I did not notice a single reference to the Resurrection as important in Christianity. It's all crucifixion. But if Jesus did not rise from the dead, if He was just a really nice man with some nice ideas about how to live, if Jesus is just a symbol of how to live life sacrificially, then I agree with Flannery O'Connor on being informed by…
I did not notice a single reference to the Resurrection as important in Christianity. It's all crucifixion. But if Jesus did not rise from the dead, if He was just a really nice man with some nice ideas about how to live, if Jesus is just a symbol of how to live life sacrificially, then I agree with Flannery O'Connor on being informed by a nice modern "Christian" about Holy Communion/Mass being simply a symbol: "If it's just a symbol, then to hell with it."
He did mention it early in the podcast (time-mark 13:00) - and I thought it very well explained:
"Without the Resurrection, the crucifixion has no significance at all - Paul says this: 'If there is no Resurrection, my preaching is absolute nonsense'. And more than that, in the opinion of the early Christians, it suggests the kind of radical maneuver that God turns out to have done, in having come down and played the role of a slave, rather than of a conqueror - the implications of that wouldn't have reverberated at all if the Resurrection hadn't happened. It would simply affirm the fact that the strong govern the world, and the weak have to suck it up."
Unfortunately, after this profound observation, he seemed to forget his own insight. He ended up attributing the unique success of Christianity's message across cultures and centuries to everything except that "radical maneuver of God".
I did not notice a single reference to the Resurrection as important in Christianity. It's all crucifixion. But if Jesus did not rise from the dead, if He was just a really nice man with some nice ideas about how to live, if Jesus is just a symbol of how to live life sacrificially, then I agree with Flannery O'Connor on being informed by a nice modern "Christian" about Holy Communion/Mass being simply a symbol: "If it's just a symbol, then to hell with it."
He did mention it early in the podcast (time-mark 13:00) - and I thought it very well explained:
"Without the Resurrection, the crucifixion has no significance at all - Paul says this: 'If there is no Resurrection, my preaching is absolute nonsense'. And more than that, in the opinion of the early Christians, it suggests the kind of radical maneuver that God turns out to have done, in having come down and played the role of a slave, rather than of a conqueror - the implications of that wouldn't have reverberated at all if the Resurrection hadn't happened. It would simply affirm the fact that the strong govern the world, and the weak have to suck it up."
Unfortunately, after this profound observation, he seemed to forget his own insight. He ended up attributing the unique success of Christianity's message across cultures and centuries to everything except that "radical maneuver of God".
Thanks for the helpful information. I have an aversion to listening to podcasts, so was relying on the "edited" transcript.