Finding evidence for the Resurrection, and other questions.

Q Who are you and why are you answering questions this month?

A I’m Brian Paul, the editorial assistant for the magazine. Fr. Brian Wilson is away right now, but he’ll be back for the next issue.

Q Sounds suspicious. Where is he?

A I kidnapped him this month to give myself more magazine exposure. It’s all part of a fiendish plot involving the Freemasons, the Illuminati and Larry King.

Q I see. . . Recently, I was discussing Christianity with a non-believer. She pointed out the fact that there is no evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection, and so the intelligent person should reject it. I answered that we accept the Resurrection on faith, not evidence. Still, I’m not satisfied with that answer (neither was she). Is there any evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection?

Numerous eyewitnesses claimed to see Jesus return from the dead and communicate with them. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul all describe in some detail these appearances. Our duty is to determine whether or not their testimony is reliable.

A Actually, there’s plenty of evidence for it. First, though, we have to be clear about what we mean when we say "evidence." We don’t have any videotape footage of the event, nor do we have photographs of Jesus bursting forth from the tomb. Our evidence is circumstantial and indirect. This shouldn’t trouble us at all, since most of what we know historically comes from circumstantial evidence. When was the last time you watched the actual footage of Charlemagne being crowned the Holy Roman emperor in A.D. 800? Or Martin Luther appearing before the Diet of Worms? Unless you’ve confused your medicine prescriptions, you probably haven’t seen either of those firsthand. Nevertheless, we know both of those events actually occurred, because we have credible witnesses who described both events. This is the key to the Resurrection evidence. We have numerous eyewitnesses who claimed to see Jesus return from the dead and communicate with them. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul all describe in some detail these appearances. Our duty, then, is to determine whether or not their testimony (in addition to that of the other Apostles) is reliable.

Let’s look at the situation with the original eleven (minus Judas). Here we have a band of people who, at one time, followed Jesus of Nazareth around ancient Palestine. Indeed, they were his inner circle. However, when Jesus died, all seemed lost. The band scattered themselves at His arrest, only to regroup later and mope. The sadness wouldn’t last. Shortly after Jesus’ execution, this same group began to make the outrageous claim that He had returned from the grave, conquering death. Up to this point, most sides of the debate can agree. The real issue is what made the Apostles claim to have seen Jesus back from the dead. Indeed, what made them travel around the ancient world proclaiming this "event"?

Well, we have three basic alternatives:

1. They were hallucinating.
2. They were lying.
3. They were telling the truth and Jesus really did return from the dead.

Let’s examine them in turn.

First, some claim that because of the Apostles’ extreme emotional trauma, having just witnessed their leader being killed, they were ripe and open for a comforting hallucination. However, the hallucination theory doesn’t fly. Why? Because the appearance accounts don’t match up with the way hallucinations work. Jesus (the Apostles claimed) came back and held long conversations with them, He ate with them, they touched Him to make sure He was really there. According to Paul, at one point, Jesus actually appeared to 500 people (cf. 1 Cor. 15:6) — hardly possible for a hallucination.

So, maybe the Apostles were lying. Perhaps it was just a big scam designed to get them riches and notoriety. Well, proclaiming Christ resurrected got them notoriety, all right. But not the kind that fits with the lying theory. Did the Apostles act like men who were lying for their own gain? Remember, they were systematically hunted, captured, tortured and killed. St. John was the only one of the original Twelve who died of old age. All the others were martyred for the Faith. If indeed the resurrection stories were lies, why didn’t the Apostles admit to it when they were captured and tortured? Remember that the Jewish and Roman officials wanted desperately to squash this new Christian movement. If just one of the inner circle came forward and blew the lid off the scam, he would have had his life spared and been richly rewarded. And yet it never happened. One by one, the followers of Christ were killed, often in horrible ways (Mark being dragged to pieces in the streets of Rome, for example). They had absolutely nothing to gain by dying for a lie — that is, unless it was no lie at all.

In the end, only the third theory (that the Apostles were telling the truth, and the Resurrection actually occurred) is consistent with the evidence. There’s simply no other way to account for their behavior and their claims.

As you might imagine, there are many other evidences for the Resurrection. Indeed, entire books have been written examining the proof for it. Recently, Evangelical pastor, Lee Stroebels, has written a book called, The Case For Christ. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It’s simply the best, most readable, most effective defense of the deity, miracles and resurrection of Jesus I’ve ever read. And, it’s impossible to put down — a great book to give to a non-believing friend or family member.

Q I’m always terrified when Jehovah’s Witnesses come to the door. They seem to know the Bible so well, and they’re so slick in the way they make their arguments. Still, I know that as a Catholic, I need to be bold in sharing the true Faith. Do you have any tips on how to evangelize the Witnesses when they come to your door?

Make an appointment for them to return. Be careful not to show too much of your hand. If they find out you can refute their arguments, they may not return.

A I do. Despite the initial appearances, Witnesses don’t know the Bible nearly as well as you think they do. In fact, their familiarity with it is limited to a number of proof-texts. That said, they are extremely adept at using those memorized verses to throw Christians into a confusion-fest. Additionally, they receive several hours a week of training in their door-to-door technique. So, if they seem "slick in the way they make their arguments," it’s because they’ve gotten a great deal of instruction and practice. The key to dealing with one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is to have a plan before your encounter with them. When they come to my door, I purchase whatever publication they happen to be selling at the time. Then I make an appointment for them to return a week later. This gives me plenty of time to prepare for my discussion with them. When I do this, though, I’m always careful not to show too much of my hand. If they find out you can refute their arguments in your first encounter with them, they may not return for a second. While that gives you a shallow victory, it prevents you from really sharing the gospel in an extended fashion.

Now, assuming you’ve done this, I have some tips for their return visit:

1. Be friendly at all times, and never lose your temper. Punching is not an effective strategy for evangelism. Witnesses are used to people treating them very rudely. They’ll be surprised and impressed if you greet them with Christian kindness and charity. And, it’ll improve the chances that they’ll stick around when you bring out the big apologetics guns.
2. Control the conversation. They’ll try to start in with a prepared presentation; don’t let them. It’s best to start the discussion off with a question. Then, make sure you’ve got the momentum to keep them from getting you back in their court.
3. Begin the discussion by concentrating on the failed prophecies of the Watchtower Society. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Society is God’s prophetic voice on earth. For this reason, they’ll automatically discount any scriptural argument you offer, in favor of the Society’s interpretation. In order to get anywhere scripturally, you need to first shake their confidence in the honesty of the Society. Luckily for you, that shouldn’t be hard. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, "God’s prophetic voice," has uttered some serious false prophecies in its 100 years. For example, they declared Armageddon would come in 1914, 1918, 1925 and, to a lesser extent, 1975. Raise this issue with them, and show them Deuteronomy 18:21-22:
   "And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ — when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him."
   Going by this test, the Watchtower Society is a false prophet; you need not fear it, much less listen to it. Often, it helps to have photocopies of the actual pages of The Watchtower containing the false prophecies. Otherwise, the Witness may not believe you. A search of the Internet will turn up numerous websites where you can print out these pages.
4. When you discuss a scriptural topic with them, make sure it’s a relevant one (the Deity of Christ, the immortal soul, the reality of the Holy Spirit, etc.). It’s easy to waste time on minor points (why they don’t vote or celebrate birthdays). When they leave, you want them to be questioning an important tenet of their theology. Also, prepare your position ahead of time. The premiere issue of Envoy has a great Nuts and Bolts on how to prove the deity of Christ. You can pick up that issue by calling 1-800-55-ENVOY.
5. Give them your personal testimony about what Christ has done in your life. If you have any stories about miraculous answers to prayer, share them. This will definitely throw them off, since they’ll have a hard time understanding how a non-Christian (which is what you are to them) could have such dramatic results from God. Add to this the fact that many Witnesses don’t feel any real intimacy with the Father, much less Jesus. Often, the personal testimony is the most effective way to evangelize one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
6. Pray before and after the Witnesses come, but don’t pray with them. They’re taught not to pray with non-Witnesses; this could cause a huge faux paus, and possibly cause them to leave.
7. Last but not least, as you’re walking them to the door, bid them farewell, and leave them with the clincher statement: "If there’s ever anything I can do for you, please call, day or night." That will give them something to think about as they’re walking to the car. When a Witness is considering leaving the organization, they often have no-one to turn to. By letting them know they can turn to you, it will give them at least a small sense of security should they decide to leave the Society behind.

Have a question you’d like answered? Send it to Fr. Brian Wilson, L.C., "I Have a Question," 1453 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91106. Or send e-mail to frwilson@samlink.com.

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR:

The following three questions and responses were partially obscured in the April/May 1999 issue, due to a printing error. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Q A letter to the editor in our diocesan newspaper quotes a statement by the late Fr. Raymond Brown: "There is really no proof that in New Testament times Peter would have been looked upon as the bishop of the Roman community." The letter goes on to say that Fr. Brown also deems it "likely that the single-bishop structure did not come to Rome until around A.D. 140-150." How does this hold up against St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, and Christian tradition?

A The early evidence is somewhat inconclusive. St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Romans, addresses the church at Rome as a whole as "presiding over the communion in charity," but makes no mention of her bishop. St. Clement, when writing to the Corinthians, speaks of "we," rather than "I." The list of popes drawn up by St. Irenaeus conflicts with the one drawn up by Tertullian. Fr. Brown thought Rome had a "conservative" church from the start, slow to adopt the bishop-presbyters-deacons pyramid later described by Ignatius in A.D. 107. This is not to say he denied the Roman church’s primacy in the early Church; just the opposite, in fact. He suggested that a particular presbyter (as in St. Clement’s case) may have been a kind of first among equals within the Roman clergy — the full implications of his role becoming more explicit only gradually. Brown’s interpretation of the evidence is open to question, but even if he is correct, papal primacy and authority are in no way undermined. It took the Church four centuries to figure out exactly what she believed with regard to God and Jesus; it would be rather surprising if a developed doctrine of the papacy or episcopate had surfaced before the most fundamental questions were resolved.

Q I’m in the military. While visiting another base, I went to daily Mass. There were about five people there. I was expecting the priest to show up, but instead, a woman holding a container of consecrated hosts came in and placed it on the altar. I thought she was just setting up for the priest. To my shock, however, she started to say Mass. One of the attendees read the readings and she read the gospel. She didn’t give a sermon nor say the Eucharistic Prayers. She only distributed Communion as a Eucharistic minister would. Does the Church allow this? Please bear in mind this was a military chapel; there might have been a manpower problem.

A What you took part in wasn’t a Mass but a celebration of Holy Communion outside of Mass. This is an option when Mass is impossible, usually because no priest can be present. In the absence of a priest or deacon, an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist can lead this rite. In essence, it includes the Liturgy of the Word from the Mass of the day (a briefer rite can have just one reading) and the Liturgy of Communion, beginning from the Our Father. Only a priest or deacon can preach, so she didn’t preach; only a priest may pray the Eucharistic Prayer including the consecration, so that too was omitted.

There was, then, a "manpower" problem. Your turn of phrase is particularly adequate and revealing: what we have is a manpower problem. For want of "a few good men," the Mass sometimes goes uncelebrated. The Church needs more priests. Perhaps some of those who are called need to respond more manfully to the Lord’s invitation. If they won’t offer their lives, the Lord can’t offer His in the Eucharistic sacrifice. We need to pray for vocations, look out for and encourage likely candidates, and help all young people to embrace whatever God calls them to in life.

Q Matthew 23:8-10 tells us not to call anyone "Father" or "Teacher," or "Master." That confuses me because when we talk to a priest, we call him "Father," and even the word "pope," translated literally means "father." I attend a Baptist school and didn’t dare ask any of my teachers for an answer, because they would tell me that I’m Catholic and wrong. Please give me an answer. I feel uneasy calling a priest, "Father."

A Just extend your thought one step further: "The word ‘dad’ means ‘father.’" What a dilemma! So what do you call that man who married your mom and lives in your house? Come to think of it, what do you call the man or woman who stands up at the front of your classroom and gets upset if you didn’t bring in your homework? Isn’t it funny that some teachers have a problem with a priest being called "Father," but don’t find Jesus’ words applicable at all to themselves? What I’ve said doesn’t explain what Jesus did mean, but it does make clear what he was not saying. St. Paul himself was obviously aware of this, unless we want to think he was blatantly disobeying Jesus’ command, when he wrote, "in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel" (1 Corinthians 4:15). The words of Scripture must be read in their context and according to the intentions of the writers. We need to look not just at Matthew 23:8-10, but 23:1-12. Is Jesus concerned here about the words we use? Or is He engaged in giving a lesson in humility? The essence of His message here is, "Don’t go around looking for recognition and empty praise." What an easy gospel it would be if all we had to learn from this passage was to avoid a few words. Instead, our Lord is teaching us that "the greatest among you will be your servant" (Matthew 23:11).

e