Thesis (Th. M.)--Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, 2002. / Abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 126-131).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, 2002. / Abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 126-131).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, 2002. / Abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 126-131).

No description available.

Thesis (M.A.)--Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 163-169).

No description available.

A commonly used argument for the reliability of the first witnesses to the resurrection is that the apostles willingly died as martyrs for their faith. It is often claimed that all the apostles, except John, faced martyrdom. And yet until now, there has been no thorough scholarly evaluation of this claim. This dissertation demonstrates that (1) all the apostles were willing to die for their faith, and (2) a number of them actually did experience martyrdom. Their willingness to face persecution and martyrdom indicates more than any other conceivable course their sincere conviction that, after rising from the dead, Jesus indeed appeared to them. This dissertation takes a historical approach, which involves studying various sources that include the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, secular writers, and pseudepigraphical texts, such as the Acts of the Apostles, and Gnostic sources. The evidence for each apostle is examined with a scale that ranges from not possibly true (certainly not historical) to the highest possible probability (nearly historically certain). There are a few key steps to be established in this research. First, Christianity was a resurrection movement since its inception. The belief of the apostles was rooted in their conviction that Jesus rose from the dead. Second, the apostles were the closest followers of Jesus during his life and then were eyewitnesses of the resurrection. Paul and James are included along with the Twelve. Third, Christians really suffered and died for their faith beginning at the end of the first century. These three points provide the context and likelihood the apostles were martyred for proclaiming the name of Jesus. Fourth, the evidence for each apostle is examined and compared with a historical grid. Fifth, objections are considered and rebutted. While there is considerable evidence for the martyrdoms of apostles such as Peter, Paul and James the son of Zebedee, much less evidence exists for many of the others, such as Matthias and James the son of Alphaeus. Still, it is clear the apostles were all willing to die for reporting what they believed to be true and that many in fact did.

No description available.

This dissertation examines the impact of theological worldview upon John Dominic Crossan's scholarly reconstruction of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Chapter 1 introduces the centrality of resurrection belief in historic Christianity, and outlines Crossan's redefinition of the resurrection as a metaphorical parable. Chapter 2 examines the understanding of Jesus' resurrection throughout Christian history, focusing particularly on developments after the rise of deism. It concludes with an examination of Crossan's metaphorical conception of the resurrection. Chapter 3 begins with a personal and academic biography of Crossan. The key section of the chapter deals with Crossan's theological worldview presuppositions, and offers a preliminary indication of how his worldview directs his conclusions concerning Jesus' resurrection. Chapter 4 analyzes Crossan's hermeneutics and methodology. It begins with a survey of Crossan's early work in literary criticism before moving into his extra-canonical research. The chapter offers a substantial review and critical analysis of his triple-triadic historical Jesus methodology, arguing that its structure and operation are both influenced by Crossan's underlying worldview presuppositions. Throughout, the chapter examines how Crossan's hermeneutics and methodology influence his understanding of the resurrection. Chapter 5 considers the role of theological worldview and the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament, the early church, and her opponents, with particular focus upon second-century Gnostic Christianity. It argues that Gnostic Christians did what post-Enlightenment Christians, including Crossan, have also done--redefined and reconstructed Jesus' resurrection in order to fit it into their existing theological worldview. Chapter 6 offers some closing thoughts about the relationship between theological worldview and the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It insists that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ as a literal historical fact lies at the center of historic Christianity. It suggests further that the resurrection-event transformed the theological worldview of Jesus' disciples and other early Christians, and continues to call for worldview transformation amongst those who would call themselves his followers today. This dissertation concludes that the single most important factor in Crossan's scholarly conclusions regarding Jesus' resurrection is his underlying theological worldview.

INTRODUCTION. The fact of the Risen Christ is the focal point which gives meaning to the Christian faith as a whole. Modern thought, while not denying the Resurrection, tends to confine it to its doctrinal or credal significance. In contrast, the early Christians were conscious of the presence of the Risen Lord and consequently the Resurrection was a fact of living experience. As mere history it loses its moral significance; as mere faith it becomes vague belief in deathlessness, and undermines the reality of the Atonement. The Resurrection is both fact and faith.