Wright reminded me how 'this-worldly' and politically engaged early Christian apocalypticism was. His analysis of the first century religious options for understanding what happened to a person at death and the implications these ideas had for Paul and the Gospel writers deepened my understanding of what we Christians mean when we put our hope in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Taking part in the new creation meant being transformed by the hope and belief that all people are being drawn into one family. Today's church needs to model that same openness to those currently shoved to the fringes of our common life in Christ. Further, Wright argued that not only did virtually all of the early Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, but that the truth of this conviction can be accepted by modern persons as well.
Some scholars affirm the first while denying the second.
I affirm both. Many scholars who firmly themselves disbelieve in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, acknowledge that, as far as we can tell, most of the early Christians did seem to believe it. As historians, we have to inquire whether we have any better alternative to offer, or whether in fact the early church was right. In the fourth lecture, Wright turned his attention to the Gospels, connecting the evangelists' accounts with other New Testament writing. For Wright, the Gospel stories have the ring of reportage about them.