15. The Rationale of Believing in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead

                                                                         We shall end this Study with a reminder that to appreciate this conclusion, we have to keep in mind the points we have already discussed in the previous Posts. However, the crucial point that influences to a large extent our understanding of the resurrection of Jesus is the depth of consciousness we have developed through our life. Have we a normally grown consciousness as we age through the years, or is it blocked and maimed by our one-sided involvements in the world? If a person considers himself or herself as part of this world to such a degree that there is no essential difference between animals and the humans, consciousness too will remain restricted purely to the material realm of this world. Such a person is not in a position to understand any higher truth that demands refined consciousness reaching out to the spiritual level of reality. To take in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, one needs openness not only to the temporal, physical and material reality, but also to the eternal, non-physical and the spiritual dimension. Only such people are eligible to receive the gift of faith from God that is an essential constituent of our belief in the resurrection.
                                                                        It comes down to the question of our state of being that determines our capacity to receive anything new including the revelation from God of which the resurrection of Jesus from the dead takes pride of place. It does not mean that it depends on us whether we receive the grace of God in the form of the gift of faith, but only that we need the minimum requirement of readiness to receive it. It is like accepting the invitation to the wedding feast where everything is ready where the minimum requirement of wedding dress is taken for granted. The quality of our consciousness is the wedding dress required from our part to enter the reception chamber to enjoy the feast. Is our consciousness clouded, darkened or blocked when confronted with this grand invitation? Being immersed in this material world, if we are not attentive, it is easy to be mesmerized by the display of this world where our consciousness and conscience are forced to be submerged under vanities. The rationale of our belief is to be gathered from the particular language-game we play through the religious language we engage in as we have seen in the previous Posts.
                                                                        Here we shall inquire into the role of our consciousness in believing what we believe and its rationality. The modernist position on consciousness influenced many thinkers in dealing with the question of the resurrection of Jesus. The Catholic Church described and condemned the modernist view on the resurrection of Christ in the decree "Lamentabili" in its 36th and 37th propositions. The 36th proposition reads: "The Resurrection of our Savior is not a fact of the historical order, but a fact of the purely supernatural order neither proved nor provable, which Christian consciousness has little by little inferred from other facts". This condemnation is directly against the position of Alfred Loisy, a former catholic priest, in his books"Autour d'un Petit Livre", pp. viii, 120-121, 169 and "L'Evangile et L'Eglise", pp.74-78, 120-121, 171 constituting the modernist position. If the Resurrection were merely a historical fact pertaining only to the confines of this world, it would not be any better than the raising of Lazarus, the daughter of Jairus or the son of the widow of Nain. They were meant to die again without being absorbed by the power of the Holy Spirit as in the case of Jesus Christ who could become the living Spirit dispensing salvation to those who believe in him. The proof for the historicity of the Resurrection is provided by the empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection that has been amply treated by innumerable scholars, which need not be repeated here. 
                                                                      The crux of the problem with Resurrection is in the trans-historical and eternal component of the reality of Resurrection. Here the role of consciousness comes into play. The modernists insist on the gradual inference of the fact of resurrection by the  Christian consciousness  from other facts. Which are these facts?They think that the Old Testament prophecies and the expectation of their fulfillment resulted in the Christian belief in the Resurrection. The main argument against this view is that what really happened in the Resurrection was beyond all expectations that even the Apostles themselves were perplexed about and could not bring themselves to believe. This is in the context of the fact that the Apostles and the closest disciples of Jesus were specially trained to believe in him through a period of almost 3 years. So, how did the Apostles and the disciples were able to finally believe in the Resurrection?
                                                                      This was not possible without a complete revolution in their personal lives for which Jesus prepared them. The Good News proclaimed by Jesus to repent because the Kingdom of God is at hand conveyed the message of a total conversion from our old ways to new ones embodied in his person and realized in the Resurrection. Without such a total change of our inner self and consequent perspectives, nothing of eternal value could be understood by us, let alone appropriated! Such a well prepared ground is watered by God sending His Spirit into us causing faith in the Resurrection as well as all matters pertaining to the eternal.
Unscientific? Do not forget to refresh oneself with our previous Posts treating about language-games and the role of Metaphysics as the tacit foundation of Physics. When speaking of Metaphysics, one has to be cautious, especially because Wittgenstein himself whose philosophical method we uphold, was himself skeptical about it. Of course, Wittgenstein had in mind the empiricism of David Hume and John Locke as well as the rationalism of Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant. When he spoke of the aim of Philosophy as bringing back the metaphysical use of language to our ordinary use, he had them in mind besides others with similar tendencies. However, Wittgenstein paved the way for the legitimate use of religious language through the notion of "language-games" whereby grammar tells us what anything is with a reference to theology as grammar. Besides, in the strictly logical treatment of language in his "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus", Wittgenstein left open the possibility of the "mystical" that was succinctly expressed in the last proposition of the book:"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent". Each science and branch of knowledge has meaning only within its own language-game and this applies to empirical sciences as well as Philosophy and Theology.
Therefore, no science can sit in judgment on religious language and vice-versa, if one wants to avoid the pathetic situation of a sitting duck before the hunter in the form of Logic that governs all branches of knowledge. Or shall we say that the rigid materialist inevitably saws off the branch on which he is seated? He thinks that he is defending reason, science and truth and yet ends up with destroying them without a trace of remorse, may be because he does it in good faith! 

14. Meanings of Words as their Use in language (Contd)

                                                                                   The task of Philosophy is not to advance any complex or hidden theories, as sometimes is done in metaphysics, that underlie the surface features of language. The correct method would be to assemble reminders of how we actually use language in our everyday life  that does not look for anything beneath the surface of language. However," 'Essence' is expressed by grammar" (P.I., para.371) and "Grammar tells what kind of object anything is. (Theology as grammar)". (P.I., Para. 373).
                                                  What Wittgenstein means by grammar is the "depth grammar" of language and not the "surface grammar" we learn in school grammar classes. "Depth grammar is employed in language-games and like any game we play, language-games too have rules. These rules are not strict boundaries, but overlapping and fluid ones. "Rule" and "agreement" are related to one another like cousins. Similarly, the uses of "rule" and that of "same" are interwoven as in the use of "proposition" and the use of "true". The tendency to create an ideal language is fraught with danger as our ordinary language is perfectly in order as it is. The consequence of this insight was that his own "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and the "Principia Mathematica" of Bertrand Russell fell by the wayside. G. E. Moore's "Philosophy of Common Sense" had to beat a fast retreat on epistemological grounds. The "depth grammar' of our language governs our use of words and to look for a "perfect' and "idealistic" use of words is nothing but a mirage.
                                                  " 'But the words, significantly uttered,have after all not only a surface, but also the dimension of depth' ". (P.I., para. 594). This depth in the form of a deeper meaning one may have in one's mind is not what is meant by depth grammar. In search of meaning of words, the context of each speaker's description of his or her 'meaning' of some expression reveals 'depth grammar'. Wittgenstein investigates 'meaning' from different directions through concepts of 'family resemblances' of 'meaning', 'understanding', 'thinking', 'intending' and similar concepts. "...When we mean something, it is like going up to someone"..." we go up to the thing we mean" (P.I., para. 455). Here we have a reference to 'intentionality' treated in P.I. from para. 428 to para. 465. 'Intentionality' is crucial in understanding how language is connected to reality. When a person actually uses words, depth grammar reveals whatever it is that accompanies those words. 'Meaning' encompasses the subjective-human aspects and pin-pointing meaning at the same time brings out the 'deep meaning' enmeshed in the 'depth grammar'. We refer to the surrounding circumstances and relationships that accompany our language use through depth grammar.It is rooted in a whole set of activities into which language is woven,derived from 'forms of life' of the subject or the subjects involved. 
                                                         'Surface grammar' is about words and their syntactic features, whereas 'depth grammar' is about the way an expression is used and refers to its semantic character. While the 'surface grammar' remains the same in various uses, 'depth grammar' is context-sensitive and varies due to change of contexts and is constituted by rules of language-games. The connection between 'doing' and 'meaning' constitutes language-games. Depth grammar only describes and in no way explains the use of signs (See P.I., para. 496). The wrong notions of 'understanding', 'thinking', 'meaning', 'intending' etc. as mental processes are demolished by a grammatical investigation of the words 'reading' and 'understanding'. We do not base our criteria for determining if someone has understood something or is reading something on inner states or processes, but on their external actions. There are no absolute rules or fundamental justification for following rules the way we do as our shared participation in certain forms of life is enough justification.
                                                          With these glimpses of "Meanings of Words as their Use in Language" as practiced in Linguistic Analysis by the Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, we shall proceed to the last Post of this Study connecting them to the meaningfulness of the expression "Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead".     

13. Meanings of Words as their Use in Language (Contd)

                                                       How does a word signify something? The most natural and easiest way would be to affix a sign on to the object signified by the word. If the sign for slab is affixed on the slab, on being shown the sign 'slab', the assistant can bring it to the mason. The function of a name is similar to this and the name is used to mean the object designated, without the object itself being its meaning. If the object designated were its meaning, the word 'Paul' would have no meaning when the person represented by the word dies. Moreover one and the same word 'Bank', for example, could not be used to mean more than one object, which is not the case.  
                                                     From Augustine's description of teaching language by pointing to objects and uttering names, it would appear that we teach meanings of words by pointing to the objects that they name. We go wrong if we take such connection between word and thing is the fundamental relationship fixing language to the world. The reason is that this relationship can be seen only after a great deal of language use is in place, which Wittgenstein calls its depth grammar, about which we shall see in the next Post. When we discuss the meaning of a word as its use in language, the definitions and fixed boundaries of rules that govern its use may be thought of as binding on our mind. But, this is not the case as we can see how, for example, we use a word like 'game' without strictly bound rules and fixed boundaries. Various uses of the word 'game' are based on similarities akin to those among various members of a family called family resemblances without strict definitions and setting up of boundaries. Words are not bounded by any rigidity, but are flexible enough to be used in various contexts with different meanings as there are no sharp boundaries that determine their uses and consequently their meanings. Wittgenstein terms this kind of use of language as "language-games".
                                                    Language-games are understood in comparison with the games we usually play. Is there any one thing that is common in the games we play the absence of which will edge anyone of the games out? It would seem that there must be something common  in all of them in order to merit the name of 'game'. This is the consequence of our thinking without looking. The importance of observation and "seeing" should not be diminished by our "thinking". Instead of any one thing common to all games and language-games, similarities and family relationships should serve as reasons for bringing them under the tag of games and language-games. This is what we do in everyday use of language and no one has any complaint about 'inexactness' in our use of words. If anyone has a complaint, he or she owes us a definition of 'exactness'!  "What we are destroying is nothing but houses of cards and we are clearing up the ground of language on which they stand" (Philosophical Investigations, paragraph no. 118. Hereafter, P.I., para. no.).
                                                 If our ordinary language is too coarse and material for what we want to say,
'how is another one to be constructed' with what we have? (See P.I., para.no. 120). Meaning is not something other than the word. "Here the word, there the meaning. The money, and the cow that you can buy with it. (But contrast: money, and its use)". (P.I., para. no. 120)."Every sign 'by itself' seems dead. 'What' gives it life? In use it is 'alive'. Is life breathed into it there? Or is the 'use' its life?" (P,I,, para.no. 432). A sign is alive in its use. A language-game is understood when we understand the rules that constitute it. Rules are conventions or customs in contexts and their observance consists in ways of doing things or living. That is why we cannot understand a language-game without understanding a form of life. And words in language are signs to be used by us. How? We shall see it in the next Post. (To be Contd).

12. Meanings of Words as their Use in Language

                                                            Ludwig Wittgenstein starts his book "Philosophical Investigations" with a quotation from St. Augustine's Confessions, I, 8 that is a description of how children learn language. It is, however, the description of a primitive form of language mainly concerned with naming things around us. Children learn language by naming things by pointing to them and saying their names. It is to be noted here that children learn language not by explanations, but by training in use of language,which has far-reaching consequences in understanding the use of language for conveying meanings. This way language and its use and meaning are being ingrained in children that stand as the foundation for their life-long employment of words meaningfully. One has to keep in mind, however, that meanings are not attached to words like labels nor are the things themselves referred to by the words their meanings. If it were so, we would not have been able to use the same word for many things and many words for the same thing.
                                                           Augustine used single words and mostly nouns to explain how the children learn language. However, single words can be used to convey meanings which are complex, if one is trained for it. Examples are how construction workers act correctly on hearing the words like "slab", "pillar". "concrete" etc. by bringing them to the masons and other builders. They know the meanings of those words by correctly reacting to them by carrying those objects to the persons concerned and that means that they know how to use those words under the circumstances. This presupposes a particular kind of training and with a different type of training, results could have been different even if in both cases the method of ostensive teaching was followed. Ostensive teaching is the method used for teaching children the names of things as we have seen above. The reason for this anomaly is that pointing to a thing can mean different things in different situations and circumstances of persons and therefore previous training is a necessity for capturing the right meanings of words. It is immaterial what kind of an image is evoked in one's mind in hearing a word as it does not influence its meaning since meaning is determined by its correct use seen in appropriate actions. Words and their meanings are not isolated parts, but are connected to the whole web of language just as a brake is set up by connecting up rod and lever within a mechanism. In isolation from the mechanism, it is not even a lever, let alone a brake-lever.
                                                         As the child's language is expanded to include not only simple nouns, but also words like "there", "this" and numerals etc., the training methods also are expanded. One may think of words like tools in a tool box: hammer. pliers, a saw, a screw-driver, a ruler, a glue-pot, glue, nails, screws etc. Although all of them are called tools, their functions differ and just so the functions of words are diverse. However, in the case of words, their uniform appearance confuses us as their application is not presented to us clearly, especially in Philosophy! Compare words to the handles looking more or less alike in the cabin of a locomotive. The handle of a crank can be moved continuously (regulating the opening of a valve); the handle of a switch has only two effective positions, either on or off; if the handle of a brake-lever is pulled harder, the harder it brakes and the handle of a pump that has an effect only when it is moved to and fro. The words in language too have diverse uses though they look alike or even the same words may be used differently for different purposes. There is no one element in common in the use of  those tools and this is true of the words we use in language too. Therefore, it is essential for our understanding to know how words signify something in our language before declaring the meaninglessness of any expression in language.
                                                        Some might wonder what is the connection between this kind of analysis of language and the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, our original theme. The connection has to be seen in the contexts of claims by anyone extolling the merits of scientific language as against that of religious language. Our endeavor is to show that scientific language cannot be sealed up in an ivory tower in the face of acute logical observations about the way our language functions that is applicable to scientific language as well as religious language and any employment of words with meaning anywhere. (To be Contd).  

11. The Problem of Communication

                                                              Do we succeed in communicating our ideas to others in such a way that they capture the real meaning of what we say instead of misunderstanding it? This is a problem even in our ordinary communication of everyday life and is all the more so in specialized fields of knowledge. This problem is multiplied in religious, ethical, moral etc. fields where we do not have direct perceptions of realities we talk about. We have already seen in the previous Posts the roles played by belief, knowledge and faith in our everyday life and how they influence our life. However, the problems with communication of realities pertaining to this world and the world beyond this visible one are not the same. The former are handled by empirical sciences like Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc. that are amenable to verification through experiments and explanations to prove the theories, axioms, hypotheses etc. advanced by them. On the contrary, the latter (the invisible world) is discussed by Metaphysics, Theology etc. using our Reason with Logic in the case of Metaphysics and Revelation from God and Logic in the case of Theology. Anyone who is attracted solely to this material world and its values will root for merely 'scientific knowledge' and disregard other types as mere myth and fantasy. They think that they can opt for the superior value of 'scientific knowledge' without realizing that their scientific view of the world cannot support itself without the tacit support of Metaphysics underlying their conception of the Universe through the science of Physics.
                                                           Why do we say that Physics needs the tact support of Metaphysics in order to make sense of scientific discoveries? Nothing can be known without the observer effect affecting our knowledge, which means that the observer or the one who knows is part and parcel of what is known as is shown by the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg and discoveries in Quantum Physics. Albert Einstein's Relativity Principle in its second postulate reinforces the same role of the observer in defining Time and Space that results in our understanding of the speed of light as constant. Therefore, our science is one of how we experience the universe and not the universe "in itself" to say something about which we need Metaphysics. Even the speed of light is defined as constant relative to us as a result of how we experience the universe. In this effort of scientific inquiries, the role of Metaphysics is not visible just like in a study of a river, the river bed does not come to the fore unless and until the bed is shifted from under the river! Is it logical to deny the existence of the river bed because it does not enter into consideration in a study of the river? Is the study of the river more valuable than the one about river beds with the label "unscientific" just because the latter did not enter into the study of the former? 
                                                           Our problems of communication arise from meaningless words, unsubstantiated experiences, misunderstandings, muddled language etc. that can be corrected only through a clear view of how our language, whichever one we happen to use, actually works. This task is undertaken by the Philosophy of language that has many versions and applications. The Linguistic Analysis of our ordinary language as practiced by the great Philosopher of the 20th century, Ludwig Wittgenstein, should be of immense help if it is rightly understood. His method of analysis demolished many of the traditional ways of doing Philosophy and Theology opening new vistas that might help us to see things in new ways. Old ways of doing Philosophy and Theology need a complete revolution so that new insights can take hold of our life and turn it around. We shall see a few glimpses of his thought in the coming Posts as far it goes to enlighten us on the meaningfulness of religious language like the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

10. What is Consciousness?

                                                                       As human beings we are conscious and it is evident, for instance, when we have pain and pleasure. But this is the case with the animals too and we have to admit that they too are conscious. Some would ascribe consciousness even to plants and inanimate things too including the whole universe. Of course, they would mean it in different senses other than we understand it in the humans where our prototype of consciousness has its home. Accordingly, even the animals have consciousness to a lesser degree than in the humans and any other understanding and ascription of consciousness even to mere material things is far removed from the prototype itself. Here is a case, one could say, that an idea dies the death of a thousand qualifications so much so that the original is scarcely discernible at the end. What is more, some would like to argue that even machines with artificial intelligence could one day said to be conscious like the humans. Here we have to remember that the humans are able to transcend this world and even transcend themselves culminating in conscience that opens to a larger reality. Any machine with artificial intelligence, but without the ability of self-transcendence culminating in conscience, cannot be said to be similar to the conscious human beings. We shall, therefore, look at the human consciousness and its implications for our general welfare in our life.
                                                                    If it is admitted that animals are our closest allies in the matter of consciousness, it is imperative to see what is unique in human consciousness. If not, the humans will be considered as just a little more evolved animals and nothing more. We have no problem with the theory of evolution, even though there are unsolved problems in the theory itself, to see it as a particular mode of creation of everything by God. It is like the case of the Big Bang theory, which some believe is incompatible with the belief in the creation of the universe by God. The ultimate reason for our conviction that God is the creator, in spite of many theories challenging it, is that God is not bound to any particular mode of creation, but can use various models as He pleases. God is Spirit and is Consciousness Itself encompassing the whole universe and the humans are at the pinnacle of the pyramid of creation by virtue of the high level of consciousness unseen anywhere else in creation except in spirits without bodies or the angels and the devils. The humans are constituted as spirits in bodies and what we call souls are nothing but spirits in bodies. Our souls exist by participation in the Infinite Consciousness that is God Himself by virtue of direct creation by God, whereas our bodies could be the end product of a gradual evolution. The Genesis account of creation of the humans supports this view from the description that God formed man out of the dust from the ground and breathed life into his nostrils. This life is a participation in the very life of God designated as soul by us.
                                                        The humans being composed of both body and soul, our consciousness has to do justice both to the body and to the soul. There should be a proper balance so that finer realities of life do not escape us. If we are too engrossed in the bodily aspects of our consciousness, we shall not be able to capture its deeper and nicer side for which the faculties of our soul should be developed. In daily life we are at the mercy of our mind that is but a web of soul's faculties like intellect,  will and reason on one side and the five sense faculties of sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste controlled by our brain on the other. Our consciousness may be numbed by excessive indulgence of our senses without any control and we shall become aliens to higher truths like the resurrection from the dead. Since our consciousness plays a crucial role in whatever we perceive and this is a scientific fact proved by the theory of relativity and Quantum physics, we have to allow our consciousness to be polished and adorned to be open to truths beyond the confines of this material world. For this we don't have to run away from the world and its normal pleasures, but be detached from them, even as we use them, in order not be enslaved by them. Thus being free in spirit, we are well on our way to understand sublime truths like the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. How do we communicate this deep truth to others as it is meant to touch the innermost core of their being?                                                                    

9. The Physical and the Non-Physical

                                                                      How do we know that there is anything beyond the physical universe, under study by various empirical sciences, called the non-physical? If there is any claim for the existence of anything non-physical how do we come to know the same, which is obviously beyond the realm of the physical world? This very vital question can be answered only if those interested in it have an open mind without any preconceived notions of the nature of reality. Can anyone be that open so as to have, so to say, a blank mind as all of us are at various stages of our life with multiple experiences and ideas gained through them? What we have to do at the beginning of our investigations is to bracket them all for the duration of our investigations so that an unbiased mind can look and see what is involved.
                                                                      The various empirical sciences like physics, chemistry, biology and any other that deals with this physical world uses the principle of causality as the means to inquire into the depths of reality. This investigation from effects to their causes reaches a point where the first cause that starts the process cannot be located, since everything must have a cause. Many scientists fail to realize the logically impossible situation where a closed system of causality is unable to cross over its own limits and locate the beginning of the process of cause and effect.The solution to their dilemma lies in the recognition that their principle of causality is valid only in the material physical world they are engaged in and not to any other dimension of reality. As they are bound up with the physical aspect of reality, they cannot have an overview of the entire spectrum of possible reality that may exist over and above the material, physical
world.
                                                                     As the scientific method is applicable only to this physical universe and is restricted by the principle of causality that cannot go over the limit of this universe and yet we yearn to know about the beginning of everything, our sole refuge is philosophy. Logic is the stronghold of Philosophy, although it is also applied in Empirical Sciences as well as in Mathematics in their restricted fields. The first principle in Philosophy for explanations or justifications is the Principle of Sufficient Reason that states: Everything that is or exists should have a reason either in itself or outside of it. An existence that has reason in itself and does not depend on the reasons from outside of itself is supported by the prime principles of identity and contradiction or non-contradiction. These two principles underlie a statement like "I AM WHO AM" (See Exodus, 3:14). Anything that has a reason outside itself is governed by the Principle of Causality. Everything that exists in the order of cause and effect is ruled by the Principle of Causality that says that every effect must have a cause outside of itself. This Principle is used by the Empirical Sciences in their investigations and they cannot go beyond the last cause or causes in the empirical order and are handicapped to say anything about the absolute beginning of everything. Here Philosophy comes to our aid with the Principle of Sufficient Reason that can go beyond the Principle of Causality used by the scientific method.This Principle asks for a reason in itself in cases where there cannot be a reason from outside itself, because an infinite regress does not help explain even the Principle of Causality. For the same reason, there cannot be many beings as the ultimate one, but only one. As it has no reason or cause outside of itself, its essence and existence cannot be separate, but identical. Its essence must be its existence and that means that it cannot not exist and that is the Necessary Being whom we call God. 
                                                                 This being the case with our capacity to know things, the fact that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead has elements both physical and non-physical need not baffle us in any way. If it does in anyone's case, that is only because he or she is blindly addicted to the scientific method that is restricted to the merely physical. The scientific method has its uses in its proper field of this physical universe and even in the case of the resurrection of Jesus, the historical and physical elements have been subjected to innumerable scientific studies. Such studies have to stop at the physical level leaving to faith of the believers the transcendental aspect of the reality of resurrection. If the reality of the resurrection of Jesus were restricted to this world alone without any reference to the world to come, it would be of not much consequence to us. Now, to insist, without any reason, that there is nothing beyond this physical universe is most illogical, unwarranted, unscientific and reprehensible. The scientific method sees everything as an object of investigation even in the case of the subject who investigates and does not bother about the world of consciousness that makes every investigation possible in the first place. It is not negligence, but incapacity of the scientific method, where Philosophy is able to make contributions. In the case of resurrection, the role of consciousness is supreme that cannot be touched by the scientific method that includes the neurological, psychological, etc., studies of the mind

8.The Resurrection of Jesus as our Leitmotif

                                                                        What is a motif in life? A motif may be defined as a singular, finite element that unifies the whole. A leitmotif is the dominant and recurring theme in life as is seen in a musical concert. Given this definition, a motif in life is an event or fact that is able to unify and extol our life to its true potentiality. For this reason, we may choose the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as our leitmotif to enhance our life in its entirety. Our life has dimensions beyond this temporal, material world that is designated by 'eternal life'. What is important is to insert the dimensions of eternity into our present life. How this is possible without assistance from the one who has passed through the human condition to transform it through death and resurrection?
                                                                          Death means a complete disconnection from this world by means of the dissolution of our body.  Our body and the five senses, so to say, chain us to this material world in such a way that our soul is 'imprisoned' in it. The soul needs its own kind of air to 'breathe' and it is supplied by the Spirit bestowed on us as a result of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This is why we should adopt the resurrection as the motif  of our own life. Jesus knew very well the human tendency to see and interpret everything from models acquired from this world and its ways of thinking.What is more, the preferred mode of understanding of even divine mysteries was by extraordinary events and miracles that people at the time of Jesus wanted miracles to believe in him. Jesus discouraged them from running after miracles, as we too sometimes do, and advised them to stick to the Word of God and its realization in the history of the world. He was clearly exasperated by the demand of the people for a sign that he denounced them as an evil and adulterous generation (See Matthew, 16: 4) or as a wicked generation (See Luke, 11: 29) for whom no other sign than that of the prophet Jonah was going to be given. What was the sign of Jonah who was sent by God to preach repentance to the inhabitants of the great city of Nineveh? As Jonah stayed in the belly of the great fish for 3days and 3nights, the Son of Man was to be in the heart of the earth for 3days and 3nights (See Matthew, 12: 40). 
                                                                          The call of Jonah by God and his response indicate what God expects from us and how we respond to the call addressed to each of us. Since God loves all of humanity without any reservation, his preoccupation is to save all for which time and again suitable means are devised by Him and entrusted to a few chosen ones. Jonah was such a chosen person and as he was to proclaim the Word of God to the people of Nineveh, he was called a prophet. The message he was to communicate was a simple one, that of repentance by the people of Nineveh who displeased God through their sinful life. If the people refused to listen and mend their ways, God was going to destroy the great city of Nineveh as He did with Sodom and Gomorrah. Jonah thought of running away from his mission as he knew that God being so loving and forgiving, at the very first signs of repentance from the people, he was going to forgive them making a fool of himself. He wanted to deliver a message if that brought honor and glory for him, irrespective of the welfare of the people. God took action to teach him proper lessons at each of his attempt to rebel and do his own will even in a mission that was merely entrusted to him by God. Staying in the belly of the great fish was for Jonah the means to feel completely helpless and get rid of his attachments to the world and his self-will. Staying in the heart of the earth for Jesus was the culmination of his detachment from the world and his own self-will, having surrendered himself completely to the Father's Will. While Jonah was chastened to fulfill God's Will, Jesus was raised up from the dead in order to be a life-giving Spirit (1 Corinthians, 15: 45). To come under the spell of the risen Jesus should be our constant wish and prayer for which let us adopt the resurrection of Jesus as our motif in life.
                                                                         

7. Faith in the Resurrection: Is it Rational?

                                                                       Compatibility or incompatibility of faith and reason is an old problem that crops up now and again. Is there any contradiction between the two? In our last post "Belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ", we have seen the difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge' and how they differ. While 'belief' has its origin in the natural order of this world, 'faith' originates from an enlightenment of our mind from an order transcending this material world and is the result of graces received from God. Our capacity to 'believe', that is in the natural order like when we believe our teacher in the class, can serve as the foundation for 'faith' in God and His revelations to us. Belief in the resurrection of Jesus may lead to faith in him in the process of verification of facts about the resurrection. Here we have the instance of the declared faith of the Apostle Thomas in the process of verification of the facts about resurrection of Jesus directly from Jesus himself (See John, 20: 27-29).
                                                                       Before we discuss the compatibility of faith and reason, let us start with the compatibility of belief and knowledge as these latter are but particular manifestations of the former. If we look at children and how they learn about the world around them and how they try to talk about what they understand, we see the importance of belief and the gradual blossoming of knowledge based on their belief. Children blindly believe what their parents and other mentors tell them and take them as absolutely true. Here the words 'blindly believe' are actually superfluous as there is no alternative for children. Thus we see that 'belief' is not something optional for any of us as we have built our life on it. Gradually, when we are in contact with the world in different ways and undergo new experiences, doubts arise in our minds as to the truth of certain beliefs held as true by us. It is not that our parents and others had deliberately deceived us when we were children, but at that age we were incapable to understand better or our parents and mentors were ignorant about certain facts themselves. By verification of facts at that stage, we proceed to gain knowledge that in no way should demean our beliefs as children. Besides, at the stage of acquiring knowledge our belief system is in no way demolished as only a few facts here and there were added to our beliefs that could not be known earlier. Our belief system always remains in force as the foundation of our knowledge even when we discuss highly complex scientific truths later on in life. Similar is the case with faith and reason.
                                                                      'Faith' as distinguished from 'Belief'' refers to belief in truths transcending the material order of this world and refers to the supernatural order. Although both terms may be used to refer to both the orders of reality, in certain cases we may make the distinction in order not to confuse the issues involved. What is the relationship between 'Faith' and 'Reason'? Faith and belief always have their life and force when they refer to our trust and loyalty to a person who guides us in life, for which assenting to what she or he tells us is only a means. It is to be reflected in our personal life so that we tend to become like our guide. In this endeavor, our 'Reason' should serve us as the critical observer that prepares the way for faith or belief and as the judge that eliminates exaggerations likely to be indulged in under false pretenses. 'Reason' has its proper field of action in the line of knowledge seeking truth for which any kind of 'Faith' should not stand as a stumbling block. However, here 'Reason' has to remember that it should not be allowed to be arbitrarily restricted to the material conception of reality as the whole truth. This is especially true after the discovery of the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg and the latest developments in Quantum Physics. These developments have opened a window to the metaphysical from where 'Faith' takes its air to breathe. Of course, the metaphysical realm lies hidden like the river bed of a river, which may be compared to the physical.
                                                                     As for the faith in the resurrection of Jesus, it has a historical as well as a trans-historical, i.e., transcendental dimension without which, just a coming back to life to die again, is powerless to save the whole universe. This dimension belonging to the other world cannot be verified by our Reason that is limited due to its confinement in our body and therefore knowledge gained through verification of the facts of the resurrection can only aid our faith. Faith and Reason need not contradict each other if they both realize their proper functions and fields of activity. Thus, faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is not irrational and therefore can be reasonably adopted as our motif in life.     

6. Belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

                                                          What is belief? Is it something of lesser value than knowledge? The false notion that compared to our beliefs, knowledge, especially the scientific kind, is far superior and therefore the former should be looked down upon in the presence of the latter is rampant in our age. Why is it a false notion? The truth is that all of us as children learn the facts of and in life from our parents, elders and teachers based on our belief in them and the truth of what they say and teach us. We see that our belief in them as children blossoms into trust in them and every piece of 'knowledge' the children acquire arises from their belief in  them. On a wider setting, for a society or community of people, we may note that it is 'culture' that stands as the background of our 'world-view' (the way we look at the world). This world-view is built upon our core beliefs gained from culture defining our perception of everything that pertains to our existence. Our understanding of reality is supported by certain basic assumptions, which are not themselves supported by any thing else but our culture, and accepted by us as most solid facts. This is the nature of culture and no one who lives in a society or community is exempt from it.
                                                            Does it mean that belief alone is the source of our knowledge and we don't have to depend on verifiable facts as they do in sciences? Not at all. As we move on in life, doubts creep in into our belief systems and we are forced to learn about how things really are and our investigations into "facts" are the foundation of our knowledge. Knowledge, thus, is later than belief and does not, because it cannot, question the overall foundation of our belief system. This is the case with our belief in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead that may proceed to faith because of the special nature of the reality

of resurrection. Given the nature of resurrection both as this worldly and other worldly there is nothing repugnant if both belief and knowledge as well as faith are required to take in this reality. Jesus formed a community of disciples in order to train them to combine this multifaceted reality into a coherent whole. The Gospels tell us how the disciples led by the Apostles struggled to do the same by gradually believing in Jesus and verifying the evidences of .resurrection culminating in their solid faith in the person of Jesus for whom they surrendered their life itself.               
                                                          Does the above analysis give sour taste in anyone's mouth as it looks like less rational than our scientific knowledge? In this connection, we have to draw attention to the fact that according to Linguistic Analysis any meaning whatever is based on our shared life in communities. Outside a particular community of shared life and experiences, a person is at a loss to understand what is said and discussed by the members of that particular community. This is applicable to all kinds of discourses, not only to the scientific and religious ones, but also to the most mundane ones like jokes cracked by performers at certain events. Therefore belief and faith are not something to be derided at as they belong to the very structure of our reality that no one can sensibly deny. Belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, therefore, is most sensible  and we should not give into charlatans who look for cheap applause from audiences that may be caught unawares. To pray always and be watchful is the advise given by Jesus himself in order to navigate safely through this very complex web of life we are immersed in!  

5. The Holy Spirit in our Life

                                                                       Jesus promised us another advocate before the Father in order not to leave us orphans when he had to return to the Father after completing his mission entrusted to him by the Father (See John, 14:16). The Spirit of God had been active from the beginning of the world as we see from the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis. Throughout the history of Israel, we see how the Spirit of God directs the course of their relationship with God through their leaders like Moses and Joshua, kings and prophets etc. Even the life of Jesus was under the influence of the Holy Spirit beginning with his conception in the womb of Mary and culminating in his resurrection. However, although the Spirit was given  sporadically to individuals before the resurrection of Jesus, it was only with his resurrection that the Holy Spirit was given as a matter of course to everyone(See John, 7: 39). If the Spirit is given to everyone without any restrictions, what is the role of the Church and why should the Gospel be proclaimed throughout the world?
                                                                      In order to answer this vital question, we have to be prepared for understanding the distinction between the role of an infrastructure and its actual use.The whole redemptive work of Jesus Christ as well as the establishment of the Church may be considered as the infrastructure of salvation that has to be freely appropriated by us. In this sense, God has shown us the way to Him and as it is the only way acceptable to Him, Jesus Christ and the Church occupy a unique position in the plan of God. Here arises the necessity of Gospel Proclamation announcing the acceptable way to God, which, however, does not restrict the action of the Spirit as it wills and where it wills. The Holy Spirit is bestowed upon the faithful through the sacraments of the Church for the purpose of inviting the faithful to become disciples of Jesus Christ. The genuine disciples of Jesus Christ alone are able to proclaim the Gospel through their witnessing and preaching of the Gospel. The Church should not be led by the false notion that the consequence of its special election is the rejection of all others as Israel was unfortunately led to believe.
                                                                     St. Paul tells us what are the implications of 'walking in the spirit'(See Galatians, 5: 13-26). As we are freed by Jesus Christ from the yoke of slavery imposed on us by Satan, we are not obliged to be under the tyranny of the flesh and are free to walk in the Spirit. The Spirit and the flesh are opposed to each other and we should refrain from satisfying the cravings of the flesh and walk in the Spirit instead. The acts of the flesh are mentioned in Galatians, 5: 19-21and the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians, 5: 22-23. Add to this the loving service to our neighbor with humility and we are on the fast track to self-transformation, effected by the Holy Spirit, leading to victory over death culminating in our own resurrection. In this way, we follow Jesus Christ not only in life but also eternally by turning our death into the gateway of the new life along with him.
                                                                     How shall we connect this mystery of our life in everyday experiences to our ordinary way of speaking to make it more meaningful? Jesus himself invited us to consider the fate of a seed that falls to the ground and dies so that it may produce much fruit and compare it with our own life (See John, 12: 24-25). Jesus actually enunciated a fundamental law of life from which no one and nothing is exempt. The richness and fullness of life are hidden in our everyday realities that very often are missed by us in the hustle and bustle of life. The life eternal is nothing but a continuation of our present life, if only we understand the mysteries of life. The presence of the Holy Spirit, freely given by the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, is operative in the world and our co-operation with the Spirit is our response to the invitation for us prepared by God Himself. The wonderful fact of life is that in order to be sanctified now and be glorified later, we do not have to run away from our ordinary life, but only be faithful in our daily duties keeping in mind the presence of God through His Spirit always and everywhere.

4. Self-Denial Leads to Self-Ttransformation

                                           The long road to self-transformation starts with the daily struggle of our everyday life in which is contained like in a seed the mystery of our own resurrection to a new life after death. Jesus wanted his disciples to understand this great truth from his own life and death from which they had to learn lessons. For this purpose they were instructed about how to conduct themselves in their day to day life. All those who want to follow Jesus and become his disciples should deny themselves, take up their daily cross and follow him (See Matthew, 16: 24-25; Mark, 8: 34-35; Luke, 9: 23-24). Why did Jesus insist on self denial for our well-being? The reason is that our self has two aspects to it - one is the visible, outward-looking, and dependent on our body, and the other invisible, inward-looking and dependent on our soul. Usually we tend to understand by self the former that connects us to the world , neglecting the latter that connects us to God. Although our real self is the latter one whereby we are the images of God Himself, our apparent self forces us to be engaged in the world forgetting all about our real self. When Jesus demanded self denial from us, he wanted us to deny our false self that masquerades as our real self. The difficulty here as well as in our spiritual life in general is to separate what is essentially inseparable, namely, the body and the soul and in their turn the apparent and real selves. We say that the soul is separated from the body at death, and self denial involves a certain kind of death to our false self in order to let the real self shine forth.
                                       In order to overcome this seemingly insuperable problem, Jesus asked us to leave everything behind including our own selves besides our near and dear ones etc. (See Matthew, 10: 37; Mark, 8: 34-35; Luke, 14:26; John, 12:25). As we cannot escape this world and its compulsions on us as long as we live in a body thoroughly attuned to this material world, how is it possible for us to leave everything behind? Same is the case with our social life beginning with our family and the wider society. Even those who completely abandon the world like the monks and nuns cannot avoid the world and its demands altogether, beginning with our need to eat and drink. Similarly, our need of the society and the necessity to interact with it cannot be ignored either. What about the demand of Jesus to leave behind our own selves? Clearly, one leaves behind one's own self through self denial. Similarly, one leaves one's family and the world itself by being detached from them. 'Detachment' means to curb our natural tendency to be attracted and be attached to persons and things we have a liking for whatever reason. True detachment prevents us from being sucked into relationships and attitudes that enslaves us robbing us of our freedom to be open to any other genuine relationship. An attached person cannot have true relationship with God either as we cannot serve two masters at the same time. This is why Jesus said that we cannot love both God and Money at the same time (See Matthew, 6; 24; Luke, 16: 13).
                                                          True detachment has nothing to do with indifference or insensitiveness to human problems as some might think that detachment from the world is an escape from the world! On the contrary, a truly detached person is so totally free from the compulsions of this world that he or she can be fully involved and be sensitive to human problems. Let us remember here what Jesus said about the Pharisees and Lawyers among the Jews in their zeal to observe the traditions of the humans neglecting the commandments of God (See Mark, 7: 5-8). The kind of self-denial required for our self-transformation leading to our own resurrection is implied in genuine detachment from the world and its nefarious attractions. It consists in doing our daily duties with dedication and humility offering our success and failure to the glory of God and for the benefit of humanity. Jesus admonished Martha that only one thing was necessary and Mary had chosen the better part that will not be taken away from her (See Luke, 10: 41-42). Was it not necessary for Martha to prepare lunch for Jesus and if she also were to just sit at the feet of Jesus, who would serve lunch in time? Was it too much to ask for a hand in helping her to prepare the same? Jesus did not deny the value of Martha's service that was also necessary. What was unacceptable to Jesus was her anxiety and vanity, that was evident from her 'busybody' attitude, denigrating the value of listening to the word of life Mary was engaged in. Only one thing was necessary that had two inseparable parts, namely, clarity of thought and purity of heart deriving from clarity. Detachment and true action would follow negating the too human tendencies of being blindly attached to what one does and seeking approval and glory from others. Genuine detachment contained in self-denial saves us from this kind of peril into which we are prone to fall. Gradually, self-transformation takes place as the Holy Spirit abides in us to support and sanctify us.

3. Self-Transformation is Necessary for Eternal Life

                                                                       Resurrection means complete transformation of our self that is definitive and belonging to the divine order. This is what we see in the resurrection of Jesus Christ whereby he became a life-giving Spirit in contrast to Adam who became a living being in his creation by God (See 1 Corinthians, 1: 45). Resurrection implies death and coming to life again with a transformed and transfigured body that may be termed a "spiritual body" (See 1 Corinthians, 15:  42-44). The great philosopher of the 20th century Ludwig Wittgenstein has this to say about death and eternal life: "Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits" (Tractatus Logico-philosophicus, 6. 431). We see here how eternal life can be understood philosophically using our ordinary language by comparing it with the limitlessness of our visual field for the sake of understanding the concept of 'endlessness'. The right way of considering eternal life is not an infinitely long time, but timelessness itself. The consequence of this understanding is very relevant to our present life that will have repercussions on our eternal life, especially because living in the present meaningfully is most important.
                                                                     Living in the present does not mean that the past has no relevance nor that the future has no impact on our lives in the present. It means that given the fact of the influences of the past and the future, we have to live moment to moment with alertness so that our present life may flow smoothly into eternal life. In fact, we already start living eternal life from the temporal end to be changed into the unchangeable life eternal. Jesus invited us to "watch and pray so that we may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing,but the flesh is weak" (Matthew, 26: 41). This was said in the context of his prayer at Gethsemane when the disciples took it easy and slept through the agony of Jesus in spite of warning them. It shows that our dependence on God is absolutely necessary to convert our temporal life into the eternal one and the primary means for the same is our humble payer for power from above. Prayer is effective when its effects are seen in our lives like the shedding of the old personality in us for a new one. This means a revolution in our life through a new outlook, new aspirations and positive qualities of life. Such a life heralds the beginning of eternal life, the culmination of which is in the Kingdom of God announced by Jesus (See Mark, 1: 15; Matthew, 3:2).
                                                                     The life of Jesus was ordered to glorification through resurrection before which it passed through the daily challenges and obstacles causing suffering and death. His life is our model to be followed for self-transformation leading to glorification through our own resurrection. Suffering and death are inbuilt into our lives accepting which whole-heartedly for transforming them into effective means of wholeness in our lives is approved by God through His Son, Jesus Christ. If we are prepared to accept ourselves with all our limitations, trying to overcome them if possible, we are already on the road to eternal life. All our religious practices are meant to enrich ourselves before God so that the graces showered upon us may be utilized to improve our final destiny. If we follow the instructions of Jesus, demonstrated by his own life, our lives will be enriched with permanent love, joy and peace reigning in our hearts. This is but the beginning of eternal life already here on earth!   

2. The New Life is Eternal Life

                                                                       The human tendency is to look at life within the confined space of this world and there is nothing wrong in it as we are born and brought up within this material world. We start with the material kind of life nourishing our body and should end with the spiritual life that helps the soul to shine forth. St. Paul says the same in 1 Corinthians, 15: 46 and the whole chapter is about the resurrection of Jesus and our own resurrection and different kinds of bodies including the "spiritual bodies". The main difference between the physical and the spiritual is that while the former is temporal and temporary, the latter is eternal and never-ending. The physical and the material, represented by the body, does not have life in itself and is not suitable for eternal life by itself. The spiritual and the immaterial is fit for holding life in itself that is also eternal and can communicate the same to the body turning it into a "spiritual body".
                                                                        The things go wrong the moment we adhere to this world and its attractions in such a way that we are enslaved by them. There is no harm in using the world and the material things in it in order to grow physically strong that should be but a prelude to help explore our soul's life in its fullness. Normally, there is no separation between the two till death and yet for spiritual growth we have to be conscious of the two with opposite natures for managing harmony and real growth. Jesus exhorted us to leave everything behind starting with our self in order to follow him (See Mark, 8: 34). Leaving everything behind is incompatible with our deadly attachment to the things and persons of this world and is made possible with our detachment from them even as we live among them and interact with them. Jesus also advised us to store our treasure in heaven since our heart is where our treasure is (See Matthew, 6: 20-21).
                                                                       From the use of language by both Jesus and Paul, it is clear that our ordinary everyday language is good enough to explain divine mysteries to ordinary people. For, sophisticated  people will try to thwart the simple explanations offered through ordinary language by their sophistries gained from various kinds of philosophies. However, they are on the way to meet disaster as their sophistries cannot stand without the solid support of ordinary language. Even the scientific language ultimately has to depend on the ordinary language for a sure footing for the highly developed special language used in their investigations. Therefore, the validity of the ordinary language,if used to express highly placed matters of divine life, cannot be questioned by empirical sciences. The final reason for the same is that both scientific and religious languages are independent of each other where one may not impose its own views on the other. In Wittgenstein's thinking, they belong to different "language-games" independent of each other and therefore the one cannot be questioned by the other in the matter of meaningful use of language.
                                                                    The independence of language-games from each other may be compared with the games we usually play, say cricket and football. Because their rules are different no one will say that either of them is not a game nor will they be judged for correctness and acceptability by means of the rules of any one of them on the other. Similarly, religious and scientific languages belong to two different language-games with different rules of their particular languages learnt from the communities they belong to. Agreements in their communications arise from conventions and social customs learnt from the kind of life they have been living through. This being the case, both Jesus and Paul as well as others after them, formed communities of disciples and believers to whom they could communicate divine mysteries meaningfully. In this context we should be able to see how the new life is eternal life.   

1.THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST FROM THE DEAD

                                                                        INTRODUCTION

                                                                        What is the scope of this Study? In this age of scientific and technological advances, who is going to be interested in faith in someone who died and returned to life fully transformed with a view to transforming the entire universe including the human beings? It is essentially an invitation to all people of good will to just stop in their tracks and consider the message of Good News extended to all. No one can be forced to accept this message as it is essentially an invitation like for participating in a wedding feast. The invitation specifies that everything has been prepared and the invitees only need to attend it in good taste. The minimum requirement that need not be specified is to present oneself fittingly in the common celebration(mentioned as 'wedding garments' in the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew, 22: 2-14). Would anyone say that this invitation and the expected minimum requirement to attend it worthily is unreasonable? The same is the case with the message of Good News (Gospel) proclaimed by Jesus Christ and continued by the Apostles and the disciples of Christ and later on by the Church. What is the connection of the Good News with the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
                                                                           Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven (Kingdom of God) as the substance of the Good News that started in his person with his resurrection from the dead. As there are innumerable studies on the historicity and credibility of the fact of resurrection of Jesus, we shall not go into it directly. Our method here is to inquire into the rationality of the belief in the resurrection of Jesus in the atmosphere created by the scientific spirit of the age, denigrating thereby anything outside its purview as rationally suspect. We want to examine this premise on rational grounds that cannot be shaken off by any reasonable person. We shall be using the Philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein and his analysis of language as the use of language cannot be avoided by anyone wishing to express something. Wittgenstein himself ended his book on the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" with the famous observation: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent".   
                                                                          In order to follow Wittgenstein, one has to be patient in reading through his observations without preconceived ideas about reality, way of knowing and ways of expression etc. with a view to seeing things as they are by closely looking at what is presented before us. In his 'Philosophical Investigations', No.104 Wittgenstein says: "We predicate of the thing what lies in the method of representing it. Impressed by the possibility of a comparison, we think we are perceiving a state of affairs of the highest generality." In order to forestall the possibility of a dispute of what constitutes a language,Wittgenstein makes the following observation in P.I., No. 494: "I want to say: It is 'primarily' the apparatus of our ordinary language, of our word-language, that we call language; and then other things by analogy or comparability with this". What is more, we need not bother about theories and explanations as they do it in empirical sciences since everything is open to view and nothing is hidden from us. We only have to look closely at phenomena and describe them as they are presented to us as everything is open to an open mind, without preconceived notions. Here one feels a bell ringing from what St. Paul said in Romans, 1: 18-25 about our refusal to see what is plainly before our eyes for revelation of truth resulting in our wickedness and self-deceit.      
                                                                      In the Gospels we see how Jesus uses ordinary language to expound the mysteries of the Kingdom of God through parables, analogies, stories, comparisons etc. validating our everyday language as capable of communicating the highest mysteries. This observation is all the more relevant in the context of highly developed scientific and mathematical languages for special purposes. While this is legitimate in itself, the underlying and unspoken disdain shown to our everyday ordinary language by at least a few of the experts is not only unwarranted, but also self-defeating. Wittgenstein has shown how it is self-destructive by showing that any expression of ideas must at its base be supported by our ordinary language for its verification and meaningfulness. So, back to the everyday ordinary language as at the root for meaningful use of any language. The conclusion is that what we want to say about the resurrection of Jesus Christ too should be able to be communicated in our everyday ordinary language. The best way to do it is to look at Jesus himself how he prepared his disciples for the event of his resurrection, although at the time they hardly understood what he meant. We shall try to delineate in the following Posts the point Jesus wanted his disciples to learn about his resurrection from the dead and the new life concomitant with it, that is divine life itself.