Can the resurrection be discussed historically?
I'd like to understand the line between historical claim and confession of faith.
I'd like to understand the line between historical claim and confession of faith.
短く答えるなら「両方正しい」となります。長く答えると一冊の本になります。文法的な説明をすると長くなるので、結論だけ書きます。背景として、当時の共同体が置かれていた状況を知ると理解しやすくなります。
I've written this confidently but I would genuinely welcome disagreement. This may be a minority reading, but here is how I take it.
There's a long history here, with the argument running from the fourth century onward. The grammatical explanation is long, so I'll just give the conclusion. It's fine to carry the question unresolved for a while.
I'm a minister and my honest answer to this is that I don't know. It's fine to carry the question unresolved for a while. Most scholars today read this figuratively, though a literal reading has serious defenders.