Is Jesus's Resurrection Based On Religion Or Science?
Research Paper - Summa Theologica
Is Jesus's resurrection based on religion or science?
What religion (Christianity) says:
Christ resurrected from the dead.
Christ was the Son of God so he had supernatural powers.
Christ came back to the disciples.
Jesus predicted his death and resurrection.
What science says:
Christ didn't resurrect from the dead.
It is physically impossible and contrary to the laws of nature.
There isn't any concrete evidence.
There wasn't any witness that saw Jesus resurrect from his tomb.
My Created Explanation:
Jesus's resurrection is based on both religion and science.
Science says that it is impossible, so the only way that one could resurrect is by supernatural powers. This …show more content…
agrees with religion.
In life, there are many questions that just can't seem to have just one answer. For example, take the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. It seems pretty easy, but when you really think about it, there are two very logically correct answers. Started by Thomas Aquinas, many people began trying to combine both answers to come up with a totally new answer: one that has both sides in it. In other words, Aquinas first posed a question, then cited sources that offered opposing opinions on the question, and finally reconciled them by arriving at his own conclusion. So, by using this method, I'm trying to attempt to answer a very controversial question, one that has both religious and scientific sides.
In the famous movie, Passion of the Christ, it mainly shows the crucifixion of the Christ, but it doesn't really focus that much on a crucial thing that goes along with the crucifixion of the Christ. That crucial thing is the resurrection. The fact that Jesus's resurrection is so controversial and doesn't have a definite answer, sometimes; it's hard to explain Jesus's resurrection. But, using the method that Thomas Aquinas used, I will try to explain the truth behind the resurrection. This is my question: Is Jesus's resurrection based on religion or science?
One thing that is definite about the religious answer to this question is that it is constant, for according to religion, it has only one correct answer.
Resurrection is supposed to be the basis of Christianity. Dead bodies do not rise again. It is a physical impossibility and contrary to the laws of nature. Despite this, resurrection is the proof of Christianity. Matthew testifies that the angel of the Lord descended in full view, like lightning, clothed as white as snow, and accompanied by an earthquake. At the sight of him, the keepers shake and become like dead men. The angel rolled away the stone and sat on it at the door of the sepulchre, telling the women their Lord was risen (Matthew 28:1-8). In Mark (Mark 16:4) and Luke (Luke 24:4), the stone had already been rolled away.
In John, Mary finds the tomb empty, and no angel was there to explain why, so she runs to tell Peter, not knowing about any resurrection. Mary thought the body of Jesus had been stolen from the tomb. Mary is distraught and has had no idea that Jesus had risen from the dead. When she found the disciples, she said: They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him. (John …show more content…
20:2)
John did not know of any discussions Mary had had with angels or of any assurances to her from angels that Jesus had been resurrected.
Peter and John run to the tomb to verify her story. They still are unaware (John 20:9) of the scripture that "he must rise again from the dead." They then depart. Mary is suddenly at the tomb, so some time must have passed for her to follow the sprinting Peter and John, and she sees in the tomb two angels in white who ask why she is crying. They do not say Jesus has risen. She still thought that the corpse of Jesus had been stolen. Replying to the angels she met inside the tomb, she said: Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. (John 20:13)
She turns and Jesus himself appears saying she must tell the disciples he has risen. It looks like another independent element of tradition. Matthew (Matthew 29:9-10) has a similar separate appearance adapted to include Mark 16:7, the message to the disciples, in which Jesus appears directly to the women to tell them he had arisen, and gave them the message.
Matthew, Luke, and John record that Jesus was resurrected (Matthew 28:9). Touch me and see, a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have them. (Luke 24:39) Put your fingers here, see my hands. (John 20:27) He is not here, he has risen (Matthew 28:6-7) Come and see the place where he lay. He has risen from the dead. He is not here, he has risen (Luke 24:6) He was raised from the dead (John 21:14). This
all proves that the Bible (Christianity) clearly supports the idea that Jesus was resurrected.
But of course, to the nature of these questions, they always have a flip side. There have been several alternative explanations:
Heinrich Paulus, in his Life of Jesus (1828), suggested that Jesus was not dead when he was taken from the cross. The coolness of the tomb revived him. After exchanging his grave wrappings for the gardener's clothes, Jesus spoke to his disciples for forty days and then walked into a cloud on a mountain and went off somewhere to die. Schonfield in The Passover Plot says Jesus plotted with Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus, a Judaean priest, and an anonymous young man to arrange a feigned death on the cross by taking a drug. The mysterious young man was mistaken for the risen Jesus on the four occasions of the "appearances" without correcting the misapprehension of the disciples. The disciples were confused by the appearance of this young man into believing that Jesus had arisen. Kirsopp Lake in The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (1907) argued that the women saw an empty tomb but the wrong one.
These are all very logical arguments, but I have to combine the religious and the scientific answers. One thing that these reason all have in common is that to a normal person, they would all sound outrageous and seem bogus. I will combine The Bible's explanation of the resurrection of Jesus and Heinrich Paulus's explanation. One thing that both of these indicate is that supernatural powers are needed. In the Bible's explanation, since a normal person can resurrect from the dead, obviously there has to be supernatural powers. In Heinrich Paulus's explanation, it poses an interesting question; Could one who had just come from the grave half dead, crept about weak and ill and was in need of medical treatment to the extent that he finally succumbed to his injuries have given to the disciples the impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave? This obviously means that there had to be some supernatural powers involved. So all in all, my answer to my question, Is Jesus's resurrection based on religion or science?, would have to be that it's based on both religion and science. Both religion and science are needed to help explain Jesus's resurrection.
Just as Thomas Aquinas did hundreds of years ago, I did the same thing to answer a rhetorical question, one that Thomas Aquinas would always try to answer.
Is Jesus's resurrection based on religion or science?
What religion (Christianity) says:
Christ resurrected from the dead.
Christ was the Son of God so he had supernatural powers.
Christ came back to the disciples.
Jesus predicted his death and resurrection.
What science says:
Christ didn't resurrect from the dead.
It is physically impossible and contrary to the laws of nature.
There isn't any concrete evidence.
There wasn't any witness that saw Jesus resurrect from his tomb.
My Created Explanation:
Jesus's resurrection is based on both religion and science.
Science says that it is impossible, so the only way that one could resurrect is by supernatural powers. This …show more content…
agrees with religion.
In life, there are many questions that just can't seem to have just one answer. For example, take the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. It seems pretty easy, but when you really think about it, there are two very logically correct answers. Started by Thomas Aquinas, many people began trying to combine both answers to come up with a totally new answer: one that has both sides in it. In other words, Aquinas first posed a question, then cited sources that offered opposing opinions on the question, and finally reconciled them by arriving at his own conclusion. So, by using this method, I'm trying to attempt to answer a very controversial question, one that has both religious and scientific sides.
In the famous movie, Passion of the Christ, it mainly shows the crucifixion of the Christ, but it doesn't really focus that much on a crucial thing that goes along with the crucifixion of the Christ. That crucial thing is the resurrection. The fact that Jesus's resurrection is so controversial and doesn't have a definite answer, sometimes; it's hard to explain Jesus's resurrection. But, using the method that Thomas Aquinas used, I will try to explain the truth behind the resurrection. This is my question: Is Jesus's resurrection based on religion or science?
One thing that is definite about the religious answer to this question is that it is constant, for according to religion, it has only one correct answer.
Resurrection is supposed to be the basis of Christianity. Dead bodies do not rise again. It is a physical impossibility and contrary to the laws of nature. Despite this, resurrection is the proof of Christianity. Matthew testifies that the angel of the Lord descended in full view, like lightning, clothed as white as snow, and accompanied by an earthquake. At the sight of him, the keepers shake and become like dead men. The angel rolled away the stone and sat on it at the door of the sepulchre, telling the women their Lord was risen (Matthew 28:1-8). In Mark (Mark 16:4) and Luke (Luke 24:4), the stone had already been rolled away.
In John, Mary finds the tomb empty, and no angel was there to explain why, so she runs to tell Peter, not knowing about any resurrection. Mary thought the body of Jesus had been stolen from the tomb. Mary is distraught and has had no idea that Jesus had risen from the dead. When she found the disciples, she said: They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him. (John …show more content…
20:2)
John did not know of any discussions Mary had had with angels or of any assurances to her from angels that Jesus had been resurrected.
Peter and John run to the tomb to verify her story. They still are unaware (John 20:9) of the scripture that "he must rise again from the dead." They then depart. Mary is suddenly at the tomb, so some time must have passed for her to follow the sprinting Peter and John, and she sees in the tomb two angels in white who ask why she is crying. They do not say Jesus has risen. She still thought that the corpse of Jesus had been stolen. Replying to the angels she met inside the tomb, she said: Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. (John 20:13)
She turns and Jesus himself appears saying she must tell the disciples he has risen. It looks like another independent element of tradition. Matthew (Matthew 29:9-10) has a similar separate appearance adapted to include Mark 16:7, the message to the disciples, in which Jesus appears directly to the women to tell them he had arisen, and gave them the message.
Matthew, Luke, and John record that Jesus was resurrected (Matthew 28:9). Touch me and see, a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have them. (Luke 24:39) Put your fingers here, see my hands. (John 20:27) He is not here, he has risen (Matthew 28:6-7) Come and see the place where he lay. He has risen from the dead. He is not here, he has risen (Luke 24:6) He was raised from the dead (John 21:14). This
all proves that the Bible (Christianity) clearly supports the idea that Jesus was resurrected.
But of course, to the nature of these questions, they always have a flip side. There have been several alternative explanations:
Heinrich Paulus, in his Life of Jesus (1828), suggested that Jesus was not dead when he was taken from the cross. The coolness of the tomb revived him. After exchanging his grave wrappings for the gardener's clothes, Jesus spoke to his disciples for forty days and then walked into a cloud on a mountain and went off somewhere to die. Schonfield in The Passover Plot says Jesus plotted with Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus, a Judaean priest, and an anonymous young man to arrange a feigned death on the cross by taking a drug. The mysterious young man was mistaken for the risen Jesus on the four occasions of the "appearances" without correcting the misapprehension of the disciples. The disciples were confused by the appearance of this young man into believing that Jesus had arisen. Kirsopp Lake in The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (1907) argued that the women saw an empty tomb but the wrong one.
These are all very logical arguments, but I have to combine the religious and the scientific answers. One thing that these reason all have in common is that to a normal person, they would all sound outrageous and seem bogus. I will combine The Bible's explanation of the resurrection of Jesus and Heinrich Paulus's explanation. One thing that both of these indicate is that supernatural powers are needed. In the Bible's explanation, since a normal person can resurrect from the dead, obviously there has to be supernatural powers. In Heinrich Paulus's explanation, it poses an interesting question; Could one who had just come from the grave half dead, crept about weak and ill and was in need of medical treatment to the extent that he finally succumbed to his injuries have given to the disciples the impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave? This obviously means that there had to be some supernatural powers involved. So all in all, my answer to my question, Is Jesus's resurrection based on religion or science?, would have to be that it's based on both religion and science. Both religion and science are needed to help explain Jesus's resurrection.
Just as Thomas Aquinas did hundreds of years ago, I did the same thing to answer a rhetorical question, one that Thomas Aquinas would always try to answer.