Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3

From: John W Burgeson (
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 14:43:54 EST

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"

    George wrote: "& the death of Jesus on the cross?

            I am NOT playing the "If we don't believe in the floating ax
    our children won't believe in the resurrection" card. But some
    claims are important for Christian faith, & I believe that this one is

    Hmm. My first impulse was to heartily agree. But having listened to
    several lectures by Marcus Borg last week, and having read two of his
    books (so far), I am hesitant to agree so readily. BTW, as far as I
    understand Borg, he also believes the above, but, of course,
    differentiates more than some, including me, of the "historical Jesus,"
    and the "risen Christ." I would not do his thought justice to go into it
    here; I do recommend his books for heady reading as he explains more of
    his panentheistic viewpoints.

    We speak of the historical events of scripture as "history in metaphor,"
    particularly when we speak of early Genesis. As we come closer to the
    events of 28-32 AD, however, we are less ready to do so. Suppose the
    cross story is also "history in metaphor?" After all, it was not written
    down, as far as we know, until at least two decades (or more) had passed.
    That Jesus the man lived, and taught, and was a person of great
    significance, is not in question. That Jesus, the risen and present
    Christ, is alive and with us today may also be agreed upon. Does what
    happened in between make a difference as far as one understanding and
    "believing in it" literally make a difference?

    I think of Bultmann, whom I wrestled with last year. He did not even
    believe in the resurrection, yet I could find no reason to consider him
    "not a Christian."

    Once again, the difference is between "believing in the truth of a
    historical statement" and "belief-in-the-sense-of-trust" (which was the
    meaning of "belief" before 1600) on or in the person of God as revealed
    in Jesus. The second is what is important; the first usually follows, at
    least to some degree, but does not seem, to me, to have the attribute of

    John Burgeson (Burgy)
           (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
            humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 14:49:31 EST