\begin{chapter}{The Crucified and Resurrected Revealer}
    The concept of the Trinity follows from the Paschal Mystery (the death and resurrection of Jesus and the pouring out of the Spirit): the Father gave up the Son, the Son was given up or gave Himself up. The Spirit gave Christ the new life of the resurrection, in which everyone can take part. The sign of the cross directly links the concept of the Trinity with the Paschal Mystery. It revealed that God is present also in suffering.

    \subsubsection*{Revelation through the cross}

    Including Jesus in the image of the Israelite God is no break with monotheism. The Christian God is both a Master of the Universe, as in the Jewish tradition, and One close to the oppressed. And, it was truly God who was crucified.

    We can trace the progressive way the first Christians look at the cross through Paul, Mark, Luke and John:

    \begin{description}
        \item[Paul:] all this happened to the glory of God the Father.
        \item[Mark:] Jesus was the Son of God, although this was recognised only with His death.
        \item[Luke:] even the earthly Jesus already bore the Spirit. With Whit Sunday, Jesus is the Co-Sender of that Spirit.
        \item[John:] Jesus is the divine Revealer of God the Father and promises the sending/coming of the Holy Spirit. In this Gospel we find the clearest picture of the Trinity.
    \end{description}

    Both Paul and John the evangelist address the theme of \emph{divine love}. This is not only a means, but in the Johannine epistles also the identity of God.

    Also in the cross alone (i.e. without linking it to the resurrection) we find an important theme, namely `\emph{ubi dolor, ibi Christus}' or `\emph{ubi crux, ibi Christus}'.

    \subsubsection*{Revelation through the resurrection}

    According to Augustine, it is the belief of the resurrection that distinguishes the Christian faith from other religions. Fundamental theologians must therefore perform \emph{the apologetic task} of putting a reasonable case for accepting the resurrection, and \emph{the doctrinal task} of showing how it embodies the fullness of revelation.

    \subsubsection*{A case for the resurrection}
    We need to cover three areas:
    
    \begin{enumerate}
        \item Clarification of the meaning of the Easter claim.
        \item Exploration of the grounds of that claim.
        \item Effect--cause or `novelties-to-explain' argumentation.
    \end{enumerate}

    \subsubsection*{The meaning of the claim}
    Reductionists may offer the view that Jesus didn't actually rise but rather `rose in the minds and hearts of his disciples', that is, read the relevant parts of the New Testament as figure of speech. Jesus' resurrection would then primarily be a personal resurrection in the life of the disciples. However, that is in conflict with some biblical texts. 
    
    Also the Gospels focus mostly on Jesus' story, not on that of the disciples. The resurrection primarily affected Jesus, and secondarily His followers (through appearances). 

    Others, like Hume, accept the \emph{meaning} of the resurrection while rejecting its \emph{truth} (reductionists alter the meaning so that they may accept the truth, which has been altered thereby as well).

    \subsubsection*{The Easter appearances}
\end{chapter}

