Easter miracle of stand-up Archbishop
We missed this when it happened, but the Archbishop of Canterbury’s hilarious Easter sermon deserves a late mention. In it he gives a plug to the upcoming Da Vinci Code film, comparing its implausible conspiracy theory plot with the far-more-credible “historical basis of faith”.
As someone remarked after a television programme about the Da Vinci Code, it’s almost that we’d prefer to believe something like this instead of the prosaic reality.
Now, here at MWW we have no truck with Dan Brown style myth-mongering, but take a look at what Rowan Williams is saying here. By “something like this” he means the idea that a 1st century rabbi got married and had kids. Compare this to what he regards as the “prosaic reality”: that this rabbi was executed, rose from the dead three days later, walked through walls, then rocketed up through the clouds to heaven by the power of magic.
The real miracle is that the Archbishop didn’t raise a single laugh.
In fairness to the Archbishop, I believe corroberating historical records at least provide support for Jesus’ execution, nevermind the other stuff.
It’s a bit difficult to get married when you’re dead…
Actually, sconzey, the quality evidence for Jesus’ existence, let alone execution, is massively overstated by Christians.
Funny looking bloke telling jokes.
Oh, Rowan ,i>Williams.
I thought you said Rowan Atkinson.
Ba-dum tish!!
Pinchbeck,
You could take that a step further (assuming you’d want to): how about “funny looking bloke in a religious costume” telling jokes – just as likely to be R.A., really. Only his clergy gags are actually funny.
Such speeches by any sort of religious leader are always somewhat humourous/disappointing because things of the sort are hardly a threat to the said religion, not to mention valid speech. Escpeccially if they are Catholic, a religion with a historical record of subverting true Christian teachings (ironically the charge they level against the Da Vinci Code), and just generally making shit up (Praying to saints, changing the date of Jesus’ birthday to correspond with a pagan holiday in December, indulgences, the Apocrypha, the idea of a pope, terrorizing the Jews, using religious athority to extort money, etc). But even so, as far as evidence of the life and existence of Jesus, for the most part historical evidence is rock solid. He is mentioned directly and indirectly in several Roman documents including history books. He had a church founded after him that continued to grow, origionally started by those who claimed to have known him. You’d think that if was a hoax that Someone at the time would have said so. Also, he was seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses. You’d think the Romans would not lie about his existence from times predating Catholicisim and Constantine, yet apparently they knew of him. And as for the early Christian Church, check out Roman histories from around the time of Bar-Kohkba’s revolt.
Anyway, in returning to freedom of speech, it is more important then being considerate to others, although it is no excuse for being inconsiderate in general, as it often seems to be used. Like any idea, it can be abused, and it doesn’t exist for the purpose of being an asshole and nothing else. Therefore, evn while disagree with others or even sarcastically insulting their values, try to utilize *some* campassion and restraint. I for instance think Catholocisim is a farce of a bad idea and a form of heresy that is reponsible for harming the moral and social inclinations of others, yet there are more…uncouth…ways I could have made that even worse, yet I didn’t. Just a heads up on getting to insulting in blog posts.-An American Christian who isn’t a fanatic who misses the point.
P.S.-I read the Da Vinci Code and did not interfere with my relationship with God or my unerstanding of Christianinty at all; I honestly don’t know what Christian groups are getting worked up about.
Hi Oji. Good points, but I can’t let this:
But even so, as far as evidence of the life and existence of Jesus, for the most part historical evidence is rock solid. He is mentioned directly and indirectly in several Roman documents including history books.
Go unchallenged. The historicity of Jesus is the one area where modern day Christians kid themselves the most. There are no contemporaneous accounts of JC. Nobody thought to write anything about him until at least a generation after his death, by which time the myth had plenty of time for development.
Which Roman sources would you be talking about, exactly? The ones that mention the existence of Christians? That has never been in question.