been pondering MPJs words on tuesday - the gist being that the resurrection of Jesus is not remarkable because it is historical, but because it is historic. that is, we can well say that it did happen, and the importance of it having happened, and the historicity of the event. but in reflection, the fact that is is historical is only important because it is historic - epoch making, a new paradigm, a new way of understanding the world, a vindication of the promises of a creator God both fulfilled and beginning at this moment.
Badiou's book that i wrote about earlier in the year discussed this also - i was concerned because he didn't care so much about the historicity of the event, believing it was secondary. now i wouldn't want to go that far, in that it is causative (you can't have an historic moment without the historical event), but i think i get his emphasis a little more now.
i think i get too hung up on trying to convince people of the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, rather than the difference that makes - i need to emphasise that it changes everything!
[i might add, i feel the former is what Driscoll did when he was here - tried to convince people of the death of Jesus for them, but not of the resurrection of Jesus as changing everything. so saying Jesus died for you, so you can be forgiven - but not challenging their world views, that Jesus being raised makes everything different. just a thought.]
3 comments:
When one realises the impact on and for their life of Jesus being raised, then one must surely be convicted to look at whether his resurrection is a reality or not.
thanks doug. your posts are always helpful, unlike your lethal backspin which are a constant headache.
I think we can spend too much time on convincing people of the historiocity of the resurrection, thinking that once they are persudaded they will be converted. Not true, all you've done is convinced them that someone rose from the dead.
thanks fatima. what geoffc said.
i agree, if someone is convicted by the holy spirit that the claims of Jesus are important, then yeah, they may well go see if it is historically backed-up. but that doesn't mean we need to go around with a book on the claims of archeology - more important is the bible, with the claims of Jesus on their life.
thanks for the table-tennis compliments geoff. your lethal sidespin is more than a match for my backhands any day.
Post a Comment