From: Alexanian, Moorad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 15:40:27 EDT
If a camera, a purely physical device, could not detect the resurrection of Jesus, then that implies that the resurrection is not in the subject matter of science. The real question is what human “detectors” would have witnessed if present at the resurrection. I am sure there is a difference between a camera and a human.
From: George Murphy [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Fri 5/23/2003 12:51 PM
To: Graham E. Morbey
Cc: John W Burgeson; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: On Tillich
Graham E. Morbey wrote:
> Years ago a professor of mine once asked Tillich if a camera could have
> recorded the Resurrection of Jesus. The curt reply was "no!"
> Now, was that because of the limitation of the camera (no record of a
> personal observation of the actual Resurrection in Scripture)? Perhaps a
> better question
> " Would the camera have recorded the three of them on the road to
> Emmaus?" The answer for Tillich, I believe, is still "no". The Creeds
> teach a camera faith!
My gut reaction is to agree with you, but I think some care is needed. The
creeds say simply that "he rose again." Though some witnesses of the resurrection
"doubted," (Mt.28:17), there are no accounts of rank unbelievers (at least after the
event) seeing the risen Christ. Those who were with Saul on the Damascus rode did not
see him (Acts 9:7). The emphasis on light in his own account of the event give one the
impression that a camera would have simply been overexposed.
"Every eye shall see him" (Rev.1:7), but that is an eschatological promise.
George L. Murphy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 23 2003 - 15:40:39 EDT