Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

When we read the various accounts of the Resurrection in the four Gospels, Acts and Pauline Epistles we can easily be puzzled by some apparent discrepancies in the details.

The Pope in his recent book, Jesus of Nazareth (Vol II) says, We have to acknowledge that this testimony [of Scripture] considered from an historical point of view, is presented to us in a particularly complex form and gives rise to many questions. (P. 242)

The Pope goes on to explain what he considers to be the reason for this complexity and apparent divergence in some of the details.

What actually happened? Clearly for the witnesses who encountered the risen Lord, it was not easy to say. They were confronted with what, for them, was an entirely new reality, far beyond the limits of their own experience. Much as the reality of the event overwhelmed them and impelled them to bear witness, it was still utterly unlike anything they had previously known. (p. 242).

The Pope then reminds us that Jesus’ resurrection was experienced by them as something far beyond the resuscitation of a corpse. Rather, Jesus had taken up a wholly new and transformed humanity that was beyond anything they could fully describe or had ever experienced.

With all this in mind we are better able to appreciate the ecstatic qualities of the resurrection accounts and appreciate why all their details do not perfectly line up. The accounts have a rather crisp, “lets get to the point” quality; especially the accounts of the first day of the appearances. Frankly, one would be surprised if every detail in the account of an astonishing event were exactly the same. One might even suspect a story that was too controlled and wonder as to a kind of brainwashing or conspiracy having taken place. But as they are, these accounts have every hallmark of the accounts of people who experienced the events truly, but, due to their ecstatic and disorienting quality, recall the details differently or emphasize different facets.

It is important to recall that the Scriptures record the things Jesus actually said and did but they are not written like history is today: Today we attempt or think we write history as an exact chronological and comprehensive analysis of an event or era. But the Scriptures are selective, story-based accounts rather than our modern journalistic approach to history. They will often collect the sayings and deeds of Jesus around certain theological themes, rather than follow an exact time line. The Gosples do not intended to be an exhaustive account of everything Jesus said and did in exact detail (cf Jn 20:30; 21:25). Rather the Evangelists select what is suited to their theological purpose. And yet, despite these distinctions, we must be clear that the gospels are historical accounts, in that they recount the things Jesus actually said and did (cf Dei Verbum # 19)

Now, for the record, there are some apparent, and also real discrepancies in the accounts. The word “apparent” is important though, because not all the discrepancies are real or substantial if we take a closer look at them. Some who wish to cast doubt on the historicity of the Resurrection often wish to make more of these differences than necessary. Many, if not most of the differences can be dealt with quite easily and we are able to ultimately stitch together a reasonably clear account of the resurrection, if we are disposed to do so.

So, lets consider some of the apparent conflicts that emerge in the accounts:

1. How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (Jn 20:21) two (Matt 28:1), or three (Mk 16:1)?
2. Did Magdalene alone go to just Peter and John (Jn 20) or did the several women go to the Apostles (Matt 28; Mk 16)?
3. How many angels did they see there that morning, one (Matt 28:2; Mk 16:5) or two (Lk 24:4; Jn 20:12)?
4. Did the women run to the other disciples and tell what they had seen (Mt 28:8; Lk 24:9) or did they say nothing out of fear (Mk 16:8)?
5. Did Jesus see them first in Galilee (Mk 16:7; Mt 28:9) or in Jerusalem (Jn 20; Lk 24:36)?
6. Among the Apostles, did he appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)?
7. Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)?
8. Lastly, did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)?

At one level some react that some of these details are picky. Who cares really who many women went or how many angels? Perhaps,  but it does not seem wise to simply dismiss the differences this way. Some of the differences ARE quite significant. For example, did Jesus appear to them first in Jerusalem? Luke and John are quite clear that he did. But why then do Mark and Matthew completely ignore this and record that the angel instructed the women to have the disciples go to Galilee where they will see him? Now, as has been stated, these differences can be addressed in a thoughtful manner, but they should not be simply dismissed as of no account.

In what follows I propose to address these differences and give possible resolutions. I am also aware, and expect to hear from some who consider any attempt to resolve these matters “simplistic.” You of course are free to propose other solutions and demonstrate how attempts at a resolution fall short. This is what comments are for. If something seems wrong state why and give evidence or an alternative point of view. So, on to possible solutions.

1. How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (John 20:21), two (Matt 28:1) or three (Mk 16:1) and how many angels were there, one (Mk 16:5, Mat 28:2) or two (Lk 24:4, Jn 20:12)? One solution here is to recall that neither John’s Gospel nor Matthew’s absolutely deny that three women went to the tomb that day. They simply do not mention three whereas Mark does. John especially wishes to focus on Mary Magdalene and may have found it unnecessary to mention the others. Additionally, Matthew and Mark’s mention of one angel need not be seen as an absolute denial that there were two as described in Luke and John. Another solution is simply to acknowledge the discrepancies in the accounts but underscore the fact that the number of women and the number of angels is not the central point. The point is that the tomb was discovered empty by one or several women and they were instructed to tell the apostles what they saw and heard.
2. Matthew (28:8) and Luke (24:9) indicate that the women went and told the disciples of the empty tomb but Mark (16:8) says they were afraid and said nothing. True but in the verses that follow in the appendix to Mark’s own Gospel (Mk. 16:10) Mary Magdalene does in fact tell the apostles. Rather than conflicting with the other texts, Mark may merely supply additional detail about the startled nature of the women, that at first they were startled and said nothing but soon after went on, as Mark in fact says, a did tell the apostles.
3. Mark (16:7) and Matthew (28:9) indicate, according to the angel’s instructions, that Jesus would see them in Galilee but Luke (24:36 and John 20) describe the first appearances in Jerusalem. In addressing this difference we must recall that the gospels are not written as chronological or complete histories. The evangelists selected events from among the many things Jesus said and did and may also have altered the order. John (20:30 & 21:25) explicitly states that his account is selective. Hence we ought not conclude that any one gospel completely details all the resurrection appearances. It is true Mark and Matthew speak only of appearances in Galilee. Thus these accounts might only include the angelic instructions to go to Galilee since that they did not intend to describe appearances elsewhere. In other words it is possible to speculate that the angelic instructions were more elaborate and included instructions as to being prepared to meet Jesus first in Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark however paired these details down in their accounts since they did not intend to include the Jerusalem appearances in their accounts. This may not satisfy our notions of historical accounts wherein we expect and want a complete accounting of all the details. But, as has already been noted the Scriptures simply do not record history in this way. Rather they are selective accounts that open windows on history but do not claim to exhaustively report it. Note also that Matthew and Mark are not clear as to the time frame of the appearances they describe. Luke and John however, set the first appearance in Jerusalem and are rather clear that the day is the same day as the resurrection. Hence we reasonably conclude that the first appearances took place in Jerusalem and later appearances took place in Galilee. In other words the Jerusalem appearances do not conflict with the Galilean appearances in any way. Rather they simply add details that Mark and Matthew, for reasons of their own, chose not to include. Such a conclusion is speculative to be sure. It does, however, help us to see that the accounts do not absolutely contradict each other.
4. Among the Apostles, did Jesus appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)? There seems to be a good case for the fact that the Lord appeared first to Peter even though we do not have a direct account of this appearance in the scriptures. The Gospel of Luke makes mention of it, And they [the disciples traveling to Emmaus] rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”(24:33-34). Paul also records it [The Lord] was raised the third day in accordance with the scriptures…he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time…Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles (1 Cor 15:3ff). So it seems a pretty good case can be made that Peter did see the risen Lord before the other apostles. This quote from Paul also helps us recall that the gospel accounts are selective in terms of which resurrection appearances they report. Thus, as we read the various accounts, we get from each of them only a part of the full picture (see John 20:30). According to Paul there were appearances to Peter, to five hundred disciples, and to James. The details of these appearances are left to our imagination. It also follows that we do not need to see the accounts of John and Matthew cited above as conflicting. They may well be describing different appearances.
5. Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)? Again, we need not place these texts at odds with one another. Most likely they are describing different appearances. Since the time frame of John is clear that the appearances in the upper room took place on Resurrection Sunday and then a week later we can presume that these appearances took place first. The mountaintop appearance was in Galilee and the time frame is not clear. It may have been days or weeks later.
6. Did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)? At first glance the texts from Luke and Mark do seem to imply that the ascension was the same day as the resurrection. However, a closer look will show that they are rather vague as to the time frame. Mark begins the passage leading up to the ascension with the word “afterward.” How long after the previous appearance is uncertain. Luke’s passage is also vague regarding the time. However Acts (1:3,9) also written by Luke is quite specific that the time of the ascension was forty days later. Thus, Acts need not be seen to conflict with the gospel accounts; it merely supplies the details that are lacking in them. This case is made stronger when we note that Luke is generally accepted to be the author of both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles and it seems unlikely that Luke would directly contradict himself.

So here then is a short tour of some of the apparent discrepancies and possible ways to resolve them.

In the end we simply have to accept that the Gospels do not record history in the same systematic and strictly chronological manner we moderns prefer. But they DO record history. It is for us to accept the evidence and accounts as they are given. The fact is that to develop a precise time frame and blow by blow chronological description may not be fully possible. However, careful study of the texts can help somewhat in this regard.

In tomorrow’s blog I would like to propose a somewhat chronological account that attempts to weave the many strands into one narrative. Such an attempt as we will see involves some speculation given the nature of ancient historical accounts. But it can help us to sort our the many details by trying to order them. So stay tuned for tomorrow.

The post Are There Discrepancies in the Resurrection Accounts? If so, can they be resolved? appeared first on Community in Mission.

Moscow has announced a surprise 30-hour ceasefire to mark Easter

This week in the Russia-Ukraine conflict has seen active combat at multiple locations along the front line, with the hostilities continuing in the border area between the two countries, while Moscow’s troops reported making new advances in Donbass.

On Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a temporary 30-hour pause in fighting with Ukraine, urging Kiev to adhere to the truce as well. The Easter ceasefire took effect at 18:00 Moscow time on Saturday and has lasted until midnight on April 21.

Ukraine’s reaction to the Easter ceasefire will clearly demonstrate whether Ukraine is actually willing and able to participate in the potential negotiations, Putin said. The president urged the country’s troops to stay on high alert and be ready to respond to any potential incidents, citing Kiev’s long history of broken promises and violated deals. 

“Our troops must be prepared to respond to any violations or provocations by the adversary, to any aggressive actions,” he stressed.

Ukraine produced a mixed reaction to the truce offer, with Vladimir Zelensky initially branding Moscow’s move an attempt to “play with human lives.” Later in the day, however, the Ukrainian leader offered a different take on the ceasefire, proposing to extend it beyond the 30-hour period if the truce holds.

“If Russia is now suddenly ready to really join the format of complete and unconditional ceasefire, Ukraine will act in a reciprocal way – as it will be from the Russian side. Silence in response to silence, strikes in response to strikes,” Zelensky said in a statement.

Both sides have accused the other of repeatedly breaking the truce. According to the Russian military, Kiev’s forces made 1,300 attacks in the less than 24 hours since the truce was declared. Zelensky claimed the Russian forces shelled Ukrainian positions more than 900 times, as well as launched some 46 “assault operations” during the period.

The truce ended as scheduled, with the Kremlin signaling some five hours before the deadline it had no plans to extend it with no additional orders concerning the matter issued by the Russian president.

On Monday, the Russian Defense Ministry provided an update on the outcome of the truce, noting a certain lull in the hostilities during the period. However, around 4,900 violations have been recorded, with the Ukrainian forces launching some 3,300 short-range drones at Russian positions, conducting artillery strikes and staging six offensive operations, the military said.

Border warfare 

Over the week, the Russian military has continued its effort to destroy the remnants of the Ukrainian forces that invaded the country’s Kursk Region last year. The Ukrainian zone of control in the area has shrunk to a small strip of land along the border, roughly between the villages of Oleshnya and Guyevo, liberated last week. On Saturday, The Russian Defense Ministry said the troops have seized control of Oleshnya as well.

This week, the main events in the area unfolded in the vicinity of the village of Gornal and the adjacent Belogorsky Monastery. The village and the monastery sit atop of a large hill, with a vast network of chalk caves underneath, which effectively make the location a natural fortress.

According to Russian media reports, some 300 Ukrainian servicemen were holed up at the monastery, with Moscow’s forces attempting to negotiate their surrender or withdrawal in order to avoid inflicting more damage on the facility. The negotiations, however, have ultimately flopped, while the Ukrainian officer who maintained contact with the Russian forces was reportedly murdered by his fellow servicemen. 

The Russian troops stormed the monastery, with some 30 Ukrainian soldiers believed to be still hiding in the caves under it. Drone footage circulating online shows the monastery sustained considerable damage during the hostilities. 

According to the latest estimates by the Russian military estimates, Ukrainian forces suffered extremely heavy losses during the invasion of Kursk Region. More than 75,00 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and wounded in the area, with over 400 tanks, 335 infantry fighting vehicles (IFV), 307 armored personnel carriers (APC), and more than 2,700 other armored vehicles destroyed or captured.

Donbass push

The Russian military has reported making new gains in Donbass, advancing on the flanks of Pokrovsk (also known as Krasnoarmeysk), the largest city remaining under Ukrainian control in the southwest of the Donetsk People’s Republic.

This week, the Russian troops expanded their zone of control to the southwest of the city, liberating the village of Preobrazhenka. Moscow’s forces also seized control of Yelizavetovka. It has seen the most intensive combat over the past few weeks, with the small village repeatedly changing hands, according to media reports. 

Yelizavetovka is located by a strategic road running through Pokrovsk deeper into Donbass. The route has been actively used by the Ukrainian troops for supply, albeit its importance somewhat dwindled as of late due to the proximity of the frontline and the destruction of multiple road bridges in Pokrovsk and its satellite city of Mirnograd. 

The Russian military also made new gains further to the east, liberating the villages of Kalinovo and Valentinovka. The development suggests that Moscow has achieved a tighter grip on the city of Toretsk (also known as Dzerzhinsk), as well as opens way for the potential advance further to the north towards the city of Konstantinovka, a major Ukrainian logistics hub located some 10km to the northwest of Toretsk. 

Geran-2 drones

The past week has seen the Russian military conducting massive strikes on Ukraine’s military industry, stockpiles and other rear facilities. Moscow extensively used Geran-2 (Geranium-2) kamikaze drones during the strikes, with dozens of such UAVs striking targets in Ukraine.

The delta-wing drones have been playing an increasingly important role during the conflict, becoming a key supplement for long-range missile strikes, as well as commonly substituting such sophisticated munitions. 

A large swarm of Geran-2 drones attacked military and industrial facilities in the Ukrainian city of Dnepr (formerly Dnepropetrovsk) on Thursday. The drones made it through anti-aircraft defenses, with over 20 blast reported from the city. Footage circulating online shows its nighttime skyline brightly lit by multiple explosions and fires sparked by the drones. 

A video taken in Sumy this week shows Geran-2 drones striking a staging area where multiple Ukrainian military trucks were parked. The vehicles were destroyed by the drones with a thick plume of smoke emitting from the location. Footage itself was reportedly taken by a new upgraded surveillance version of Geran-2. While some of the drones of the type were previously fitted with cameras, the new variant appears to be a full-fledged surveillance UAV packed with high-resolution adjustable optics, given the quality of the video. 

Geran’s smaller cousin, Gerbera, has apparently received an upgrade as well. The small drones have been widely used alongside their larger counterparts, serving as decoys to uncover anti-aircraft positions and exhaust their ammunition and carrying no explosives on board

Now, however, the drones of the type were apparently turned into full-fledged kamikaze UAVs. A fresh video that emerged online this week, features a Gerbera packed with a warhead and a camera chasing a Ukrainian Buk-M1 anti-aircraft system. The vehicle appears to be converted into a so-called FrankenSAM system, given it carries US-made RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles rather than its native munitions.

The anti-aircraft system sustained a hit into its rear, seemingly catching fire. While the extent of the damage was not immediately clear, the FrankenSAM was likely rendered inoperable wit hits radar pelted by fragments of the drone. 

Hunt for Ukrainian artillery 

The Russian military has continued its effort to hunt down Ukrainian long-range mobile artillery, with multiple pieces destroyed over the week. Several fresh videos feature the Lancet-family drones, which has been playing an increasingly important role during the campaign and become a key short-to-medium range tool in Russia’s arsenal.

A surveillance drone video released by the Russian Defense Ministry shows a Lancet drone taking out a Polish-made AHS Krab 155mm self-propelled howitzer in Ukraine’s Kharkov Region. The artillery piece was caught outside its hiding spot, appearing to be a covered dugout. The howitzer appeared to sustain a perforating hit that ignited its ammo stock and destroyed the vehicle.

Another video circulating online features Lancet strikes on an extremely rare Swedish-supplied Archer 155mm self-propelled artillery system, as well as a strike on Ukrainian home-grown Bogdana 155mm wheeled howitzer, largely analogous to French-made Caesar vehicles. While the video, said to be taken in the south of the DPR does not show the result of the strike on the Archer, it appears to confirm the destruction of the other piece. 

A dramatic compilation of FPV drone strikes, said to be taken in the south of the DPR as well, showcases an intense hunt for a Caesar howitzer. The vehicle was discovered in a wooded strip at a concealed position, but survived the initial hit and its crew attempted to drive away. The vehicle ended up stuck in the open and was hit by another drone, with the strike apparently sparking fire on board.

The crew quenched the blaze, with apparent extinguisher marks captured by the third FPV drone that approached the howitzer when an old Soviet-era ATS-59G artillery tractor arrived to tow the Caesar away. While the unarmored tractor is hardly suitable for battlefield recovery, it managed to survive the first hit and the next drone witnessed the two vehicles attached to one another. The howitzer and the tractor were targeted by several other FPVs, ultimately catching fire and ending up destroyed.

The Russian military has also managed to find and destroy a US-supplied HIMARS multiple rocket launcher, that was tracked down to its hiding position to the west of the city of Kramatorsk. Surveillance drone footage shows the launcher and a soft support vehicle traveling to the hideout, where the high-value asset was hit by a ballistic missile fired by an Iskander-M system.

The strike caused the detonation of the launcher’s ammo stock, with distinctive white smoke trails left by burning solid rocket fuel observed by the drone. At least eight Ukrainian servicemen have been reportedly killed by the strike and the resulting secondary detonation.

The South China Morning Post has cited researchers as saying the 2kg magnesium hydride device generated a 1,000 degrees Celsius fireball

Chinese researchers have successfully tested a non-nuclear hydrogen bomb that created a sustained fireball, far outperforming traditional explosives, the South China Morning Post has reported.

In an article on Sunday, the newspaper cited the researchers’ study published last month in the Chinese-language Journal of Projectiles, Rockets, Missiles and Guidance. According to the report, a team from the China State Shipbuilding Corporation’s (CSSC) 705 Research Institute — a key player in underwater weapon systems — developed a 2kg (4.4lbs) bomb primarily composed of magnesium hydride, with conventional explosives serving as the catalyst.

In a field test, the device reportedly generated a fireball with temperatures exceeding 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,832 degrees Fahrenheit) that lasted for more than two seconds, which is "15 times longer" than what an "equivalent TNT blast" is capable of producing.

In the reaction, magnesium hydride, a compound originally developed as an efficient fuel, rapidly releases stored hydrogen gas, resulting in a sustained inferno.

The novel explosive device’s destructive power thus is said to lie not in its blast pressure, but rather in the ability to generate extreme heat.

The South China Morning Post quoted CSSC research scientist Wang Xuefeng as explaining that its properties also allow for “precise control over blast intensity, easily achieving uniform destruction of targets across vast areas.”

If fully developed, the method could presumably yield a weapon similar to a thermobaric device – ideal for annihilating defensive structures and armored vehicles.

While the production of magnesium hydride used to be mostly small-scale and rather complicated, China has recently developed a cheaper and safer production method and built a plant capable of producing 150 tons of the compound per year.

The channel displayed a graphic during its Easter broadcast showing Ukraine’s capital located in Russia

Ukraine has demanded an apology from Fox News after the New York-based broadcaster erroneously labeled Kiev as located in Russia. The incident must be investigated to find who is responsible, a spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said on Sunday.

The gaffe occurred earlier in the day during the channel’s Easter broadcast, which featured Christian services going on at various locations, including Moscow and the Vatican. One of the segments featured the Ukrainian capital, with the events initially labeled as taking place in “Kyiv, Ukraine.” The caption, however, was changed to “Kyiv, Russia” later and was reportedly displayed like that for over 20 minutes before being corrected.

The error drew the ire of the pro-Ukrainian crowd on social media and the country’s authorities, with the Foreign Ministry spokesman Georgy Tikhy calling for an investigation and demanding an apology from the channel.

“If this was a mistake rather than a deliberate political statement, there should be an apology and an investigation into who made the mistake,” he stated.

The message was further amplified by Ukraine’s Centre for Strategic Communication and Information Security (CSCIS). The government agency, established in early 2021 with the proclaimed goal of building up “national resilience” and fighting misinformation, has become a key propaganda tool for Kiev in the conflict with Russia.

“Praising the Russian dictator and promoting pro-Russian narratives is nothing new for Fox News, but last night’s designation of Kiev as a city in Russia is a new low. Amid outrage across social media, Ukraine’s MFA demands an apology,” the agency said.

The incident was also apparently referenced by Ukraine’s leader, Vladimir Zelensky, who said on social media that “instead of broadcasting religious service from Moscow, the focus should be on pressuring Moscow to genuinely commit to a full ceasefire.”

On Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a surprise 30-hour ceasefire with Ukraine to mark Easter, urging Kiev to follow suit and pause hostilities. Kiev reluctantly agreed and proposed prolonging the truce for at least 30 days. However, both sides have already traded accusations of repeatedly violations, and the prospect of an extension remains unclear.

Moscow’s move may pave the way for something bigger, pundits say, while others see it as a ruse to win Donald Trump’s favor

President Vladimir Putin's announcement of an Easter truce sparked widespread commentary by pundits and commentators, Western, Russian and those from further afield.

While many Western experts have been quick to express skepticism over the Kremlin’s true motives, others have described the temporary ceasefire as a pivotal step toward a potential broader peace agreement between Moscow and Kiev.

Ivor Bennett of Sky News suggested in his piece that the truce “feels like a diplomatic dance,” in which President Putin seemingly makes a concession, though one falling distinctly short of US President Donald Trump’s expectations.

“Putin is giving Trump just enough to keep him on side” and secure the continuation of the apparent thaw in relations with the US, while “trying to cast himself as the peacemaker in the eyes of the US president – as the one who gives solutions, not problems,” Bennett wrote.

CNN’s International Security Editor Nick Paton Walsh opined that the “sudden rush of this seems designed entirely to placate White House demands for some sign that Russia is willing to stop fighting,” adding that “it will likely feed Trump’s at-times pro-Moscow framing of the conflict.”

Walsh concluded by predicting that the Easter truce “is likely to do more damage to the role of diplomacy in the coming months than it does to support it.”

Col. Richard Kemp (ret.) of the British Army and Rafael Bardaji, former national security advisor to the Spanish government, stated in an article for The Telegraph that Putin “needs time to rebuild the Russian economy” and does not want to draw President Trump’s ire by rejecting his peace proposals outright.

German military expert Carlo Masala told Bild that “a cold-blooded calculation,” lies behind Putin’s Easter truce, with Moscow’s message being primarily intended for the occupant of the US White House.

He further suggested that by throwing “Trump another crumb,” Moscow is trying to isolate Vladimir Zelensky and prompt Washington to abandon Kiev, while continuing to mend relations with Russia.

Speaking to RIA Novosti, former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl struck a more positive tone, saying that the “Easter truce is not something that will have decisive importance militarily, but diplomacy and human life often need gestures before it is possible to move on to real measures.” She opined that Putin chose an “opportune” moment to make such a signal, and expressed hope that the temporary ceasefire could pave the way to a comprehensive peace.

Argentinian international relations analyst Christian Lamesa told Izvestia that the Kremlin’s initiative “will be received well by Washington, as a genuine and true expression of Vladimir Putin’s will toward creating a lasting peace.”

In a comment to RIA Novosti, Iranian political scientist and international security expert Professor Ruhollah Modabber hailed the Russian president’s move on two counts: first, the Ester Truce demonstrates that Moscow respects and takes Christian ideals very seriously; second, Putin’s initiative proves that Russia truly wants to achieve peace in the Ukraine conflict.

Russian military expert and RT contributor, Col. Mikhail Khodarenok (ret.), told Gazeta.Ru that the “Easter truce was possibly agreed on in advance… with the most direct involvement of the White House.” He claimed that the Russian military had begun making preparations well before it was officially announced.

According to Khodarenok, Putin’s initiative is a “goodwill gesture,” illustrating Moscow’s readiness to put an end to the hostilities.

In announcing the truce, which is set to expire at midnight on April 21, Putin said that it would help reveal whether Ukraine is sincerely willing to engage in negotiations to end the conflict.

Responding to the temporary ceasefire on social media, Zelensky made a counteroffer, suggesting that the current lull in fighting be extended further.

Meanwhile, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported on Sunday that its forces had been targeted by Ukrainian troops with artillery and mortar fire, as well as kamikaze drones more than 1,300 times since the truce took effect.

A speech in April by the former US president has sparked a backlash even among loyalists, the outlet has reported

US Democrats have expressed frustration over former President Joe Biden’s re-emergence in to the public spotlight. His presence is reportedly complicating efforts to regroup after the party’s defeat in the 2024 presidential and congressional elections, according to The Hill's sources.

Biden made his first public appearance in months on April 15, delivering a speech sharply critical of US President Donald Trump's White House. Biden claimed that Trump's extensive cuts to federal programs have inflicted a “breathtaking” amount of damage, demeaned the Republican’s supporters, and claimed that America has “never been this divided.”

Many in the party reportedly believe the octogenarian’s return is ill-timed and risks distracting from the Democratic Party’s attempts to rebuild. Former press secretary to First Lady Jill Biden Michael LaRosa argued that Biden's speech was a “lovely gift for the White House, President Trump and conservative media,” especially in light of the new tariff policies, when the administration is under “heavy scrutiny.”

“If they had advisers who had their hand on the pulse of the Democratic Party or national politics, they would have understood the intense level of anger or indifference to them that remains inside our party and isn’t going away anytime soon,” LaRosa added.

Strategists close to the Democratic leadership have expressed concern that it’s an inopportune time for Biden to appear, especially as polling indicates that Americans are increasingly blaming Trump for his handling of the economy.

Biden’s recent remarks have also drawn criticism from conservatives, who alleged that the Democratic Party and the former president’s policies were among the main factors contributing to divisions in American society.

According to polling cited by The Hill earlier this year, only 39% of Americans approved of Biden’s presidency from 2021 to 2025, while 57% rated his performance negatively. In some surveys, he was described as one of the least popular living US presidents.

Identity, not supremacism: to affirm one’s people is to affirm all peoples.

To be white in America is to inherit a name shaped by migration, faith, and forgotten histories. It is a lineage carried across oceans, passed through lullabies, and rooted in both cathedrals and cornfields. 

This identity lingers in quiet rural churches, where the voices of ancestors seem to echo in the trees. 

For many, “white” becomes a stand-in when older names fade — when “American” feels like a hollow label on a billboard. It is not about shame or dominance. It is about memory, continuity, and being quietly aware of where you come from.

Multiculturalism, as it manifests now, behaves like a solvent. It dissolves the distinct, merges the sacred into sameness, smiles as it rubs out the texture of rooted lives. Within this flood, those who carry European memory find themselves drifting, searching for a foothold. The word “White” is that foothold. It holds meaning through resistance, through memory, through the fierce dignity of cultural continuity. Identity, in this sense, becomes a form of love — love for origins, love for inherited stories, love for those yet to come.

Supremacism speaks in the language of domination. Identity speaks in the language of presence. The White American who awakens to his name does not seek a throne. He seeks a hearth. He seeks a way to stay whole in a world that rewards fragmentation. This is a path of loyalty to one’s kind, never hostility towards others. In the garden of peoples, each flower flourishes with its own fragrance. Ethnopluralism offers an architecture of difference, a choreography of coexistence, where each cultural rhythm retains its beat without drowning the others.

The term “White” in the American lexicon carries a unique frequency. It vibrates with Jefferson’s quill and Bach’s organ, with frontier hymns and Viennese waltzes, with cavalry horns and Celtic chants. To call oneself White in this context is to protect this frequency from dissonance disguised as “inclusion.” It is to declare, without aggression, that the old songs deserve to be sung again. Memory deserves air. Tradition deserves breath. Identity deserves more than footnotes in someone else’s anthology.

European nationalists who peer across the Atlantic may see a racial label where a cultural signal flares. In America, this signal reaches through the noise, calling for cohesion in the absence of nationhood. The immigrant once became American through absorption into a defined mythos. That mythos no longer exists. “White” now fills the vacuum with a new mode of belonging — fused from ancestral fragments, reconstructed into a postmodern tribe bound by shared affinities rather than state-sponsored creeds. This tribe seeks kinship, not conquest.

The word itself — “White” — is undergoing alchemy. Once used carelessly, once wielded cruelly, now reclaimed with care. It becomes a sanctuary word, a quiet defiance against vanishing. It shields neither empire nor empire-building. It cradles only memory. Those who say the word do so with reverence, tracing maps invisible to those who only see skin. Within this word lives the village, the chapel bell, the grandmother’s eyes. To be White, then, is to feel time coiling through your veins, to hold the sacred burden of continuity with both hands.

Identity here acts as a compass, never a cage. It points to something essential, never reductive. Within its frame, new expressions rise — art, ritual, story, space. The future emerges from the past, remixed through intention rather than accident. Each person who reclaims identity becomes a steward. Each community that honors its inheritance becomes a lighthouse. In the haze of cultural disintegration, the glow of remembrance shines stronger than shame. Authentic diversity, when anchored in respect, requires difference. And difference requires selfhood.

To be pro-White is to be pro-identity. To affirm one’s people is to affirm all peoples. The line between celebration and supremacism is one of spirit, not volume. This spirit seeks harmony, not hierarchy. A world without distinct identities offers only the cold hum of managed sameness. A world of living cultures brims with meaning. So let this be said clearly: the affirmation of White identity, grounded in respect, carried with humility, lit by ancestral fire, serves not as a threat — but as a promise. A promise to remain, to remember, to reimagine.

This article was first published on Constantin von Hoffmeister's Substack, Eurosiberia.net.

Easter

Paul Craig Roberts

Now it is the Moldovan government that is attacking Christianity.  The true target is the faith of the Moldovan people, which is the basis of their moral guidelines, traditional values and cultural mores. The government’s attack on Christianity is part and parcel of the destruction of a people.

Eons ago in the 1970s when I began pointing out that the attacks on Christianity were worsening behavior and raising the crime rate by undermining the moral restraint associated with Christianity, my liberal acquaintances replied that religion was the cause of wars and that a peaceful world required that religion be discredited.  That is what many Americans of that generation learned in universities.  The teaching certainly went hand-in-glove with the march through the institutions. As self-restraint weakened, crime rates rose, and police took the place of self-restraint.

I remember when Easter was a religious holiday.  Today all Christian symbols have been banned from public spaces, and a religious holiday has been reduced to the Easter Bunny with baskets of candy.

The Fruit of the Fourth Sorrowful Mystery, which we have been praying these past three days, is PATIENCE… which means primarily patience with SELF, not others. Without this fruit, you will be tempted toward despair. Because our earthly warfare will encounter many setbacks, and without patience and perseverance, we won’t make it. So on this glorious Easter Sunday, lay aside every weight and sin which surrounds you. Indeed, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us. This is His will for us. Alleluia!

“And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us: Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God. For think diligently upon him that endured such opposition from sinners against himself; that you be not wearied, fainting in your minds.” Hebrews 12:1-3

Christ is Risen, Alleluia!

Truly He is Risen, Alleluia!

Happy Easter, everyone!

West Jerusalem is reportedly continuing to develop attack plans despite US President Donald Trump’s preference for diplomacy

Israel is considering a “limited strike” on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the coming months, despite Washington’s refusal to support military action, Reuters reported on Saturday, citing sources familiar with the matter. The deliberations come as the second round of US-Iran negotiations have concluded in Rome, with expert-level talks expected to continue on April 26 in Oman.

According to Reuters, Israeli officials are weighing a “limited strike” that would require minimal US support – unlike the larger and prolonged bombing campaign previously under consideration.

West Jerusalem reportedly presented Washington with several strike options, “including some with late spring and summer timelines.” A senior Israeli official told the outlet that no final decision had been made.

On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that US President Donald Trump had rejected an Israeli proposal for “extensive” strikes, opting instead to pursue diplomacy.

“I’m not in a rush to do it, because I think that Iran has a chance to have a great country and to live happily without death, and I’d like to see that. That’s my first option,” Trump told reporters on Thursday.

A senior Iranian security official told Reuters that Tehran had “intelligence from reliable sources that Israel is planning a major attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.”

Iranian officials have previously vowed to retaliate against any form of aggression.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Saturday that the talks in Rome “were held in a constructive environment.” A US official told CBS News that the sides had “made very good progress.”

Trump abandoned the 2015 UN-backed nuclear deal during his first term in office, accusing Iran of secretly violating the agreement. He reimposed sanctions on Tehran and, in February, formally renewed his “maximum pressure” campaign. Iran has denied any wrongdoing but has since rolled back its commitments under the deal, increasing uranium enrichment.

Delegations from the countries have held indirect discussions on Tehran’s nuclear program in Rome

A US delegation attempted to present realistic demands to Iran during Omani-mediated negotiations in Rome on Saturday, an informed source has told RT.

The delegations, led by US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, sat in separate rooms as Omani mediators relayed messages between them.

The talks came two weeks after US President Donald Trump threatened Iran with “bombing” unless an agreement on its nuclear program was reached.

An informed source familiar with the talks told RT that “the American delegation tried to set its demands realistically in the second round of negotiations.”

“We made very good progress in our direct and indirect discussions,” a US official told CBS News.

Araghchi wrote on X that the “relatively positive atmosphere in Rome has enabled progress on principles and objectives of a possible deal.” He added that many in Tehran believe the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the original nuclear deal, is “no longer good enough for us.”

Trump abandoned the JCPOA during his first term in office, accusing the Islamic Republic of secretly violating the deal. His administration reimposed sanctions on Iran and, in February, after returning to office, he formally renewed his “maximum pressure” campaign. Tehran has denied any wrongdoing but has since rolled back its commitments under the 2015 plan, increasing its enrichment of uranium.

“Iran’s nuclear program is completely peaceful, and Iran is ready to dispel any doubts in this regard,” Esmaeil Baghaei, the spokesman for Tehran’s foreign ministry, said on Saturday.

Technical experts are scheduled to meet again ahead of the next round of negotiations between Witkoff and Araghchi in Oman on April 26, according to the Iranian foreign minister.

That is correct.

70 men stood against the advancing British regular army, 700 troops on their way to destroy the patriots’ supply depot at Concord. The rebels had been warned in advance of the route by Paul Revere and others. Even with the valuable intel, they knew they would be greatly outnumbered. As the majority of rebel forces fell back to defend Concord, these 70 stood. They stood out of principle.

It wasn’t just the outrageous amount of tax on tea (about $20/lb in today’s dollars)… it was the moral objection to any taxation at all, without representation. The native born colonists had no standing in parliament.

No one cared about them, nor their rights. The entire Empire sneered at them.

Sound familiar?