The reality which is the resurrection cannot simply be “known” from within the old world of decay and denial, of tyrants and torture, of disobedience and death. But that’s the point. The resurrection is not, as it were, a highly peculiar event within the present world, though it is that as well; it is the defining, central event of the new creation, the world which is being born with Jesus.
If we are even to glimpse this new world, let alone enter it, we will need a different kind of knowing, a knowing which involves us in new ways, an epistemology which draws out from us not just the cool appraisal of detached quasi-historical or scientific research, but the whole-person engagement for which the best shorthand is “love.”
That is why, although the historical arguments for Jesus’s bodily resurrection are truly strong, we must never suppose that they will do more than bring people to the very questions faced by Peter, or Thomas, or Paul: the questions of faith, hope and love.
Interesting to read the comments. Perhaps Aussies are just more reasonable about such things, but even the opponents wrote in a much more civilized manner than what would be generated on a secular American news blog.
And it worth noting that “Andy’s” arguments against the resurrection and all things religious ad tired, shop worn arguments, which ask us to know with certainty what cannot be known with certainty – but about which he is certain we can know nothing. Larry