From: Debbie Mann (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 16:47:43 EDT
ASA defines Christian as professing the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. To
believe that the resurrection was a thing of vision and not a thing of
reality does appear to contradict those creeds, does it not? The very
essence of the current discussion is of the very essence of Christianity. My
point is, logically, how can one profess to believe in the resurrection
while insisting that 'great' Christians believe it to be mere parable?
From: John W Burgeson [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: On Tillich
>>Since our Christianity depends upon believing that Jesus is risen, if
tillich did not believe this, he does not fulfill my definition of a
Both Tillich and Bultmann, as far as I can see, would assent to the
resurrection event. Neither held it, however, in the way that you do (or
that I do, for that matter).
Both claimed to be Christians and, reading sermons from either one, tells
me that I must accept their claims as true.
Last time I looked, God was not asking me (or anyone) for their
definition of a Christian. That's his job. For which I am very thankful.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 27 2003 - 16:49:05 EDT