Christology: A Global Introduction By Karkkainen

The Bultmannian demythologization is a subject widely misunderstood by many prominent theologians and biblical scholars. The fault lies in the fact that Bultmann uses various philosophical concepts and the label attached as myth to the theory of demythologization itself is difficult to understand. Karkkainen’s understanding of the Bultmannian view shall dominate this paper to reveal how prominent scholars such as Karkkainen and Norman Geisler and various others misunderstood Bultmann’s true intentions. The essay shall focus on Karkkainen’s understanding of Bultmann’s theory. Language is limited as it fails to capture the true event, and as language itself is symbolic therefore the problem is how to separate myth from the text. Rudolph Bultmann

Karkkainen presents Bultmann’s myth and tries to articulate and define myth as something that no language of history and science may fully explain and express. He therefore expounds that myth being able to help the contemporary audiences and scholars to understand the ancient and incomprehensible speech of the Old and New Testament. Bultmann presents that Christianity emerged from a prescientific perspective of a three-storied universe. Bultmann argues that New Testament should be deprived of the three-storied mythological format, as the science has made the supernatural perspective outdated. Bultmann tries to define myth as an ancient and inchoate perspective of biblical era compare with the contemporary scientific era. Myth is a prescientific way of mentally visualizing the reality. Karkkainen presents Bultmann to be highly skeptic regarding the historical credibility of the Gospel narratives. The main point Bultmann tries to argue time and time again is that faith is a personal commitment to Jesus, and that faith has no historical bearings and does not offer historical facts. Bultmann claims faith in Christ is not reliant on

That declaration itself cannot be supported as he does not provide any evidences for the case according to Norman Geisler. The New Testament authors declare to be eyewitness to the accounts presented in the Gospels and have died for that claim. Nowhere does the New Testament presents a style of mythology about the way Karkkainen presents it to be. Karkkainen presents that Bultmann claimed to accept the crucifixion as an historical event but he disputes it being an act of the Son of God as the substitutionary atonement for the sinners. Karkkainen again misunderstands Bultmann’s theory and thinking and presents Bultmann believing in resurrection but not a literal one, even though both the death and resurrection of Jesus are key events to his theory regardless. If we disregard the historicity of Jesus’ incarnation, virgin birth, miracles, resurrection and ascension then how is He any different from the rest of the world religious leaders? The events noted above are the crucial things that define and reveal the love of God to the world by sending His only begotten Son to be a substitutionary atonement for their sins. If the miracles and the rest of the events representing Jesus in the Gospels are myths, then how are we to trust God and is not our salvation on question. Karkkainen presents Bultmann’s theory as a theory that degrades God, Jesus and the New