Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 15:07:26 EDT
Of several Tillich quotations, Burgy wrote:
"That is one of the passages that leads me to see
him, as with Bultmann, rather convinced that the resurrection event,
whatever it was, was entirely natural and that a "return from the dead"
did not happen. Borg, I think, takes a similar view"
Please forgive me that I have not read any of Tillich or Bultmann, etc.
(perhaps someone can recommend a secondary "text" that could summarize this
theological school of thought and provide me with an introduction before I
attempt to read their own writings). However, my impression of the posts on
this thread so far is that these theologians never clearly stated their
positive theology for how we should understand the Gospel, including
Christ's actual death and resurrection. Burgy's comment above shows that he
has to guess at what these theologians actually believed about the
resurrection. Did they never state their views plainly? It's fine to
philosophize and split hairs on the semantics of words like "natural" and
"miracle", but in the end one actually must believe something and be able
state it plainly.
My earlier question to Howard asked for some sort of articulation of what
this theology "looks like" in an affirmative/practical sense. I can
understand that Howard himself may not be prepared to provide such a
description, since he (Iike all of us) is still working through the issues
himself. But can someone help to provide a summary description (i.e., NOT
a critique) of this theology, including how it is understood by its
proponents as being specifically Christian while not considering the
resurrection to have occured in the ordinary, plain sense described in the
I guess the question is, "What is real about God and his redemptive
interactions with humans, as expressed affirmatively by proponents of this
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 23 2003 - 15:14:53 EDT