Antena Satelite Recipes

Besides being the fundamental argument for our Christian faith, the Resurrection is important for several reasons:

shows God's righteousness that exalted Christ to a life of glory, after Christ had humbled himself unto death (Philippians 2:8-9).

back with the Resurrection and Ascension into heaven, Christ completed the mystery of our salvation and redemption by his death freed us from sin and restored us by His Resurrection the most important privileges lost by sin (Rom 4.25).


By his Resurrection we acknowledge Christ as the immortal God, the efficient and exemplary cause of our own resurrection (I Cor 15.21; Fil 3.20 to 21), and as the model and support our new life of grace (Rom 6: 4-6, 9-11).

Why would fall to the ground means the evidence of the Resurrection of Christ? Four theories have attempted an explanation, though the former have few defenders today.


swoon theory

There is a theory of those who claim that Christ did not really die on the cross, that his supposed death was a temporary fading, and resurrection simply a return to consciousness. This theory was advocated by Paulus (Exegetisches Handbuch, 1842, II, p. 929) and are certain modifications by Hase (Gesch. Jesu, No 112), but not consistent with the data presented in the Gospels.

The scourging and crowning with thorns, the carrying of the cross and the crucifixion, three hours on the cross, and later launched the centurion had not led to a simple fading. Her actual death is certified by the centurion and the soldiers, by the friends of Jesus and his most bitter enemies.

His stay of 36 hours in the sealed tomb, in an atmosphere poisoned by hundreds of pounds of species would have been sufficient to cause death. Moreover, if Jesus had just returned to consciousness after vanishing, the feelings that morning had been of pity rather than of joy and triumph, the Apostles have felt more motivated to perform the duties of a sickly and weak council to apostolic mission, the life of the powerful "miracle" had ended in a blatant and shameful solitude dark, and had advocated sinlessness tornado in a silent approval of his lies as part of a stone on which rested his church.

not surprising why later critics of the resurrection, like Strauss, have rejoiced in both theory and fading to justify this criticism.


THEORY OF TAXATION

is said that the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the grave, and then proclaimed to men that their Lord had risen. This theory had been anticipated by the Jews who "gave a sum of money to the soldiers, saying: 'Say, his disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept "(Mt 28, 12ss).

The same was noted by Celsus (Origen, Against Celsus, II, 56) with some differences in detail. But to assume that the Apostles with a weight on their consciences may have preached a kingdom of truth and justice as the great effort and cause of their lives, and because of that realm have been to death, would take one of those impossibilities entities that can happen in a fit of exultation of the emotion of the moment, but had been shelved when reenter reason.


THEORY VIEW

This theory, as understood by its proponents generally do not allow visions caused by divine intervention, but only those resulting from merely human agents. Because if we accept divine intervention, we should also believe, as regards the principles, that God raised Jesus from the dead.

But where is that fall into this theory human agents who have produced such visions? The idea of \u200b\u200bresurrection from the tomb was familiar to the disciples for their Jewish faith, also had vague hints in the prophecies of the Old Testament, finally, Jesus Himself Resurrection had always associated with predictions of his death.

On the other hand, the state of mind of the disciples was a great enthusiasm, treasured the memory of Christ with such affection that made them almost impossible to think that he was gone. In short, his state of mind was such that the smallest spark needed to ignite a flame. Provided the spark of Mary Magdalene, and the flame immediately spread with the speed and strength of a conflagration. What she thought she saw, others immediately thought they had also to be seen. Their expectations were met, and the conviction that the Lord had indeed risen from the dead, he hugged members of the early Church. This is the theory of common visions advocated by critics of the Resurrection, more ingenious than it sounds, it is impossible from the point of view of history.

• It is incompatible with the state of mind of the Apostles, the theory presupposes faith and expectation on the part of the Apostles, which from the facts, faith and expectation of the apostles is the result of his vision of the risen Christ.

• It is inconsistent with the nature of the manifestation of Christ, these should have been linked to heavenly glory, or should have continued the previous relationship of intimacy between Jesus and his disciples, who in truth and in fact consistently showed a whole new phase have been impossible previously expected.

• Do not comply with the conditions of the early Christian community, after the first excitement of Easter Sunday, the Apostles as a body is characterized by cold deliberation rather than the exalted enthusiasm of a community of visionaries.

• It is incompatible with the length of time that lasted the apparitions, visions, as posed by critics, so far as is known have never lasted long, while some of the manifestations of Christ lasted a considerable period time.

• Not consistent with the fact that demonstrations have been given a large number of people simultaneously.

• Do not agree with where many of the demonstrations took place: visionary appearances would have been expected in Galilee, while most of the appearances of Jesus occurred in Judea.

• It is inconsistent with the fact that the visions ended abruptly the day of Ascension.

Keim admits that the excitement, nervousness and mental excitement from the disciples did not provide a rational explanation of the facts as related in the Gospels. According to him, the visions were granted directly by God and the glorified Christ, could include up to a "bodily appearance" for those who feared that without it would lose everything. But Keim theory satisfies neither the Church, while leaving all the evidence of a resurrection of the body of Jesus, or the enemies of the Church, since it supports many of the dogmas of the Church again is not consistent itself, it attaches to the special intervention of God as proof of the faith of the Church, despite starting denying bodily resurrection of Jesus, which is one of the main objects of this faith.


MODERN VISION

The Holy See, in the Decree "Lamentabili" describes and condemns views defended by a fourth group of opponents of the Resurrection. They propose, among other things: "The Resurrection of our Savior is not properly a fact of historical order, but a purely supernatural order or proven or probable, which Christian consciousness has been gradually inferring other facts."

This postulate is consistent with what later explained Loisy ("Autour d'un petit livre", p. 8, 120-121, 169, "L'Evangile et l'Eglise", pp. 74-78; 120-121, 171). According to Loisy, first, the entrance to the immortal life of a raised among the dead is not something that can be observed, is a supernatural, hiperhistórico fact, unable to be proven historically.

The alleged evidence for the Resurrection of Christ are inadequate, the empty tomb is just an indirect argument, while the appearances of the risen Christ are open to suspicion on a priori, sensitive to impressions of a supernatural reality, and are evidence questionable from a critical standpoint, because of discrepancies in the various scriptural narratives and diverse and mixed nature of the details related to the apparitions.

Second, if one disregards the faith of the Apostles, the testimony The New Testament does not provide a certain argument to the fact of the Resurrection. This faith of the Apostles is not so concerned with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as in his immortal life, based on appearances, which are unsatisfactory evidence from a historical standpoint, but whose strength is perceived by faith alone, when development of the idea of \u200b\u200ba Messiah immortal, is an evolution of Christian consciousness, but at the same time a corrective to the scandal of the Cross.

The Holy See rejected this vision of the Resurrection when the sentence in the Decree "Lamentabili", "Faith in the Resurrection of Christ said from the beginning not so much the fact of Resurrection, but the immortal life of Christ with God. "

authoritative addition to the rejection of the modernist vision, we must place the following three considerations:

First, the argument that the Resurrection of Christ can not be proven historically inconsistent with science. Science does not know enough about the limitations and possibilities of a body raised from the dead to eternal life, to ensure the claim that such a body can not be perceived by the senses, again in the case of Christ, the grave Vacuum all circumstances can not be explained except by a miraculous intervention of God with supernatural character such as the Resurrection of Jesus.

Second, history allows us to refer to the Resurrection as a result of a gradual evolution of Christian consciousness. The appearances were not a mere projection of the messianic hope of the Apostles, which should be revived and strengthened with the apparitions. Again, the Apostles did not start preaching the immortal life of Christ with God, but preached Christ risen from the earliest times, emphasizing it as a fundamental fact and described to some of the details related to this fact: Acts 2, 24, 31, 3, 15.26, 4.10, 5.30, 10.39 to 40, 13.30, 37, from 17.31 to 2, Rom., 1.4, 4.25, 6, 4.9 ; 8,11,34, 10.7, 14.9, I Cor 15, 4.13 ff., Etc.

Third, the denial of the historical certainty of the Resurrection of Christ would have serious and several historical errors: it questions the objective reality of the apparitions without any historical basis for such doubt, dispute the fact of the empty tomb despite solid historical evidence for this fact, questioning even the fact of Christ's burial in the tomb of Joseph, though this fact is based on the testimony of history irrevocably.

Source: AJ MAAS in the Catholic Encyclopedia




TOP