Jesus rising...who saw?


#1

I was reading questions from a Jewish woman who said that Christ rising was not seen by enough people…some didn’t regognize him right away and others didn’t see him…wouldn’t you want people to see you to prove the event happened? I don’t know how many people saw Jesus, where he went, etc. but I believe he had to have done that because just believing the apostles at the time wouldn’t be enough. They even had problems with belief. I know Jesus said, Blessed are the ones who don’t see and believe" but are there any writings on what happened after he rose beyond visiting the apostles?

Also I heard a priest say Peter was the most educated on the men, why was there not a gospel from Peter?

I sometimes wish I had a book of questions and answers because although I believe, some things I don’t understand and faith is a gift.


#2

Debraran, Peter was a fisherman.

As far as ‘educated’ goes, Matthew was probably the most educated, since he was a tax collector. (Maths, calculations, etc )

Acts is Peter’s book.

I understand at least 500people saw Christ before He ascended into Heaven.

:cool:


#3

1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
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.
–Paul (1 Corinthians 15)

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31


#4

If more people saw the resurrection, would that change anything? I don’t think so. Who knows; maybe witnesses to the resurrection may turn upon Jesus by saying that he never died on the cross in the first place.

Does that sound strange? Consider the Qur’an 4:157; It denies the crucifixion. What’s the point is proving the resurrection if some people won’t even believe the crucifixion?


#5

Isn’t Luke believed to be the Author of Acts?

I have an NAB where the commentary talks about how many Scholars,some Catholic, doubt Peter was the author of Peter1-2 for the fact that it was written in Greek which could have been unlikely due to the fact that he was a Galilean fisherman. Then again,he was filled with the Holy Spirit.


#6

Actually, there are no stories of the resurrection itself and no reported witnesses to the event. There are only post-resurrection accounts.

some didn’t regognize him right away and others didn’t see him…

Yes, there is only a collection of confusing and contradictory second and third hand reports. And, more significantly, the *only *reports we have are from those who were already His followers when He was alive.

As with most things spiritual, belief in the resurrection is a matter of faith, not dependent on or proveable by evidence.


#7

It may be useful here to point out that there is a difference between someone that pronounced the Good News and someone that wrote down what they heard. As with Acts, Luke was pretty much the writer-downer-of-things, much of which was pronounced to him.

Therefore the fact that Peter was written in Greek merely relates to the writer-downer (scribe) and his education and not the pronouncer.:nerd:


#8

I think that the Gospel Peter preached is recorded by Mark.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached. We have just seen that this was the view of Papias and the elder to whom he refers. Papias wrote not later than about A.D. 130, so that the testimony of the elder probably brings us back to the first century, and shows the SecondGospel known in Asia Minor and attributed to St. Mark at that early time. So Irenæus says: “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter” (“Adv. Hær.”, III, i; ibid., x, 6). St. Clement of Alexandria, relying on the authority of “the elder presbyters”, tells us that, when Peter had publicly preached in Rome, many of those who heard him exhorted Mark, as one who had long followed Peter and remembered what he had said, to write it down, and that Mark “composed the Gospel and gave it to those who had asked for it” (Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, VI, xiv). Origen says (ibid., VI, xxv) that Mark wrote as Peter directed him (os Petros huphegesato auto), and Eusebius himself reports the tradition that Peter approved or authorized Mark’s work (“Hist. Eccl.”, II, xv). To these early Eastern witnesses may be added, from the West, the author of the Muratorian Fragment, which in its first line almost certainly refers to Mark’s presence at Peter’s discourses and his composition of the Gospel accordingly (Quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit); Tertullian, who states: “The Gospel which Mark published (edidit is affirmed to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was” (“Contra Marc.”, IV, v); St. Jerome, who in one place says that Mark wrote a short Gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome, and that Peter authorized it to be read in the Churches (“De Vir. Ill.”, viii), and in another that Mark’s Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing (Petro narrante et illo scribente–“Ad Hedib.”, ep. cxx). In every one of these ancient authorities Mark is regarded as the writer of the Gospel, which is looked upon at the same time as having Apostolic authority, because substantially at least it had come from St. Peter. In the light of this traditional connexion of he Gospel with St. Peter, there can be no doubt that it is to it St. Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, refers (“Dial.”, 106), when he sags that Christ gave the title of “Boanerges” to the sons of Zebedee (a fact mentioned in the New Testament only in Mark 3:17), and that this is written in the “memoirs” of Peter (en tois apopnemaneumasin autou–after he had just named Peter). Though St. Justin does not name Mark as the writer of the memoirs, the fact that his disciple Tatian used our present Mark, including even the last twelve verses, in the composition of the “Diatessaron”, makes it practically certain that St. Justin knew our present Second Gospel, and like the other Fathers connected it with St. Peter.


#9

I would think Luke was the most educated overall.


#10

We do have the testimony of that archbigot Saul. Evidence sufficient to convince him should suffice to convince anyone.


#11

If only we knew what that evidence was…


#12

I won’t argue. Certainly, to my mind, St Luke was the most attentive to detail of graphic desciption. He could have been a modern day road-map surveyor.

:cool:


#13

The commentary of the NAB is ‘rubbish.’

:cool:


#14

You can read Paul for his testimony…unless you are of the view that he was tortured and matyred for something he dreamt happened.

He was not a ‘follower’ as you assumed all the witnesses to be.

This line of thinking is responsible for Guyana Jones and The Heavenly Meteorite suicidal groups.

People go walkabouts from faith to faith for various reasons, one being ‘evidence.’ There is ample evidence to not only bring a prosecution, but carry a conviction in any court, in any country, that The Ressurection occurred.

Some say, but the eyewitnesses biblical accounts are not reliable because they are His followers. Really? You may give your life for your friend or relative in some circumstances, but would you sacrifice your life for something YOU KNOW is not true or correct?

Our faith is not only that we believe the testimony of The Apostles, but that we can evidently trace it back to them if necessary. Christianity is not just that an event occurred, but the hope in a promise of what is to come.

In Catholicism, it is only THAT BIT, that is reliant on “faith” for we accept the rest as given through The Church, but also have the evidence if necessary.

:cool:


#15

My original inquiry was that with all that was written before by some of the gospel writers, it wasn’t evenly done. When I asked a priest (a few really) over the years, they all said, it was frustrating, but God must have known what they would write, I wish there were more accounts of conversations with his apostles or believers that saw him, their joy, etc. I wish there were more stories like the one with Thomas…but they didn’t write them if they happened. With the horrible Passion, the earth shaking at his death, I wish there had been ovewhelming brightness in the sky when he rose, something to shake up the ones that ridiculed him. But again, things happen for a reason. Many have died for Jesus and their beliefs, many more will. I know you can’t talk faith, you can’t make someone else believe, that is God’s grace and work…but sometimes I wish it wasn’t as subjective to some.
Instead of looking back, I decided to just pray and look at the miracles that happen today and in our time, very small and large. Without him I am nothing.


#16

I think God was being merciful to those elderly Baptists. He looked down the corridor of time and saw that their feeble arms would be carrying those huge Bibles to church and Bible studies and potluck suppers several days a week.

The Father might have said to the Son, “We better have the Holy Spirit limit how much info He passes on or those poor old ladies won’t be able to lift their Bibles!”

:wink:

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 21:25)


#17

That is just not remotely true. If the greatest event in human “history” - the return of a dead man to life - was even remotely backed up with any real evidence (the kind you refer to) then every historian would mention it in every history text ever written. Unfortunately, there has never been a mention of it actually occuring and it remains, as always, a matter of faith.

Some say, but the eyewitnesses biblical accounts are not reliable because they are His followers. Really? You may give your life for your friend or relative in some circumstances, but would you sacrifice your life for something YOU KNOW is not true or correct?

That is not the real issue since, as the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI have clearly stated, the gospel accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus are not eyewitness accounts and are not literal history (See the “Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels” (April 21, 1964))

Our faith is not only that we believe the testimony of The Apostles, but that we can evidently trace it back to them if necessary. Christianity is not just that an event occurred, but the hope in a promise of what is to come.

Yes, that is what faith is all about.

In Catholicism, it is only THAT BIT, that is reliant on “faith” for we accept the rest as given through The Church, but also have the evidence if necessary.

No, there is actually very little evidence, other than the tradition of faith.


#18

1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast–unless you believed in vain. 3* For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4* that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5* and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8*** Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me**.

1 Corinthians 15:1-8


#19

St Luke was a physician-very well educated. St Paul was educated and so was St. John who studied to be a Rabbi

Jesus looked different because He was different-the apostles and His deciples (including His Mother and the women)
recognized His voice when the were near Him (not when he yelled across open water)and they recognized Him in His actions of Breaking Bread.

His glorified Body is capable of changing and moving in ways we only dream about in science fiction

[You all do realize that except for most of the letters of St. Paul (not all attributed to him are actually his either) and the book of Revelation by St John-none of the NT was WRITTEN until long after the death of most of the apostles. The NT was written from ORAL stories by later members of the Church]

We too, will look different if we achieve the promised after-life

I would expand with examples of how Our Lady’s appearance changes to math the race of her visionaries-but hey, then this thread might be banned too


#20

St Luke was a physician-very well educated. St Paul was educated and so was St. John who studied to be a Rabbi
Jesus appeared to over 500 people.
Jesus looked different because He was different-the apostles and His desciples (including His Mother and the women)
recognized His voice when the were near Him (not when he yelled across open water)and they recognized Him in His actions of Breaking Bread.

His glorified Body is capable of changing and moving in ways we only dream about in science fiction

[You all do realize that except for most of the letters of St. Paul (not all attributed to him are actually his either) and the book of Revelation by St John-none of the NT was WRITTEN until long after the death of most of the apostles. The NT was written from ORAL stories by later members of the Church]

We too, will look different if we achieve the promised after-life

I would expand with examples of how Our Lady’s appearance changes to match the race of her visionaries-but hey, then this thread might be banned too


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.