So what the resurrection means in real terms is that it it was all smoke and mirrors, like magicians trick.

David

Thanks for your last two articles on this theme, Peter! As John Dominick Crossan has stated when dealing with a topic like the resurrection: "“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.”

When one 'does' theology then one has to deal 'theologically' with the subject at hand. History, cultural-patternism, archeology, and philology have something to add to the subject, but overall, a topic like the resurrection can ONLY be perceived and understand theologically!

Yuri

Grrr... MY "understand" should have read "understood" :-) Time for another vino!

Yuri

Yes Yuri, and like arguing with a mindless uncomprehending broken record that just keeps spouting endless regurgitated rhetoric?

And in spite of endless reinterpretation and revision of the original story, will countenance no other explanation? And typical of a rigid fundamentalist, who owns their own facts?

It's just so tiresome! Why bother? Unless you like wasting precious time?
Rhrosty.

But what about Reality as an unknowable Paradoxical Process?
Or the body as an indefinable non-separate modification of indestructible Conscious Light?
Hence the Enlightenment of the Whole Body
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/EWB/lastwords.html
Also:
http://www.dabase.org/illusion-weather.htm
And what is one looking at "out there", or in the Mirror?
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/mirrorandcheckerboard995.html

Yuri,
Nice quote from Crossan!
Peter

When you embrace 'Darwinian evolution' and trash the physical resurrection of Christ end up with all sorts of idiotic conclusions. Peter has just proven this. Evolution is the most anti scientific fraud with no rational base simply swallowed by a god denying community. Why Peter makes God out to be a liar and pathetically fallen man the truth bearers makes me wonder why he bothers with re writes of what Scripture plainly declares.

To invert Runner's statement. When you embrace the physical resurrection of Christ and trash 'Darwinian evolution' you end up with all sorts of idiotic conclusions. Peter has just proven this. The physical resurrection of Christ is the most unscientific theory with an irrational base simply swallowed by a god bothering community.

David

Jesus's resurrection could have been physical/literal, metaphoric, neither, both or perhaps even something else - I don't know which.

What bothers me is the willing to go with the flow, bowing down before the god of populism while obscuring this defeatism by naming it "rising to the occasion". The author is willing to even change the meaning of "Transcendence" to suit the populist prevailing view of the world of the new atheists.

Even if the author's observation that "For the Church to argue that consciousness may exist without the body or that God had a part in evolution or actual dead bodies may rise from the grave is futile" is correct, does it justify telling lies instead?

.

Dear Peter,

.

As I am sure you are aware, I have already commented extensively on your previous article on this subject (but perhaps “sermon” or “monologue” would be more appropriate terms, given your notorious aversion to dialogue.

Perhaps your desire to take a second bite at the apple was prompted by your reflexion on some of the comments you received, in which case this second “sermon” (or “monologue”) should be considered the best you can do in the way of a “dialogue”. After all, it is not a “duologue” (a “logos” between two persons) but a “dialogue” à la Peter Sellick, i.e., saying something to yourself twice.

In your second monologue, you indicate :

« In my last post I attempted to reach a concept of the Resurrection of Jesus that respected Scriptural texts, the constraints of theology and the demands of practical reason. My conclusion was that the writers of the texts used a metaphor of the body … In this essay I will extend the metaphor to the lives of believers. »

That just about covers everything and everybody contained in the gospels. Apparently you consider that the gospels are simply an anthology of metaphors.

You also note that “the resurrection appearances do not read like history but like legend”. [1st article, 10th paragraph]. According to the OED the word “legend” means “a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated”.

The problem is that there are only three elements in the gospels subject to "almost universal assent" among scholars: (1) that Jesus probably existed (2) was baptized by John the Baptist and (3) was crucified on the order of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate – all the rest being a matter of pure conjecture.

You further indicate that “theologians in universities are … securing a respected place for themselves in mainstream academe …” because [they] … view … Scripture as literature based on history”.

That’s probably due to a misunderstanding. The only “literature based on history” are the three elements cited above, i.e., only about one or two percent of all "Scripture".

.

Sells is still selling his three-a-penny superstitions I see. God Bless him.

Shame there isn't a God to reward such devotion. And to punish the evil ones.

Cheers.