Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Joseph_Botwinick, Apr 26, 2006.
I have walked down the halls of the university with men and women who are very dedicated to the Christian life, but happen to have "wierd" viewpoints on the fundamentals of the faith. I always treated them as both colleagues and fellow sojourners with the Lord. We differed, but walked the same path.
The same is true of men like Barth. Given his cultural upbringing in a philosophical Christanity, it is amazing that he came to the viewpoints he did. I have great distance from his theological findings, but not in the Jesus he discovered.
If one has lived his entirety in a fundamental environment, he may not understand this thinking. Those who have walked in liberal circles, finds it a "new birth in faith".
Without the ressurection, you have no hope.
You and I, and including Bishop Wright know and appreciate that scriptural fact. Not all believe the resurrection was in physical body, and they too base it on their understanding of scripture. They are not denying the resurrection, but rather the nature of the resurrection.
I'm not sure I understand how one can Scripturally justify a denial of the bodily Resurrection of Christ.
a resurrection body as opposed to a literal physical body...somewhat akin to what we will receive one day. We will not be raised in this body of flesh and bones..it will return to dust.
How does Borg explain the scars in Jesus' hands and sides that is shown to Thomas?
I am thinking that Borg is just typical of most Jesus Seminar "scholars" in that he pretty much just denies the supernatural.
Either way, 1 Corinthians 15 settles it for me:
The more "liberal" the less Christian doctrine they hold. They trash Genesis 1-2:3. Then they trash Genesis 6-8. Then they trash the Gospel accounts of Christ's substitutionary death and resurrection.
Then they trash the 1Cor 15 argument that if the resurrection did not actually take place the Gospel is pointless.
And of course - they usually embrace various levels of man-made-dogma/tradition over the word of God to get where they end up.
But "how many lost souls do they take with them" when they go down that hole?? That is "the real question".
Well, thanks anyway, Joseph, a very good and interesting thread has gone down the tubes. I am done.
Does anyone know what Marcus Borg's thoughts about Jesus appearing to the disciples as flesh and bone? How does he reckon that flesh and bone = a spiritual body?
Or Jesus in Matt 17 speaking with Moses and Elijah, or Jesus in John 11 raising Lazarus from the dead, or Jesus in Acts speaking to Paul, or Jesus in Rev 1 speaking to John, or Jesus in Genesis 1-2:3 making the entire world in 6 days, or Jesus in John 1:1-4 making ALL things literally as THE creator of ALL, ...
Once you start snipping away at God's word in a "pick and choose" "Cut and paste" method - what stops you from just "continuing to snip up the text"?
(YES but the resurrection is OPTIONAL and people who deny that as well as God's account of creation are STILL ok as long as they view Jesus as a great one of God -- say "some").
In fact Budhists say that all the time!
N. T. Wright says those who don't believe in the ressurection are still Christians
If these people don't believe the resurection then I would say they have been hornswaggled into believing another gospel and thats not good.
1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
1Co 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
1Co 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
1Co 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
If you do a thorough Word search on Christ & Raised you'll soon find out just how many important Christian Doctrines hinge on the FACT of the Bodily Ressurection of Jesus Christ...
Prais God! We serve a Risen Lord!
Marcus Borg is certainly "out there" when it comes to theology. He is affiliated with the Jesus seminar to boot!
I think he would deny not only a bodily resurrection but also the idea that Jesus had any sort of concept of being divine, or that Jesus saw His dying as an atonement for sin.
For Borg Jesus was a good person who exhibited compassion and social concern and who was killed in AD 30.
For Borg God is not a person but a force, similar to the notion of Brahman in Hinduism. The post-easter Jesus is important for Christians since it is through Him that Christians approach God.
Borg does in fact believe in God and in the significance of Jesus' life for the Christian trying to worship God.
This is all (obviously) woefully deficient doctrine.
It should be noted that N T Wright disagrees strongly with him on all of this. But Wright and Borg are friends and Wright has on many occasions testified to Borg's devotion to God is his own way.
Wright is thus not approving this theology but rather appreciating the good-heartedness of a person he knows well, choosing not to be his judge, which is after all God's job.
But in the end I have to disagree with Wright. It would be nice if God would just accept everyone who was a good-hearted sincere person - but that is not what the Bible tells us.
I should add that Wright is definitely a conservative and Borg very liberal. Wright would staunchly uphold the bodily resurrection of Christ. His failure to condemn Borg shouldn't be equated with agreement. He merely does not condemn a person whom he feels to be a sincere believer in God.
I have read some of Bishop Wrights material and find it to very good stuff. Charles Meadows hit the nail on the head.