeared to many people after his resurrection, about 65 grandfathers ago. This has been transmitted to us through an interrupted chain of relatives, teachers, clergy, saints and martyrs. With God’s grace we have accepted this truth and will transmit it to others. We are witnesses to the resurrection, just as the people the apostles talked to.

Technically, you can’t know that Jesus is alive because an ancient text says so. It might be plausible, but epistemologically speaking, you can’t know this for sure. Perhaps the text is corrupt. Perhaps the apostles were mistaken. They certainly preached the end was nigh, and the parousia just around the corner. They were wrong.

Bona fide apologists do not talk this way of course. The will say, for example, that the alleged witnesses to the resurrection had nothing to gain and everything to lose through persecution, torture and death. These arguments are valid, but they do not convince skeptics. What convinces is the faith of Christians living a Christian life because they see Christ as a real living person.

Many other people of different religious beliefs died for their cause too. It doesn’t prove the claim. As for the fruits, there are many people of all types of faith and no faith, who lead exemplar moral lives.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

They certainly preached the end was nigh, and the parousia just around the corner. They were wrong.

Maybe you are referring to this quote…

“From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”

Matthew 24:34-35

"Seeing in the destruction of Jerusalem a symbol of the end of the world, St John Chrysostom applies to it this parable of the fig tree: 'Here he also foretells a spiritual spring and calm which, after the storm of the present life, the righteous will experience; whereas for sinners there will be a winter after the spring they had…

‘This generation’ this verse is a clear example of what we say in the note on Matthew 24:1 about the destruction of Jerusalem (by the armies of the Emperor Titus in the year 70 A.D.) being itself a symbol. ‘This generation’ refers firstly to the people alive at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. But, since that event is symbolic of the end of the world, we can say with St. John Chrysostom that, 'the Lord was speaking not only of the generation then living, but also of the generation of the believers; for he knows that a generation is distinguished not only by time but also by its mode of religious worship and practice: this is what the Psalmist means when he says that ‘such is the generation of those who seek him’ (Psalm 24:6)"

Commentary by the Navarre Study Bible
(St. John Chrysostom - “Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew”)

We need to be explicitly guided when interpreting scripture…

So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this:

As a sheep led to slaughter
or a lamb before its shearer is dumb,
so he opens not his mouth.
In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken up from the earth."

Acts 8:30-33, Navarre Study Bible
(Isaiah 53:7-8)

Do you believe scriptural interpretation has changed over time?

 

[spockrates]

How can you be a Catholic and ask a question like that?

How can one be a Catholic and not seek to know the answer to that?



He might not be asking whether it is true, but how we know it is true. Knowing why we believe is just as important as knowing what we believe. Don’t you think?

 

[TheDoctor]

Technically, you can’t know that Jesus is alive because an ancient text says so. It might be plausible, but epistemologically speaking, you can’t know this for sure.

Cool, so following your logic we can’t know that Socrates, Plato, any of the Emperors of the Roman Empire, Hannibal, Constantine, etc. were alive either, huh?

Jesus is mentioned not only in the writings of the Church but also by Jewish and Roman historians. This lends credence to his actually being alive.

As to knowing he arose and ascended, if you don’t want to take that on faith, think about this: We know where all the Apostles, Joseph, and important early Church Fathers are buried from the first 100 years of the faith, except for two bodies that have never been found: Jesus and Mary. Now, either Jesus rose from the dead and ascended as the scripture says, or a group of mostly uneducated fisherman, tax collectors and tent makers have pulled off the greatest prank in the history of mankind.

 

[thistle]

How can one be a Catholic and not seek to know the answer to that?



He might not be asking whether it is true, but how we know it is true. Knowing why we believe is just as important as knowing what we believe. Don’t you think?

We believe because we have faith. We don’t need to have proof of everything we believe!
If we had proof of all our beliefs then faith is meaningless.

 

[patg]

It is purely a matter of faith as there is minimal historical evidence. If there was historical evidence, every history text would document that a man rose form the dead 2000 years ago.

As it is, we only have inconsistent and conflicting third hand accounts written long after the event only by those who were already insiders and followed him in life. There are no independent attestations of the events. None of the accounts are “independent” and none are first hand eyewitness statements (as indicated by the church’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels).

 

[spockrates]

We believe because we have faith. We don’t need to have proof of everything we believe!
If we had proof of all our beliefs then faith is meaningless.

Please let me ask you this: Why does faith have meaning?

 

[spockrates]

It is purely a matter of faith as there is minimal historical evidence. If there was historical evidence, every history text would document that a man rose form the dead 2000 years ago.

As it is, we only have inconsistent and conflicting third hand accounts written long after the event only by those who were already insiders and followed him in life. There are no independent attestations of the events. None of the accounts are “independent” and none are first hand eyewitness statements (as indicated by the church’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels).

Pat:

Good to see you again! Please explain what makes an account independent and what makes a statement one from a firsthand eyewitness.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Please let me ask you this: Why does faith have meaning?

You know what kid, I think you should go into philosophy.

 

[spockrates]

You know what kid, I think you should go into philosophy.

Can anyone who loves God and wants to be like Him do anything less? As Socrates said,

Wise I may not call them, for that is a great name which belongs to God alone. Lovers of wisdom, or philosophers, is their modest and befitting title.

(Phaedrus)

The word philosopher literally meant one of Wisdom’s lovers, and the Father of Philosophy correctly understood that loving truth is a requirement for worshiping the only God of Wisdom.

 

[redhen]

The resurrection is one of the most well documented events in ancient history. We have it from four independent sources; the writers of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Apostle Paul. They in turn relate contemporary eyewitness accounts.

Many other events we unhesitantly believe (such as Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon) have less corroborating evidence for, and the evidence we do have for them is further removed in time and original eyewitnesses than the New Testament evidence, sometimes by hundreds of years, while the Gospel accounts were written only a few years after the events occured while we can presume the eyewitnesses were still alive.

This comparison fails to speak to the order of magnitude of the different claims. Someone claiming that Julius Caesar crossed a certain river during a particular military campaign is banal and not that very interesting. Someone claiming that a supreme deity incarnated, died, and came alive again is an extraordinary event.

To not accept the New Testament accounts as historical documentation of actual eyewitness accounts because they are “religious texts” is to have a pre-existing predjudice against their value as historical documents and to employ a double-standard that a competant historian or any reasonable person would not have.

I don’t dismiss them a priori. The sayings of the Islamic Prophet (hadith) must also go back to eyewitness accounts. If you accept angels reciting the Qu’ran, and dead people/gods coming back to life as a live option, then they’re both plausible.

History deals with plausibility, the best explanation; it’s hard to get certitude about events thousands of years in the past.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

We believe because we have faith. We don’t need to have proof of everything we believe!
If we had proof of all our beliefs then faith is meaningless.

Every “proof” begins with a supposition,
Which may be false.

St. Thomas Aquinas once said something similar to,
“To err in the beginning is an error indeed.”

For example…

“The Church herself not only advises Christian teachers, but commands them to draw this safeguard from philosophy. For the fifth Lateran Council decreed that ‘every assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is altogether false, because the truth cannot possibly contradict the truth’: and then it commands doctors of philosophy to apply themselves studiously to the refutation of fallacious arguments; for St. Augustine says ‘If any reason be given against the authority of the Holy Scriptures, then, however subtle it may be, it deceives by its likeness to the truth; for true it cannot possibly be.’”

Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII
On The Restoration of Christian Philosophy
According to the Mind of St. Thomas Aquinas, The Angelic Doctor
August 4, 1879

---

History deals with plausibility, the best explanation; it’s hard to get certitude about events thousands of years in the past.

You make a plausible argument…

“While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave them a sum of money to the soldiers and said, ‘Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ And if this comes to the governors ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.’ So they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.”

Matthew 28:11-15

Can anyone explain this?

 

[redhen]

Can anyone explain this?

Explain what part? Why certain 1st century Jews had alternative (and maybe more plausible) theories about the empty tomb?

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Debating_the_Foundations_of_Mormonism.html

“The Book of Mormon is, to understate the obvious, outrageously preposterous. When confronted with the book, most people reject it because, as they say, “you don’t get books from angels and translate them by miracles.” Others excommunicate the angels and pull the book back down to earth. Joseph Smith, they argue, wrote the book from his galloping imagination, aided and abetted by scraps of truth and speculation rifled from others. From this view, the book is a fiction and a hoax.”

… and this story has been spread among the unbelievers to this day."

which is more plausible?