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

[HarryStotle]

ThomasMT:

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:

Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

You appear to not fully apprehend the limitations of reason. Reasoning (aka formal or informal application of principles of logic) begins with premises. From those premises either deductively, inductively or abductively conclusions are drawn. It is the level of faith in the initial premises that the reasonableness of the conclusions is derived. Ergo, some premises are considered “self-evident” or irrefutable if we have a great deal of faith or trust in them, but less so if they are contentious.

Your own arguments contra the Resurrection are equally based in your faith that your presumptions are true.

If God exists a Resurrection event is quite plausible and given the extensive foreshadowing of the event in the writings of the Old Testament written hundreds of years before, some might suggest it was to be expected.

If God does not exist and the material universe is all there is then a resurrection would be inexplicable and difficult to accept. My guess is that you have faith in the materiality of the universe which is why you have difficulty with the “reasonableness” of the Resurrection. Well okay you come from a different faith tradition, then. Don’t disparage the faith if others, though.

Also, please don’t go on about how you don’t have faith because you base your reasonable beliefs on science.

Again, okay. But science begins with restricting its findings to what is observable in the material world. That would be the dogmatic underpinning to science which is restricted by its very methodology to assuming the material world exists as the only domain with which science is to bs engaged. Science is, basically, faith in the observable world.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

The Romans would not have been searching for an escaped prisoner because a Roman soldier pierced the Sacred Heart of Jesus with a lance and the centurion told Pilate He was dead.

As for the guards at the Tomb, St. Matthew (27: 2-6) wrote:

[2] And behold there was a great earthquake. For an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and coming, rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. [3] And his countenance was as lightning, and his raiment as snow. [4] And for fear of him, the guards were struck with terror, and became as dead men. [5] And the angel answering, said to the women: Fear not you; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.

[6] He is not here, for he is risen, as he said.

The Apostles were in Jerusalem after the Resurrection (c.f. John 20: 19-31), St. Peter went back to fishing after that (c.f. John 21). Our Lord told them to remain in Jerusalem (Acts 1: 1-12):

[1] The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, of all things which Jesus began to do and to teach, [2] Until the day on which, giving commandments by the Holy Ghost to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up. [3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God. [4] And eating together with them, he commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard (saith he) by my mouth. [5] For John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence. [6] They therefore who were come together, asked him, saying: Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? [7] But he said to them: It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power: [8] But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth. [9] And when he had said these things, while they looked on, he was raised up: and a cloud received him out of their sight. [10]And while they were beholding him going up to heaven, behold two men stood by them in white garments. [11] Who also said: Ye men of Galilee, why stand you looking up to heaven? This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him going into heaven. [12] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day’s journey.

 

[FiveLinden]

Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

Didn’t say they were.

You appear to not fully apprehend the limitations of reason. Reasoning (aka formal or informal application of principles of logic) begins with premises. From those premises either deductively, inductively or abductively conclusions are drawn. It is the level of faith in the initial premises that the reasonableness of the conclusions is derived.

This is not correct as far as I am concerned. For me, reasoning begins with observation. Observation is not faith. It is subject to testing.

Your own arguments contra the Resurrection are equally based in your faith that your presumptions are true.

In this thread I do not think I have argued against the resurrection. As I think I pointed out there is no point arguing against something based on faith rather than observation. The reported observations in the gospels are insufficient, without faith, for anyone to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead.

If God exists a Resurrection event is quite plausible and given the extensive foreshadowing of the event in the writings of the Old Testament written hundreds of years before, some might suggest it was to be expected

Again, faith is needed to believe that these ‘foreshadowings’ are actual ‘foreshadowings’. Like many ‘predictions’ they could mean many things.

If God does not exist and the material universe is all there is then a resurrection would be inexplicable and difficult to accept.

Well, no, it would be impossible.

My guess is that you have faith in the materiality of the universe which is why you have difficulty with the “reasonableness” of the Resurrection. Well okay you come from a different faith tradition, then. Don’t disparage the faith if others, though

There is no need to accuse me of having religious beliefs. I do not. I based what I think on what can be seen or demonstrated. I do not rely on faith.

Also, please don’t go on about how you don’t have faith because you base your reasonable beliefs on science.

I don’t ask you not to ‘go on’ about what you believe. In fact I encourage you to do so.

Again, okay. But science begins with restricting its findings to what is observable in the material world. That would be the dogmatic underpinning to science which is restricted by its very methodology to assuming the material world exists as the only domain with which science is to bs engaged. Science is, basically, faith in the observable world.

There is nothing ‘dogmatic’ about ‘restricting findings’ to that we can observe. If there is a ‘non-material world’ then, should it be observed and the observation demonstrated, I will have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting its existence.

 

[JerryZ]

Well that is an unfair comparison.
The “Jihadists” are not martyred they kill themselves (commit suicide) and take as many innocent others with them in support of a “cause”.

The Apostles who preached and taught Jesus message to the world were killed themselves because they did not stop preaching about HIM.
They did not threaten anybody.
So your analogy is quite wrong.

Peace!

 

[JerryZ]

1st point. Yes, Jesus foretold what would happen to HIM, however was HE believed?
Your answer is in the Gospels. HE was not. Read what St. Peter was called when he rebuked Jesus for saying HE had to die.

2nd. How did you suppose the women learned that the tomb was sealed?
Is not like this was advertised on the “Jewish Voice, the local Jerusalem newspaper” The Sanhedrin went to Pilates and requested the tomb sealed but the women were in hiding so could not have known.

Peace!

 

[Maximian]

Almost no historical event can be proved.
Most courts rely on a jury to take a view; very often the jury is not unanimous but a verdict is reached nonetheless.

The Gospel accounts have plenty of believable aspects. Also relevant is the fact that Paul, after his conversion, later got to know Peter and other witnesses of the risen Christ, and never felt there was any reason to doubt their story

 

[JohnStrachan]

‘militant’ an atheist who organises with others to promote atheism and oppose belief

This a contradiction because the moment you organize you are engaging in a coalesence of like minded thinking. Doesn’t this turn atheism into a form of belief? I’m also curious, if you say you don’t believe what is it you don’t believe in if you say it doesn’t exist?

 

[fhansen]

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?

In all human experience death is final; it establishes a boundary between ourselves and the deceased that we cannot cross. I understand that Jesus was different in that He demonstrated supernatural power and expressed and revealed the nature of God in many ways while alive but at the end of the day those disciples saw their Master humiliated, tortured, and killed, and what He told them prior to that was overwhelmed by the sense of complete loss and separateness from the one they loved. It’s just plain hard for a human to wrap their head around the concept of a resurrection.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

If God does not exist and the material universe is all there is then a resurrection would be inexplicable and difficult to accept.

Well, no, it would be impossible.

There goes your faith again. No it would not be impossible. Impossible means not logically possible under any conditions whatsoever.

Suppose there existed a far advanced alien society that had a far greater grasp of living cells and life forms/mechanisms and were able to regenerate a dead human being after three days.

Or, imagine human society in the far future that figured out how to organically re-enliven a human corpse days after death.

Both of those are conceivable, which means your declaration of “impossible” is based not on logic but on your current understanding of reality.

As such your conclusion us purely speculative and inductive, and not definitive.

Your faith in the observable and subject to testing is limited to what humans observe and are capable of testing.

 

[Spiritualseeker14]

Yes it does, not a religious for obvious reasons but a belief that does have some faith. Although non-believers will deny this.

 

[HarryStotle]

There is no need to accuse me of having religious beliefs. I do not. I based what I think on what can be seen or demonstrated. I do not rely on faith.

The problem is that you have a limited grasp of what the evidence is that supports the Resurrection. Most people haven’t looked into it.

The evidence is far greater and more compelling than you likely are even aware of.

Have you honestly surveyed actual strong evidences or is your objection based upon a superficial position that resurrections, in principle, are not possible? That would be a faith position that is jeopardized when reality raises (pun intended) incidences that challenge what you think you know with certainty.

Basically there are two indisputable facts of history that best explain a third fact. No better explanation has been proposed, so the Resurrection is a reasonable possibility.

You may not like it, but reasonable people have been convinced.

I can detail those in another post, but I am on the run right now.

 

[HarryStotle]

There is nothing ‘dogmatic’ about ‘restricting findings’ to that we can observe. If there is a ‘non-material world’ then, should it be observed and the observation demonstrated, I will have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting its existence.

Think about the self-contradiction in your statement. How can a non-material world be observable by material means? Can you see your thoughts or ideas with your eyes?

 

[FiveLinden]

FiveLinden:

HarryStotle:

If God does not exist and the material universe is all there is then a resurrection would be inexplicable and difficult to accept.

Well, no, it would be impossible.

There goes your faith again. No it would not be impossible. Impossible means not logically possible under any conditions whatsoever

You say ‘if the material universe is all there is … then a resurrection would be inexplicable’. I said it would be impossible. I said that because if, as you postulated, there is only the material world there could be no ‘spiritual’’ intervention in it. Therefore a resurrection would be impossible.

 

[FiveLinden]

FiveLinden:

There is nothing ‘dogmatic’ about ‘restricting findings’ to that we can observe. If there is a ‘non-material world’ then, should it be observed and the observation demonstrated, I will have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting its existence.

Think about the self-contradiction in your statement. How can a non-material world be observable by material means? Can you see your thoughts or ideas with your eyes?

Umm - this is a thread about the resurrection. such an event is claimed by believers to have been observed.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

FiveLinden:

HarryStotle:

If God does not exist and the material universe is all there is then a resurrection would be inexplicable and difficult to accept.

Well, no, it would be impossible.

There goes your faith again. No it would not be impossible. Impossible means not logically possible under any conditions whatsoever

You say ‘if the material universe is all there is … then a resurrection would be inexplicable’. I said it would be impossible. I said that because if, as you postulated, there is only the material world there could be no ‘spiritual’’ intervention in it. Therefore a resurrection would be impossible.

Still wouldn’t be because advanced science might be able to grasp the methodology for re-energizing a human being to supersede our current physical limitations - i.e., seemingly miraculous bursts of energy, overcoming gravity (ascension), etc.

Furthermore your faith in our current understanding of the physical universe may be misplaced. Perhaps dualism (which you appear to attempt to argue against) is incorrect. Perhaps reality is one and what we think of as “material” is simply a limited kind of simulation wherein our senses impose a particular view of reality which isn’t the whole of it.

Better than a material-spiritual dichotomy would be a natural - supernatural (or observable - transcendent) reality. Ergo, materialism may not be true but merely be a depiction of reality which is limited by our current state.

Your claim that a resurrection is impossible cannot be sustained precisely because your logic is entirely founded not upon what is logically possible/impossible but upon your materialistic presumptions. In effect, your argument is circular.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

FiveLinden:

There is nothing ‘dogmatic’ about ‘restricting findings’ to that we can observe. If there is a ‘non-material world’ then, should it be observed and the observation demonstrated, I will have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting its existence.

Think about the self-contradiction in your statement. How can a non-material world be observable by material means? Can you see your thoughts or ideas with your eyes?

Umm - this is a thread about the resurrection. such an event is claimed by believers to have been observed.

I am not the one arguing the resurrection is impossible despite the fact that it was observed. It is you claiming only physically observable entities are real. That was you, remember? Again, your presumptions have misled you.

I am perfectly content to admit the Resurrection could have occurred precisely because I don’t assume the current human understanding of physics is definitive.

The arguments presented in the three videos I posted go a long way to challenging your dogmatism regarding the current state of the science of physics, for example, NDEs.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

FiveLinden:

There is nothing ‘dogmatic’ about ‘restricting findings’ to that we can observe. If there is a ‘non-material world’ then, should it be observed and the observation demonstrated, I will have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting its existence.

Think about the self-contradiction in your statement. How can a non-material world be observable by material means? Can you see your thoughts or ideas with your eyes?

Umm - this is a thread about the resurrection. such an event is claimed by believers to have been observed.

You claimed the resurrection was impossible because non-observable (i.e., spiritual) things do NOT exist. I countered that conceptualizations, thoughts, and ideas are not observable but they clearly exist.

Ergo your argument against the Resurrection because it is necessarily “spiritual” and therefore could not have possibly been observed (and therefore could not have happened) is FALSE.

 

[FiveLinden]

You claimed the resurrection was impossible because non-observable (i.e., spiritual) things do NOT exist.

No, I did not. I said that all that exists is the material universe the resurrection would be impossible. The claim is that a spiritual impact affected the material world by transforming a corpse into. living being. Please look at what I write and respond to that rather than to things I have not written.