What do you think?
Rate this book
The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan & N.T. Wright in Dialogue
Two of today's most important and popular New Testament scholars--John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright--air their very different understandings of the many historical realities and theological meanings of Jesus' Resurrection.
242 pages, Paperback
First published November 7, 2005
17 people are currently reading
312 people want to read
About the author
John Dominic Crossan
67 books294 followersJohn Dominic Crossan is generally regarded as the leading historical Jesus scholar in the world. He is the author of several bestselling books, including The Historical Jesus, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, The Birth of Christianity, and Who Killed Jesus? He lives in Clermont, Florida.
John Dominic Crossan was born in Nenagh, County Tipperary, Ireland in 1934. He was educated in Ireland and the United States, received a Doctorate of Divinity from Maynooth College in Ireland in 1959, and did post-doctoral research at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome from 1959 to 1961 and at the École Biblique in Jerusalem from 1965 to 1967. He was a member of a thirteenth-century Roman Catholic religious order, the Servites (Ordo Servorum Mariae), from 1950 to 1969 and was an ordained priest in 1957. He joined DePaul University in Chicago in 1969 and remained there until 1995. He is now a Professor Emeritus in its Department of Religious Studies.
John Dominic Crossan was born in Nenagh, County Tipperary, Ireland in 1934. He was educated in Ireland and the United States, received a Doctorate of Divinity from Maynooth College in Ireland in 1959, and did post-doctoral research at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome from 1959 to 1961 and at the École Biblique in Jerusalem from 1965 to 1967. He was a member of a thirteenth-century Roman Catholic religious order, the Servites (Ordo Servorum Mariae), from 1950 to 1969 and was an ordained priest in 1957. He joined DePaul University in Chicago in 1969 and remained there until 1995. He is now a Professor Emeritus in its Department of Religious Studies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
May 30, 2014
This book was not quite what I expected and so a little disappointing. I did like the tone of the dialogue and there were some interesting thoughts within.
The dialogue is about post-mortem existence, or life after death and how it impacts the 5 major questions of human existence, 1)who are we? 2)where are we? 3)what is wrong? 4)what is the solution?, and 5)what time is it?
Though I don't really agree with Crossan's take on resurrection, he does have a brilliant and relevant line - "I don't want any longer just to argue about the beginning and the end, the past and the future. I want to think about the present. I want really to know how we are going to take back God's world from the thugs."
My favorite part of the book came in chapter 3 by Robert Stewart - "This world is where the kingdom must come, on earth as it is in heaven...no wonder the Herods, the Caesars, and the Sadducees of the world, ancient and modern, were and are eager to rule out all possibility of actual resurrection. They are, after all, staking a counter-claim on the real world." Or saying it another way, these powers and authorities want to define the answers to the 5 major questions.
Another quote I liked, "language cannot tell of us transcendent, it can only take us to its edge." This leads me to what I didn't like about the book, it was too scholarly for me, here's an excerpt (an example of using language to talk about the transcendent but actually muddying the waters in such a way that causes one to question transcendence or ponder the possibility of hastening its arrival for me personally):
"This telling clue suggests that the author of Peter preferred the indicative with the conjunction and that he used the subjunctive in GP 8:30 only because of his dependence on Matthew. Although the participle (insert greek word)occurs 28 times in Matthew, it never appears elsewhere in GP."
My eyes glazed over just while typing that, and there's a lot more of it in this book.
The bottom line for the common man - there's compelling evidence that there is a post-mortem existence, life after death. And the Bible gives us hints of what it is going to be like, so why not believe and start practicing life that way now?
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
The dialogue is about post-mortem existence, or life after death and how it impacts the 5 major questions of human existence, 1)who are we? 2)where are we? 3)what is wrong? 4)what is the solution?, and 5)what time is it?
Though I don't really agree with Crossan's take on resurrection, he does have a brilliant and relevant line - "I don't want any longer just to argue about the beginning and the end, the past and the future. I want to think about the present. I want really to know how we are going to take back God's world from the thugs."
My favorite part of the book came in chapter 3 by Robert Stewart - "This world is where the kingdom must come, on earth as it is in heaven...no wonder the Herods, the Caesars, and the Sadducees of the world, ancient and modern, were and are eager to rule out all possibility of actual resurrection. They are, after all, staking a counter-claim on the real world." Or saying it another way, these powers and authorities want to define the answers to the 5 major questions.
Another quote I liked, "language cannot tell of us transcendent, it can only take us to its edge." This leads me to what I didn't like about the book, it was too scholarly for me, here's an excerpt (an example of using language to talk about the transcendent but actually muddying the waters in such a way that causes one to question transcendence or ponder the possibility of hastening its arrival for me personally):
"This telling clue suggests that the author of Peter preferred the indicative with the conjunction and that he used the subjunctive in GP 8:30 only because of his dependence on Matthew. Although the participle (insert greek word)occurs 28 times in Matthew, it never appears elsewhere in GP."
My eyes glazed over just while typing that, and there's a lot more of it in this book.
The bottom line for the common man - there's compelling evidence that there is a post-mortem existence, life after death. And the Bible gives us hints of what it is going to be like, so why not believe and start practicing life that way now?
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
May 27, 2024
A DISCUSSION/DEBATE BETWEEN TWO PROMINENT SCHOLARS
The Preface to this 2006 book explains, “On … March 11, 2005, nearly one thousand people filled the Leavell Chapel on the campus of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary for the inaugural … Counterpoint Forum… This program provides a forum for an evangelical scholar and a nonevangelical scholar to come together for a night of dialogue on a particular issue of religious or cultural significance. The forum is not exactly a debate… Instead, the intention is to provide a model for civil discourse on important topics and… in which to discuss differences---without abandoning one’s convictions---and to make a case for one perspective over against another… And Crossan and Wright did not disappoint… Though they disagreed on several significant points, they wholeheartedly agreed that the resurrection was very important and that it should make a difference in this world!”
N.T. Wright said in his opening statement, “The point is rather to force the question back to where it ought to be rather than allowing yet another generation of students to be taught that the Easter stories and the Gospels are simply mythical back projections of early Christian consciousness rather than accounts of something exceedingly strange and unprecedented… Enormous forces in our culture are determined to deny Jesus was raised from the dead… they use arguments which can be shown to be invalid, and they proposed alternative scenarios about the rise of Christianity which can be shown to be impossible… Let me spell out [my book’s] main positive argument… we can track with considerable precision … a phenomenon so striking and remarkable that it demands a serious and well-grounded historical explanation. Early Christian belief in resurrection is clearly not something derived from any form of paganism; it is a mutation from within Judaism.” (Pg. 19)
Crossan said in his opening statement, “My first point concerns cosmic transformation. If your faith tells you that God is just and the world belongs to God, and your experience tells you that you’re a small, battered people, then eschatology is probably inevitable, and don’t let scholars mystify you on it… Second major point… bodily resurrection… if you are going to have a cosmic transformation of this world and not its evacuation into heaven, then you have to have… TRANSFORMED physicality. How else can you have a transformed world?” (Pg. 24-25)
Crossan notes, “I know thousands of Christians for whom the bodily resurrection is equated with the resurrection. They’ve… reduced it to ‘Do you or do you not believe that Jesus came bodily out of the tomb?’ and then that means that a camera could have picked up Jesus, as it were. And that’s all they want to talk about. If they take resurrection to mean just that, then they say that I can’t be a Christian. I think that is awful. I am ready to say that if you are a Christian then you must believe in the resurrection. If they ask literally or metaphorically? I would say, tell me what you mean by ‘literally’; tell me what you mean by ‘metaphorically.’ That’s the language I would use. I wouldn’t speak concrete or abstract.” (Pg. 31)
Crossan asserts, “the stories in the Gospels… are primarily interested in who’s in charge and had an apparition. But that presumes an apparition, even if I claim, as I would, that Mark’s tomb story is made up. I think I’m with you, apparitions happened. But I think, apparitions plus the experience of ‘the kingdom is already here’; that’s my explanation of those two things.” (Pg. 33)
Wright suggests, “certainly in John 20, but I think in the other Gospels as well, the point of Easter in the Gospels is that new creation has begun and we’ve got a job to do. And I actually think that you and I are now on the same page on that. It’s just that I think what you want to say would be much better grounded theologically and actually if God literally, concretely, really, in that sense, actually did it.” (Pg. 44)
Robert Stewart comments, “One would suspect that given his denial of Jesus’ burial, Crossan would also deny Jesus’ resurrection. But technically, Crossan does not so much DENY the resurrection as REDEFINE it. Crossan understands resurrection as a metaphor for Jesus’ continued presence in the Church. As such, he insists that the embodied life of Jesus ‘remains powerfully efficacious in this world.’… In other words, the resurrection is more hermeneutical than historical.” (Pg. 74-75)
Gary Habermas argues, “current theological trends at the close of the twentieth century and continuing into the twenty-first century may reflect some areas of general agreement. Especially given the current popularity … of what I have termed the ‘supernatural external’ view, it seems that fairly traditional views have again moved to the forefront of research and discussion… the view that Jesus was raised bodily is currently the predominant position, if judged in terms of scholarly support. Moreover, some scholars who reject this view still hold that it was at least the New Testament position, including Paul’s own teaching. This is a marked change from recent decades when Paul’s view was often interpreted far differently.” (Pg. 90)
R. Douglas Geivett states, “Suppose you don’t believe in God. What’s the likelihood that you would, however carefully you followed Wright’s own historical method, conclude that Jesus had risen bodily from the dead…? I’d say, not likely at all… events are made more or less likely not only by circumstantial evidence susceptible of historical analysis but also by metaphysical possibilities that fall outside the special province of historical investigation. It falls outside the special province of historians to declare what are the metaphysical possibilities… [or] to set forth the criteria for rational belief that this or that causal explanation is the best one… Historians do seek causal explanations for events… But the range of explanations made available within their domain as historians and prescinding from worldview commitments does not include divine agency, or, for that matter, extrahuman agency.” (Pg. 96-97)
Alan Segal says, “Much has been made at this conference about the empty tomb. But it is not a piece of the ancient kerygma of the church. The empty tomb cannot be traced in Paul’s teaching; nor does it bear the kind of test of historicity that contemporary apologists have brought to it. It is, in fact, an argument from silence, which only underlines more strongly that the earliest Christian traditions contain no description of the resurrection itself… While Paul does certify that Jesus was buried … there is no pre-Gospel tradition of the empty tomb… We have no idea what happened to Jesus’ body, but there is some ancient evidence in Paul’s writing that Paul at least believed it was given a burial.” (Pg. 134)
Crossan suggests, “in the following treatment of the resurrection of Jesus, I will always try, first, to distinguish mode from meaning, and, second, where there is terminal disagreement on mode, to at least insist on raising the question of meaning. Might it be possible for what this forum terms evangelical and non-evangelical scholars to bracket the irreconcilable debate on mode and meet instead on the field of meaning? Maybe we can no longer afford the luxury of perpetual controversy on mode and perpetual postponement of meaning among Christians even as God’s world is more and more taken over by injustice and violence.” (Pg. 173)
This discussion/debate will be of great interest to those studying the resurrection (particularly its theological and apologetical aspects).
The Preface to this 2006 book explains, “On … March 11, 2005, nearly one thousand people filled the Leavell Chapel on the campus of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary for the inaugural … Counterpoint Forum… This program provides a forum for an evangelical scholar and a nonevangelical scholar to come together for a night of dialogue on a particular issue of religious or cultural significance. The forum is not exactly a debate… Instead, the intention is to provide a model for civil discourse on important topics and… in which to discuss differences---without abandoning one’s convictions---and to make a case for one perspective over against another… And Crossan and Wright did not disappoint… Though they disagreed on several significant points, they wholeheartedly agreed that the resurrection was very important and that it should make a difference in this world!”
N.T. Wright said in his opening statement, “The point is rather to force the question back to where it ought to be rather than allowing yet another generation of students to be taught that the Easter stories and the Gospels are simply mythical back projections of early Christian consciousness rather than accounts of something exceedingly strange and unprecedented… Enormous forces in our culture are determined to deny Jesus was raised from the dead… they use arguments which can be shown to be invalid, and they proposed alternative scenarios about the rise of Christianity which can be shown to be impossible… Let me spell out [my book’s] main positive argument… we can track with considerable precision … a phenomenon so striking and remarkable that it demands a serious and well-grounded historical explanation. Early Christian belief in resurrection is clearly not something derived from any form of paganism; it is a mutation from within Judaism.” (Pg. 19)
Crossan said in his opening statement, “My first point concerns cosmic transformation. If your faith tells you that God is just and the world belongs to God, and your experience tells you that you’re a small, battered people, then eschatology is probably inevitable, and don’t let scholars mystify you on it… Second major point… bodily resurrection… if you are going to have a cosmic transformation of this world and not its evacuation into heaven, then you have to have… TRANSFORMED physicality. How else can you have a transformed world?” (Pg. 24-25)
Crossan notes, “I know thousands of Christians for whom the bodily resurrection is equated with the resurrection. They’ve… reduced it to ‘Do you or do you not believe that Jesus came bodily out of the tomb?’ and then that means that a camera could have picked up Jesus, as it were. And that’s all they want to talk about. If they take resurrection to mean just that, then they say that I can’t be a Christian. I think that is awful. I am ready to say that if you are a Christian then you must believe in the resurrection. If they ask literally or metaphorically? I would say, tell me what you mean by ‘literally’; tell me what you mean by ‘metaphorically.’ That’s the language I would use. I wouldn’t speak concrete or abstract.” (Pg. 31)
Crossan asserts, “the stories in the Gospels… are primarily interested in who’s in charge and had an apparition. But that presumes an apparition, even if I claim, as I would, that Mark’s tomb story is made up. I think I’m with you, apparitions happened. But I think, apparitions plus the experience of ‘the kingdom is already here’; that’s my explanation of those two things.” (Pg. 33)
Wright suggests, “certainly in John 20, but I think in the other Gospels as well, the point of Easter in the Gospels is that new creation has begun and we’ve got a job to do. And I actually think that you and I are now on the same page on that. It’s just that I think what you want to say would be much better grounded theologically and actually if God literally, concretely, really, in that sense, actually did it.” (Pg. 44)
Robert Stewart comments, “One would suspect that given his denial of Jesus’ burial, Crossan would also deny Jesus’ resurrection. But technically, Crossan does not so much DENY the resurrection as REDEFINE it. Crossan understands resurrection as a metaphor for Jesus’ continued presence in the Church. As such, he insists that the embodied life of Jesus ‘remains powerfully efficacious in this world.’… In other words, the resurrection is more hermeneutical than historical.” (Pg. 74-75)
Gary Habermas argues, “current theological trends at the close of the twentieth century and continuing into the twenty-first century may reflect some areas of general agreement. Especially given the current popularity … of what I have termed the ‘supernatural external’ view, it seems that fairly traditional views have again moved to the forefront of research and discussion… the view that Jesus was raised bodily is currently the predominant position, if judged in terms of scholarly support. Moreover, some scholars who reject this view still hold that it was at least the New Testament position, including Paul’s own teaching. This is a marked change from recent decades when Paul’s view was often interpreted far differently.” (Pg. 90)
R. Douglas Geivett states, “Suppose you don’t believe in God. What’s the likelihood that you would, however carefully you followed Wright’s own historical method, conclude that Jesus had risen bodily from the dead…? I’d say, not likely at all… events are made more or less likely not only by circumstantial evidence susceptible of historical analysis but also by metaphysical possibilities that fall outside the special province of historical investigation. It falls outside the special province of historians to declare what are the metaphysical possibilities… [or] to set forth the criteria for rational belief that this or that causal explanation is the best one… Historians do seek causal explanations for events… But the range of explanations made available within their domain as historians and prescinding from worldview commitments does not include divine agency, or, for that matter, extrahuman agency.” (Pg. 96-97)
Alan Segal says, “Much has been made at this conference about the empty tomb. But it is not a piece of the ancient kerygma of the church. The empty tomb cannot be traced in Paul’s teaching; nor does it bear the kind of test of historicity that contemporary apologists have brought to it. It is, in fact, an argument from silence, which only underlines more strongly that the earliest Christian traditions contain no description of the resurrection itself… While Paul does certify that Jesus was buried … there is no pre-Gospel tradition of the empty tomb… We have no idea what happened to Jesus’ body, but there is some ancient evidence in Paul’s writing that Paul at least believed it was given a burial.” (Pg. 134)
Crossan suggests, “in the following treatment of the resurrection of Jesus, I will always try, first, to distinguish mode from meaning, and, second, where there is terminal disagreement on mode, to at least insist on raising the question of meaning. Might it be possible for what this forum terms evangelical and non-evangelical scholars to bracket the irreconcilable debate on mode and meet instead on the field of meaning? Maybe we can no longer afford the luxury of perpetual controversy on mode and perpetual postponement of meaning among Christians even as God’s world is more and more taken over by injustice and violence.” (Pg. 173)
This discussion/debate will be of great interest to those studying the resurrection (particularly its theological and apologetical aspects).
August 27, 2024
In the mid 2000s, the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary conducted a series of lectures and dialogues that featured prominent Biblical scholars discussing a variety of topics. This book covers the dialogue between N.T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan concerning the topic of the resurrection of Jesus.
The actual dialogue (slightly edited for clarity) only encompasses 31 pages of the book, while the remainder (and the bulk) consists of articles and papers on the topic from various religious scholars.
I must state that while I read and study copious amounts of material on the Christian faith and particularly the Progressive movement within the church, I am not a professor or a philosopher. Nor is this in-depth study related to my profession. As such, some of the terminology and philosophic concepts used by the various authors and presenters is beyond my scope of knowledge or study. This makes some of the concepts presented difficult to understand. It is not a book written with the lay public -- or even amateur religious investigators -- in mind.
Still, with some consultation of other sources, I was able to understand most of the concepts and ideas discussed. While I lean to the Progressive side of most ideas regarding the Christian faith, I do believe N.T. Wright's arguments are a bit more solid and convincing on most issues.
Certainly this was an interesting read, and I was surprised that I enjoyed the papers from the other contributors more than those of the two main presenters.
The actual dialogue (slightly edited for clarity) only encompasses 31 pages of the book, while the remainder (and the bulk) consists of articles and papers on the topic from various religious scholars.
I must state that while I read and study copious amounts of material on the Christian faith and particularly the Progressive movement within the church, I am not a professor or a philosopher. Nor is this in-depth study related to my profession. As such, some of the terminology and philosophic concepts used by the various authors and presenters is beyond my scope of knowledge or study. This makes some of the concepts presented difficult to understand. It is not a book written with the lay public -- or even amateur religious investigators -- in mind.
Still, with some consultation of other sources, I was able to understand most of the concepts and ideas discussed. While I lean to the Progressive side of most ideas regarding the Christian faith, I do believe N.T. Wright's arguments are a bit more solid and convincing on most issues.
Certainly this was an interesting read, and I was surprised that I enjoyed the papers from the other contributors more than those of the two main presenters.
August 3, 2018
NT Wright, a prominent evangelical theologian, and John Dominic Crossan, a leading member of the Jesus Seminar, dialogue about their respective views of the resurrection of Jesus. Including in the book following a transcript of their dialogue are articles by various Biblical scholars analyzing on the respective approaches each scholar takes to interpret. Wright asserts that the resurrection was a historical, physical event, whereas Crossan asserts that the resurrection was a "parable" or metaphor created by the early followers of Jesus to describe their ongoing commitment to the sharing the message and ministry of Jesus. While the two scholars come at the topic from different perspectives and methodologies they both assert the significance and meaning of the resurrection stories found in the gospels and Paul's commentary in I Corinthians. I went into this book with one set of questions and came out with many more. But the search for understanding was worth it
February 23, 2011
When this book first appeared, I purchased it with great anticipation. Crossan and Wright are respected and respectful scholars, both with a reputation for digging deeply. But they sit on opposite sides of the fence.
To set the stage, there is no mention of an empty tomb in Paul’s writings, and the earliest Christian tradition contains no description of the resurrection itself. By the time the Gospels were written, it would have been very hard to certify what the tomb had contained. Tombs in that period were not permanent places of burial but only temporary places where the body decayed, leaving the bones, which were then either pushed to the back of the tomb or collected in ossuaries. In other words, no evidence existed to prove or disprove the claim of bodily resurrection by the time the claims were committed to writing.
Did it happen? How?
Wright believes in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the empty tomb. He puzzles, as a historian, why anyone would continue to belong to the Christian movement in the first century and regard Jesus as the Messiah, unless the stories were regarded as literally true. Crossan, on the other hand, understands the resurrection as a metaphor for Jesus’ continued presence in the church. Bodily resurrection, to him, means “the embodied life of Jesus,” which continues to be experienced by believers today.
Sound like an interesting discussion? The dialogue between the two lasts all of 18 pages, and is rather uninspiring. The rest of the book contains commentary by other authors, where at least we appear to get a real peek into the minds of Crossan and Wright.
Disappointing.
To set the stage, there is no mention of an empty tomb in Paul’s writings, and the earliest Christian tradition contains no description of the resurrection itself. By the time the Gospels were written, it would have been very hard to certify what the tomb had contained. Tombs in that period were not permanent places of burial but only temporary places where the body decayed, leaving the bones, which were then either pushed to the back of the tomb or collected in ossuaries. In other words, no evidence existed to prove or disprove the claim of bodily resurrection by the time the claims were committed to writing.
Did it happen? How?
Wright believes in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the empty tomb. He puzzles, as a historian, why anyone would continue to belong to the Christian movement in the first century and regard Jesus as the Messiah, unless the stories were regarded as literally true. Crossan, on the other hand, understands the resurrection as a metaphor for Jesus’ continued presence in the church. Bodily resurrection, to him, means “the embodied life of Jesus,” which continues to be experienced by believers today.
Sound like an interesting discussion? The dialogue between the two lasts all of 18 pages, and is rather uninspiring. The rest of the book contains commentary by other authors, where at least we appear to get a real peek into the minds of Crossan and Wright.
Disappointing.
May 12, 2014
I read part of this book--the discussion between Crossen and Wright about whether the resurrection literally happened and what it means to say Jesus was bodily resurrected--in seminary. This time I went back and read the articles written in response to the dialog. The articles were predominantly written by evangelical scholars, which lent a bias toward Wright's point of view. Which is not all bad, and as someone educated in a seminary that is decidedly NOT evangelical, it's helpful for me to be reminded that there is real scholarship on the conservative end of our faith.
That said, and while I actually fall more in the Wright camp as far as believing in a literal bodily resurrection, I felt they missed the larger question. We can debate whether the resurrection literally happened all day long, but I me, the true question should be, what does it mean to say Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead. I can believe the factual occurrence of many events claimed by other faith groups, but I don't ascribe meaning to them the way I ascribe meaning to the events of my own faith tradition. In the end, meaning matters.
That said, and while I actually fall more in the Wright camp as far as believing in a literal bodily resurrection, I felt they missed the larger question. We can debate whether the resurrection literally happened all day long, but I me, the true question should be, what does it mean to say Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead. I can believe the factual occurrence of many events claimed by other faith groups, but I don't ascribe meaning to them the way I ascribe meaning to the events of my own faith tradition. In the end, meaning matters.
December 19, 2014
Beginning with an overview of the literature about the resurrection of Jesus, this book presents an edited transcript of talks N.T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan gave on the topic at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. (I was pleasantly surprised that a Baptist seminary would invite Crossan to speak). The book also includes some interesting essays from other scholars on the topic, some more understandable to me than others. There is some good pre-Easter reading here. I'm getting ready to lead a Sunday School class on the topic.
Read
August 9, 2011A good overview of the on-going discussion between N.T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan. The book provides a manuscript of the discussion regarding resurrection that took place at the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum (March 2005) between Wright and Crossan. I really appreciated the introductory essay by Robert Stewart and the additional essays by William Lane Craig, Craig Evans, and Gary Habermas.
November 30, 2013
The discussion between Crossan and Wright was helpful. Some of the commentators in between (esp Habermaas) were pretty weak. I love Crossan's spirit. Both approaches feel like Natural Theology done by historians. I'm for a bit more mystery. Wrote a blog post about this at: http://tinyurl.com/nb4dh88
April 2, 2010
I always enjoy the "views" book. Reading such different views of the resurrection via historical and Biblical interpretation is incredibly helpful. (Particularly since I serve in a place where both views are so vehemently held.) I definitely come down on one particular side. :)
Read
August 10, 2011Good essays, would be interesting to see whether Wright took on board Craig's critique in reformulating his argument.
July 2, 2014
Good to consider the different points of view on such an important question.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews