resurrection event was of such a nature in covering it, that it would have been regarded in the same sense in which the man on the street
'the resurrection of Jesus had significance only for His disciples,' implying that it had no significance to the world.
Barth questions the historicity of the ressurection, This is not orthodox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin, Zero in on the error/s in this comment, please--readers may not perceive what is bothering you within itgOn Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:52:24 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:"In a later letter to Gordon W. Clark, Carl F.H. Henry gave a pointed account of the occasion. When he, Henry, asked Barth whether the resurrection event was of such a nature in covering it, that it would have been regarded in the same sense in which the man on the street understands news, Barth became visibly angry and asked, sarcastically, 'Did you say Christianity Today or Christianity yesterday?' He then continued by saying that 'the resurrection of Jesus had significance only for His disciples,' implying that it had no significance to the world. The religious editor of United Press International, Louis Cassels, said upon leaving, 'We got Barth's answer; it was 'Nein' [the German word for 'no']' (Gordon H. Clark, Historiography--Secular and Religious, The Craig Press, 1972, reprinted in Christian News Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 1480).
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
