Resurrection and Ascension

[patg]

Please explain what makes an account independent

The only accounts of the resurrection and ascension were written by insiders - those who already believed in Jesus. It is much more resaonable to accept that something is true when the event is reported and documented by sources which are not already intimately connected to it. This is one of the principles in the analysis of historical events - the historian looks for independent attestation of the event they are studying in order to determine the probability of what really happened.

and what makes a statement one from a firsthand eyewitness.

The gospels were all written in the third person - not once does the author begin a story with “I saw…”. In addition, they were all written decades after the events by unknown authors. This doesn’t make them untrue but it greatly increases the need for faith to believe in them. You might want to read the *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *(available online) to see the church’s position on this.

 

[Fidelis]

This comparison fails to speak to the order of magnitude of the different claims.

Per the scope of the OP’s question, the “magnitude” of the event is not what is being enquired after; that is a diiferent topic. His concern is how we can know that it happened or or not.

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.

When we are talking about the fact of something happening, the inability to explain how it happened is seperate from the fact that it was witnessed to happen. There are many things we know that have happened in the the past (including the creation of the Universe-- how improbable is that?) that we know did happen, but we only have unprovable theories of the mechanics of how it happened. Again, seperate questions. The question here and now is: did it happen or did it not.

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.

In the case of the Koran, it was entirely a creation of Mohammed. We don’t have multiple independent accounts seperated by time and distance but, rather, one person’s word about his own experiences. Sort of like the Book of Mormon.

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

That is not accurate: history deals with documented facts. Historians may venture speculation about gaps in the record, or how and why something happened, but that in itself is not history.

 

[spockrates]

The only accounts of the resurrection and ascension were written by insiders - those who already believed in Jesus. It is much more resaonable to accept that something is true when the event is reported and documented by sources which are not already intimately connected to it. This is one of the principles in the analysis of historical events - the historian looks for independent attestation of the event they are studying in order to determine the probability of what really happened.

So then do you believe the investigative journalism of Saint Luke’s gospel is more reliable then that of Saint Matthew the Apostle’s gospel?

The gospels were all written in the third person - not once does the author begin a story with “I saw…”. In addition, they were all written decades after the events by unknown authors. This doesn’t make them untrue but it greatly increases the need for faith to believe in them. You might want to read the *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *(available online) to see the church’s position on this.

Fascinating! Please tell me: What evidence do you have to support your claim that Matthew was not the author of the gospel that bears his name, or that Luke was not alive at the time the disciples of Christ turned the world upside down?

 

[patg]

So then do you believe the investigative journalism of Saint Luke’s gospel is more reliable then that of Saint Matthew the Apostle’s gospel?

Neither represent any form of investigative journalism.

Fascinating! Please tell me: What evidence do you have to support your claim that Matthew was not the author of the gospel that bears his name, or that Luke was not alive at the time the disciples of Christ turned the world upside down?

It is not “my” claim at all. The church only states that the gospels are of “apostolic origins” - it does not dogmatically assign authorship or even strongly assert it. It doesn’t even get into real specifics as to what that term means.

The* Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *clearly separates the primitive teaching of the apostles from the synthesis and reorganization of that teaching by the actual authors.

 

[redhen]

Per the scope of the OP’s question, the “magnitude” of the event is not what is being enquired after; that is a diiferent topic. His concern is how we can know that it happened or or not.

You’re the one who brought up the Rubicon crossing analogy. I think the premise being made is just as important as the warrants, or lack, that support it.

In the case of the Koran, it was entirely a creation of Mohammed. We don’t have multiple independent accounts seperated by time and distance but, rather, one person’s word about his own experiences. Sort of like the Book of Mormon.

We don’t know who wrote the gospels. Even if we did, there was no one in the tomb during the resurrection; just like no one was in the cave with the Prophet and Gabriel. All we have is hearsay and speculation.

That is not accurate: history deals with documented facts. Historians may venture speculation about gaps in the record, or how and why something happened, but that in itself is not history.

Most of history is unknown, and unknowable. History has been shaped subjectively, and nationally (the winners write the history books). History is being updated and revised all the time, in light of new evidence. If history was concerned only with* documented facts*, it would be very boring, and sparse.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

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

So,
You are certain,
That events thousands of years in the past,
Must be united without contradiction,
And unchanging over time,
To be plausible?

I think the premise being made is just as important as the warrants, or lack, that support it.

What would warrrant these certainties?

 

[redhen]

So, you are certain, That events thousands of years in the past,Must be united without contradiction,And unchanging over time,To be plausible?

Sure there may be contradictory evidence, new evidence may come to light, that’s what I mean by developing a “best explanation”, the one that is more plausible than other theories or claims.

 

[spockrates]

Neither represent any form of investigative journalism.

True, not in the modern sense. But many respected scholars agree that the biblical author Luke was one of the most accurate of the ancient historians. Do you disagree Pat?

It is not “my” claim at all. The church only states that the gospels are of “apostolic origins” - it does not dogmatically assign authorship or even strongly assert it. It doesn’t even get into real specifics as to what that term means.

The* Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *clearly separates the primitive teaching of the apostles from the synthesis and reorganization of that teaching by the actual authors.

Then if it is true the Church does not say either way whether the disciple of Jesus wrote the gospel that bears his name, then She has left the decision up to you and me! Please tell me, Pat why you believe that Jesus’ follower Matthew did not write the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, or why you believe the Luke who interviewed people who knew Jesus personally did not write the Gospel According to Saint Luke, or that the companion of Pope Peter did not write the Gospel According to Saint Mark, or that the disciple whom Jesus loved did not write the Gospel According to Saint John.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Sure there may be contradictory evidence, new evidence may come to light, that’s what I mean by developing a “best explanation”, the one that is more plausible than other theories or claims.

I don’t think you answered my questions, so I’ll rephrase them.

Do you believe that,
Unchanging Unity (without contradiction)
Guides our understanding
Of historical events?

And if so,
Why?

 

[spockrates]

Pat:

But if you don’t know the reasons why, then why believe something you don’t know?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

But if you don’t know the reasons why, then why believe something you don’t know?

How do you distinguish,
Belief from knowledge?

 

[davidv]

How do you distinguish,
Belief from knowledge?

Could it be that belief is the acceptance of a claim, while knowledge is the apprehension of reality?

 

[HereticalTheist]

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.

Really? Then was the faith of St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John of Patmos, St. James, St. Lazarus and the rest of the twelve “meaningless”? ***Because they all had an opportunity to eyeball irrefutable evidence of Christ’s Divinity! ***

 

[spockrates]

How do you distinguish,
Belief from knowledge?

Good question! Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure I’m likely to get it wrong long before I get it right) but there are different kinds of belief, and there are different kinds of knowledge. Knowledge can be related to that which is either accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect, possible or impossible, real or unreal, true or false. Everything that I apprehend and comprehend, or apprehend but don’t comprehend is knowledge.

Belief is a specific category of knowledge. Where knowledge is a kind of a wide gate, belief is a narrow gate related to that which is thought to be accurate, correct, possible, actual, or true. * Thought to be* is key, for that which I think to be accurate, correct, possible, actual, or true, I often later find–upon closer examination–to not be so. Within the category of belief are at least four subcategories (as any dictionary tells me) which are these:

• That which I think might be true but am uncertain is so
• That which I know for certain is true, but in which I do not yet put my trust
• That which I think might be true and in which I put my trust
• That which I know for certain is true and in which I put my trust

Where knowledge cares not a whip about certainty, the category of knowledge we call belief is always concerned about certainty to some degree. The greater the certainty, the more certain–and stronger–the belief.

One might then say,

All belief is knowledge, but not all knowledge is belief.

I’d also go so far out on a limb to say,

belief = faith

Do you believe I have answered truthfully (and in what sense of the word believe do you believe in me)?

 

[MarkGrech20]

Can someone please enlighten me on the Church’s teaching on the whereabouts of Jesus since he ascended, alive, to the skies? Is he still alive now, still eating and drinking like us living on earth? Is he ageless? Or did he die whilst going up?

 

[Call_Me_V]

Can someone please enlighten me on the Church’s teaching on the whereabouts of Jesus since he ascended, alive, to the skies? Is he still alive now, still eating and drinking like us living on earth? Is he ageless? Or did he die whilst going up?

I’m pretty sure that they say he’s in heaven.

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

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.

To those defending the historicity of the Resurrection based on the eyewitness testimony for it, why should we accept the eyewitness testimony for this miracle when most of us reject the miracles of other religions(Islam, the cult of Sathya Sai Baba, etc.) despite the eyewitness testimony for their miracles? Why is the evidence that Jesus returned from the dead any stronger than the evidence that Sai Baba created a magic portal from India to Australia (in front of eyewitnesses), or that Allah burned the image of Ruhollah Khomeini into the sky (an event witnesses by millions of Muslims, independently of each other) ?

V

 

[spockrates]

Can someone please enlighten me on the Church’s teaching on the whereabouts of Jesus since he ascended, alive, to the skies? Is he still alive now, still eating and drinking like us living on earth? Is he ageless? Or did he die whilst going up?

Mark:

Where He is, is Heaven. Where Heaven is and what it is, is unclear. Some theorize that He is in another dimension, or what Albert Einstein called a parallel universe.

That He is, is clear. He is alive, and in an immortal body that cannot die.

One way we apprehend this is through Sacred Scripture, for example:

42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
55"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?" 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

(1 Corinthians 15)

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+15&version=NIV

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Could it be that belief is the acceptance of a claim, while knowledge is the apprehension of reality?

This does sound similar to spockrates…

Good question! Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure I’m likely to get it wrong long before I get it right) but there are different kinds of belief, and there are different kinds of knowledge. Knowledge can be related to that which is either accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect, possible or impossible, real or unreal, true or false. Everything that I apprehend and comprehend, or apprehend but don’t comprehend is knowledge.

Belief is a specific category of knowledge. Where knowledge is a kind of a wide gate, belief is a narrow gate related to that which is thought to be accurate, correct, possible, actual, or true. * Thought to be* is key, for that which I think to be accurate, correct, possible, actual, or true, I often later find–upon closer examination–to not be so. Within the category of belief are at least four subcategories (as any dictionary tells me) which are these:

• That which I think might be true but am uncertain is so
• That which I know for certain is true, but in which I do not yet put my trust
• That which I think might be true and in which I put my trust
• That which I know for certain is true and in which I put my trust

Where knowledge cares not a whip about certainty, the category of knowledge we call belief is always concerned about certainty to some degree. The greater the certainty, the more certain–and stronger–the belief.

One might then say,

All belief is knowledge, but not all knowledge is belief.

I’d also go so far out on a limb to say,

belief = faith

So,
Belief submits to knowledge, and
Knowledge does not submit to belief?

Do you believe I have answered truthfully (and in what sense of the word believe do you believe in me)?

I’m still trying to understand what you mean by “believe,”
I want to avoid miscommunication.

 

[spockrates]

I’m still trying to understand what you mean by “believe,”
I want to avoid miscommunication.

Sorry, but I don’t know what I mean!



I mean, I know that I know what it is to believe, which is this:

1. 
   *]That which I think might be true but am uncertain is so
   *]That which I know for certain is true, but in which I do not yet put my trust
   *]That which I think might be true and in which I put my trust
   *]That which I know for certain is true and in which I put my trust
   
   But I don’t know (which is why I’m asking) how *you *believe. Tell me, please. When it comes to believing that the disciples of Jesus, and those who knew them personally, did not write the gospels, in what way do you believe this? Is it (1), (2), (3), or (4)?

 

[spockrates]

This does sound similar to spockrates…
So,
Belief submits to knowledge, and
Knowledge does not submit to belief?

At the moment I’m thinking that it is more accurate to say that belief is a category of knowledge. Not all knowledge is belief, but all belief is knowledge. Is that clear as mud?



(BTW, I believe what I wrote in this post in the sense of definition (3).)