Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead 11

If the first principles of nature and what follows from them have demonstrated each point under examination, it is evident that the resurrection of dissolved bodies is possible, willed, and worthy of the Creator; for by these very principles the falsehood opposed to them and the unreasonableness of the unbelievers have been exposed. Why should we elaborate on how each of these principles relates to the others and their interconnection, as if they were separated by some difference? We need not also argue that what is possible is willed, that what God wills is certainly possible, and that this accords with the worthiness of what is willed. The distinction between discourse about truth and discourse on behalf of truth has been stated with moderation by earlier writers, who clarified the respective uses of each, and when and to whom each is useful. Yet nothing prevents us from beginning again from these principles and their corollaries, for the sake of common safety and the continuity of what has been said with what remains. It belongs to the one discourse to lead by nature, and to the other to attend the first, clearing the way and removing every hindrance and obstacle. For the discourse about truth, being necessary for all people for safety and salvation, takes first place by nature, order, and need: by nature, as it provides knowledge of reality; by order, as it exists within and alongside these realities, serving as their herald; by need, as it secures safety and salvation for those who know. The discourse on behalf of truth is weaker by nature and power, since refuting falsehood is a lesser task than confirming truth; it is second in order, for its force operates against those who hold false opinions, and false opinion springs from ignorance and corruption. Yet even so, this second discourse is often preferred and becomes more necessary, as it removes and purifies the unbelief that troubles some and the doubt or false opinion of those just approaching. Both discourses refer to one end: both the one refuting falsehood and the one confirming truth aim at piety. They are not identical, however; the one is necessary, as I said, for all who believe and care for truth and their own salvation, while the other becomes more necessary for certain people and in certain circumstances. Let these things stand as a summary reminder of what has been said. We must now proceed to the subject at hand and demonstrate that the discourse about the resurrection is true, drawing from its cause — the cause according to which and through which the first human being came to be, and those after him, even if not in the same manner — from the common nature shared by all human beings as human beings, and from the judgment of the Maker upon them, according to the length of each one's life and the laws under which each conducted himself, a judgment no one would dispute is just.