(function() { (function(){function c(a){this.t={};this.tick=function(a,c,b){var d=void 0!=b?b:(new Date).getTime();this.t[a]=[d,c];if(void 0==b)try{window.console.timeStamp("CSI/"+a)}catch(l){}};this.tick("start",null,a)}var a;if(window.performance)var e=(a=window.performance.timing)&&a.responseStart;var h=0=b&&(window.jstiming.srt=e-b)}if(a){var d=window.jstiming.load;0=b&&(d.tick("_wtsrt",void 0,b),d.tick("wtsrt_","_wtsrt", e),d.tick("tbsd_","wtsrt_"))}try{a=null,window.chrome&&window.chrome.csi&&(a=Math.floor(window.chrome.csi().pageT),d&&0=c&&window.jstiming.load.tick("aft")};var f=!1;function g(){f||(f=!0,window.jstiming.load.tick("firstScrollTime"))}window.addEventListener?window.addEventListener("scroll",g,!1):window.attachEvent("onscroll",g); })();

Monday, March 28, 2005


The Sunday Herald's Easter reflection.

An odd comment on Richard Holloway's opinion on the Resurrection:
Another, more radical, way of looking at the resurrection, he says, is to see it not as “a physical event in the body of Jesus but as a psychic event in the minds of the apostles”
So the 'they decided it was a necessary story to prop up their ideology' line is more radical than the 'power of God which raised Christ Jesus from the dead, in the flesh' line? That's more exciting than than the triumphant return of the new Adam?

But it's hardly worth ranting about the predictable horrors. The last paragraph, however, is curious:
What does become apparent, however, is that the deeper one probes, the more elusive and tantalising Jesus becomes. The more we try to make sense of him and his teachings, to cut him down to size, to make him more human, the less distinct he appears. Layer upon layer of history and exegesis and sleuthing, of worship and denial and pseudo- science, have not made us any wiser than our forebears were two millennia ago. We know as much – or as little – as they did then.

As Chesterton eloquently observed, trying to fit Our Lord into our own form is a fruitless process, and the author here (Alan Taylor) has picked up on that. And yes, we know as much as they did then - Deus vero suscitavit eum a mortuis tertia die. And if we do not know that, we know nothing. But that first sentence of the paragraph is only true if one has already de facto dismissed the possibility of the true Resurrection. What is rather sad is that this article is really asking what self-described Christians believe about the Resurrection - it is surely not possible, and I pray that this is not uncharitable, to disbelieve that Christ truly and humanly rose from the dead while actually being a Christian? Yet the apparent rents in Christ's Body make this a more obvious subject for investigation than the question of whether He did rise from the dead, which the article seems to assume cannot be known.

Lumen Christi illuminet Scotiam.