Monday 28 November 2011

new songs for old

I've just realised I'm getting old.
I've just received my copy of Songs of Fellowship 5 (music version) and was looking through it. The first thing that struck me is how many of the songs are actually old (and still fairly well-known hymns) which have been 'tweaked' ever so slightly. It appears that by adding an extra line or two, you can then re-copyright the song and get royalties for it.
So I found myself muttering that the old tunes were fine and didn't need anyone mucking around with them.
This is actually rather hypocritical as I occasionally come up with new versions of tunes for well-known hymns myself ;-)

However, when I got to 'Immortal invisible, God only wise' I spluttered to a halt. Why?
Because the first verse goes:
Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inacessible hid from our eyes.
Most blessed, most glorious, the ancient of days,
Almighty, victorious, thy great name we praise.

But the chorus that's been added basically says 'there is none like you, Jesus'

Jesus immortal? Well, that has to be a yes and no.
Invisible? Hidden? Inacessible?

Like I said, I'm getting old and nitpicky

Friday 11 November 2011

essay

I've finally finished reading Jesus and the Victory of God by NT Wright. It was good, but didn't half take some getting through (all 700+ pages of it). So now I'm deep in other stuff, all so I can write an essay about the resurrection.
I thought it would be easy - believing the resurrection happened was (and still is) the cornerstone of my faith. I'm with St Paul on this one - if the resurrection didn't happen, then we are to be pitied. Not necessarily for still being dead in our sins, but for being complete idiots. The more I read, the more I realise what a stupid idea Jesus being physically resurrected from the dead is. Surely ANYTHING has to be a more sensible explanation than that?

So far the alternative explanations I've come across are:
1) Jesus wasn't crucified. That's the Muslim view - that Jesus was assumed directly into heaven (cf Elijah, Enoch) and someone else was crucified instead. God simply would not let one of His messengers get treated so disgracefully.
2) Jesus didn't really die, he revived in the tomb. The problem with the 'swoon' theory is that firstly Romans were pretty good at killing people - they had had alot of practice crucifying people - and secondly how would an almost dead Jesus convince his disciples that he was the Lord of life? I've seen people with major blood loss, and they don't exactly look bursting with health.
3) Jesus did die, but his body was tossed into an unmarked communal grave. It explains why the tomb was empty (no body there in the first place) and also why the body couldn't be produced. But it has to be combined with something else to explain why the disciples suddenly started preaching resurrection.
4) Someone stole or moved the body - Joseph of Arimethea, the disciples, the authorities - take your pick! Again, it explains an empty tomb, but not preaching resurrection.
5) some sort of hallucination/ vision. In this version, saying Jesus is risen means "I've had an experience of Jesus and he's still with me" and no physical resurrection is involved. Or it was a bereavement phenomenon. Stories about the empty tomb were later fabrications.
6) a combination of 5 AND either 3 or 4

NT Wright was really helpful in explaining that at the time Jesus lived, there was belief in a bodily resurrection of all the righteous at the end of time. Ongoing existence of the soul was not called resurrection. And there was no hint that any one individual would be resurrected before the general resurrection. So if that's the case, why would anyone interpret a vision as meaning Jesus was resurrected? Other visions in the Bible don't get interpreted like that, they are understood to be visions, and accepted as such. Similarly, when Rhoda opens the door to Peter after he gets out of prison, she doesn't conclude he's been resurrected, she thinks he's a ghost.

There is an unspoken imperialistic strand in alot of what I've been reading: "In our modern scientific age, of course we know better than to believe such stupid things. They were uneducated and lived in premodern conditions and therefore naturally believed all sorts of outdated things". Except, according to the gospels, seeing the empty tomb didn't make any one think Jesus had risen. They thought someone had stolen the body, or moved it elsewhere. When Jesus appears to them, he does things to prove he's not a ghost. Which to me, suggests that the disciples (including the women) knew that dead people stay dead.

Of course, you then get in to the whole question of how reliable are the gospels, when were they written, how much is hearsay etc etc etc
But alot of that discussion depends on presuppositions as to what is 'reasonable' and what isn't. As does the disussion about the resurrection. Ultimately it boils down to whether you think that if there is a God they might intervene in the affairs of the universe on occasion (ie perform a miracle). If you do, then the resurrection is more plausible than the alternative explanations. If you don't, then even being there yourself as an eyewitness at the actual moment of resurrection wouldn't convince you.

Any thoughts gratefully received (especially if you don't agree with me - just keep them polite ;-) )