"What Evidence Do We Have That Jesus Really Rose from the Dead?" A priest responds to this question

[mdgspencer]

see https://www.nwcatholic.org/spiritua...ave-that-jesus-really-rose-from-the-dead.html

Reasons for believing this fundamental Christian belief.

 

[FiveLinden]

This ‘evidence’ for the biblical claims of resurrection consists entirely of repeating the claims, or drawing conclusions from them.

 

[ThomasMT]

From the article…

“The disciples did not expect or even hope for it. All the Gospel accounts indicate that the disciples firmly believed Jesus was dead and were preparing to embalm his body, which is why the women went to the tomb.”

These two points always bugged me.

First, our Lord foretold (on at least two occasions) his death AND resurrection. Why should it have come as a complete surprise?

Second, how were the women planning to visit His body when the tomb was sealed? Where the guarding soldiers expected to extend the courtesy of opening it?

 

[ThomasMT]

This ‘evidence’ for the biblical claims of resurrection consists entirely of repeating the claims, or drawing conclusions from them.

Also from the article…

“…remember, proofs of the Resurrection serve not to convince those who do not believe but rather to show the rationality and reasonability of the Resurrection to one who does believe. There is no contradiction between faith and reason, especially when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus.”

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

It was expected as the Gospels say, and they were going to annoint His body, I assume they did not know it was sealed. (Post-death and continual annointing was a practice at the time.)

It was sealed because it was expected. Frankly I don’t know why people keep making this point when the Gospel clearly shows that the Jews expected this to happen: Matthew 27:63-64

"The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last fraud will be worse than the first.”

Now maybe security dropped on the third day, I don’t know.

 

[FiveLinden]

Also from the article…

“…remember, proofs of the Resurrection serve not to convince those who do not believe but rather to show the rationality and reasonability of the Resurrection to one who does believe. There is no contradiction between faith and reason, especially when it comes to the resurrection of Jesus.

Faith is certainly needed, rather than reason, to accept Matthew 27:

[ 52 ]And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, [ 53 ]And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many.

Reason would suggest that such an event would have been noted by writers others than those composing the gospels. And also that the newly-ressurected people would have had some impact on history.

 

[Dorothy]

Also, the apostles were willing to be martyred in horrific ways rather than deny Jesus.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

At some point we should just say, “We don’t have evidence of the type that would satisfy you. Believe it or don’t. After death you’ll find out the truth.”

We do not need to prove our Jesus to people.

 

[FiveLinden]

At some point we should just say, “We don’t have evidence of the type that would satisfy you. Believe it or don’t. After death you’ll find out the truth.”

We do not need to prove our Jesus to people.

I’m fine with all that. But Catholics on CAF keep asserting there is evidence of the kind that would or should demonstrate the factual existence of miracles. So I respond to learn more about why they believe. As you indicate there is no point in me having a discussion of people merely assert ‘it’s just faith’ since faith may be expressed in just about anything and by definition does not require evidence (although Catholics clim that matters of faith do not contradict obervation and reason).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I completely agree with you that my approach would pretty much wreck the apologetics industry.

Catholics have different approaches to evangelization, which is fine. Person A and Person B might be motivated to convert by completely different approaches.

The priest in the posted article here is also correct when he says at the end of the article,

But remember, proofs of the Resurrection serve not to convince those who do not believe but rather to show the rationality and reasonability of the Resurrection to one who does believe.

You kinda have to take the leap of faith first.

 

[Pattylt]

After the resurrection, do Catholics accept that the apostles fled back to Galilee as stated in some of the gospels, or do they think they stayed in Jerusalem as Luke records?

I have problems with Luke’s story as the Romans would have been searching high and low for an escaped prisoner and we have nothing on them being pursued by the Romans.

 

[FiveLinden]

Haha! Does it count as an industry?

My point in this thread was limited to the one point in the gospel account I think does challenge reason and rationality - the claim that dead people rose, walked around town, and were seen by many. The absence of archeological or geological evidence for damage tot he temple and earthquakes can be explained away. But a mass resurrection event?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

After the resurrection, do Catholics accept that the apostles fled back to Galilee as stated in some of the gospels, or do they think they stayed in Jerusalem as Luke records?

I have problems with Luke’s story as the Romans would have been searching high and low for an escaped prisoner and we have nothing on them being pursued by the Romans.

The stories aren’t contradictory. The Apostles all stayed in Jerusalem for a week until the completion of the Holy Days. Then they went to Galilee, then later they came back to Jerusalem.

I don’t know if this Quora guy is a Catholic but he’s giving the generally accepted timeline.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Christ-te...hey-saw-Him-in-Galilee-after-his-resurrection

Not sure what you mean about Romans searching for an escaped prisoner. Nobody escaped. A body of some Jewish guy who died ignominiously went missing from a tomb. I doubt that the Romans at that point cared; they probably just figured his followers stole his body.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Haha! Does it count as an industry?

A small one. I have mixed feelings about the growth in Catholic apologetics. I think it is generally good, and it is most likely to a) keep Catholics from leaving the faith when some Protestant starts throwing Bible verses at them out of context, and b) convert some of those Protestants who already believe in most of the basic building blocks of Christianity. However, apologetics are less likely to convert people who just plain don’t believe/ don’t have faith.

My point in this thread was limited to the one point in the gospel account I think does challenge reason and rationality - the claim that dead people rose, walked around town, and were seen by many. The absence of archeological or geological evidence for damage tot he temple and earthquakes can be explained away. But a mass resurrection event?

I don’t tend to see that as looking like Night of the Living Dead, although it would be all right if another Catholic did (and I’ve met some who do).
Given that i and others in my family have occasionally “seen” in some way a deceased loved one, that’s how I think of it. Dear old dead Dad who was in Limbo, came back to let his family know he was okay and on his way to heaven with Jesus who just opened the gates.
They often do seem to drop by in some manner to let you know they are all right.
My personal opinion.

 

[FiveLinden]

We unbelievers ‘see’ dead loved ones too. I have an old friend, a very militant atheist, who refuses to have pictures of people she has loved because it affects her when she remembers them and thanks to them. She does not actually think they are there but because she knew them so well she says she can predict what they would say - so she has conversations with them.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Well, I can’t speak for your friend who seems to be saying she just imagines them and predicts what they would say. I can do that for my husband and my mother too, I used to make my husband laugh by filling in his side of the conversation when he was alive. But actually getting a visit from a loved one is not the same thing as imagining one. I understand my uncle turned white as a sheet when his recently dead father walked through his bedroom a couple days after the death.

 

[JohnStrachan]

very militant atheist

What is a militant atheist?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Reason would suggest that such an event would have been noted by writers others than those composing the gospels. And also that the newly-ressurected people would have had some impact on history.

Each of the writers was free to use whatever details they wanted.

Luke has the penitent thief. The others don’t.

John has the Blessed Mother at Golgotha. The others don’t.

 

[FiveLinden]

What is a militant atheist?

I’d classify as ‘militant’ an atheist who organises with others to promote atheism and oppose belief, usually because of an understanding that religious belief is harmful in itself.

My friend, for example, will attempt to persuade the Salvation Army not to play Christmas Carols in the street by confronting them as they do so.

Most of us non0believers are not like that and either just don’t care, are interested in the sources of belief (me) or think religious belief in western democracies is largely harmless or even helpful (also me).

Incidentally I have friends of all sorts. I don’t need to agree with someone to be their friend.

 

[Pattylt]

JohnStrachan:

What is a militant atheist?

I’d classify as ‘militant’ an atheist who organises with others to promote atheism and oppose belief, usually because of an understanding that religious belief is harmful in itself.

My friend, for example, will attempt to persuade the Salvation Army not to play Christmas Carols in the street by confronting them as they do so.

Most of us non0believers are not like that and either just don’t care, are interested in the sources of belief (me) or think religious belief in western democracies is largely harmless or even helpful (also me).

Incidentally I have friends of all sorts. I don’t need to agree with someone to be their friend.

I agree with your assessment. I’d also point out that relatively few atheists are militant…it’s just that because of their militancy that these tend to be the ones everyone hears and knows of. Many atheists feel that militant atheists are not helpful in understanding atheism.