{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0210727969348659, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01053639846743295, 'mean_word_length': 5.111111111111111, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Bodily Resurrection (1 Cor. 15)? The Discussion of the Resurrection in Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, Dorothee Solle and Contemporary Feminist Theology

Feminist theologians criticize an understanding of resurrection that refers one-sidedly to Jesus Christ. Resurrection is located in the everyday life of women and men in the New Testament age and in the present: as a collective event that signifies responsibility for life. The discussion in 1924-1926 between Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann shows that resurrection concerns life in the present. It is however impossible to make sense of the alleged continuity, if concrete bodiliness is devalued in favour of the spiritual body. Against this position, Dorothee Sölle emphasizes the material nature of the body, which cannot be detached from historical contexts. Only the affirmation of one's own bodiliness can overcome the dualism of life before death and life after death. Resurrection does not promise a better life after death; rather, it indicates how the present life can be transformed.