Which Resurrection Apologetic do you Prefer?

[fhansen]

When God used the four gospel writers to write down the facts, what was his involvement? In other words, what does it mean that the writers were “inspired” in practical terms. How would this “inspiration” actually affect what they wrote?

It’s probably better to let the Church speak for herself, via the Catechism:

**105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75**

 

[vicwestlad]

the Catechism:

God is the author of Sacred Scripture.

So why would God write in one document that Mary Magdalene met angels and told the disciples that Jesus had risen, and then write in another document that she met no one and told the disciples someone had stolen the body?

fhansen:

The inspired books teach the truth

So which version of events is the truth? Did Mary Magdalene meet angels and tell the disciples Jesus had risen or did she find no one and tell the disciples someone had stolen Jesus’ dead body?

fhansen:

“Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

So is it affirmed by the Holy Spirit that Mary met angels and told the disciples Jesus had risen or did she find no one and tell the disciples someone had stolen Jesus’ dead body?

 

[fhansen]

So which version of events is the truth? Did Mary Magdalene meet angels and tell the disciples Jesus had risen or did she find no one and tell the disciples someone had stolen Jesus’ dead body?

So is it affirmed by the Holy Spirit that Mary met angels and told the disciples Jesus had risen or did she find no one and tell the disciples someone had stolen Jesus’ dead body?

Both of my quotes in your last post affirm that the truth God reveals in scripture is for the purpose of man’s salvation; those truths are what are guaranteed by the Holy Spirit.

Maybe He’s no more interested than I am in apparent contradictions in relatively irrelevant details, that if not reconcilable are due to normal human error in reporting. Both accounts absolutely maintain the truth of the resurrection.

The Catechism also teaches that the Church is the vehicle through which God reveals His nature and will. Scripture, along with Tradition, are the sources the Church draws from, but her pronouncements are the final verdict on what those sources mean to tell us.

 

[Nita]

Not if the eyewitnesses are being aided by an actual god.

Let’s say two people were testifying about a traffic accident. One witness said the red car came into the intersection with the blue motorcycle just behind it, and the other witness said the blue motorcycle came into the intersection with the red car just behind it. You’d put their difference down to human fallibility. However, if they both said God helped them in their testimony, you’d have a problem believing both of them. Wouldn’t you?

But I wouldn’t have any problem believing a traffic accident had occurred and there was a red car and a blue motorcycle. I would not try to say that because the reports differed it shows there really was no traffic accident. (Which I think is what you’re attempting to put forth in regards to the Resurrection – specifically, that because there seem to be some differences in the details given by the 4 evangelists, those differences discredit the reliability of their unanimous testimony that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. Correct me if I’m wrong.)

 

[vicwestlad]

fhansen:

Maybe He’s no more interested than I am in apparent contradictions in relatively irrelevant details, that if not reconcilable are due to normal human error in reporting. Both accounts absolutely maintain the truth of the resurrection.

I see you’re simply not going to answer the question no matter how many times I ask it. Ok, fine so I’ll just leave you with this. Either a god is helping them write the accounts or it’s not. If it is, they wouldn’t have written supposedly factual accounts that are factually irreconcilable. Certainly you’ve made no attempt to reconcile them.

So, the logical conclusion is, they weren’t helped by an actual god. If they weren’t helped by an actual god, then, according to the doctrinal quotes you provided…

 

[vicwestlad]

Nita:

But I wouldn’t have any problem believing a traffic accident had occurred and there was a red car and a blue motorcycle. I would not try to say that because the reports differed it shows there really was no traffic accident.

That’s correct. However, as I pointed out, what it would show is that the people testifying were not being aided by a god in their testimony. If you’re being aided by a god, how can you get your facts wrong? What’s the point in a god helping you get things right if you get it wrong?

 

[fhansen]

I see you’re simply not going to answer the question no matter how many times I ask it. Ok, fine so I’ll just leave you with this. Either a god is helping them write the accounts or it’s not. If it is, they wouldn’t have written supposedly factual accounts that are factually irreconcilable. Certainly you’ve made no attempt to reconcile them.

So, the logical conclusion is, they weren’t helped by an actual god. If they weren’t helped by an actual god, then, according to the doctrinal quotes you provided…

The help-the inspiration-was the resurrection itself-about which they had no doubt. God doesn’t sit there and dictate His Word as if the writers were his personal secretaries.

 

[Nita]

That’s correct. However, as I pointed out, what it would show is that the people testifying were not being aided by a god in their testimony. If you’re being aided by a god, how can you get your facts wrong? What’s the point in a god helping you get things right if you get it wrong?

So you accept that the resurrection occurred, but you just reject Divine inspiration being given to the evangelists in writing down their gospel texts (since you think there are errors in some of the details). Is that correct?

 

[fhansen]

Besides, if the story was a man-made fabrication or conspiracy you’d think they’d at least corroborate on their details.

 

[vicwestlad]

fhansen:

The help-the inspiration-was the resurrection itself-about which they had no doubt.

So God only made sure the writers got certain parts of the gospels correct? Well that’s interesting.

fhansen:

Besides, if the story was a man-made fabrication or conspiracy you’d think they’d at least corroborate on their details.

Corroboration would be unlikely since they were written in different communities at different times.

Over all, I think it’s illustrative that you can’t tell me what happened at the resurrection, even though you supposedly have four people hand-picked by a god and aided by that god in telling the world what happened at arguably the most important event in human history.

 

[vicwestlad]

Nita:

So you accept that the resurrection occurred, but you just reject Divine inspiration being given to the evangelists in writing down their gospel texts Is that correct?

Why would I accept claims of the scientifically impossible made 2,000 years ago by superstitious people who thought deafness and muteness was caused by evil spirits?

(since you think there are errors in some of the details).

Why do you say I “think” there are errors? There are, as I’ve demonstrated. If you don’t think so then answer the question I’ve posed above (not to you personally, I know) which is:

Did Mary Magdalene meet angels at the tomb and tell the disciples that Jesus had risen, or did she find no one and tell the disciples the dead body had been stolen?

 

[fhansen]

So God only made sure the writers got certain parts of the gospels correct? Well that’s interesting.

Corroboration would be unlikely since they were written in different communities at different times.

Over all, I think it’s illustrative that you can’t tell me what happened at the resurrection, even though you supposedly have four people hand-picked by a god and aided by that god in telling the world what happened at arguably the most important event in human history.

But you wouldn’t accept it anyway. The reporting surrounding the passion, death, and resurrection are relatively sketchy in any case, as are the non-biblical accounts of the activities of the apostles afterwards. To believe in a claim such as an ancient resurrection requires either credulousness-or faith, a gift we can all receive if we’re not too proud to entertain it.

 

[Nita]

Why would I accept claims of the scientifically impossible made 2,000 years ago by superstitious people who thought deafness and muteness was caused by evil spirits?

So only those things can occur which science has determined are possible. Something can’t occur prior to science figuring out it is possible?

Why do you say I “think” there are errors? There are, as I’ve demonstrated. If you don’t think so then answer the question I’ve posed above (not to you personally, I know) which is:

Did Mary Magdalene meet angels at the tomb and tell the disciples that Jesus had risen, or did she find no one and tell the disciples the dead body had been stolen?

Probably both.

 

[vicwestlad]

fhansen:

The reporting surrounding the passion, death, and resurrection are relatively sketchy in any case

On the contrary, it’s quite specific. It names names and even gives actual dialogue. It gives the day of the week and time of day (before sunrise), etc. Nope, not “sketchy” but specific.

 

[vicwestlad]

Nita:

So only those things can occur which science has determined are possible. Something can’t occur prior to science figuring out it is possible?

Never said that. Coming back from being actually dead is scientifically impossible. Now, I suppose one could conjecture such a thing is possible despite hundreds of years of medical evidence to the contrary, but you’d have to have pretty good evidence for it. Some superstitious people who lived 2,000 years ago who believed that deafness and muteness were caused by evil spirits claiming it is not good evidence.

Nita:

Probably both.

Eh…you’d have to explain how that could be. Did she meet angels then go and tell the disciples Jesus had risen, and then go back, find the angels gone and tell the disciples someone had stolen his dead body? That make no sense at all. You’d have to explain how both could work.

 

[Nita]

Eh…you’d have to explain how that could be. Did she meet angels then go and tell the disciples Jesus had risen, and then go back, find the angels gone and tell the disciples someone had stolen his dead body? That make no sense at all. You’d have to explain how both could work.

Try the other way around.

 

[glendab]

Hello Vic. Back from braving the market on Black Friday! It’s a mad house out there! Nice to see you got some responses.

I can tell from your replies that you are a non-believer and don’t think the Bible is God’s Word and therefore you can be a healthy skeptic. That’s fine. That’s you.

I on the other hand, am a believer. Swallowed the whole thing hook, line and sinker! As I said before, the Gospels need no defense. If you don’t understand them, it is up to you to try harder to do so, if that’s what you really want. I nor anyone here can change you into a believer. I really don’t get the idea you want to believe and are simply here to argue. It isn’t God’s job to prove Himself to you nor ours.

Blessed are they who’ve never seen yet believe. Oh, that’s some Scripture too.

Glenda

 

[vicwestlad]

Nita:

Try the other way around.

Aahh, interesting. So you think she went there, found no one, told the disciples that someone had stolen the body, went back to the tomb again, met the angels, who told them Jesus had risen. Only trouble is, Matthew says otherwise:

Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. **The angel said to the women **[who’s the angel talking to here?], “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”

And just after that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary actually meet Jesus on the way to tell the disciples:

And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

So after being told by the angels that Jesus had risen, and after meeting the risen Jesus on the way, clasping his feet and worshiping him, why would she tell the disciples someone had stolen his body? Sorry, Nita, you’re idea is in opposition with Matthew.

 

[vicwestlad]

glendab:

Hello Vic. Back from braving the market on Black Friday! It’s a mad house out there! Nice to see you got some responses.

I can tell from your replies that you are a non-believer and don’t think the Bible is God’s Word and therefore you can be a healthy skeptic. That’s fine. That’s you.

Glad to see you survived Black Friday. And you’re right, I’m healthy and a skeptic

glendab:

As I said before, the Gospels need no defense. If you don’t understand them, it is up to you to try harder to do so, if that’s what you really want.

Not sure why you think I don’t understand them. I understood them as a believer, but I understand them even better as an objective observer. Now I see them for what they are, the work of humans without the aid of a god, which t

glendab:

It isn’t God’s job to prove Himself to you nor ours.

Then why do you even have an apologetics section? This is where you attempt to defend the faith.

So, in other words, you can’t explain this. Now, if your god set up a binary system in which the wrong choice leads to suffering on a scale humans can’t even fathom, then I’d say it is his job to demonstrate clearly that he exists so that I can make a properly informed choice.

 

[fhansen]

On the contrary, it’s quite specific. It names names and even gives actual dialogue. It gives the day of the week and time of day (before sunrise), etc. Nope, not “sketchy” but specific.

Sketchy generally means not a lot of details are given. And, IMO, considering the resurrection event for what it was, along with the rest of the gospels, I’m a bit surprised that brevity was the rule. A few eye-witnesses or disciples of eye-witnesses recorded their memories to the best of their abilities several years after the event-and that’s all we have in written form on Jesus birth, life, words and deeds besides what may be included incidentally in Acts, the letters, and Revelation. John offers this about Jesus’ life:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. John 21

But the Church received and taught the revelation that His advent here produced before a word of scripture was written and has continued to keep and proclaim His life, death, and resurrection throughout the ages, much more impressed by the resurrection-by the risen Christ-than by comparatively minor details regarding the reports of His rising.