| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Anglican Bishop |
| 2008-02-09 |
| N.T. "Tom" Wright is one of the most formidable figures in the world of Christian thought. As Bishop of Durham, he is the fourth most senior cleric in the Church of England and a major player in the strife-riven global Anglican Communion; as a much-read theologian and Biblical scholar he has taught at Cambridge and is a hero to conservative Christians worldwide for his 2003 book The Resurrection of the Son of God, which argued forcefully for a literal interpretation of that event. It therefore comes as a something of a shock that Wright doesn't believe in heaven — at least, not in the way that millions of Christians understand the term. In his new book, Surprised by Hope (HarperOne), Wright quotes a children's book by California first lady Maria Shriver called What's Heaven, which describes it as "a beautiful place where you can sit on soft clouds and talk... If you're good throughout your life, then you get to go [there]... When your life is finished here on earth, God sends angels down to take you heaven to be with him." That, says Wright is a good example of "what not to say." The Biblical truth, he continues, "is very, very different." Wright, 58, talked by phone with TIME's David Van Biema. |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #9 TW, In Jewish theology, there are three laws that cannot be broken to save a life: one may not murder to save another, one may not commit adultery, and one may not commit idolatry. The Rabbis also ruled that one need not sacrifice one's own life to save another. |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2008-02-09 23:28 |
| #8 I still think whatever is on the other side is more wonderful and weird than we can ever conceive. However, I agree that what you do here counts, so make the most of it. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-02-09 21:38 |
| #7 I agree with the Bishop on his reading of Scripture on the nature of Heaven and where we will be in eternity, as well as agree with him on the Jewishness of the first century Church. However, the Time Magazine reporter AND the Bishop are both dead wrong about Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series: Both imply that the series ends in heaven, while the actual series ends at the beginning of the Millenium. Of the two, the Bishop is more in the wrong: the Time reporter can be expected to lie about it, but the Bishop either was as equally ignorant of the series (and thus got it so wrong as to look like a fool to those who actually have read it) or knew and went along with the Reporter's implication (and thus was venal in knowingly participating in perpetuating a falsehood). LaHaye was also very specific on telling us what he thought was Armageddon, and both the Bishop and the reporter go with the "popular" view that its a total destruction of the earth. Thus, in correcting one "popular", but wrong, view, they support another "popular", but also wrong, view. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2008-02-09 19:37 |
| #6 Only murder is forbidden, wxjames, at least in the Ten Commandments in the original Hebrew. Killing in a just war, or to execute justice, is perfectly acceptable to God. If not, He and I will have a little talk when the time comes, for even Jesus accepted that those who crucified him were doing his Father's will. Whereas those civilians whose hands are clean because they stood aside while others were murdered, as far as I'm concerned they share guilt with those who actually took lives wrongly. "Anything is permitted in the saving of a life," the rabbis said, and "God does not demand of us a suicide pact." Our society has found a way to deal with the issue, wxjames. Also with the difficult choices that policemen find themselves in, and those true politicians who honestly strive for the greatest good for the greatest number, knowing that not all will be better off no matter what they do, and some will even be hurt by it. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-02-09 18:23 |
| #5 FOTSGreg, actually, it doesn't seem that overwhelming. Love your fellow man as you love yourself. For we civilians in a system that preaches equality, it should be easy to queue up for heaven. I feel sorry for the soldiers. Those trained to kill who have indeed become methodical and efficient can use all the help we can offer to ease the trauma of their deeds revisited. It's surprising that our society has never found a way to deal with such a broad problem resulting from our numerous wars. Rather, we celebrate victory, and sweep the details away pretending a new day washes all hands. Can we be so certain the God excuses them so easily ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2008-02-09 16:39 |
| #4 "a beautiful place where you can sit on soft clouds and talk" That's got about as much New Testament support as the idea that little Jesus was born on Christmas Day, or that his Jewish parents would have given him a Latin rather than Hebrew name. What on earth was Mrs.Schwarzenegger thinking when she wrote that pap? This was Time Magazine? It's their annual let's try to upset the believers issue, then, where they find something long known to Biblical scholars that's contradictory to common beliefs, and run with it. I think last year it was the Gospel of Judas, one of many such the Church Fathers chose not to include in the Testament they codified in the 4th century, just as the rabbis chose not to include many "historical novels", and anything written from the time of the Maccabees onward in the Jewish Bible. (If I recall correctly, the Book of Daniel was the last to be written, just before the cut off, even though the story was set in the time of the first diaspora. It was very much a coded message to those living under the rule of the Syrio-Hellenic tyrant Antiochus IV Epiphanes, he who was defeated so thoroughly by whichever Ptolemy was ruling Egypt at the time). |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-02-09 15:29 |
| #3 Follow the link and read the entire vomit puddle of moonbattery. This "bishop" can't help but get in digs against the Iraq War, and promote Green propaganda. The issue isn't whether or not the technical aspects of his theological view square with this biblical source or that. He was merely using the interview to push his cultural marxism masquerading as Christianity. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2008-02-09 14:34 |
| #2 While I might disagree, somewhat, with Bishop Wright's new age, touchy-feely, environmentalism, I'm forced to agree, for the most part, with his interpretation of Biblical and Jewish theology. The apocalyptic "vision" of the Left Behind novels and Christian fundamentalism is a new development in Christianity, less than 200 years old. It's fundamentally flawed in its vision in that it interprets Biblical theology as saying we go to live with God in the end times rather than God coming here to live with us. The Bible is very clear on a few things - it is important, very important, what we do here and how we live. Bishop Wright's just saying that the touchy-feely vision of what happens to us after our physical body dies here is wrong according to what the Bible actually says. That's (the apocalyptic version of theology) a modern day interpretation that goes hand-in-hand with new age theology and religion that is, itself, fundamentally flawed in its vision of the world and the afterlife IMNSHO, of course. I think Bishop Wright is right on the money when he basically states that we have a lot of work cut out for us when God returns. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2008-02-09 14:27 |
| #1 Been to heaven Mr. Wright ? No ? Bullshitting us again Mr. Wright ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2008-02-09 13:45 |