N.T. Wright's Analysis of the Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection
OK, sorry about the interruption yesterday. Well, not really; I do think that an evaluation of Piper's new book is an important ongoing discussion for those interested in Wright's theological vision.
Speaking of Wright's theological vision, and continuing in line with the first post on the subject, the following video link is to a lecture that Wright gave on the most climactic event in human history, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, where he sets forth the historical evaluation of the event. It's a must-see for anyone interested in providing an accounting for the hope that is within them but has found that the method of logical reasoning or scientific inquiry doesn't quite get you there.
Speaking of Wright's theological vision, and continuing in line with the first post on the subject, the following video link is to a lecture that Wright gave on the most climactic event in human history, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, where he sets forth the historical evaluation of the event. It's a must-see for anyone interested in providing an accounting for the hope that is within them but has found that the method of logical reasoning or scientific inquiry doesn't quite get you there.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Why did Paul maintain that Jesus had become a life-giving spirit at the resurrection, and implied that all Christians would become life-giving spirits?
Why did early converts to Christianity scoff at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse?
Why did Paul think it idiotic to even discuss how bodies can come back, go on to remind the Corinthians that what was in the ground was dead, and tell them that resurrected beings were as different to earthly bodies as fish is different to the moon? (Only an idiot wonders how a fish can turn into the moon)
Why did Paul trash the idea that God would raise beings from the dust that corpses dissolve into?
Why was Paul unable to find one detail from anybody’s personal experience as to what a resurrected body was like, instead being forced to work entirely from general principles and theological reflection?
Why did Paul say that God would destroy both stomach and food to people who were allegedly converted by tales of the resurrected Jesus eating fish?
All these questions, and many more, are ignored by the Bishop of Durham when he trots out the old tired argumemts that have been refuted hundreds of times.