There is no error so monstrous that it fails to find defenders
"THIS TOMB MAY PROVE TO BE DEFINITELY CLOSED OR AN EMPTY TOMB: IT IS REALLY A MATTER OF INDIFFERENCE." (Barth, The Resurrection of the Dead, p. 135).
"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).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
myth [it's a terrible a misrepresentation of Barth's theology, below, while Barth's primary issue is with the 'orthodox' meaning of 'history' per se ; e.g., (for you) to question the 'historical' situation (and meaning) of the NT/resurrection is not denial nullifying the salvific implications of Rom 10]On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:21:11 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:Barth questions the historicity of the resurrection, This is not orthodox
||
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
