Revisiting and Reconstructing Christian Doctrines in India: Jesus Christ
Death, Resurrection, Ascension and Parousia of Jesus Christ
1.
Introduction
Two
thousand years have come and gone, but still his remained the unfinished story
that refuses to go away. Jesus of Nazareth, a jew from rural first century
Galilee, is without doubt the most famous and most influential human being who
ever walked the face of the earth. Two
billion people identify themselves as Christians. Unnumbered others know and
respect his memory as a wise and holy man.[1] This
paper deals with the death, resurrection, ascension and parousia of Jesus of
Nazareth.
2.
Death of Jesus
Why
did Jesus have to die? This question is capable of multiple answers. For example,
a Latin historian writing at the end of the reign of Tiberius likely would
never have heard of Jesus or his execution; or if he had, he would probably
have had no reason to mention it. Had he woven this crucifixion into his
narrative, the most credible impetus would have been to illustrate the
religio-political agitation that marked Roman–Jewish relations during this
period, perhaps as an anecdote displaying how Rome dealt with those who
threatened the pax
romana. If reports of this incident were
written up differently in the second century, or if already within the first
century those who penned documents that would become our New Testament had relocated
it from a footnote in the annals of history to its status as an epochmaking event,
this is because Jesus’ death had been set within different interpretative
horizons.[2] The
public ministry of Jesus and his execution, and emphasise the necessity of
verisimilitude given the historical constraints within which Jesus lived and
died.[3] the
question of why
Jesus had to die is intimately associated
with two further questions: How did Jesus die? and Where did
Jesus die?
2.1.
The puzzle of crucifixion
Among
the data available to us regarding Jesus of Nazareth, none is more incontrovertible
than his execution on a Roman cross by order of Pontius Pilate. The New
Testament materials testify to this event with remarkably detailed passion
narratives, with references to the crucifixion especially in the speeches in
Acts, and through the letters and the Apocalypse. Within the first century,
extra-biblical evidence is found in the writings of the Jewish historian
Josephus, in the so-called Testimonium Flavianum.
Because this text speaks Jesus’ status as Messiah and of his resurrection, and
even calls into question whether Jesus might rightly be regarded as a mere
human being, this paragraph in Josephus has long been suspected as a Christian
interpolation.[4]
Literary
evidence outside of the gospels makes it clear that, when it came to the act of
crucifixion, the Romans were slaves to no standard technique. In describing the
siege of Jerusalem by the Roman army, for example, Josephus reports that ‘the
soldiers out of rage and hatred amused themselves by nailing their prisoners in
different positions. They might be fixed to the cross with nails or with ropes.
That Jesus was nailed to the cross is intimated in several texts (John 20.25;
Acts 2.23; Col 2.14; Gos. Pet. 6.21).[5]
In
the context of any discussion of the material aspects of crucifixion it is
crucial to remember that Rome did not embrace crucifixion as its method of
choice for execution on account of the excruciating pain it caused. The act of
crucifixion resulted in little blood loss and death came slowly, as the body
succumbed to shock. This form of capital punishment was savage and heinous, but
for other reasons. Executed publicly, situated at a major crossroads or on
awell-trafficked artery, devoid of clothing, left to be eaten by birds and
beasts, victims of crucifixion were subject to optimal, unmitigated, vicious
ridicule.[6]
Rome
did not expose its own citizens to this form of heinous punishment, but
reserved crucifixion above all for those who resisted imperial rule. In short, that Jesus
was crucified immediately places him historically in the story of Roman rule as
a character regarded as antagonistic, even a threat, to the Empire. Indeed, the
inscription announcing his capital offence, ‘The King of the Jews’ (Matt 27.37;
Mark 15.26; Luke 23.38; John 19.19–22), marks Jesus as a pretender to the
throne and thus represents first a Roman perspective: Let the cruel execution of Jesus of
Nazareth be a lesson to the Jewish population that Rome will not tolerate any
attempt to incite the people to rebellion. The Romans did annihilate,
exterminate and eradicate’ them from the land.[7]
2.2.
Jesus, Jerusalem and Rome
The
gospels provide no hint that Rome – more particularly, Rome’s representative,
the prefect Pontius Pilate – reached any conclusion about Jesus by his own
devices. Rather, Jesus was conveyed to Pilate by the Jewish leadership in
Jerusalem on a capital charge. Why did Jesus have to die? This question cannot
be answered without reference to Rome. Roman
interests provides an answer that ultimately is not very satisfying, historically
and theologically.[8]
2.3.
Jesus, threat to Rome
In
what way is it possible to conceive of Jesus as a threat to Rome? This query is
resolved most directly by following the story of Jesus’ relation to Israel and
especially to the Jewish elite in Jerusalem. Even if he was relatively unknown
in the Roman world, he propagated a worldview that ran counter to official
Roman ideology and encouraged others to do the same.[9] It
was even presented Jesus to the Jewish people as a false prophet and to Pilate
as a rebel. This reasons was necessary that Jesus be put to death.[10]
2.4.
Jesus and his death
Jesus
might have contemplated his own demise is a fair question to explore. His
kingdom-proclamation, his emphasis on the status of little children, his
associates at the dining table, his interpretation of Scripture, his practices
on the Sabbath, his ministry of healing – all of these and more find their
culmination, sometimes paradoxically, in the cross. In fact, it is possible to
go further and to suggest that Jesus’ death represents a microcosm of his life
– a possibility that comes into focus in the so-called ransom-saying (Mark
10.45; Matt 20.28), in which Jesus asserts that the purpose of his coming was
‘not to be served, but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many’. Here,
Jesus illustrates his teaching with reference to his own mission, so that the
ransom-saying functions both as an example that confirms the ethic he has
proposed and as a self-disclosure of the life goal given him by God.[11]
2.5.
Its Theological meaning
Imagining
the ensuing theology as a quilt will help to qualify this interpretation of the
gospel material in three ways. First, as has already become clear, many pieces
of patchwork from the story of Israel and its traditions have been stitched
together with Jesus’ career to form one whole, with the result that these two
stories, Israel’s and Jesus’, become mutually interpreting. Second, this
redemptive interpretation of Jesus’ death does not depend on one image, one
scriptural text, or one particular cord of Jewish tradition. Third, and perhaps
most important, we do not need to insist that Jesus bequeathed this
interpretative quilt to his followers in completed form. It remains true
nonetheless that Jesus’ own disciples struggled with the nature of the life and
message he lived before them and which culminated in his death. Jesus’ death,
however secure from the standpoint of strict historicity, was and is capable of
many interpretations. Within the gospel tradition itself we find the story of
two disciples from Emmaus who found in Jesus’ crucifixion a confusing puzzle
and apparent denial of their hopes that he would redeem Israel (Luke 24.19–21).
The leaders of the people, the Jewish elite, must have regarded Jesus’
ignominious demise as proof that he was no spokesperson for God. Jesus’
disciples would find in Jesus’ resurrection proof of a different sort, a
validation of the message and ministry of Jesus, and, then, of the nature and
significance of his death.[12]
3.
Resurrection of Jesus
Ironically,
in the canonical sources the resurrection itself is nowhere described, never
clearly defined, and quite diversely interpreted. Nevertheless, the New
Testament writings unanimously agree on one thing: in some sense that was both
inexplicable and yet unmistakable, Jesus was seen alive in personal encounters
with his disciples soon after his death. Our earliest written sources are
Paul’s letters to Thessalonica and Galatia. They date from around ad 50, but
evidently appeal to a conviction that is already common ground (1 Thess 1.10;
4.14; Gal 1.1). Writing to Corinth five years later, Paul quotes verbatim from
a fuller creedal tradition that may well date from the first decade after the
crucifixion: having been dead and buried, Jesus ‘was raised on the third day’
and then ‘appeared’ in succession to Cephas (i.e. Peter), the Twelve, an
unspecified group of 500, then to Jesus’ brother James, and then to all the
apostles together (1 Cor 15.3–7).
For
the early Christians who received and passed on this tradition, it was by no
means an afterthought, the requisite ‘happy ending’ to an otherwise heroic but
sadly unsatisfactory life story. Instead, Paul and the other New Testament
writers affirm the resurrection of Jesus as the defining and indispensable foundation
of Christian faith (1 Cor 15: 14-20).[13] Needless
to say, ‘history’ and ‘myth’, truth and rhetoric, experience and interpretation
all converge in any serious attempt to make sense of this extraordinary claim.
It is therefore idle as well as inaccurate to treat it as a straightforward
matter either of ‘miracle’, of ‘myth’ or of ‘metaphor’. This nettle is not
grasped by pseudo-scientific rationalism of either the apologetic
(‘who
moved the stone?’) or the sceptical variety.[14]
3.1.
The Resurrection Narratives: Confusion and Confluence
In
its earliest extant form, the Gospel of Mark has the briefest and most
enigmatic narrative. Throughout the Gospel, both the resurrection of Jesus and
the angel’s message at the tomb are explicitly anticipated (8.31; 9.9, Resurrection
105 31; 10.34; 14.28). And yet, the earliest attested text of Mark ends
without resurrection appearances of any kind. Mary Magdalene and two others
find the tomb open and encounter only ‘a young man in a white robe’, who asks
them to tell the disciples that Jesus has been raised and will meet them in
Galilee. The book ends abruptly with the women saying ‘nothing to anyone’ and
fleeing in fear (16.8); Mark’s Greek syntax reinforces that abruptness by the
striking staccato of concluding on the particle gar (‘for’). Others
suspect that Mark deliberately enhances the suspense of the resurrection
message at the tomb by continuing his customary secrecy theme and projecting
the Easter reality into the reader’s present.[15]
In
the early second century, an editor added what became the canonical longer
ending (16.9–20), attempting to resolve this tension by a summary of Jesus’
appearances – first to Mary Magdalene (who does inform the disciples),
then to two disciples ‘walking into the country’, and then before his ascension
to commission the Eleven ‘as they were sitting at table’. All three additional
appearances are at least partly dependent on accounts in the other canonical
gospels.[16]
In
Matthew, Mary Magdalene and another Mary (the mother of James and Joseph,
27.56, 61) encounter an angel who has descended from heaven in the midst of an
earthquake to roll back the stone and sit on it. He invites the women to see
the empty tomb, and asks them to tell the disciples that Jesus is risen and
will meet them in Galilee. On their way to carry out this instruction, they
encounter Jesus in person, who repeats the same instruction. After an
apologetic excursus about the chief priests buying the silence of a Roman guard
placed at the tomb (28.11–15), the risen Jesus eventually appears to the Eleven
on a mountain in Galilee and promises his abiding presence. In view of Peter’s
prominence in Matt 16.17–19, it is interesting that Matthew makes no mention of
an appearance to him.[17]
In
Luke, Luke 24 provides a rather fuller narrative of encounters with the risen
Jesus, along with a clearer account of how they ceased. The whole account
repeatedly stresses Jesus’ fulfilment of Scripture, and describes appearances
occurring seemingly on a single day in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Here, the
women report the communication of two angels at the tomb as instructed.
Like holy women in every age, however, these ‘apostles of the apostles’, as the
church later called them, are at first dismissed by men as bearers of ‘an idle
tale’. Peter himself then visits the empty tomb. Two disciples on their walk to
Emmaus hear Jesus expound his messianic fulfilling of the Law, Prophets and
Writings while he walks with them – but ironically they recognise him only when
he disappears during a shared meal. On their return to Jerusalem to report to
‘the Eleven and their companions’, they learn of an appearance to Peter that is
not otherwise described. Suddenly Jesus himself stands in their midst and
reassures them that he is physically alive, eating fish in their presence.
Disbelief gives way to joy (24.41, 52). After stressing yet again his
fulfilment of the Old Testament, Jesus leads the disciples to the Mount of
Olives. There he commissions them before withdrawing and being ‘carried up into
heaven’ (24.51).[18]
In
John’s Gospel, Peter and the Beloved Disciple racing to the tomb at Mary
Magdalene’s news, and finding in it only the rolled up linen grave-cloths. (For
the Beloved Disciple, this is proof enough: ‘he saw and believed’, 20.8.) Mary
Magdalene herself, lingering by the tomb, encounters the risen Jesus and
initially mistakes him for a gardener. Even then, she is told not to hold on to
him. Jesus later appears through closed doors to commission and bestow the Holy
Spirit on the disciples – except Thomas, whose doubts he overcomes a week later
by appearing again in his presence and expressly inviting him, unlike Mary, to
touch his wounds. Chapter 21 provides an appendix with an added resurrection
appearance at the Sea of Galilee, which involves a miraculous catch of fish and
a meal, during which Jesus rehabilitates Simon Peter and appoints him as pastor
of his flock.[19]
Commentaries
and monographs provide a fuller account of these issues. The New Testament
writers affirm of the resurrection of Jesus both (1) that it is an event in
historical time and space, and (2) that it cannot be straightforwardly
understood as an event in historical time and space. The deliberate
constellation of blatantly ‘material’ with ‘spiritual’ and transcendental
aspects suggests a complex affirmation that is likely to resist of any sort.
3.2.
Why ‘Resurrection’?
But
why should first-century Jews find themselves compelled to use the distinctive
language of resurrection in the first place? After all, the walking dead were a
well-known phenomenon until the advent of modern medicine. Jesus, too, was
credited with restoring newly dead people to life
at
Capernaum, Nain and Bethany (Mark 5.35–41; Luke 7.11–16; John 11.1–45). Some of
his Jewish contemporaries had no difficulty believing that prophets recent or
ancient might be ‘raised from the dead’ and walk among the living. Apparitions
of Moses and Elijah, both believed to have been bodily assumed to heaven,
attended later Jewish teachers from R. Aqiba in the second century to Shabbetai
Tzvi in the seventeenth. Graeco-Roman stories, too, are familiar with the
motifs of finding unexpectedly empty tombs whose occupants subsequently reappear
alive and well.[20]
Precisely
the assurance of resurrection, however, is taken to authenticate Jesus as the
messianic Son of David (Acts 2.31–36; 13.34–37; Rom 1.3–4; 2 Tim 2.8; Rev
22.16) and ‘the firstfruits of those who have died’ (1 Cor 15.20). God has
raised, exalted and established him as the Son of God empowered by the Spirit
(e.g. Rom 1.4; Phil 2.19–10; Matt 28.18). To belong to this risen Lord is to
share in ‘indescribable and glorious joy’ (1 Pet 1.8; cf. Luke 24.52; John
20.20), expectantly looking for ‘the power of his resurrection’ (Phil 3.10–11).
It was the conclusiveness of the Easter events that made their interpretation
so highly charged: ‘We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never
die again; death no longer has dominion over him’ (Rom 6.9).[21]
The
Christian language of ‘resurrection’, then, is in the first instance the
product of a specific time, place and culture. It was Jerusalem’s religious
conflicts and political machinations that made Jesus a victim of Roman torture
and crucifixion. And it was in Jerusalem that he was first seen as risen from the dead – at once Jerusalem’s victim
and the vanquisher of Jerusalem’s oppression. To translate this highly culture-specific
message into another setting was always going to be a complex task, in the
ancient as much as in the modern world.[22]
3.3.
An upside-down metaphor
This
integrative function of the resurrection of Jesus is consistently echoed and
appropriated in the New Testament and patristic writings. The crucifixion is ‘a
stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to the Greeks’ (1 Cor 1.23) – and
without the resurrection, faith is known full well to be futile. Because of it,
however, the cross can and does assume the redemptive significance in which
Jesus envisaged it: in the words of one early tradition, ‘he was handed over to
death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification’ (Rom 4.25). One
may agree or disagree with that early Christian reasoning, but it is important
to recognise it for what it is: an attempt to do interpretative justice to
Jesus of Nazareth within the first-century world that he himself inhabited, and
to identify the implications for his followers’ life and faith.[23]
4.
The Ascension
The
New Testament has much to say about the ascension of Christ which is linked
with, but separate from, the resurrection theme. Indeed the resurrection without
the ascension would be incomplete. It would demonstrate the conquest of death,
but would not necessarily imply the exaltation of Christ. It is important,
therefore, to note the evidence for the event and to assess its theological
significance.
4.1.
The synoptic gospels
Among
the synoptics Luke alone specifically mentions the departure of jesus after
certain resurrection appearances. His account in the gospel is brief (Lk.
24:50-51). It does not speak, however, of an ascension, although it implies it.
Luke’s record of Jesus’ earthly ministry is the most complete, in that it
begins with his coming (the birth of jesus) and closes with his going (the
ascension).[24]
In
Luke, The most significant feature of his account is the use of the word
‘departure’ (exodos) in the description of the theme of conversation between
jesus and Moses and Elijah. No more convincing is the view that the
transfiguration is a resurrection appearance read back into the narrative of
the ministry. But there is a marked distinction between the trans~ figuration
and the resurrection appearances. The appearances were clearly recognized as
appearances of the risen Lord, not a glorification of the earthly jesus. The
transfiguration must be seen rather as a means of preparing the disciples for
the coming permanent glorification. In the light of the subsequent ascension at
which jesus entered into his glory, there are some noteworthy parallels for
instance, the cloud as symbolic of the divine presence, and the fact that both
events happened on a mountain.[25]
Mark's
gospel contains a brief mention of the ascension, but only in the ending
(Mk. 16:19), which is generally regarded as non-Markan. Indeed it seems to
be based mainly on Luke’s gospel. Whatever the origin of Mark 1619-20, it is an
early well-attested witness to a firm belief that Jesus ascended into heaven.
In fact, Mark 16:19 is much more specific than Luke‘s gospel. for it
mentions also the session of jesus at the right hand of God.[26]
4.2.
John
Although
this account does not end with an event of ascension, there are significant
hints of it within the body of the gospel.” In 3:13, jesus says, ‘No one
has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.’ The
tense is strange since Jesus had not ascended, but it is obviously a forward
reference to an event he was anticipating. In 6:62 a question of jesus to some
of his disciples is recorded, ‘Thcn what if you were to see the Son of man
ascending where he was before?’ This question presupposes the probability of
the coming ascension. Among the resurrection occurrences included by John, the
appearance to Mary Magdalene is particularly significant because jesus forbade
her to hold him (20:17), ‘for l have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to
my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my
God and your God.’ We need not suppose that Jesus was intending to ascend
at once hm his concern was to prepare the disciples for that important event
Neither need to deduce that the giv ing of the Spirit 1n 20: 22 is an evidence
that the ascension had now happened in the light of Jesus’ statement
in 7:39, since the full outpouring of the Spirit did not occur until
Pentecost and john (or the writer) could not have been unaware of this. Nor, in
fact, can itht claimed that the invitation to Thomas to ‘handle me’ (20:20, 27)
must lot post-ascension in the light of 20:17, since different words for
touch are used. It was not Mary’s ‘touch‘ but her ‘hold’ which Jesus
forbade.[27]
4.3. Paul
There
are several passages where the apostle either directly affirms or indirectly
implies the acceptance of the fact of the ascension. ln Romans 1026-7 he
introduces an ascent-descent theme based on an exposition of Deuteronomy
30:12-13, which would have little point if it had not been generally accepted
that the ascension was a historical fact. A similar passage occurs in Ephesians
4:9, 10 where Psalm 68:18 is cited and where the conclusion is reached, ‘He who
descended is he who also ascended far above all ‘the heayens.’ In the
same episrle the result of: the resurrection is that God made him sit at his
right hand in the heavenly places (1:20).[28]
4.4.
Revelation
The
whole book centres on the ascended Lord and there can be no doubt from the
frequent scenes set in heaven that the present activity of Christ ' plays an
important part in john’s thought. Moreover, in addition to the exaltation of
the Lamb, the witnesses ascend (Rev. 11:12) and the man~ child is caught
up (Rev. 12:5). The whole book alternates between earth and heaven, but it is
the heavenly scene which is dominant. The final coming of Christ as Word of God
in judgment is described as a coming from the opened heaven (19:11). In the
worship passage in Revelation 4 and 5, the Lamb stands before the throne (5:6)
and shares with God in receiving the homage of all creatures (7:9). This idea
is fully in harmony with the other NT references to Christ being at the right
hand of God. It is significant, however, that in 5:6 he stands (as in
Acts 7:56).[29]
4.5.
Its theological meaning
From
the NT evidence surveyed, it becomes clear that the ascension was an important
facet of early Christian belief, which is testified in a wide range of writings.
It remains to enquire ‘whether there is general agreement regarding its
significance. Some of the points brought out here relate more to the work of
Christ than to his person, but are included here for the sake of completeness.
The completion of resurrection, The beginning of exaltation and enthronement,
the inauguration of the ministry of intercession, The fulfillment of the divine
mission, The filling by Christ of all things, The bestowing of the gift of the
spirit, The opening up of access of believers and The start of new age.
5.
The Parousia
The
Parousia is a theological concept that comes from the Greek word parousia
meaning "coming" or "presence." In the study of Bible
prophecy, the term Parousia is used in reference to the Coming of Jesus Christ.
The ‘final day’ is commonly called in the New testament the paraousia of Christ
(1 cor 15:23; 1 Thes. 4:15). The word
means ‘presence’ or ’arrival’, ande was used of visits of gods and rulers. This parousia may be called the ‘second
coming’ of Jesus (Heb 9: 28), and may be described as ‘personal’, since it is
the revelation and vindication of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 1: 11). Eschatology concerns a person, not merely an
event. But it is inappropriate to think
of the parousia simply as the physical arrival of a person or as ‘a historical
event in the future’, because the parousia not only marks the end of our
present historical order but will itself be beyond history, introducing a new
order discontinuous with the present course of history.[30]
Twentieth-century
scholarship has been much concerned with the problem of the delay of the
parousia: since the early church’s
expectation of an imminent parousia was not fulfilled, is not the whole notion
discredited? In fact the problem has
been exaggerated. There are few clear
references to it in the New Testament(1 pet. 3:1-10; Jn. 21: 22-23). Passages about ‘signs of times’ (Mk. 13) were
not intended to enable the calculation of an eschatological timetable but to
warn of conflicts to be expected throughout history until the parousia. Alongside passages suggesting imminence (Mk.
9:1; 13:30; Rom. 13: 11-12) are others which declare that the date of the end
is unknown (Mk. 13;32; Acts 1:7).
Passages suggesting imminence indicate a theological rather than
chronological relationship between present and future. They indicate the certainity, nor the timing,
of God’s completion of what he has begun.
New
testament writers are in fact less concerned with the timing and manner of
chrit’s coming that with its purpose.
In
some cases, the Parousia is used in reference to the time when Jesus Christ
comes to rapture His people to be with Him. (For example, 1 Thessalonians
4:15-17) At any moment, the dead in Christ will rise followed by those alive in
Christ to be with Christ forever (also 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians
2:19; 3:13; 5:23; James 5:8; 1 John 2:28).[31]
In
other cases, the Parousia refers to Christ's return at the end of the
seven-year tribulation period. Revelation 19:11-21 speaks at length about this
event. Jesus will return in victory and defeat His enemies at Armageddon,
beginning His reign upon David's throne in Jerusalem with His people.
It
is important to understand that the Bible speaks of two different
"comings" of Jesus Christ. Some believe Christ will return only once,
at the end of the seven-year tribulation. However, a study of the passages that
refer to Christ's coming note many differences between the rapture and the
second coming of Christ. Most notably, at the rapture Jesus will come on the
clouds to take His people to be with Him. This will take place at any moment
and before the seven-year tribulation period. At His second coming, Jesus will
come down to earth with His people to defeat His enemies and begin His reign in
Jerusalem for the millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:1-7).
The
following highlights many of these key
differences:
The
Parousia is an essential part of the study of biblical prophecy. In discussing
the Parousia one should be careful to define to which coming of Christ he or
she is referring and to note many of the important, significant differences
between the rapture and return of Christ. Christ as hope, The distinctive
feature of Christian eschatology is its Christ-centeredness. Christ’s second coming marks the completion
of his work begun in Bethlehem and at Calvary.
The resurrection of believers depends on the resurrection of Jesus. Christian hope is not mere wish-fulfillment,
because it looks for fulfillment of a plan already in operation. Parousia calls people not so much to
contemplate their individual destinies, as to allow the perspective of hope to
influence the whole of life.[32]
6.
Conclusion and Evaluation
Almost
everyone agrees that Jesus Christ actually existed and walked the earth some
2000 years ago. Many believe He was a prophet, a good man, and also a great
moral teacher. Even after 200 years have passed, still the significance of
Jesus is not outdated. This is only because of the adaptability of Jesus the
Nazareth to country even like India. This paper tries to give the glimpses of
death, resurrection, ascension and parousia. Its like a few rain drops which
fall on the ocean. Off course, lot to
discuss and analyze about Jesus the Nazareth. Therefore I would like to
conclude it by quoting a common Christian, Jesus came to save the world; died,
resurrected, ascended. Jesus will return to judge and rule it.
[1] Markus Bockmuehl, ed., The Cambridge companion to Jesus (UK: Cambridge University press, 2001), 1.
[2]Joel B. Green, “’Crucifixion,” in The Cambridge companion to Jesus, edited by Markus Bockmuehl (UK: Cambridge University press, 2001), 87.
[3] Joel B. Green, “’Crucifixion…, 88.
[4] Joel B. Green, “’Crucifixion…, 89.
[5] Robert W. Jenson, Systematic …, 181.
[6] Joel B. Green, “’Crucifixion…, 91.
[7] Joel B. Green, “’Crucifixion…, 92.
[8] Robert W. Jenson, Systematic …, 182
[9] Joel B. Green, “’Crucifixion…, 92.
[10] Robert W. Jenson, Systematic …, 184.
[11] Joel B. Green, “’Crucifixion…, 95.
[12]Robert W. Jenson, Systematic …, 186.
[13] Robert W. Jenson, Systematic …, 196.
[14] Markus Bockmuehl, ed., The Cambridge companion to Jesus (UK: Cambridge University press, 2001), 102,103.
[15] Markus Bockmuehl, ed., The Cambridge …, 105.
[16] David Guthire, New Testament Theology (Hyderabad: Authentic Books, 2014), 376.
[17] Markus Bockmuehl, ed., The Cambridge …, 107.
[18] David Guthire, New Testament …, 376.
[19] Markus Bockmuehl, ed., The Cambridge …, 109.
[20] Markus Bockmuehl, ed., The Cambridge …, 115.
[21] David Guthire, New Testament…, 380.
[22] Markus Bockmuehl, ed., The Cambridge …, 117.
[23] Markus Bockmuehl, ed., The Cambridge …, 116,117.
[24] David Guthire, New Testament Theology (Hyderabad: Authentic Books, 2014), 391.
[25] David Guthire, New Testament…, 393.
[26] David Guthire, New Testament…, 394.
[27] David Guthire, New Testament…, 394.
[28] David Guthire, New Testament…, 395.
[29] David Guthire, New Testament…, 396.
[30] Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright, New Dictionary of Theology (USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989), 229.
[31] Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright, New Dictionary…, 230.
[32] Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright, New Dictionary…, 230.
No comments:
Post a Comment