So maybe you could explain away these quotes, why is the ressurection a "Legend"?
Like all ancient literature the Old and New Testaments know nothing of the distinction of fact and value between history on the one hand and saga and legend on the other (I, 2, 509).
In common with the creation story the history of the resurrection has to be regarded as "saga" or "legend." The death of Jesus Christ can certainly be thought of as history in the modern sense, but not the resurrection (IV, 1, 336).
The vulnerability of the Bible, i.e., its capacity for error, also extends to its religious or theological content (I, 1,509).
The "legend" of the finding of the empty tomb is not of itself and as such the attestation of Jesus Christ as he showed himself alive after his death. It is ancillary to this attestation. The one can be as little verified "historically" as the other. Certainly the empty tomb cannot serve as an "historical" proof (IV, 1, 341).
"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:
In a message dated 2/28/2005 2:20:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
'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
here's a news flash for you ---- the resurrection has no significance for many who are in "the world." I could give you 30 or 40 quotes from Barth demonstrating his faith in the resurrection -- I have already given a couple. But they are ignored and the truth is dismembered in the process. this is exactly why the SP mentality is resisted by most of the Christian Church. Baline and Dave have complained about your misrepresentation of their views. No doubt, they have something to complain about.
One thing for sure ------------- Barth does not question the historicity of the resurrection. He fully accepts it but understands that only the disciple can comprehend this miracle. It is not for the secular minded.
JD
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
