« Muslim graveyard refuses to bury Mumbai terrorists | Main | Was the Dennis Canon in fact never duly adopted? Here's why a court might not care. »

December 09, 2008



Interesting. But don't you think our ancestors were able to distinguish such dreams (which were probably quite common, and probably still are) from a physical resurrection/revivification?

D. C. Toedt III

They probably were, Dharmashaiva, but we just don't have enough first-hand information about what actually happened, back then in the earliest days of the church. Scholars think that, before the Gospel stories were first written down in approximately the form we have them today, they were passed along by word of mouth for decades — and somewhere along the line, they crossed the language barrier between Aramaic and Greek. The opportunities for distortion and outright falsification must have been legion.

It's one thing to accept that sure, the stories might be true. It's another thing entirely to base an extraordinarily-consequential life decision on the supposed truth of the stories.

R Eric Sawyer

Plausible, but the narratives as we have them seem to be aware of that possibility, and intend to deny it. I speak of course of Thomas, and the invitation to put his fingers in the wounds of Jesus, and the appearances that include eating. Also, the first epistle of John seems to address a concern which was apparently abroad in the world that Jesus was not “in the flesh.”
Of course, that does put the issue back to the reliability of the Biblical account, and were these things added to bolster a perceived weakness in the dawning “official” version.
I think we agree that proof is not discernable either way from within the record. Christianity therefore remains a religion of revelation, with the question addressed to God “Are these things so?”

BTW, “doubting” Thomas would be my first choice as patron saint.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Favorite Posts


Episcopal Church

  • Come and Grow