Steven Carr

In his resurrection book, the Bishop of Durham, N.T.Wright has an interesting footnote about what happens when a group of people believe somebody is the Messiah, and is faced with the shock of seeing him die (Messiahs are not supposed to die before the Messianic Age)

Wright writes :-

75. This confusion is present in Marcus 2001, 397. Some within the Lubavitcher messianic movement have apparently used 'resurrection' language in relation to their Rebbe (who died in 1994) as a way (Marcus suggests, following Dale Allison) of 'speaking of a dead person being alive'. What seems to be happening, rather, is that some have picked up a misunderstood Christian term and used it in a sense that goes against their own ancient literature.'

-------------------------

Could Christians have innovated and used the word 'resurrection' in a sense that goes against their own ancient literature?

To speak of a dead person being alive, even though they could still see his dead body and had had only visions of a perfect, ethereal Jesus in Heaven?

Why then does Wright scour ancient Jewish literature and pronounce that Christians could not have used resurrection in a sense that goes against their own literature , when he himself writes that Messianic groups do exactly that?

DrJim

Seems to me that the good Bishop wants it both ways: he wants to explain non-Christian resurrection claims as "cognitive dissonance" and the influence of one culture on another (Christian to Jewish, in the example you give). On the other hand, he wants to affirm the uniqueness of Christianity. Notice how he says the Lubavitchers use a "misunderstood Christian idea" in refernece to the death of their Rebbe.

I've always been amazed at how religious folk establish one set of rules for the critical study of other faiths, but then excuse their own from similar analysis. I'm tired of reading nonsense which essentially erects an ideological wall around ancient Israel or the early church that tries to insulate it from the same critical questions and tools used to understand "pagan" societies and religions. True, that wall has never been really high enough, and numerous tunnels have been dug under it, and biblical "minimalism" has ripped huge holes in it, but it has always been at least something of an obstacle, and will continue to be so. The Bishop of Durham has vested interests in repairing the wall.



JRL

Layman

To which "resurrection book" are you referring?

Steven Carr

The Resurrection of the Son of God

An interesting article

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...837327,00.html

'Durham's new Bishop abolishes Heaven and the soul'

'Dr Wright, the country’s leading evangelical theologian, says that the concept of the soul as a pre-existent and immortal entity has little basis in the New Testament and is instead derived from the teachings of Plato.

He does not believe that every human being comes equipped with an immortal soul. “Immortality is a gift of God in Christ, not an innate human capacity,” he writes.

He argues that “souls” should be omitted from concluding prayer said by some clergy at the end of services. Instead of: “And may the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace”, it should read: “May the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace and rise in glory.”

----------------------------------------------

I'm still curious to know what Wright and Layman think the disciples saw when they saw Moses?

Was it a body? Was it a soul? Was it a psyche? Was it a spirit?

What is the theologically correct word for the thing which is not part of the body and lives on after death, later to be reunited with a body? Is it 'soul'?

Secular Pinoy

That seems to be an obvious case of Special Pleading Fallacy.

Layman

The footnotes must be different in the UK edition.

I thought you said you were discussing a 90 pages book or something by Wright that came out after the Resurrection of the Son of God?

Layman

Since the Pharisees believed that the soul or spirit lived on until the final bodily resurrection of the dead, I'd say it was Moses soul or spirit. And as I told you, because Wright believes in a conscious and active intermediate state, it's no problem for him either.

How many times do I have to tell you this?

Steven Carr

It is Wright who denies that there is such a thing as an immortal soul.

AT least you have no objection to the idea that when somebody 'appears' (same word to describe Jesus's appearances), the disciples could have seen a non-physical spirit, returned from the grave, and they would not have confused that with a ghost.

Would the disciples have found it inconceivable that somebody could return from the grave , and appear to them in a non-physical form?

When in Matthew , the saints were resurrected from their conscious and active intermediate state, were they resurrected bodily or physically? Did they die again?

All of this stuff by Wright is totally ad hoc.

There are so many states after death.

Once you are dead , you have some serious life-style choices.

People go to Sheol and come back as ghosts (see the Witch of Endor)

Or people get bodily resurrected in a glorified state.

Or they go to a conscious intermediate state.

Or there soul goes wandering back like Moses, without a body.

Or they get resurrected physically and die again like the resurrected saints, (and then their soul comes back, and then they get raised again)

And to all of them, Wright says 'Yes, this is what happens after death', on a totally ad hoc basis. If it is in the Bible , he believes it, although all of these stories contradict each other totally to leave an awful mess.



As far as I know, nobody is abducted by aliens after death, but if it was in the Bible, Wright would say that that is also what happens after death, and that all of these different ways of being dead are part of a consistent Bible message.

What happens when you die?

Just about anything it seems......

Steven Carr

Possibly. Does your edition discuss Zalmoxix, as Wright would not leave out any stories where Greeks claimed to be bodily resurrected from the dead. He would, naturally, discuss all such claims.

Both.

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pag...ht_chap1-2.htm is where I saw this endnote

Layman

You have yet to substantiate this allegation. As I have shown you, Wright belives in a conscious existence apart from the body. That I or you do not know what he calls it is pretty irrelevant.

They would not have called any such appearance a resurrection.

I think the implication is that it was bodily.

You are speaking from ignorance. Noting the difference between a vision/spiritual appearance/spiritual encounter, and a resurrection is good historical studies. There is nothing ad hoc about it.

Actually, Wright would be the first to tell you that the early Isrealites probably did not envision an resurrection or immortal soul. As for the rest, there are no contradictions. The conscious intermediate state would explain very well how Moses appeared to Jesus and some of the disciples. It would even explain the "Witch of Endor." After these, there is a bodily resurrection.

You've tried to manufacture conflict where there is none by playing with different phrases. Since many of those phrases appear to be explianing the same phenomenon, you have failed.

According to Wright, when a believer dies his consciousness lives on in the presence of Jesus. Then, there is a bodily resurrection from the dead at the second coming where those who live and those who have died will have their bodies transformed into spiritual bodies. The already dead will have their consciousness restorted to the transformed body.

There is nothing inherently contradictory about any of this.

Perhaps if you actually read his book you might be able to form a real response to it.