"But what kind of event was it? The answer to this question falls into two quite different camps; those who insist that Jesus shrugged off his grave clothes and walked out of his tomb to meet his disciples as he would have before his death, and those who believe that the Spirit of Christ remained with them after his death as it remains to the Church to this day."

There's actually another camp as well mate- those who think that resurrection of the dead is a bronze age myth.

Peter,

You object to Wright's taking 'the physical view' of Jesus' as an historical event to be investigated 'without the eyes of faith'.

Firstly, Wright took a large portion of his 817pp tome, The Resurrection of the Son of God (RSG), to demonstrate from the biblical text that Jesus' resurrection was soma, in a physical body.

He concluded: ‘The historian, of whatever persuasion, has no option but to affirm both the empty tomb and the "meetings" with Jesus as "historical events" in all the senses we sketched.... They took place as real events: they were significant events; they are, in the normal sense required by historians, provable events; historians can and should write about them. We cannot account for early Christianity without them' (Wright 2003:709).

If Jesus' Resurrection must be perceived through <<the eyes of faith>>, is this a leap of faith or faith founded on the facts of the Resurrection?

Your claim is that Wright <<effectively excludes the activity of the "Spirit as a datum of Easter Faith">>.

This is not true. Wright cites a post-biblical passage from the Mishna where it states that 'saintliness leads to the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead' (RSG 193). He supports 'all those who are given new, resurrection life by the Spirit' (RSG 258).

<<Wright takes this physical view from the traditions of Israel.>>

That's partially true. Wright demonstrates from the NT that Jesus' resurrection was a bodily resurrection because of the use of SOMA (physical body) to refer to it and the characteristics of a physical being.

Of the Holy Spirit he stated: 'Paul not only believed that Jesus had been bodily raised from the dead; he believed he knew how it was done, both in the sense of where the power came from (the Spirit of the creator God), and in the sense he knew what the difference was (corruptibility and non-corruptibility) between the body which died on the cross and the body which rose' (RSG 360).

I have yet to read Carnley.

In Truth and Reality nobody can even account for the appearance of a single thing. Or their own seeming appearance here. Even to do that they would have to account for the totality of everyone and everything beginning from day one up until the present moment. And take into account all of the multi-dimensional space-time paradoxes in which we simultaneously exist.

And yet all of these deluded "scholars" presume to know and thus describe what supposedly happened re the fictitious character named "Jesus" in Palestine/Galilee 2000 years ago.

Furthermore unless they actually witnessed and participated (up close and personal)in the Teaching Demonstration of Saint Jesus of Galilee while he was alive in a living-breathing-feeling human form everything they say is mere speculation, hearsay or gossip - everything.

But of course the "resurrection" never happened - could not have happened.
These two references give an esoteric Spiritual Understanding of the life and teaching of Saint Jesus of Galilee.

http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/bloodsac.html

http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/exochrist.html

This essay provides a summary description of the Forgotten non-christian, universa,l Spiritual Esotericism of Saint Jesus of Galilee
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/up/forgottenesotericismjesus.html

yeah we know Sellicks thinks that the death of the early apostles was all in vain as they refused to deny their resurrected Lord. These men who cowardly ran from Christ being crucified were now 'brainwahed' enough to know that His resurrection guareented theirs. I often wonder why the unbelievers spend their lives regurgating old heresies in things they don't believe in and yet hold on to some dead form of tradition.

Peter,

You complain about the apparent biblical contradiction re Jesus' resurrection:

<<the maze of biblical texts that deal with the Resurrection, many of which are at cross purposes, even to themselves as to the nature of Jesus' risen body. For example, the appearance of Jesus in the locked room in John 20:19-28 both affirms the bodily reality of the risen Christ as the one bearing the wounds of crucifixion and, in contradiction, one who can appear and disappear at will>>.

That's not contradiction unless you have a presupposition that Jesus' resurrected body had to be the same as the body he had before the crucifixion. N T Wright explains this well, using the term 'transphysicality' to describe the nature of the resurrected body - many qualities that were physical (Jesus talked, could be touched, and he ate food) and other qualities in the 2 examples you gave of something beyond the physical, i.e. transphysical.

The same applies on the Emmaus Rd with the transphysicality of the resurrected Lord.

It's not a matter of the two texts wanting it 'both ways' - Jesus physical and non-physical. That's what the biblical texts state. Why can't you accept that instead of hypothesising your contradiction? It doesn't exist, except in your presuppositions.

Scholars, theologians, and any other kinds of writer can battle it out, with whatever arguments they want. For what's in the bible,band what happened as it's written, I'll trust what the bible says. There does not need any more justification then that.

The tomb was empty. Jesus was physically there and ate with them to show as much. Later Jesus told the apstoles to wait before He amended to heaven. They did so and then recieved the Holy Spirit.

These are the events as told in the bible that answer all the debate. The questioning nature from there comes from whether the bible itself is trustworthy or not. For me it is trustworthy. That's all that's needed. It does not need to be explained more by Theolgians explaining the nature of the Reserectiin or of the Holy Spirit. Nor does it need to be questioned by theologians that do not think the bible is trustworthy. It either is trustworthy and a person is Christian. Or it isn't trustworthy and the person should move on and seek the truth.

For those that hold the bible as trustworthy, then the matter can be confirmed by other events in the bible. If Jesus was able to raise Lazerath after he died, then Jesus Himself could also come back to life in a physical body. There are more examples of people being brought back to life in the bible. If any are believed, the. Why doubt that Jesus was risen physically? If none of those events are believed then why believe anything in the bible. It should be simple. The bible is either trustworthy and inspired by God throughout it. Or it is not trustworthy and people should move on.

There is no middle ground.