Re: 2001's gospel message

George Murphy (""
Sun, 07 Nov 1999 20:16:14 -0500 wrote:
> True there are differences of aspect to the resurrection fingerprint and
> the others. But at the time of Christ, theoretically, the data was
> accessible to all observers.

Only in the sense that the risen Christ could have appeared to others if he'd
chosen to. But he didn't. There is a crucial (!) difference between such a contingent
historical event as the basis of the Christian claim about God & the type of evidence
which supports, e.g., Coulomb's law which can (in principle, be gathered anywhere,
anytime) with no need to refer to Coulomb. & this is not just a matter of the
contingency of _all_ historical events because the Christian claim is that what happened
with Jesus is the basis of a general ststement about God. This is the "scandal of
particularity" that Lessing referred to when he said that "accidental truths of history
can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason." The lordship of Christ is a
general truth about reality but cannot be established as a "necessary truth of reason."
we have to start with it.

> Today we no longer have that accessibility,
> which is why one like me prefers to have the other type of fingerprint. And
> I don't think one type is lesser in importance than the other.

I don't understand what you mean here. The central Christian claim about who
Christ is, & thus about who God is, stands or falls with the cross-resurrection event.

>If God had
> not left the fingerprint of the Ressurrection, we would not be sitting here
> discussing things.

Precisely. Again, I'm puzzled about what you're saying.

Fingerprints are very important.

In several ways. If you take your car in to be repainted & it comes out with
fingerprints in the paint that's evidence that a paint job was done but it's also an
indication of sloppy work.

George L. Murphy