Comments on life and opinions of andrew rilstone: An Unearthly Child

I agree that a paradox doesn't have to have...

2012-01-12T20:51:02.264Z
I agree that a paradox doesn't have to have a neat logical reply (indeed, some might say that's rather the point), but if you don't feel that the answer speaks to you emotionally, it rather fails as a devotional tool.

Well, different people differ, no doubt. But for me, it's the paradox itself that speaks to me emotionally, not a solution to it.

"But "a satisfying answer" real...

2012-01-12T18:37:48.102Z
"But "a satisfying answer" really isn't the point of a paradox."

I was talking about emotionally satisfying, rather than logically satisfying. I agree that a paradox doesn't have to have a neat logical reply (indeed, some might say that's rather the point), but if you don't feel that the answer speaks to you emotionally, it rather fails as a devotional tool.

The moment at which I personally stopped thinki...

2012-01-12T17:39:34.714Z
The moment at which I personally stopped thinking of the story of Baby Jesus as one of those dull fables that grown ups went on and on about and started to think of it as something exciting and fascinating was precisely the moment at which I perceived that the paradox was a paradox.

How very Chestertonian. And I mean that as high praise.

Guy Jackson wrote: "I'm also not sure whether I find it a particularly satisfying answer to the paradox." But "a satisfying answer" really isn't the point of a paradox. (And that, I think, is the point of this whole post.)

I remember my old R.E. teacher once suggested that...

2012-01-08T18:22:24.763Z
I remember my old R.E. teacher once suggested that Jesus didn't know he was the Son of God until God told Him. Which would, I suppose, answer the question of how Jesus would behave as a child (like a normal boy, because that's what He thought He was), although I don't know how theologically sound that suggestion is. I'm also not sure whether I find it a particularly satisfying answer to the paradox.

And my comment was supposed to start with the line...

2012-01-08T04:42:16.232Z
And my comment was supposed to start with the line: "One day, I intend to read St Augustine. But not yet." But I used some HTML tags, and blogspot ate it.

That made me laugh out loud. Also, I found him rat...

2012-01-08T04:41:00.057Z
That made me laugh out loud. Also, I found him rather dull, but maybe I had a bad translation.

I find I resent St. Brigit (if I remember correctly) of Sweden every time I see another nativity scene based on her vision of it. For one thing, as you speculate with printing, it seems to have stopped the imagination of the Western church stone-cold dead when it comes to that scene.

A good essay for the holidays that made me think.....

2012-01-07T06:38:17.991Z
A good essay for the holidays that made me think... and I enjoyed the folk songs.

P.S @Nick asked why Charles Wesley thought that b...

2012-01-06T16:01:13.249Z
P.S

@Nick asked why Charles Wesley thought that baby Jesus had wings, and if this proves that he was a Balrog.

Well, the first thing is that Charles Wesley doesn’t think that baby Jesus had wings: if I said “Tax inspectors are octopuses, with their tentacles grabbing eight things at the same time” you wouldn’t think that I thought that tax inspectors really had tentacles instead of hands; you would think that I thought that tax inspectors were like octopuses in some respect.

Charles Wesley thinks that baby Jesus is like the sun: it’s dark at night time, but when the sun comes up it gets light; life depends on the light of the sun; when Jesus was born, he brought life and light to everyone, so it was like the sun coming up.

So the real question is “Why did Charles Wesley think that the Sun had wings.”

Charles Wesley was obviously quoting from Malachi, which is a good place to find metaphors for Jesus because it is the last book of the Old Testament. Malachi said “But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.”

So the real real question is “Why did the prophet Malachi think that the Sun had wings.”

After literally minutes of painstaking research, I have discovered that the Hebrew word for “wings” is sometimes used metaphorically for “the edge of”; so that Ezekiel talks about sending a message to “the four wings of the land” (which King James renders as “corners”); and that when David wants to show that he had King Saul at his mercy but didn’t kill him, he cuts off the “wing” of his robes.

So “wings of the sun” means “edge of the sun”, “corona of the sun” or probably just “the sun’s rays”.

So when Wesley says “Hail thou Sun of Righteousness, light and life to all he brings, risen with healing in his wings” means “The birth of Jesus is like the beginning of a new day, when the sun’s rays bring light, life and healing to everyone.”

Carol sheets that write it as "Son of righteousness" are wrong.