Why does it need an explanation?
Is it esoteric code words?
Why not just talk with great plainess of Speech like the Apostles?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/28/2005 8:34:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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).
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
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).
You have an explanation. You have chosen to ignore it.
JD
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
