Steven Carr

Some extracts.


What he fails to address is that paradigm shifts occur,
and we see such shifts occurring in the first-century Christian community. For example, Paul's messianic expectation at the point of his conversion experience did not include a dying Messiah, although it later became the center of his teaching. Moreover, Paul.s
Jewish ideas about the coming kingdom of God now include a present manifestation inaugurated by Jesus. If such radical changes can occur in his understanding of the
Messiah and God's kingdom, is his concept of postmortem existence exempt?

Wright also notes a few exceptions to the strong patterns he discovers. He finds a few rare examples in antiquity where some believed a person rose bodily from the dead.


However, the risen was to die again and correlates more with Lazarus than Jesus. Thus, it is resuscitation, not resurrection. Moreover, one or two exceptions do not nullify the general trend. True enough on both accounts.

But he then goes on to conclude that bodily resurrection never was thought to occur. He avoids technically overstating this conclusion with the caveat that the early Christian definition of bodily resurrection included the
concept of being .transphysical,. meaning the same body but significantly different.

Granting the certain difference between resuscitation and resurrection, are the concepts so different that the conceptual chasm could not be crossed with just a little imagination?

Toto

Are there some formatting issues here? What does this refer to?

I have a pretty low opinion of Licona, as seen in this thread. He seems to be Habermas' heir apparent in bad apologetics.

Toto

Licona's review of NT Wright The Resurrection of the Son of God