If you do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus after 3 days of burial following his crucifixion at the hands of the Roman government, what is the explanation for the change of the Roman world from pagan to Christian and the parallel explosion of the church and exponential growth and continuance today? Jewish followers of professing "messiahs" in the ancient world, when their leaders died or were killed, either ceased from following these fakers or found someone new to follow. The movements did not continue. But how can the Jewish movement of Jesus be explained apart from the historicity of the resurrection? Why did those professing Jesus as Lord continue to do so after he was killed if he wasn't raised from a state of death?
I'm currently reading N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God. I'm at approximately page 250 of 800, and it's taken me since Christmas to get there.
Posts
What We Cannot Escape
-
[image: What We Cannot Escape]We all long for lives that are easy. We pray
for roads that are smooth, seas that are calm, flights that are untroubled
by tu...
17 hours ago
1 comments:
3:44 AM
On page 368 of 'The Resurrection of the Son of God', the Bishop of Durham, NT Wright claims Paul used a metaphor of putting one house on top of another to describe how the earthly body would be transformed into the resurrected body.
And that the new 'house' came from Heaven, but was made of the material in the old 'house', but transformed in some manner.
Presumably in the way you transform your old clothes by having 'a new and larger suit of clothes to be put on over the existing ones'.
I am not joking. This is what one of the world's top Christian scholars says , in all seriousness.
Who transforms their house by putting a new house on top of the old one, somehow using the material of the old one to make the new one?
Who wears two jackets, and claims he has changed his old jacket by putting 'a new and larger' jacket over the top of his old jacket?
Let us assume that Paul's metaphors were designed not to be nonsense.
You take off old clothes. You put on new clothes.
You leave one house. You move to another house.
Clearly Paul is teaching that Jesus left his old body behind and moved to a new body.
This is so obvious that Wright has to claim that Paul meant we put one house on top of another house , and when we get new clothes, we just put them on top of the old ones.
And in 'Resurrection' how does Wright deal with the author of 1 Peter saying 'All flesh is grass', while the Peter of Acts is made to say that flesh never saw corruption.
Easy.
Wright simply never quotes that text from 1 Peter 'All flesh is grass'.
It is an 800-page book, but Wright did not find space for 1 Peter denying that there was flesh that did not see corruption.
On page 290, Wright claims that food and the stomach will be irrelevant to the body in the non-corruptible future world.
So why did the resurrected Jesus eat fish with his irrelevant stomach?
Post a Comment