Culture wars raging in the church. The church needs to wage war against SSM, homosexuality and gender-bending - to name just some of the vile secularity of the world. No wonder the organised church is increasingly seen as the greatest impediment to Christianity. "From the Church Militant to the Church Pusillanimous", as one commentator wrote recently.

Today's bible, a collection of books allowed by Constantine.

Excludes important theology, i.e., we're all fallen angels trying to get back home/our natural state? That the teaching of resurrection could more easily apply to reincarnation?

Because only with reincarnation can evil doers reap what they sow. Just as a pebble thrown into a pond makes ripples that are only stopped at the shoreline, so also those things perpetrated in a physical world should be also appropriately rewarded in this world.

That then would make perfect sense/justice in a world where there's much suffering, poverty, want/unmet need.

Continuing until the time when we run out of time to address it! By learning o forgive, and understanding that even with all the gold in the world, no man no matter how rich and powerful, nobody can buy a single minute longer than their allotted time.

That wealth is merely a tool to be used to create a better world, free from hunger, poverty, want/unmet need. Remove poverty, hunger all manner of unmet need. And you end most of the petty crime, crimes that once lead to transportation barbarity and forced colonisation. Just too easy first cab of rank, world cheapest energy, i.e., MSR thorium. followed by deionisation dialysis desalination.

Which together will drought-proof most nations and reverse desertification, to the point where 50 million drought displaced refugees can go home or to new lands reclaimed from arid wastelands.

Others can be assured that the occasionally failed crop will never fail again for lack of water, that streams and rivers running down hillsides will not become raging torrents and epic tragedies going somewhere to happen, because mountainsides have been denuded for fuel etc. But instead become (reafforested) orchards etc.

That we deprivatize water and energy provision, in order to allow these things to happen.

That we embrace and prioritise cooperative capitalism in the sure and certain knowledge, this is the only vehicle that will promote such outcomes/universal prosperity, as opposed to, extreme capitalism or its alter-ego, equally insane communism.

Neither of these fundamentally flawed systems supports a genuine inclusive Christian ethos!
Alan B.

Being a moderate sort of chap I prefer the Viking approach to Cathedrals.

The Bible but which version? there's so many, it is not quite as bad as the Book Of Mormon but its just as made up

The culture war is between the apostates and believers. Deniers of the resurrection are apostate and have a useless faith. TThey May as well join the God deniers and warmist religion. Sells nonsense and denial dates back to the original deniers.

No need to explain away the Resurrection - belief in which made Christianity last for over two millennia without the majority of Christians having to philosophise/theologise about it - by pointing out that the Bible does not mean resuscitation: Even John knew that a physical (as we still understand the term) body could not pass through a closed door (John 20:19 and 20:26).

Belief in Resurrection (and the resurrection of all of us), does not make sense without belief in a Reality beyond the physical/material. The difference between Resurrection and resurrection is that Jesus/Christ could come back, make an appearance in the physical world before his final departure (Ascension).

So, Runner, where are the bones of Jesus? If you cannot give an account of where they are then all your arguments are confused.
Peter

What a "Resurrection" said the actress to the Canon.

Peter,

You are at it again with your attack on evangelicals who support the bodily resurrection of Jesus and not a metaphorical resurrection:

<<Those complaining about John's appointment are on the evangelical side of these wars who insist that the bible be read literally rather than analogically or metaphorically.>>

Do you want me to read this article of yours analogically or metaphorically to invent lots of postmodern reader-response creativity of your writing.

What did Jesus do AFTER he rose from the dead? Those who were in the presence of the resurrected Jesus touched him, ate with him, and talked with him (see Luke 24: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk+24&version=ERV ). That’s not bad for someone whose resurrection actions were a metaphor.

Then you have the audacity to state:

<<"Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was God's Son!" God has been revealed even to the Gentiles, even to the direct persecutors of Jesus! A literalist reading of these verses makes no sense and misses the theological point>>

That is Peter Sellick’s creative apparatus to embellish the text.

You are way too late in time to want to deny the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus. Even one of the early church fathers, Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165) refuted your view:

“Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, ‘Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I;’ and He let them handle Him, and showed them the prints of the nails in His hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily” (On the Resurrection, ch. 9). See: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0131.htm.

Alan B,

<<Excludes important theology, i.e., we're all fallen angels trying to get back home/our natural state? That the teaching of resurrection could more easily apply to reincarnation?

Because only with reincarnation can evil doers reap what they sow. Just as a pebble thrown into a pond makes ripples that are only stopped at the shoreline, so also those things perpetrated in a physical world should be also appropriately rewarded in this world.>>

One minute after your last breath you will find that "everyone must die once. Then they are judged [by God]" (Hebrews 9:27).

There is no reincarnation in the Almighty God's kingdom.

You could deal with those eternal issues if you are open to listening to and responding to the living, resurrected Jesus.

John Ryan,

<<The Bible but which version? there's so many, it is not quite as bad as the Book Of Mormon but its just as made up>>

What's the topic of this subject written by Peter Sellick? 'A former dean of St George's cathedral runs afoul of the evangelicals'.

But along you come with your red herring logical fallacy of Bible versions.

I encourage you to deal with the literal vs metaphorical interpretation of Jesus' resurrection that Peter raised.

Peter,

You responded to runner:

<<So, Runner, where are the bones of Jesus? If you cannot give an account of where they are then all your arguments are confused.>>

You know that is a straw man argument, i.e. baloney! It's a false representation of what runner stated. I do wish he would not be so volatile with his comments.

As an eminent Anglican, surely you know the answer to that question? Take a read of the Ascension account in Luke 24:50-53, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk+24&version=ERV

Jesus' bones are not in the tomb. This historical evidence was and is that it is empty. He's currently not on earth. He has ascended.

I await his second coming in majesty and glory, Revelation 19:1-21, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev+19%3A1-21&version=NRSVA

and you Sells hold leadership in the 'church'. Dear oh dear.

//I await his second coming in majesty and glory, Revelation 19:1-21//

Of course you do. Although it should be noted that this will occur after the talking eagles and the giant locusts with human faces.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+8%3A13&version=NRSVA
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+9%3A7&version=NRSVA

That's just the tip of the iceberg... yep, ya gotta love Biblical literalism. Those guys are a hoot.

'
That's just the tip of the iceberg... yep, ya gotta love Biblical literalism. Those guys are a hoot.'

yep Toni usually a 6 year old can determine when something is written as allegory and something literal. Takes a lot of ignorance or deceit to see things the way you do.

I am still waiting for an answer. Where are the bones of Jesus?

To Sells.

The bones of Jesus would be where Jesus is. The text on the crucification and reserection show that Jesus's body wasn't in the tomb, and that Jesus was physically there when he ate with His desciples, and let them examine His wounds.

If there are any other ways of looking at it it would be that Jesus's body changed after he went to heaven as His description in the first chapters of Revelation describe Jesus in quite a different way. Though this could just be how Jesus represented Himself in John's vision, and how Jesus looks or if he's been healed in heaven are things just not known.

That said, since is a repeated question to Runner, I assume you have an answer of your own. So what are your conclusions on Jesus's bones, and Jesus's body?

I think that the only answer is that Jesus' bones lie in Palestine. We must remember that Paul, the earliest NT writer knew nothing of the empty tomb. 30 years after Paul Mark wrote a gospel that had no resurrection appearance. The legend was then embellished by the later gospel writers who gave conflicting accounts. Bodies do not just vanish from view as in Emmaus or in the locked room of John. Spirits do not eat fish by the sea. Luke is the only writer who tells us of the ascension (twice) which is a complete puzzle if we cling to a literal reading. Are the bones in low orbit around the earth? Any mature theology has to come from a metaphorical reading of the texts. It is obvious that this was they way they were meant to be read. It is out of that reading that theology flowers. A literalist reading is an unnecessary block to modern belief and one of the main reasons that so many congregations are in decline. I just think we need to grow up and read the bible as it was written, not with our positivistic historicism.
Pete

For the new OLO fundamentalist infestation highly religious Morrison, as his last act pre-May ousting,

should launch a Royal Commission Into Jesus Bones and Soul Trafficking.

When I was a kid I used to watch The Mickey Mouse Club they had a segment called Tall Tales but True from the Legendary Past the Bible never rated a mention.
Its as tall a tale as I can think of though the book of Mormon gives it a good run for its money,Evangelicals, yes what can you say lots of Wealthy Pastors & hangers one,the US ones get the suckers to buy them Jet Aircraft, they love Israel but only because of the final battle & the 2nd coming of Christ so they say. Who I would say is supposed to have thrown the money changers out of the Temple what would he do to the Evangelicals & their money grubbing version of the Bible
there a good chance all these Christians would re crucify Him if he tried that stunt again, he had better come back in a western Country because if he lobs in Israel they will shoot him in the back of the head as they are doing now to Palestinian kids

Very true JR

When I lived in Deep South Queensland there was a veritable sitcom of fundamental-as-anything preachers filling some very large, rich, new-money churches.

Major sermons of one mini-Billy Graham was his benefit package, bonuses, Car Plan (for a new Statesman) and leveraging parishioners into putting big notes and cheques into the bowl to buy land next door to further extend the Church empire.

Jesus, bless his bones and rightful vow of poverty, whould have chucked this religio-conman out on his ear.

I quickly left that Church Inc forever, with a clear conscience.

Cheers
(would go up in "The Good Place" http://youtu.be/RfBgT5djaQw )

Yep seems like if the church is wealthy the god deniers complain and if its poor they complain. Any excuse to excuse sin.

Hi John Ryan

Re your reference to Israel, Palestine, etc

On the world Democracy Index 2018 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index comparing countries on five different categories measuring pluralism, civil liberties and political culture. Where the 1st is the most democratic.

I see Israel (30th) rates ahead of Belgium, Italy, Greece all countries in the Middle East and South Asia including and especially Israel's neighbours who largely rely on Sharia law on the informal community stoning, honour killing, level:

Lebanon - 106th

Jordan - 115th

Egypt - 127th

Syria - 166th

Now you'll say the figures are rigged by rich Jewish people. Nothing will change your mind.

But what the heck :)

Cheers

Runner,
I still do not have and answer to my question about the location of the bones of Jesus. It is all very well for you to read the resurrection stories as if they convey what really happened but, you must admit, it puts you in rather a difficult place.

//if the church is wealthy the god deniers complain and if its poor they complain//

Who is complaining about poor churches, runner?

Of course, there is always the other problem with Biblical literalism... like any work that has been printed, translated, re-printed, re-translated a zillion times over, errors are going to creep in. It's quite possible that some of the words the literalists are so staunchly adhering are just good old-fashioned mistakes. After all, who can forget the infamous Wicked Bible of 1631, in which the faithful were directed due by a mistake in the Ten Commandments, that 'Thou shalt commit adultery'. XD

Good thing people didn't take that one literally, eh?

Sells,

<<I am still waiting for an answer. Where are the bones of Jesus?>>

You have a cognitive bias to want to know where the bones of Jesus are located. You don't seem to want to deal with the biblical evidence.

Eminent Anglican NT scholar, former UK bishop of Durham, former professor at Oxford University, and now professor at the University of St Andrews, Scotland, Dr N T Wright, in his magnum opus, The Resurrection of the Son of God (SPCK 2003), spent approx. 500 of 817 pages demonstrating that the resurrected Christ involved a soma (physical body). He wrote that the apostle Paul believed and articulated it in considerable detail that ...

"the resurrection would not only be bodily (the idea of a non-bodily resurrection would have been as much an oxymoron to him as it would be to both Jews and pagans of his day; whether you believed in resurrection or not, the word meant bodies), but that it would also involve transformation.... The Christian life belonged within a historical narrative which began with Jesus' resurrection and ended with the resurrection of all believers' (Wright 2003:372-373).

Writing for ABC Religion & Ethics (Australia), N. T. Wright stated:

"Ancient Judaism, on the other hand, is rooted in the belief that God is the creator of the world and that God will one day put the world to rights; and this double belief, when worked out and thought through not least in times of persecution and martyrdom, produced by the time of Jesus a majority belief in ultimate bodily resurrection.

"The early Christian belief in hope beyond death thus belongs demonstrably on the Jewish, not the pagan, map" (Wright, 'Only Love Believes: The Resurrection of Jesus and the Constraints of History', 17 April 2014). See: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/only-love-believes-the-resurrection-of-jesus-and-the-constraints/10099298

Toni,

What's the topic?

How do you reply?

<<Of course you do. Although it should be noted that this will occur after the talking eagles and the giant locusts with human faces.
That's just the tip of the iceberg... yep, ya gotta love Biblical literalism. Those guys are a hoot.>>

You don't address the topic I raised of Jesus' resurrection and return but you proceed with not dealing with the subject and ridicule Christianity. Thus you have committed the Appeal to Ridicule Logical Fallacy. See: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/42/Appeal-to-Ridicule

You want my argument to sound ridiculous so you exaggerate your antagonism to Christianity instead of dealing with the topic. You engaged in fallacious reasoning.

Sells,

<<I think that the only answer is that Jesus' bones lie in Palestine. We must remember that Paul, the earliest NT writer knew nothing of the empty tomb>>.

Using your lingo, Jesus' bones are in an analogical and metaphorical phase of orbiting the disgraced liberalism that connects myth with fantasy, fiction and fairy tale. Bones of Jesus?

You are plumbing the depths of irrationality with your circular reasoning.

You will never know Jesus' grave is empty and there are no bones on earth to find because your presuppositions blind you to that conclusion.

<< We must remember that Paul, the earliest NT writer knew nothing of the empty tomb.>>

Every Bible version available on BibleGateway contradicts your view. See http://biblegateway.com/. You read a different Bible to these. First Corinthians 15 must be excluded from your Bible. In addition, Paul wrote of Jesus' resurrection in Rom 1:4; 6:5, and Phil 3:10-11.

Paul knew everything about an empty tomb of Jesus because he was a converted Pharisee and they believed resurrection meant bodily resurrection.

Anglican professor at University of St Andrews, Scotland, Prof Dr N T Wright (not a dummy on research about Jesus' resurrection), profoundly disagrees with your view: 'Early Christians envisaged a [resurrection] body which was still robustly physical but also significantly different from the present one.... The new body will not be corruptible - we might say not that it will be LESS physical, as though it were some kind of ghost or apparition, but more.... They were not talking about a non-bodily, "spiritual" survival' (The Resurrection of the Son of God. SPCK 2003:478).

Contrary to your imposed view of the meaning of 'mature theology' coming to 'a metaphorical reading of the texts', biblical teaching rests on Jesus' bodily resurrection, which was consistent with the expectations of the Jews.

Sells. You can believe what you like. But for me I trust the bible.

Moving with that line of thought. There are many theories and perspectives that people hold as their own that are outside of the bible, or are corrected by the texts in the bible if they were willing to study it. I'm not talking about unbelievers here, I mean Christians also. Like you many want to find answers for themselves and some with more reliability then just picking answers that sound good to them at the time, a vast magority just believe because of no evidance or reason outside of what they want to believe.

If you apply the stance to trust the bible, then many of the extra theories can be either dismissed as not important enough to constrate on, or they can corrected by what is written in the texts. You can still hold things that are outside of the bible, (such as the theories of rapture being before, during or after the tribulations predicted in the world), but on the matters that are in the bible, why would you doubt them? The matter of bones should be easy enough based on the tomb being empty.

The article you wrote was well written with the point to not dismiss the bible by liberal Christianity rewriting what the texts mean. It also faught against a literal interptation that I don't think anyone apply when they read the bible literally. (The point being to read psalms and parables as you would a historical document instead of looking for the underlying message and the context it meant it for).

(Continued)

(Continued)

When I see people read the bible in a literal way, they read it in the context it was in. Historical parts are literal in context in that they happened. The psalms, proverbs, parables, and visions, are in context that give a message but aren't nessassirly an event to compare history from. Literal reading from that point is to read those sections as they are written, but still count them as things to learn from even to count as an authority on spiritual matters.

When I see a person try to read the bible with a symbolic kind of interptation, they still can hold on to literal interptations that these teachings taught what they really said, and the events really did occure. But a symbolic interpretation can also try to read into it in other ways. Looking at figures in the bible to be foreshadowing of Jesus, or shadows of events to come kind of thing. Or even trying to look at the meaning and symbolism in the rituals in the sacrifices and the celebrations written about in the books of law of the Old Testiment.

However having a literal view first is a solid foundation, so you don't stray away from what the bible says, and make up another story of your own. What happened really did happen, what was taught was really taught. If there's any ounce of faith in God being able to do all things, then at the very least I would think He can protect His written and recorded words that are filled in the bible. It's trustworthy on the principle that God is trustworthy.

//You want my argument to sound ridiculous so you exaggerate your antagonism to Christianity instead of dealing with the topic. You engaged in fallacious reasoning.//

Spencer, if I had a dollar for every fallacy you've committed...

Anyway, it's not 'your argument'. The Bible verse you quoted was John of Patmos' 'argument' - credit where credit is due. I was just putting in context with some of John's other 'arguments'.

Personally, I wouldn't call the Revelation any more ridiculous than 'The Divine Comedy'. But then, I don't think the Revelation should be taken literally.

Sells,

<< A literalist reading is an unnecessary block to modern belief and one of the main reasons that so many congregations are in decline.>>

You blame evangelicals and ‘literalist reading’ of the text for dwindling numbers. Is that factual?

When postmodern liberal, John Shelby Spong, was bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark NJ, USA, his theology was, 'Theism is dead, I joyfully proclaim, but God is real' (Spong 2001:77).

He had been bishop from 1976-2000 and ‘presided over one of the most rapid witherings of any diocese in the Episcopal Church [USA]. The most charitable assessment shows that Newark’s parish membership rolls have evaporated by more than 42 percent. Less charitable accounts put the rate at over 50 percent’ (Marty Lasley, 1999).

The Gospel and postmodern liberalism make a terrible marriage.

Mike Ratliff wrote that 'Liberal Theology is Humanism dressed up in Christian clothes. Secular Humanism is not Christianity', http://www.theaquilareport.com/what-is-the-root-of-liberal-theology/

Is the problem with those who interpret the Bible literally or with liberals who impose their metaphorical beliefs on the text.

With church growth in Australia, ‘Members of the Pentecostal church increased from nearly 220,000 in 2006 and 238,000 in 2011 to 260,500 … according to the 2016 census results released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics…. It has grown particularly among young people" (see: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jun/27/christianity-on-the-wane-in-australia-but-pentecostal-church-bucks-trend).

In 'A downward slope for UCA (Uniting Church in Australia)', retired UCA minister, Dr Bernard Thorogood, wrote: 'As we were liberal in our attitude towards confirmation and membership, so we were liberal in theology. I question whether it is possible to build a strong institution with such a basis', http://www.insights.uca.org.au/features/your-say/a-downward-slope-for-uca

A 2016 survey in Ontario, Canada of “mainline” denominations found 'theological conservatism of both attendees and clergy emerged as important factors in predicting church growth'. That’s one survey: http://theway21stcentury.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/do-conservative-churches-grow-more-than-liberal-ones/

I know of conservative churches that once thrived but are now down to 30-50 people. Being conservative or evangelical does not produce growth unless churches combine a deep love for Jesus with a practical love for people.

Sells, liberal theology like yours is almost a certain way to kill a denomination.

OzPen
How dare you call me a liberal, I am exactly the reverse. My most influential theologian is Karl Barth who has been described as post-liberal and who also thinks that the empty tomb is a legend. Barth was the end of liberalism. Please read outside your evangelical bubble.
As far as the "success" of evangelical churches is concerned they appeal to the theologically uneducated, of which there a more and more. Numbers do not indicate orthodoxy, remember Trump was made president on the shoulders of white evangelical Christians.

The bones of Jesus? All I get from you all is a lot of handwaving. It is regrettable that NT Wright made that call about resuscitation, just goes to show he may be a good biblical scholar but he does not sit among the theologians.

'Runner,
I still do not have and answer to my question about the location of the bones of Jesus. It is all very well for you to read the resurrection stories as if they convey what really happened but, you must admit, it puts you in rather a difficult place.'

no Sells its your belief in corrupt liberal theologians that place you in a 'difficult' place.

Certainly some of the disciples were left in no doubt as to where Jesus bones were after the resurrection.

'Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."' Luke 24:39

Not sure if it could be much clearer

Runner,
Read the rest of the story set in the closed room. Thomas did not in fact reach in to feel the wounds but was brought to faith when Jesus addressed him.

Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”

We are the blessed who believe and have not seen.

Please do not call me a liberal.

Sells,

<<I still do not have and answer to my question about the location of the bones of Jesus. It is all very well for you to read the resurrection stories as if they convey what really happened but, you must admit, it puts you in rather a difficult place.>>

Try telling that one to Australian Anglican ancient historian, Dr Paul Barnett, former bishop of North Sydney and visiting fellow in ancient history at Macquarie University, Sydney NSW. As a historian, his assessment of Jesus' resurrection was:

"The earliest letters by Paul, written in the early 50s, assume without discussion that both the writer and the readers believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead (e.g. 1 Thes 1:4; 4:14). Indeed, Paul simply appeals to their certainty about Jesus' historical resurrection as something to clinch his argument about their coming future resurrection, which some of them were doubting (1 Cor 15:12)....

"The view held by many contemporary scholars, that the disciples were subject to some kind of visionary experience, is hard to accept. Two people sharing one bed seldom have the same dream. The proposal that between five and six hundred people on twelve or so separate occasions over forty days had the same visionary experience is extremely unlikely.

"In any case, 'resurrection from the dead', a Jewish concept, literally means, 'standing up in the midst of corpses' (anastasis nekrwn). A resurrection which was not bodily is self-contradictory and has been likened to a circle which is square. The various subjective or visionary theories of resurrection are culturally contradictory" (Paul W Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History 1997:130-131).

In your article you articulated a self-contradictory view of Jesus' resurrection that conflicts with Jewish culture and the syntax of NT Greek that it was a bodily (soma) resurrection of Jesus.

Toni,

<<Spencer, if I had a dollar for every fallacy you've committed..>>

I do wish you would engage in discussion of the topic of the article. Please name the logical fallacies I've committed and where. A generic response is useless to assist me in rectifying erroneous reasoning, if I have used it.

<<Personally, I wouldn't call the Revelation any more ridiculous than 'The Divine Comedy'. But then, I don't think the Revelation should be taken literally.>>

How does this relate to Jesus' resurrection, whether it was bodily or metaphorically, that Peter Sellick articulated in his article?

What is the biblical evidence for Jesus' resurrection being a bodily resurrection and not that of an apparition or metaphor?

What kind of 'body' did the resurrected Jesus have. In Luke 24:36-43 (NRSV) he spoke with his disciples:

"36 While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ 37 They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. 38 He said to them, ‘Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.’ 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet 41 While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, ‘Have you anything here to eat?’ 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate in their presence".

Was Jesus' resurrected body physical, an apparition or metaphorical - based on this passage of Scripture?

Sells,

<<How dare you call me a liberal, I am exactly the reverse.>>

Really? By their fruits?

From your article,

<< Similar statements may be found in the Bible, such as the account of Jesus death: "Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last." (Mark 15:37) Here, again, there is no reason not to take the text literally. However, there is more than the literal meaning in that "breathed his last" is a metaphor that refers to something other; "died". So, even with the simplest statements we find that a purely literalist reading is in some trouble.>>

There is not a word in the context of Mark 15:37 to support your view that when Jesus ‘breathed his last’ it was referring to other than his death. Your wanting it to be a metaphor is your own invention. In context, this is what Mark 15 states:

“31 In the same way the chief priests, along with the scribes, were also mocking him among themselves and saying, ‘He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32 Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.’ Those who were crucified with him also taunted him” (Mark 15:31-32 NRSV).

How did Pilate respond when Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body of Jesus? Did he say what you claim: ‘Jesus breathed his last had a metaphorical understanding. There is no body to bury as his breath is orbiting around the universe’.

Instead, Pilate told the truth:

“44 Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. 45 When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph” (Mark 15:44-45 NRSV).

I read Scripture as I read your article – literally. From primary school right through to my university PhD, I learned that literal interpretation included the use of figures of speech, parables, analogies, etc.

Barth and liberalism, evangelical ‘bubble’, uneducated evangelicals and N T Wright are for later.

Sells.

I hope you take consideration in what's being said to you here. To take the bible by what it actually says instead of trying to make it say something different, or ignoring it when it corrects you.

Regarding theology. In another forum, I was talking to a catholic who was well vested in Catholic theology, and was talking about Mary's place in our faith. (This conversation was around Christmas time when the birth of Jesus is a frequent topic). The other person had a great amount of knowledge in theology and in referencing it to bible verses. Therefore it was intresting and I enjoyed reading his perspectives. However it was in his theology that raised Mary to a position that I don't see in the bible. This is a Roman Catholic thing to hold Mary almost to the point of worshiping her along side Jesus and God. But it is entirely a theology thing as well.

With this in mind take my advise please. my intent is for your benifit, not just because we disagree. Use the bible as your foundation that can be added with theology if there is a need. Not the other way around. To have theology as the foundation and consider the bible when it fits the theology.

Otherwise if the history and study of theology is the foundation. The issue can come down to which theology is the foundation. Who's theology which arguably has just as much history and study as your own.

Let the bible be the teacher, not theology. If study from others who've studied can be put in their place, it should be as an teacher's assistant, next to a professor. Not the other way around.

Does this make sense? And if so, does it show you where to find the bones of Jesus? (Not legend, just consult what God has recorded in the bible texts).

//I do wish you would engage in discussion of the topic of the article.//

Yes, I suppose you're right, the topic is technically 'A former dean of St George’s cathedral runs afoul of the evangelicals'. But I don't care about the internal politics of the Anglican church, most of the article seems to be about biblical literalism, and so does most of the subsequent discussion. So I'm going to keep talking about biblical literalism, and seeing as you've been doing it as well it rings a bit hollow when you wag your finger at me for doing so.

//Please name the logical fallacies I've committed and where.//

Yeah, sure, because if I haven't the time/inclination to go back and trawl through every last one of your posts to tell you exactly when you made the fallacy, obviously it never really happened. Still, I have sound recollections of you committing the following fallacies: No True Scotsman, Spider Man Fallacy, Question Begging, False Dilemma, Ad Hominem, Straw Man, various Causal Fallacies, Red Herring, the Fallacy Fallacy and the Appeal to Absent Authority.

Obviously I'm not as exercised about the use of fallacies as you, because I don't make as big a song and dance about them. I just quietly note them and mentally mark your argument down a bit. After all, it's not like your going to stop using them just because I point them out (at least, you never have before).

//How does this relate to Jesus' resurrection, whether it was bodily or metaphorically, that Peter Sellick articulated in his article?//

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20118#355664

Down the bottom there, mate. If you didn't think it was relevant, then why did you bring it up?

It should also be noted that whilst using the specific example of the Resurrection, the article refers to Biblical literalism more generally. And the Revelation is definitely in the Bible: it's the last book in the New Testament.

Sells,

In your article, you stated: <<It is therefore acceptable to say that we believe in the physical resurrection of Christ. What it is dangerous to say is that we believe in the resuscitation of his corpse>>.

Scripture says Jesus had a resuscitated/resurrected body that could talk and with wounds in his physical hands and feet that could be seen. They touched his flesh: Jesus said: 'Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have' (Luke 24:36-43 (NRSV).

Karl Barth, claimed <<the empty tomb is a legend>>. He also is another who doesn't deal with the evidence of Luke 24 and the facts of SOMA meaning body for Jesus' resurrection. O'Collins’ (1973:90, 99) assessment of Barth was he claimed 'historical reality for the resurrection and yet [was] denying historians the right to pronounce on the matter'.

Your throw-away line of evangelical churches: <<They appeal to the theologically uneducated, of which there a more and more.>> This is a disgusting put down.

I do wish you knew your Bible, 'Now when they [rulers & elders] saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were UNEDUCATED [eimi agrammatos] and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus' (Acts 4:13 NRSV). Peter and John wouldn't make it into your kind of church.

If evangelicals attract those 'theologically uneducated', that also applies to faculty and graduates of Anglican Moore and Ridley colleges.

<<please read outside your evangelical bubble.>> That’s ignorant shooting off at the mouth. I have a PhD in New Testament from a major university, dealing with Jesus Seminar fellow, John Dominic Crossan's view of resurrection. I have read Funk, Borg, Mack, Ehrman, Bultmann, Tillich, Geering and Barth until I'm blue in the face.

<<It is regrettable that NT Wright made that call about resuscitation, just goes to show he may be a good biblical scholar but he does not sit among the theologians.>>

That's a red herring. Wright, an eminent Anglican historical Jesus' scholar, analysed the biblical evidence and it doesn't support metaphorical resurrection

Peter Sellick says, "Those .... on the evangelical side of these wars insist that the bible be read literally rather than analogically or metaphorically. It is important to them that the body of Jesus was resuscitated as evidence that God exists and has power in the world".

I don't agree that Jesus' body was "resuscitated". The contention there is that it was basically the same body which came out of the tomb. Whereas a plain reading of the bible shows Jesus' body was rather different. He still had to eat (granted) but it was a body which could pass through walls and disappear at will.

I found Peter's article very long and tedious. On the one hand he seems to be trying to find some excuse to downplay the possibility of a literal resurrection, perhaps because of his biology background (which of course is steeped in atheism and naturalism). But towards the end of the article he says, "It is therefore acceptable to say that we believe in the physical resurrection of Christ".

So I'm not clear what his position is. Peter, if because of the social circles you mingle in, you are embarrassed to declare your belief that Jesus rose physically from the dead, please say so.

On the other hand, if you adhere to the bible view of Jesus being resurrected, then why write an article talking about His body being "resuscitated"? I have never heard that line of reasoning before. And as such, you are defending a position which no-one (to my knowledge) holds. The key is 1Cor15. Surely you have read that and understand it.
END

The Inspector,
ICor 15 is interesting because of verse 8: "Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." This was after many for whom Jesus appeared had died. Luke gives an account of Paul hearing a voice and being blinded. We may ask what "appeared" means here. Does it mean that Paul, a persecutor of the Church found himself believing in the gospel and that it was like a flash of revelation that turned his life upside down. I could also say that Jesus appeared to me in 1968 when I changed from being an unbelieving scientist to one for whom Christ became the centre of life.

The only kind of resurrection is physical. We are not operating here with body soul dualism in which the bodies dies and the soul remains "alive". My position is that the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances are legends that arose and were embellished as the gospels were written in order to make a theological point. Thus when talking about reconciliation, theologians use the resurrection as if it actually occurred because reconciliation cannot be discussed with it.

My problem with the literalists is that they are so wedded to an ideology of biblicism that they will not do the intellectual work in theology. The is a great wrong because it alienates any thinking person in our time from Christ "appearing" to them.

And no, I am not ashamed to say that I believe in the physical resurrection but I would like to also say that I do not believe that the body of Jesus was resuscitated and walked about Jerusalem. I think the texts tell us something much more important than that.

Sells.

You said:

"My problem with the literalists is that they are so wedded to an ideology of biblicism that they will not do the intellectual work in theology. The is a great wrong because it alienates any thinking person in our time from Christ "appearing" to them."

Can you expand on this? For instance what are the ideologies of biblicism, and what is the intelectual work in theology? Also what are your thoughts on Christ appearing to someone?

Like I said before there are differing theological bases to build off of. Each one easy enough to get lost in studying and growing in that understanding. Most with several great thinkers and a history to keep people in that specific set of theologies. But if the bible isn't the foundation to these theologies, then each person's study might actually draw them more and more away from God without even knowing it. Or draw them away from the concerns of modern day life and services for others in our age.

Theology doesn't have to be against biblicism (if that is actually a bad thing...). It can be a teacher's aid to the study of the bible itself. However those who study the bible without formal theology, can do great things as well, and their studing I'm sure will do them well. What is the greater harm is to not study at all and for Christians to not know their foundations. (Though even that is ok if they apply even more what they do know as Christians). Just some thoughts. Would like to hear your feed back too.

Sells,

<<And no, I am not ashamed to say that I believe in the physical resurrection but I would like to also say that I do not believe that the body of Jesus was resuscitated and walked about Jerusalem. I think the texts tell us something much more important than that.>>

You believe in a 'physical resurrection' but Jesus' body didn't walk around Jerusalem. What then is the meaning of Jesus statement at Emmaus?

"38 He said to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.’
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, ‘Do you have anything here to eat?’ 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence (Luke 24:38-43 NIV).

At Emmaus, Jesus told the disciples to look at his hands and feet (obviously pointing to the wounds) and said these were not a ghost but of one who had flesh and bones. Then Jesus ate fish with them.
How do you interpret this: 'Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have'.

After Anglican Prof N T Wright's massive research into the resurrection (The Resurrection of the Son of God 2003), he concluded it was a bodily resurrection but that after the resurrection (based on the NT evidence), there was 'a new mode of transformed physicality’ that Wright calls 'transphysicality'. This body could be touched, the wounds seen, and food could be eaten. However, 'the risen body of Jesus [was] doing some things that ordinary bodies do and other things that ordinary bodies never do' (Wright 2003:477, 609, 612.

I find Wright's description of the risen Jesus as having a body of 'transphysicality' fits the evidence.

'ideology of biblicism' Wow never heard that term before. Does it mean believing what the author of the bible intended? Shock horror! Why bother if you don't believe? Many god deniers spend their lives trying to disprove the living God. Problem is they fail is rationale, science and morality. No wonder Jesus said one must become like a child. So many adults who claim to be smart sprout so many dumb things.

runner,

You'll need to ask Sells to unpack 'ideology of biblicism' for you, as to what he means exactly.

One of the definitions for 'ideology' is, 'The set of beliefs characteristic of a social group or individual' (Oxford Dictionaries Online 2019. s.v. ideology).

As for 'biblicism', it is something all Bible-believing Christians should reject. It refers to a tendency for a person to consider his or her own interpretation of a text as allegedly 'what the Scripture states'. On Christian forums, I sometimes have it stated, 'That's what the Bible teaches'. What the person is saying is that his interpretation is the correct meaning.

We need to avoid this as context of Scripture is so important to understand it. Historical theology is the discipline that examines the history of biblical interpretation. Where would we be today with understanding the Trinity or Unitarianism without an historical understanding of what took place at the Council of Nicaea in 325 when Arianism was rejected?

How did the Early Church Fathers, The Roman Catholic Church and Reformation Protestants understand what Jesus said in John 10:20 (ESV), 'I and the Father are one.” To examine that verse without considering the history of exegesis of the passage is to commit biblicism.

I agree with Sells that the 'ideology of biblicism' should be eradicated from every preacher's arsenal.

OzSpen,

>>after the resurrection (based on the NT evidence), there was 'a new mode of transformed physicality’ that Wright calls 'transphysicality’.<<

This is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote above that “Belief in Resurrection … does not make sense without belief in a Reality beyond the physical/material” which I believe is the standard Catholic position.

Wow! Transphysicality. That is a word to conjure with. Wright must be the laughing stock of the theological community. What could it possibly mean? It is always a sign of desperation when those trying to defend an impossible argument make up words that refer to completely undefined concepts. So, Jesus was not actually returned to his body as number IV in the thirty nine articles of religion propose but to some kind of mix between a spiritual body that can go through walls and disappear at will but also eat fish with his disciples. I guess that this transphyisical body is in orbit around Neptune as we speak. It is is wonder it is not picked up by one of our interplanetary explorers. Honestly, the silliness goes on!

Sells,

<< Wow! Transphysicality. That is a word to conjure with. Wright must be the laughing stock of the theological community. What could it possibly mean?>>

Your ignorance is exposed. ‘Transphysical’ was not invented by Wright. See: http://ericweiss.com/the-long-trajectory-8-the-transphysical-worlds. Reincarnation uses it.

Instead of being a laughing stock, Wright is one of the most prominent historians of the historical Jesus. Robert Spitzer SJ wrote of transphysical self-consciousness (soul).

Your error happened because you didn’t read Prof. N T Wright. If you read his tome, The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003), you’d know exactly how Wright explains the use of this word.

On his homepage, Wright asked: ‘What could have generated, in particular, Paul’s clear view of Jesus’ resurrection, articulated here in terms of going through death and on beyond into a new son of existence, and of Jesus’ new body as both physical and in a sense as transphysical, possessing new properties but remaining definitely human?’ http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/04/05/early-traditions-and-the-origins-of-christianity/

<< It is always a sign of desperation when those trying to defend an impossible argument make up words that refer to completely undefined concepts.>>

No desperation, but Sells lack of knowledge of the English language.

Wright explained what he meant: ‘This new mode of embodiment [of future resurrection body] is hard to describe’ so he uses ‘transphysical’, which ‘is not meant to describe in detail what sort of a body it was that the early Christians supposed Jesus already had…. The early Christians envisaged a body which was still robustly physical but also significantly different from the present one…. We might say not that it will be LESS physical, as though it were some kind of ghost or apparition, but MORE’ (Wright 2003:477-78).

<< I guess that this transphyisical (sic) body is in orbit around Neptune as we speak. It is is (sic) wonder it is not picked up by one of our interplanetary explorers. Honestly, the silliness goes on!>>

Now, who is the one who is ‘the laughing stock of the theological community’? It sounds like Sells.

OzSpen,

Thanks for the links. I found the Eric Weis reference very obscure. This is surely on the fringes of accepted philosophic discourse. It certainly is not theology. My problem is that it appeared to me entirely speculative, more science fiction than acceptable argument.

The link to Wright was more in my line of expertise but I found that his agonies about the resurrection was more the result of his literalistic reading. Sure, Paul expected the end of the world in his own terms. That does not mean that we accept his expectation. We must let Paul be a man of his times. In all of this I would say that the bible is the gift of God and the work of men.
As men we must read with compassion for others who have written in a different time.

We must understand that between them and us lies a whole world of science and technology. We now know that heaven cannot be a place in the heavens or hell a place below the earth. We must live in modernity, knowing its profound faults, the insistence, for example, that everything must turn on fact. We must accept that even if the bones of Jesus are discovered in Palestine the Church will not fall!
I'm off to church. Have a blessed Sunday
Pete

I think that if you claim to have 'found God';
- It may be just as likely you 'lost yourself'.

You see new Christians ranting incoherently who think they've gained God's wisdom and authority just because they got saved, and believe in him.
But most are is self righteous and fail to understand that you don't get wisdom and ethics or remove yourself from sin from believing Jesus existed, but from what he taught.
New Christian's incoherent ranting is evidence of a dangerous belief system with the power to make a person lose all sense of themselves.

About whether God exists:
I think the correct and most logical answer is 'I don't know'.
It may be just as likely that people who say they KNOW that God does or doesn't exist might advertising a mental illness.

[Cont.]
Christians only see the world from their point of view.
Like a car accident, different people viewing the accident from different vantage points might have a different understanding of what happened.

Christians become close minded in their single vantage point belief.
They can't see the bigger picture or understand others points of view because those peoples vantage points are not accessible to them.

You'd have to be an agnostic or athiest to view the bigger picture from a different vantage point, and they can't do this because they already believe and have their mind set in stone.

ArmChair Critic.

Based on your words I would tell you that you would be suprised how much of the "bigger picture" that Christian can see. Christians come from all different walks of life. Sometimes just from that alone we can get a pretty full view of the bigger picture.

Individually, no one has a great vantage point of the bigger picture, but has blind spots based on what they don't know, haven't seen, or don't know to look for. Atheist and agnostic are no better in that regard. However, if instead of individually looking at it, we approach the bigger picture as a collective, as a community, then often we get a really good sence of the world and what's going on in it. Largely because people in the community have faced a wide selection of situtions, and can speak up about what's going on or how another view is looking at it.

As for God existing or not. Calling it a mental illness is a cop out plain and simple. All that means to me is that you haven't looked for yourself, or if you have, you have blinders on, so you don't actually observe what's around you.

There are too many testimonies about God, Angels, answered prayers, and a few other things like observations from following God's teachings leading to a changed attitude, changed life; too many to think that God doesn't exist. By the numbers alone it should be about how to find God. Not about whether or not He exists.

Sells,

<<Thanks for the links. I found the Eric Weis reference very obscure. This is surely on the fringes of accepted philosophic discourse. It certainly is not theology. My problem is that it appeared to me entirely speculative, more science fiction than acceptable argument.>>

I do not agree with the content of the Weiss article, I gave it to demonstrate that N T Wright did not invent the word the word, ‘transphysical’.

<<The link to Wright was more in my line of expertise but I found that his agonies about the resurrection was more the result of his literalistic reading.>>

That's because you have a fixation on anti-literal interpretation. It doesn't seem to occur to you that you could be wrong in your understanding of the resurrection and Wright could be right. Have you read Wright's 817pp research on the resurrection.

Do you want me use your method of analogical and metaphorical interpretation for your article. Here goes, referring to your statement,

<<A literalist reading of these verses makes no sense and misses the theological point. A liberal reading that ignores the curtain being torn also misses the point. The answer to biblical interpretation is to take all of the text seriously as having semantic power while understanding that meaning is often hidden in analogy and metaphor.>>

This means the Bible, like a Westinghouse clothes' dryer, will not work without an electrical connection. The dryer, like a liberal reading, has the potential for catching fire if the filter is not cleaned. For the dryer to work properly, I must take seriously a comprehensive understanding of the dryer. The meaning of your paragraph is hidden in this analogy.

Sells,

<<We must understand that between them [Paul & first century people] and us lies a whole world of science and technology. We now know that heaven cannot be a place in the heavens or hell a place below the earth,>>

That's your interpretation imposed on the text. We know from John 14 that heaven is a 'place'. It doesn't have to conform to modern science's description of what is in the 'heavens'. After all, it was the Lord God who created the heavens for scientists to investigate.

My exegesis of Scripture is determined, not by modern technology, but through my knowledge of Greek, Hebrew and the context of the first century writings.

<< We must live in modernity>>

Do you mean ‘modernity’ according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica definition?

“Modernity, the self-definition of a generation about its own technological innovation, governance, and socioeconomics. To participate in modernity was to conceive of one’s society as engaging in organizational and knowledge advances that make one’s immediate predecessors appear antiquated or, at least, surpassed” (2019. s.v. modernity)

I prefer to state that I live in reality.

<<We must accept that even if the bones of Jesus are discovered in Palestine the Church will not fall!>>

That's your presupposition that the bones of Jesus could be discovered in Palestine. The Bible's view is contrary to yours: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Corinthians 15:14). Jewish expectations were of a bodily resurrection (see Wright 2003:287-90).

Both preaching and faith are useless with your kind of teaching. That should tell you something of the dwindling size of liberal Anglicanism in Australia.

This storm in a teacup within Christianity is due to the faith in the permanency of matter, that is closely related to materialism.

We know that all the atoms of our body are replaced every 7-15 years.
We also know that atomic particles (and thereby the matter comprising them) are not stable either - they can be created at any time and are eventually destroyed.

If we are to get back our old bodies when resurrected, then the question arises, "from where and when exactly?". If we got back every molecule we ever had then we would weigh tons and also as our old cells pass through the food-chain and are recycled into other humans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtLVMgcBbAI), we would be quarrelling over our body's atoms: "that's mine, no that's mine...".

Once we understand that matter is not permanent, but only a concentrated form of energy (E=mc²), which in turn is only a concentrated form of mind, we need not fuss over which particular bones and flesh Jesus was resurrected with and will find it silly to ask whether or not all the calcium atoms from the bones of his original corpse were present in his resurrected body. For a great Yogi like Jesus, assembling a new body from thin air or from the sun's rays is a very simple task!

Yuyutsu,

<<If we are to get back our old bodies when resurrected, then the question arises, "from where and when exactly?>>

You haven’t read the book of Scripture carefully. This is what it states:

“50 Brothers and sisters, here is what I’m telling you. Bodies made of flesh and blood can’t share in the kingdom of God. And what dies can’t share in what never dies. 51 Listen! I am telling you a mystery. We will not all die. But we will all be changed. 52 That will happen in a flash, as quickly as you can wink an eye. It will happen at the blast of the last trumpet. Then the dead will be raised to live forever. And we will be changed.

"53 Our natural bodies don’t last forever. They must be dressed with what does last forever. What dies must be dressed with what does not die. 54 In fact, that is going to happen. What does not last will be dressed with what lasts forever. What dies will be dressed with what does not die. Then what is written will come true. It says, “Death has been swallowed up. It has lost the battle.” (Isaiah 25:8)” [1 Corinthians 15:50-54].

<<For a great Yogi like Jesus, assembling a new body from thin air or from the sun's rays is a very simple task!>>

Your worldview is affecting your identification of Jesus. He is not a Yogi but the Son of God: “32 When they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those in the boat worshiped Jesus. They said, “You really are the Son of God!” (Matthew 14:32-33)

Dear OzSpen,

Thank you for the good quote, famous through Handel's Messiah!

I disagree that a body, any body, can last forever, but yes, it is possible to obtain a subtle body that lasts a very long time - thousands of years if not millions: perhaps this is what the verses refer to?

There is no contradiction between being a Yogi and the Son of God: a Yogi is someone who controls their mind, whose thoughts do not waver, thus is able to concentrate and affect energy, thus matter, like the wonders that Jesus performed.

Yuyutsu,

<< I disagree that a body, any body, can last forever, but yes, it is possible to obtain a subtle body that lasts a very long time…. PERHAPS this is what the verses refer to?>>

The verses do not mean that. Please read 1 Corinthians 15 in context. See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor+15&version=NIVUK.

Part of this Scripture states:

“42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. “If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body…. 50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable”.

First Corinthians 15 does NOT teach that a physical body lasts forever because ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God'.

I do wish you’d take the time to read the biblical texts so that you don’t come up with your contorted interpretation

<< There is no contradiction between being a Yogi and the Son of God: a Yogi is someone who controls their mind, whose thoughts do not waver, thus is able to concentrate and affect energy, thus matter, like the wonders that Jesus performed.>>

There is a radical difference between the two.

The Bible doesn’t use those exact words from Jesus, ‘I am God’. See the example of Jesus’ words from John 10:30, ‘I and the Father are one’. Notice the reaction of the Jews who heard his statement:

They wanted to stone him to death but Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?’ (vv31-32) “‘We are not stoning you for any good work,’ they replied, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God’” (v33).

Jesus was no Yogi; he was God Himself.

.

To all and sundry,

.

I must say I am deeply impressed by all those on this forum whose imagination is so rich and whose willingness to believe is so extensive when evoking possible scientific explanations of the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

It elicits my curiosity as to how this may be justified, given the following :

1. For an explanation to qualify as scientific, it seems that an independent researcher should be able to replicate the experiment, under the same conditions, and achieve the same results. How could this apply in the case of the claimed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth ?

2. It seems that the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among historians are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus). Therefore, is not the claimed resurrection of Jesus simply a question of faith (until further evidence comes to light) ?

3. In 1 Corinthians 15:14 (NIV), Saul of Tarsus declares : “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith”. The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the basis of Christian hope and faith. But his resurrection has never been historically established. It, too, is purely a question of faith.

In other words, Christian hope and faith relies on a hypothetical event whose occurrence also requires hope and faith in order to be believed.

I can understand that some Christians feel the need to exercise their imagination in order to find a more solid base for their faith than simply piling up successive layers of faith, one on top of the other. There must be a limit to where you can go with that - even for the most gullible of individuals.

Hence the unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific theories expounded here.

.

Who offered a "scientific explnation" of anything on this thread?

Banjo,

<< I must say I am deeply impressed by all those on this forum whose imagination is so rich and whose willingness to believe is so extensive when evoking possible scientific explanations of the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.>>

Do you know what historical science is? Or are you confusing it with empirical experimentation of repeatability? Seems so.

Your presuppositions are thundering, ‘I have my own anti-Christian axe to grind and I’ll use this forum to my advantage’.

+ ‘all those on this forum whose imagination is so rich’;
+ ‘willingness to believe’;
+ ‘evoking possible scientific explanations’;
+ ‘Christian hope and faith relies on a hypothetical event’.
+ ‘some Christians feel the need to exercise their imagination’;
+ ‘Hence the unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific theories expounded here.’

Each presupposition has UNPROVEN written over it.

<< For an explanation to qualify as scientific, it seems that an independent researcher should be able to replicate the experiment, under the same conditions, and achieve the same results. How could this apply in the case of the claimed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth ? >>

Could you replicate Captain James Cook’s voyage up the East Coast of Australia in 1770 using your definition of science? Again, you don’t know how to investigate history using the historical method.

Christian hope and faith don't rest on a hypothetical event (your view) but on an historical happening. It is faith founded on the fact of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. The research has already been done for you to disprove your ‘hypothetical event’ by Prof Dr N T Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (SPCK 2003 – 817pp). But you go to Wikipedia for your ‘reliable and comprehensive’ information about Jesus’ resurrection.

Come on, mate! Do you want me to continue reading your historical furphies?

It’s time to tune your historical banjo so you know the discipline of historical research and treat an investigation into Captain James Cook and the Endeavour, using the same historical criteria as you use in examining biblical history.

.

Dear George,

.

You asked :

« Who offered a "scientific explanation" of anything on this thread? »
.

I had the impression that you, Yuyutsu and OzSpen had but, judging by your question, apparently, you consider that you did not when you wrote :

« Belief in Resurrection … does not make sense without belief in a Reality beyond the physical/material » - “Reality” in which I hope I am right in thinking you believe.

Considering that “reality is : “the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them (OED definition), I (perhaps mistakenly) thought you were offering a “possible scientific explanation” of resurrection.

As it seems that this is not the case, how do you qualify it ? Can the “Reality beyond the physical/material” to which you refer be purely philosophical (e.g., metaphysical) ?

If so, what is your definition of “reality”, as it is unknown to any of the dictionaries I have consulted ? Are you postulating a reality beyond reality and is that other reality metaphysical, i.e., “the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space” (OED definition) ?

No doubt it was your use of the word “reality”, even with a capital “R”, that led me astray. If you had simply written : « Belief in Resurrection … does not make sense without belief in the supernatural », I would not have mistakenly thought you were offering some sort of “scientific explanation” of resurrection.

The OED defines “the supernatural” as “manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts”. Don’t you think this would have been more appropriate ?

Rightly or wrongly, I must confess I tend to associate reality (with or without a capital “R”) with “physical/material”. Not so with “the supernatural”.

Please forgive me if you consider that I do so wrongly.

.

Banjo,

In writing to George, you stated:

<<No doubt it was your use of the word “reality”, even with a capital “R”, that led me astray. If you had simply written : « Belief in Resurrection … does not make sense without belief in the supernatural », I would not have mistakenly thought you were offering some sort of “scientific explanation” of resurrection.>>

You seem to be restricted to a definition of 'scientific explanation' that refers to empirical science that involves repeatable experimentation. That is important science to find new medications for my heart disease, vaccinations to immunise against various diseases.

That is not the kind of science for unrepeatable historical investigation. History can't be repeated, as the events happened.

We can't repeat the September 11, 2001 disaster in the twin towers of New York City or the tsunami of 2004 that plundered into Indonesia.

Anything from history, e.g. the bodily resurrection of Jesus, needs to be investigated using criteria of historical research. You don't seem to understand how to do historical investigation.

Please tell me how you will discover the facts around Ned Kelly. Will you use empirical science of repeatability?

Dear Banjo,

An easy check will show you that the phrase “scientific explanation” was not used by anybody in this thread. I can explain to you why I did this or that, or what is the meaning of this or that sentence in German, etc. These are explanations but not scientific explanations that usually involve reference to some law of e.g. physics.

>>Rightly or wrongly, I must confess I tend to associate reality (with or without a capital “R”) with “physical/material”. <<

That is your prerogative. It is a belief that I do not share, so I am one of those with a "lack of belief" that all that there is can be investigated by natural science.

As to a definition of that which I believe is beyond scientific investigation, it is the same as in the following example: I can say that I believe that there is more known about e.g. rocket technology than what is explained in this particular textbook, without having to define explicitly what it is that is not dealt with in this book.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You asked :

« Do you know what historical science is? Or are you confusing it with empirical experimentation of repeatability? Seems so »
.

I understand that historical science is a term used to describe sciences in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data, such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology and archaeology.

However, I understand that the creationists claim that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence. Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence but interpret it within a different framework. Evolutionists deny the role of a god in the universe, and creationists accept their god’s eyewitness account — the Bible — as the foundation for arriving at a correct understanding of the universe.

You commented :

« Your presuppositions are thundering, ‘I have my own anti-Christian axe to grind and I’ll use this forum to my advantage’ »
.

No, I'm watching the minds at work, moving fluidly between ideas that I scrutinise critically before weaving those I consider valid into a cohesive world view. My participation on this forum sometimes helps me reassess it.

You also asked :

« Could you replicate Captain James Cook’s voyage up the East Coast of Australia in 1770 using your definition of science? »

I couldn’t but based on Thor Heyerdahl’s epic 101 day trip in 1947 of 4,300 nautical miles on the Kon-Tiki to prove his theory of migration of ancient civilisations from Peru to Polynesia in 500 AD, I think Captain Cook’s voyage could , indeed, be “replicated” (but, naturally, not “repeated”).
.

Thank you for introducing me to the retired Anglican Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright. I took the time to wade through a couple of hundred pages of his magnum opus, “The Resurrection of the Son of God” which you kindly recommended.

He has a good analytical mind but, in my humble opinion, failed to achieve what you seem to consider he did. The following critical review explains it better than I could :

http://web.archive.org/web/20040509014535/http://homepages.which.net/~radical.faith/reviews/wright%20res.htm

.

Dear OzSpen,

«First Corinthians 15 does NOT teach that a physical body lasts forever because ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God'.»

There are numerous reasons why a physical body cannot last forever. The reason provided in Corinthians is just one of them, yet other reasons pertain to all bodies, not just gross-physical.

«There is a radical difference between the two.»

Granted, Jesus is God, but it is not an either-or: nothing precludes Jesus from being both God AND a Yogi.

Yuyutsu,

<<Granted, Jesus is God, but it is not an either-or: nothing precludes Jesus from being both God AND a Yogi.>>

Would you please supply New Testament evidence where Jesus stated he was a Yogi or used the thinking of a Yogi?

Banjo,

<<Thank you for introducing me to the retired Anglican Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright. I took the time to wade through a couple of hundred pages of his magnum opus, “The Resurrection of the Son of God” which you kindly recommended.

He has a good analytical mind but, in my humble opinion, failed to achieve what you seem to consider he did. The following critical review explains it better than I could :

http://web.archive.org/web/20040509014535/http://homepages.which.net/~radical.faith/reviews/wright%20res.htm>>

Banjo,

You read 200 of 817 pages of Prof N T Wright's research on the resurrection and then have the audacity to claim that he <<failed to achieve what you seem to consider he did.>>

If I read 25% of your posts in any thread and then claimed you failed to achieve what you stated, you'd have every right to call me irresponsible - even an ignoramus.

But you say you read 25% of Wright's research on Jesus' resurrection and say he failed to achieve his aim.

Do you want me to take you seriously? I don't.

Dear OzSpen,

«Would you please supply New Testament evidence where Jesus stated he was a Yogi or used the thinking of a Yogi?»

First I don't understand what you mean by "the thinking of a Yogi". Being a Yogi does not imply any particular pattern of thought, but rather the freedom from thoughts. A Yogi controls his thoughts rather than having wandering thoughts control him/her.

Now why would Jesus tell his Jewish disciples that he is a Yogi? If he did then they wouldn't understand it anyway! He also didn't tell them that E=mc² as they wouldn't understand it either because their grasp of both physical and metaphysical sciences was quite primitive, nor was it necessary for them to understand it.

To Yuyutsu.

There is a flaw in your reasoning of Jesus being a Yogi, and his disciples being unable to understand what a yogi is. That flaw is in recognizing the miracles of Jesus as an extension of Jesus being a yogi.

But if Jesus was a yogi, and could only perform miracles because of this, then what kind of explanation is there for Jesus's disciples being able to perform miracles as well? Consider the book of Acts within the bible for different examples of miracles done by the apostles, by Paul, and even by some believers that just believed.

The other example of miracles being done by common people instead of yogis is in Luke 10. Jesus sends out 72 disciples to preach to other towns that the Kingdom of heaven is near, and to heal the sick like Jesus was. It was by Jesus's authority as God's Son that He could let them go and perform these deeds, not because they were yogis.

If you would like we can discuss the different examples of miracles in the book of Acts as well. I would be happy to go over these written examples with you. These miracles seem to me to be because God grated them these gifts, and nothing more then that like a yogi understanding.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

« You read 200 of 817 pages of Prof N T Wright's research on the resurrection … If I read 25% of your posts in any thread and then claimed you failed to achieve what you stated, you'd have every right to call me irresponsible - even an ignoramus … Do you want me to take you seriously? »
.

You raise an interesting point there, Ozpan. My reply in a nutshell is yes – if the text is extremely long (which is the case here) and one peruses it intelligently to extract the pith and marrow of his findings and their substantiation.

Tom Wright is a prolific writer and rather long-winded. He has written over 70 books. The paperback version of his latest book, for example, “Paul and the Faithfulness of God”, is 1,700 pages long.

Wright has a good analytical mind but, apparently, an aversion to or incapacity for synthetic thought and expression. Thirty pages would be largely sufficient for a Readers Digest version of his book including not only a brief description of his research, but, more importantly, a well-structured and clear presentation of his results and conclusions.

I read 200 of the 817 pages of his book just to identify, extract, collate, analyse and evaluate the results of his research in order to be able to assess what he had actually achieved.

Wright’s book is the result of historical research. It is an academic treatise. Religious devotees such as yourself draw important conclusions from it. It's not read in the same manner as one reads a novel of fiction such as Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone with the Wind” (1,472 pages) or Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” (1,440 pages).

Novels of fiction are read in a leisurely fashion for pleasure or for their literary value. The reader is not in search of any special message or revelation as with Wright’s treatise. The profusion of detail his book contains is there principally for reference. It's not indispensable core material.

Interestingly, Einstein’s groundbreaking paper on General Relativity contains only 29 pages :

http://www.academia.edu/375613/Einsteins_Original_Paper_on_General_Relativity?auto=download

.

Yuyutsu,

I asked you, Posted by OzSpen, Thursday, 24 January 2019 8:10:01 PM: "Would you please supply New Testament evidence where Jesus stated he was a Yogi or used the thinking of a Yogi?"

You avoided that question and gave the miracles of Jesus as examples of the work of a yogi. Similar 'miracles' could be performed by a witch in the occult. Would you call that witch a yogi?

<<First I don't understand what you mean by "the thinking of a Yogi". Being a Yogi does not imply any particular pattern of thought, but rather the freedom from thoughts. A Yogi controls his thoughts rather than having wandering thoughts control him/her.>>

You were the one who stated:

<<There is no contradiction between being a Yogi and the Son of God: a Yogi is someone who controls their (sic) mind, whose thoughts do not waver, thus is able to concentrate and affect energy, thus matter, like the wonders that Jesus performed.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 22 January 2019 6:49:32 PM>>

That is the content to which I referred with ‘the thinking of a Yogi’.

I do not find a word in the New Testament that confirms your understanding of the attributes of a yogi in Jesus. Jesus was not a yogi but God Himself.

"Jesus did many other miraculous signs that his followers saw, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you can believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. Then, by believing, you can have life through his name" (John 20:31).

Thus, Jesus performed miracles, not to demonstrate he was a yogi but that people would believe he was the Christ, the Son of God - affirming his divinity - and to grant (eternal) life to those who put their trust in him.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

Oops, my PDF page counter indicated 29 pages for Einstein’s paper on General Relativity, but I overlooked the fact that they are double pages.

The correct number of pages is therefore twice 29 = 58.

Sorry about that …

.

Dear OzSpen,

We are just discussing the same, only from two different perspectives, using different terminologies.

Is the sun rising in the east, or is it the earth that turns around its axis while revolving around the sun? Both statements are true, they just come from two different perspectives. Fighting over which view is correct, is plain silly. Saying that Jesus performed miracles ONLY as a Son of God is like insisting that the sun gives us light and warmth only because it rises in the east.

Yogis do not perform miracles because they want to demonstrate that they are yogis: attempting to do so would be a perversion and would anyway fail because instead of concentrating on their object, or ideally on God, their mind would wander thinking "Oh, I want to prove that I am a Yogi...".

As for witches, they have an unusual degree of concentration, which is in common with Yogis and allows them to concentrate long enough to affect energy and matter to some significant degree, but their concentration is imperfect and is eventually broken by their dark desires, bringing about their downfall.

Earnest disciples too can be blessed to have a span of concentration on God, including in the form of Jesus, thus bring about minor miracles. However, their concentration is temporary and fragile. We hear of their success stories, but not as much of their [human] failures. I don't know about the Christian view, but Judaism forbids and considers it a sin to rely on miracles (http://www.aish.com/atr/Relying_on_Miracles.html, http://theruminativerabbi.blogspot.com/2014/02/relying-on-miracles.html). Yes, miracles MAY happen, but one should never jump off the roof thinking "God will send me a parachute".

//Similar 'miracles' could be performed by a witch//

Wizards and witches, eh?

XD

This is just getting silly now. In a minute he'll be telling us that werewolves and vampires and fire-breathing dragons are real too.

Yuyutsu,

<<We are just discussing the same, only from two different perspectives, using different terminologies.>>

To the contrary! We are discussing Jesus and what he did from 2 radically different worldviews - Hinduism and Christianity.

Jesus performed miracles so that people would 'believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. Then, by believing, you can have life through his name' (John 20:31).

He did not perform miracles and then go to the cross to be slaughtered for the world of sinners to demonstrate he was a yogi or a Hindu Yogi. He did it to provide eternal life for all who would trust in Jesus.

Dear OzSpen,

«To the contrary! We are discussing Jesus and what he did from 2 radically different worldviews - Hinduism and Christianity.»

Not so radically different, compared for example with the atheist perspective that Jesus either never existed or never performed miracles, or with the Jewish perspective that Jesus was a scoundrel which deserved to be crucified (and where "Messiah" means a powerful king who conquers all surrounding lands and restores the nation of Israel to its former glory and beyond).

At the end of the day, Jesus was who he was. You could look at him from so many angles, but all words would only be reflections on Jesus, incomparable with his actual and ungraspable presence.

Words do not grant eternal life: it is the knowledge of God which does, rather than mumbling the correct formula. Formulas are good and important because they can inspire us to live righteously and to seek God, but left on their own they are only barren intellectual acrobatics. When trusting in Jesus brings one to dedicate their life to God, then they have eternal life through Jesus' name.

Ideas cannot save us: effective believing should consist of much more than holding and entertaining an intellectual idea that X is Y. By going on the cross, Jesus demonstrated that his teachings of love were not merely intellectual ideas. It is his living teachings that save from death, if followed, rather than merely recited.

«He did not perform miracles and then go to the cross to be slaughtered for the world of sinners to demonstrate he was a yogi or a Hindu Yogi.»

No Yogi, Hindu or otherwise, does so. I will repeat: it is a perversion. Only insecure people have this perverse need to let the world "know" who they are.

Banjo,

<<Tom Wright is a prolific writer and rather long-winded. He has written over 70 books. The paperback version of his latest book, for example, “Paul and the Faithfulness of God”, is 1,700 pages long.>>

If you read the blurb on the book, it states:

"This highly anticipated two-book fourth volume in N. T. Wright's magisterial series, Christian Origins and the Question of God, is destined to become the standard reference point on the subject for all serious students of the Bible and theology. The mature summation of a lifetime's study, this landmark book pays a rich tribute to the breadth and depth of the apostle's vision, and offers an unparalleled wealth of detailed insights into his life, times, and enduring impact".

It consists of 2 volumes as the Contents pages indicate. See: http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Faithfulness-God-N-Wright/dp/0800626834#reader_0800626834

These volumes are for serious students of Scripture from a master scholar of the biblical text who is now in older age. I have read his 3 earlier volumes in this series and when I can afford these 2 volumes I'll purchase on Kindle.

<<Wright has a good analytical mind but, apparently, an aversion to or incapacity for synthetic thought and expression.>>

You gave not one statement from Wright to demonstrate this. Are you getting it from some reviewer?

<<It's not read in the same manner as one reads a novel of fiction such as Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone with the Wind”>>

Of course not! Reading about the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami is not like reading Alice in Wonderland. They are different genre.

N T Wright is an in-depth researcher into the life and teachings of Jesus, the Apostle Paul and the resurrection of Jesus. He uses similar historical methodology to that of Geoffrey Blainey 1976. Triumph of the Nomads: A History of Ancient Australia. Melbourne: Macmillan.

Yuyutsu,

<<Not so radically different, compared for example with the atheist perspective that Jesus either never existed or never performed miracles, or with the Jewish perspective that Jesus was a scoundrel which deserved to be crucified (and where "Messiah" means a powerful king who conquers all surrounding lands and restores the nation of Israel to its former glory and beyond).>>

We are worldviews apart.

Let's leave it as that.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You quoted my statement that “Wright has a good analytical mind but, apparently, an aversion to or incapacity for synthetic thought and expression”, and commented :

« You gave not one statement from Wright to demonstrate this. Are you getting it from some reviewer? »

I gave as an example the fact that Wright’s religious treatise contains 817 pages, whereas, by comparison, Einstein’s groundbreaking paper on General Relativity contains only 58 pages.

I could have cited a number of other major groundbreaking treatises such as Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” (458 pages) published in 1859, or Copernicus’ “On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres” (487 pages) published in 1547, in which he formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun at the centre rather than the Earth.
.

You then observed :

« N T Wright is an in-depth researcher into the life and teachings of Jesus, the Apostle Paul and the resurrection of Jesus »
.

I agree that Wright’s book is the result of in-depth research into the life and teachings of Jesus and the apostle, Paul. However, as the author himself admits, there is very little evidence available for in-depth research into the claimed resurrection of Jesus. This is a highly disputed claim among historians and his research sheds no new light on the subject – apart from explaining that people were more prone to believing such phenomena in the first century than they are today.

As a result, in the absence of any objective evidence, his research in this domain is limited to the study of the BELIEF of the early Christians regarding the resurrection of Jesus. It is the study of THEIR INTERPRETATION of the open tomb, the empty shroud and the testimony of the privileged few who claimed to have seen the “transformed” and resuscitated Jesus.

And Wright to conclude:

« This BELIEF about Jesus provides a historically complete, thorough and satisfying reason for the rise and development of the BELIEF that he was and is the Son of God »

Nothing new there.

.

Banjo,

<< Wright’s religious treatise contains 817 pages, whereas, by comparison, Einstein’s groundbreaking paper on General Relativity contains only 58 pages.>>

Not Wright's inability of synthesis but for different purposes.

<<as the author himself admits, there is very little evidence available for in-depth research into the claimed resurrection of Jesus. >>

Please provide the quote with reference.

He claims “there are excellent, well-founded and secure historical arguments against" those who oppose Jesus’ bodily resurrection (Wright 2003:7).

You seem to have a bias against the bodily resurrection.

"Early Christian writers, both canonical and non-canonical” provide “substantial unanimity” and “SOLID EVIDENCE” affirming his resurrection on the third day. They meant this LITERALLY" (Wright 2003:9-10).

<<As a result, in the absence of any objective evidence, his research in this domain is limited to the study of the BELIEF of the early Christians regarding the resurrection of Jesus. >>

False! "The resurrection of Jesus, whatever it was, can and must be seen as at least a historical PROBLEM' (Wright 2003:12).

Wright's historical research, not of interpretation, led to the fact that Jesus' tomb was empty; this was “the secure historical conclusion” that was "in the same category of historical probability so high as to be virtually certain, as the death of Augustus in AD 14 or the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70" (2003:710).

<<It is the study of THEIR INTERPRETATION of the open tomb....>>

Do you claim the same for those who wrote a history of Captain Cook?

You quoted Wright: «This BELIEF about Jesus provides a historically complete, thorough and satisfying reason for the rise and development of the BELIEF that he was and is the Son of God »

That’s sloppy quoting. It’s in Wright (2003:681). The context deals with the complex and "remarkably consistent early Christian view" that Jesus was bodily raised after 3 days, demonstrating he was not a ghost.

You don't want to understand that it was FAITH founded on the FACT of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

<<Nothing new there.>>

You bet there is! It is not a leap of faith but FAITH founded on FACT

Hey Not_Now.Soon,
"As for God existing or not. Calling it a mental illness is a cop out plain and simple."

Cop out? How exactly?

Here's what I'm feeling:

You took personal offense at my choice of words 'mental illness';
Because you thought I was talking about you, because you identify as Christian;

In which case I was talking about you
- and especially so when you piped in and proved my point.

"All that means to me is that you haven't looked for yourself, or if you have, you have blinders on, so you don't actually observe what's around you."

'to me'

It's not about you or your belief, it was about mine.
(You butted in, because you took offense at my belief - because it undermines you and yours; what YOU BELIEVE.
You proved my point is showing your incapable of seeing my point of view.

I got blinkers off.

Lets say for example I said I KNOW for a fact ALIENS EXIST because I spoke to them in my back yard last night.
You'd all argue I'd have a mental illness right?
- Or there's a fairly good chance of it -

C'mon tell me.
Or tell me instead "Nah mate if you said that I'd believe your alien story 110%";
- You can't win.

And so, if I say those who claim they KNOW God exists (in the absence of any proof similar to the alien story) may instead be advertising a mental illness;

Then whats the difference?

You got offended by it because you can only see things from your point of view, (your side of the road);
And that was EXACTLY MY POINT;
AND you just proved it, thanks for that.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You ask me to provide the precise reference for my comment : “as the author himself admits, there is very little evidence available for in-depth research into the claimed resurrection of Jesus”.

Unfortunately, I did not take specific notes when I sifted through the 817 pages and don’t fancy doing it again. Nevertheless, I think you will agree that the only evidence he ever mentions anywhere in his book for the claimed resurrection of Jesus is the early Christians’ interpretation of the open tomb, the empty shroud and the testimony of the privileged few who claimed to have seen the “transformed” and resuscitated Jesus.

If it’s of any help, I just came across the following paragraph in the section sub-titled : (iii) The Form of the Story in Chapter Four Time to Wake-up (2): Hope beyond Death in Post-Biblical Judaisme :

« We are left with the conclusion that the combination of empty tomb, and appearance of the living Jesus forms a set of circumstances which is itself both necessary and sufficient for the rise of early Christian belief. Without these phenomena, we cannot explain why this belief came into existence, and took the shape it did. With them we can explain it exactly and precisely »

Also, as I’m sure you are aware, Wright cites Matthew 28:12-15 but discounts it.

If the same “phenomena” were to occur today, I, personally, doubt that anyone in his right mind would seriously consider that the dead person had resurrected. It is likely that modern investigative methods could produce a very different result than that imagined by early Christian believers and writers.

You mention Captain Cook, but I am not aware that anyone has ever suggested that he had resurrected.

You conclude that Christian faith is founded on “the FACT of Jesus’ bodily resurrection”.

I beg to disagree. The legal definition of the term “fact” is “the truth about events as opposed to interpretation” (OED).

Nobody has ever proven that there is a god (nor, consequently, a son of a god) – and that includes Tom Wright.

.

To Armchair Critic.

I'm not offended at what you've said. (Though I was the first time some one made that claim of mental illness in that way). But instead I was responding to your points. However are you offended that I called the view out as a copout?

The points I addressed were:

•That Christians are incapable of understanding a different world view.
-my counterpoint is that Christians come from a wide variety of people. Most have other world views in their history.

•agnostics and atheists have a bigger picture view of the world.
-counterpoint. No one has a better vantage point of the bigger picture because we need others to fill in the parts of the picture that we just don't have access yet of seeing. As a community, Christians have more of an vantage point because they've come together and can talk to each other about the world.

•regarding God existing or not, you gave the reasoning that that claim is advertising mental illness.
-I called this out as a copout. I stand by this. There are too many people who've testified that God exists because of what's occurred in their lives to pass it off so easily as a mental illness.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Moving on. Let's use the same logic about seeing UFOs and aliens. Though this is a smaller population then those who say that God is real, the application of whether they are mentally ill or not can be applied to them.

If someone says they saw a UFO, my first thought is if they saw something else and panicked, or if they didn't see it correctly and it was something else. This is the first view largely because 1) I haven't seen a UFO myself, and 2) I live in a skeptical society that doesn't want to be taken for a fool, or be conned. A second thought is to consider what they said and weigh the possibility of if it really occurred or not. For the most part all I have is their testimony. Even if it did occur, there's no point in putting too much focus on it unless there's a danger.

If multiple people say they saw the same thing, the rationale that this was seen under panicked conditions or just didn't see it correctly dwindles. Instead by multiple sources saying they saw something similar gives it credence that there was something seen regardless of if their conclusions are correct on what it was they saw. If there was any inkling thinking there was mental illness there this shoots that down for the reason of the sighting. None the less even weighing the possibility of this sighting being real, the issue of how that changes things is very minimal. Unless there's an active danger, or an ongoing effect because of UFOs, there's nothing much to do about it or be concerned about it.

(Continued)

(Continued)

At no point in this though do I assume mental illness is the culprit. Nor do I use mental illness as an excuse to not investigate or consider what was said. The only way I place mental illness there is if the witness testifying shows signs of mental illness.

This is where your view of claims of God being real stops and shatters. Instead of seeing if the witness has any symptoms of mental illness, you use the rationale as an excuse to not consider their claims. Plain and simple it is a cop out. Worse it is a cop out that is applied to a large population of people, justifying all of them as being mentally ill, when nothing should be suggesting that. There are no symptoms.

Hey Not_Now.Soon,

I'm glad you're not offended, because I never sought to do so.
- And I wouldn't want you to be offended unless I did.

I feel like you're turning this into a can of worms and making it more complicated than it is.
But maybe this is how it is for the believer, the corner the arguments back you into.

My issue surrounds the simple argument of 'I know' as opposed to 'I don't know'.
In this respect both the believer and unbeliever are on the same side: They 'KNOW'.
Whereas their arguments of 'Claiming to Know' (as a fact) sit in opposition to the people who say 'They Don't Know'.

If you go back and read my original comments you replied to, you'll see that I didn't make the claim that you and other believers ARE mentally ill.
If I made that claim then I'd have to be included as well, because I'd be basing my argument on also 'Claiming to Know' (That you were wrong, - and I don't know for fact that as a believer you're wrong)
What I actually said was - 'It may be just as likely' -

My argument was based on merit and logic in opposition to those whom 'Claim to KNOW - for a fact';
- And how you're only able to frame your views and opinions from that 'I Know' vantage point;
(You proved it in the way you responded to my stated opinion which was based on merit and logic)
Which also means than you can't see things from the 'I don't know' vantage point.
That's the bigger picture I'm alluding to.

[Cont.]

Let me sum it up for you.

If you could see things clearly from the 'I Don't Know' side of the road, then you'd also see that the statement I made 'It may be just as likely...' is completely reasonable and logical (and shows respect to the brain God may have potentially given me) and nothing to GET offended about in the first place.

It's only you, the believer who might get offended because of your own belief in 'Claiming to Know'.

Why would God give you touch, taste, sight, smell and hear, as well as a brain;
And then expect you to discard those gifts for faith alone?

- And that's why I'm happy where I am being a fencesitter -

Armchair Critic,

<<Why would God give you touch, taste, sight, smell and hear, as well as a brain; And then expect you to discard those gifts for faith alone?

- And that's why I'm happy where I am being a fencesitter>>

God expects the Christian believer to use all of those things PLUS the spirit/soul/conscience/mind/heart that is within a person, to know God in a spiritual dimension.

Could you be open to this teaching by Jesus? "No one can come to me [Jesus] unless DRAWN by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day" (John 6:44).

This is not God the Father drawing a person's physical characteristics, including the brain, but drawing the internal dimension of human beings that can't be seen.

When the Father drew me through my spirit, I responded positively to God. I could have rejected that drawing.

One minute after your last breath you won't be a fence sitter. Why not deal with the eternal issues of life, death and the future now?

Hi OzSpen

Actually I worded that earlier bit wrong.
I meant to use the word 'betray' instead of 'discard'.

Why would God give you touch, taste, sight, smell and hear, as well as a brain;
And then expect you to betray those gifts for faith alone?

I CAN'T touch God,
I CAN'T taste God,
I CAN'T see God,
I CAN'T smell God and
I CAN'T hear God;

Also my Brain says 'I Don't Know'.

On that last 'hear God' issue many people think they speak to God when they pray.
- Personally I think they believe they're talking to God but their conscience is what responds with some insightful comforting message.

Choosing faith is to betray his gifts. (If he exists)
My mind says 'I Don't Know'.

«Why would God give you touch, taste, sight, smell and hear, as well as a brain; And then expect you to betray those gifts for faith alone?»

Are these truly gifts?

While we do get pleasures from our senses and brain, this pleasure is sparse. The senses mostly give us pain and the brain, worries.

So long as you consider yourself a limited human, these faculties are necessary for "your" survival. This human survival should not be discarded because it is necessary for knowing God, but once we know God, these faculties are no longer necessary.

We need to use these faculties as crutches, but then we become addicted to them and the time comes when we must break our addictions and betray these faculties, seeking God alone.

Knowing God ends all suffering.

"When the Father drew me through my spirit, I responded positively to God. I could have rejected that drawing."

I'm not sure I want to share the background story in regards to Christianity in my life, but there definitely is one.
All I'm really willing to share is that I had it forced upon me as a child because a of a parents remarriage.
If you knew that backstory then my positions would probably make more sense to you.

"One minute after your last breath you won't be a fence sitter. Why not deal with the eternal issues of life, death and the future now?"

Why because I'll be dead? Lol

There you 'believers' go again.
You're attempting to make your belief my belief.
Why do you do that, are you trying to shore up your own belief?
- With a need for me to agree with you?

"Why not deal with the eternal issues of life, death and the future now?"

What does that mean exactly to a fence sitter, someone who says and believes 'I Don't Know'?
What is it a guilt trip of some sort?

"You have nothing to lose and everything to gain" they claim.
- Heard it all before, no offense;
- But I'll give you brownie points for trying.

Banjo,

Previously you claimed you read 200 of N T Wright's 817pp on The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003). Now you admit: <<when I SIFTED THROUGH the 817 pages>> That sounds more like it.

<<I think you will agree that the only evidence he ever mentions anywhere in his book for the claimed resurrection of Jesus is the early Christians’ interpretation of the open tomb>>

You're inventing again. For you to accept the historical fact of the bodily resurrection of Christ is out of your mind.

I agree that the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is in the researched and demonstrated reliable New Testament. See: http://minnehahachurch.org/Library/06Writing/NTDocuments-Reliable-Bruce.pdf. Also, http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAR011.pdf

I rely on reliable NT documents.

<<Also, as I’m sure you are aware, Wright cites Matthew 28:12-15 but discounts it.>>

That is false. That’s a 'skim' a book conclusion. Wright deals with it in pp 636-40, "There is nothing improbable in this narrative; indeed, it makes good sense all round" (p 637)

<<If the same “phenomena” were to occur today, I, personally, doubt that anyone in his right mind would seriously consider that the dead person had resurrected.>.

Your presuppositions are speaking Banjo.

<<You mention Captain Cook, but I am not aware that anyone has ever suggested that he had resurrected.>>

I never said that. Cook was mentioned to demonstrate the only way we have to access his story is through historical investigation; same as with the resurrection.

Since I claimed the resurrection was founded on FACT, you stated:

<<I beg to disagree. The legal definition of the term “fact” is “the truth about events as opposed to interpretation” (OED)>>

The Oxford Living Dictionaries (online) disagree stating that FACT is "a thing that is known or proved to be true" (2019. s.v. fact).

Jesus' resurrection is from the reliable NT, a fact proved to be true. See the forum interaction between atheist, Antony Flew, and evangelical scholar, Gary Habermas: http://www.veritas.org/did-jesus-rise-dead/.

<<Nobody has ever proven that there is a god (nor, consequently, a son of a god) – and that includes Tom Wright>>.

Would you accept the positive evidence provided?

Armchair Critic,

<<Why would God give you touch, taste, sight, smell and hear, as well as a brain;
And then expect you to betray those gifts for faith alone?
I CAN'T touch God,
I CAN'T taste God,
I CAN'T see God,
I CAN'T smell God and
I CAN'T hear God;
Also my Brain says 'I Don't Know'>>

The God of all knowledge, power and understanding (Prov 1:7; 2:6; 29:15) has made us holistic beings. You've listed the physical characteristics but have forgotten the unseen parts in all human beings.

You focussed on the physical that will all pass away as Jesus said: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away" (Matt 24:35).

I don't need to touch, taste, smell and hear Round-Up to know what it can do as a poison.

Coming to Christ by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9) does not mean that the other physical attributes I have are abandoned. You have missed the connection between grace and faith and a human beings soul/spirit. In side you, you have this dimension to life, but in your example above, you've missed that out.

Do you know God's reason why you don't want to come to Him for eternal life?

Armchair Critic,

<<All I'm really willing to share is that I had it forced upon me as a child because a of a parents remarriage.
If you knew that backstory then my positions would probably make more sense to you.>>

That's enough to give me some understanding of your resistance.

One minute after your last breath, I wonder if this will be your sentiment: <<Why because I'll be dead? Lol>>

Not true! You'll be alive as never before but in a different location: "Everyone must die once. Then they are judged" (Heb 9:27). You may laugh it off but that's the reality of what you'll face.

<<There you 'believers' go again. You're attempting to make your belief my belief>>

Can't we engage in a discussion about eternal matters that you seem to have missed in the kinds of comments you make?

Or is the case closed and you don't want to discuss further with others and me?

<<"You have nothing to lose and everything to gain" they claim.>>

That's not my statement or what I think. However, if you don't want to talk with me about spiritual matters, I'm happy to leave it at that. Or are you prepared to discuss these issues further?

Yuyutsu,

<<Knowing God ends all suffering.>>

That's as you see it from your worldview. The facts are that I've had pain throughout my long life, starting with 3 bouts of rheumatic fever as a child right through to 5 open-heart, valve replacement surgeries.

To say that my knowing God has ended my suffering, including a stroke and its aftermath, flies in the face of reality. You're promoting an illusion.

God has not ended suffering in my Christian life but he has used it for His purposes:

"My brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing." (James 1:2-4).

Thus, it is false to say that God ends all suffering, unless you mean after death.

In this life, there is a purpose in trials and suffering for Christian believers. God uses difficulties to mature our trust in God.

Dear OzSpen,

First, your conclusion: «In this life, there is a purpose in trials and suffering for Christian believers. God uses difficulties to mature our trust in God.»

Is true for everyone, not only for Christian believers.

«To say that my knowing God has ended my suffering, including a stroke and its aftermath, flies in the face of reality.»

There is difference between knowing God and having information ABOUT God. The information may be correct and wonderful to have, but it is still only information, it is still only on an intellectual/theoretical level: an analogy would be the difference between passing a driving theory test and actually knowing to drive. Knowing God Himself is a total and direct experience beyond anything which words can describe. Such knowledge ends all suffering.

«Thus, it is false to say that God ends all suffering, unless you mean after death.»

Whether you continue to live or die after knowing God, is truly up to God, depending on whether you still have a calling in this world to serve others who still suffer. As far as you are concerned, once you know God, life or death, pleasure or pain, are all the same, you no longer care about it either way.

To Armchair Critic.

Sorry for the delay in response. Late night early(ish) morning syndrome has limited my time outside of work towards sleep. Hope you understand.

I get what your saying about not understanding something, and therefore not taking a stand on it in either direction. I do this often on many things that I know I'm not a expert on nor affected by it. Such as a health condition of someone else. They can take a side because it's their health, and they can determine if they believe the doctors and medical research on a matter, or to trust themselves and others who have gone through that specific health condition. (Hopefully the doctors and patients agree, but not always). Without some insight on the matter it is easy to just say I don't know, and leave the matter be.

However there are things that you and I know. You can't be a fence sitter on everything. We have things we have learned the hard way, or theories we've been taught and then tested them to know they are true. Think of it like this. If a person is an electrician, their knowledge and experience forms their knowledge base on their trade. Not knowing that trade doesn't help someone see clearly what to do if they want to add a light switch to their wall. Instead they should either hire an electricity on to help because they do have knowledge on the matter, or the person should look into the matter themself in order to gain some foundation before jumping into the project.

(Continued)

(Continued)

You do know somethings. If you claimed to know something and I called you delusional, without even hearing what you've got to say, then I'd bet you'd be able to understand where I'm coming from. The claim that they might be mentally ill, (or even your additive "maybe just as likely"), is a means to avoid the topic by discrediting the person before hearing what they have to say.

I wouldn't say the position of "I don't know" is a better position because you can't really know. No, I would actually say the opposite. If I can find God, there's no reason you can't find Him too. It's not just a faith and belief thing. Some aspects are that I believe and have faith because of what I've seen.

....Sorry if I got long winded earlier. It's not because I'm backed into a corner. But more because I've heard the term and accusation before, and have developed my thoughts on the matter. I have a similar long winded view on teaching your kids your religion is a form of child abuse. Basically in my opinion whether the subject is mental illness, child abuse, or any other negative slogan to get a point across, I really don't agree with the idea of tossing those terms out there when they aren't accurate. Even worse when those terms aren't affected by religion to cause any of them.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrore :

« Previously you claimed you read 200 of N T Wright's 817pp on The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003). Now you admit: “when I SIFTED THROUGH the 817 pages” »
.

The subject of Wright’s treatise is “The Resurrection of the Son of God”. I sifted through his book to discover what evidence, arguments and conclusions had resulted from his research on that.

Whenever I encountered anything that had any direct bearing on that particular subject, I stopped sifting and started reading – in detail, carefully – sometimes several times in order to understand what exactly it was he was trying to say. As soon as I felt I understood, I took up sifting again until I came across something else that appeared pertinent – and continued like to the end of the book. In all, I probably read about 200 pages in detail, some passages several times.

As I indicated in a previous post, I consider that even those 200 pages could have been reduced to about 30 in a Readers Digest version, without missing a single piece of evidence, a single idea, a single argument or conclusion.

You opine :

« You're inventing again. For you to accept the historical fact of the bodily resurrection of Christ is out of your mind »

One of my hopes in life has always been to invent something. I thought I did on two occasions, many years ago. Unfortunately, I later discovered that somebody had already made the inventions. It’s true that the resurrection of Jesus is “out of [my] mind” as you say. But I should be happy to revise my position if any significant evidence should come to light in the future.

.

You refer to “the Dean of Evangelical Scholarship”, F.F. Bruce’s 1943 book “New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?” and indicate “I rely on reliable NT documents”.

I could have guessed it, OzSpen. I’m sure the Gospels, in particular, are very highly valued by most practicing Christians.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

You declare that it is “false” to consider that “Wright cites Matthew 28:12-15 but discounts it”. You point out that, on the contrary, he stipulates that “it makes good sense all round”.

That is precisely the problem. Wright appears to lend credence to Matthew’s version of the disappearance of Jesus’ body from the tomb, without question. The obvious explanation, which Matthew describes in some detail – that the disciples stole it – apparently continued to be widely held “among Jews” for at least 80 or 90 years after the event (when the book of Matthew was written).

Wright completely discounts the most obvious explanation, that the body was stolen, simply on the basis of Matthew’s narrative and on that narrative alone. His sole reason for citing it seems to be to be able to discount it. That hardly qualifies as “in-depth” research by any standards.
.

As for the OED definition of “fact”, if you check back to my previous post, you will see that I indicated : “the legal definition of the term “fact” is “the truth about events as opposed to interpretation”. Here is the link : http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fact
.

I note your beliefs about the New Testament and your confidence in the opinions, beliefs, teachings and interpretations of evangelical scholars.
.

Thank you for clarifying what you meant by your reference to “those who wrote a history of Captain Cook”. Historical investigation of his death is incomparable to that of Jesus of Nazareth. As you say, nobody suggested that he resurrected.
.

In conclusion, you ask :

« Would you accept the positive evidence provided? »

I have no problem accepting positive evidence, whatever the subject, provided such evidence is falsifiable or replicable scientifically.

.

Hi Ozspen,

"Or are you prepared to discuss these issues further?"

Yeah sure happy to, only I don't want you getting frustrated or disappointed if you fail to get the agreement or desired result of turning me to the Lord that you may potentially hope to.
I'm a tough nut to crack, and not only that I'm already happy and humble in my present beliefs.

Also, not sure I'll have enough room in a 4 post limit to cover all of yours and Not_Now.Soons questions.

Note: Firstly, to both - I don't want you to take anything I say offensively.
- Because I just mostly say whatever I think and it's not about you; please keep this in mind.

"The God of all knowledge, power and understanding (Prov 1:7; 2:6; 29:15) has made us holistic beings. You've listed the physical characteristics but have forgotten the unseen parts in all human beings."

Holistic: characterized by the belief that the parts of something are intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
- You want me to be motivated by fear, or LOVE?
I never really bought into this crap sorry, it's handcuffs for your mind.

Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.
Proverbs 29:15 rod and a reprimand impart wisdom, but a child left undisciplined disgraces its mother.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

You want to know the overall 'vibe' or 'feeling' I get from religious evangelicals?
- It feels like a woman with emotional baggage that is inviting you in to share their misery.
I know that sounds harsh, but I can't deny that's how it feels.
What does all this weird convoluted crap mean I ask?

This is where I think religious is dangerous in that it has people ranting weird irrational incoherent crap that only makes sense to them.
You think you've found God, but are you not displaying that you've lost all sense of yourself?

[Cont.]

>>You focussed on the physical that will all pass away as Jesus said: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away"<<

Jesus said "Heaven will pass away"? Didn't know that one.

>>I don't need to touch, taste, smell and hear Round-Up to know what it can do as a poison.<<
You're talking in riddles...

>>Coming to Christ by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9) does not mean that the other physical attributes I have are abandoned. You have missed the connection between grace and faith and a human beings soul/spirit. In side you, you have this dimension to life, but in your example above, you've missed that out.<<

I've absolutely no idea what you're saying.

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-
Ephesians 2:9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Grace: the free and unmerited favour of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.

In Western Christian theology, grace has been defined, not as a created substance of any kind, but as "the love and mercy given to us by God because God desires us to have it, not necessarily because of anything we have done to earn it", "Grace is favour, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life." It is understood by Christians to be a spontaneous gift from God to people "generous, free and totally unexpected and undeserved" – that takes the form of divine favor, love, clemency, and a share in the divine life of God.

Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
Soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
Spirit: the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

- Still have absolutely no idea what you're saying.

[Cont.]
>>Do you know God's reason why you don't want to come to Him for eternal life?<<

What's God got to do with it, don't I have freewill?
Not sure what you're trying to say?
- Why God wants me to follow this defiant path, is that what you're asking?
Maybe I'm not being defiant, maybe I'm just being true to what I believe.

>>Not true! You'll be alive as never before but in a different location: "Everyone must die once. Then they are judged" (Heb 9:27). You may laugh it off but that's the reality of what you'll face.<<

You do realise that IN ALL YOUR RESPONSES you ARE trying to impose your beliefs upon me, right?
You're arguing in support of your beliefs by simply quoting more beliefs.
Your saying "It doesn't matter what I believe because this is the truth and thats the end of it."
Also you're making an assumption (reasonable) from the limited amout of info I've given you - "I'll be dead. Lol" which isn't necessarily correct; I did say that, but who says that I DON'T actually take the issue seriously?
- That I haven't thought about it, drawn my own conclusions and am happy sitting on the fence?

"Can't we engage in a discussion about eternal matters that you seem to have missed in the kinds of comments you make?"

Well we can, but you must understand that from my 'I Don't Know' side of the fence that we're talking about 'hypothetical' eternal matters, - that you ASSUME that I've missed...

[Cont.]
Why do you think 'Ethics' is a 'Non-Religious' alternative to 'Religious Instruction' in school curriculum?
Could it be that the idea is to teach the same 'Good Values' that might've been being taught to 'Religious Instruction' students, in a non-religious way?

For each religious 'Good Value' there's a non-religious 'Ethical' alternative.

'Do unto others the way you would have them do unto you.'
- 'Treat others the way you would like to be treated.'

'He who is without sin shall cast the first stone.'
- 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.'

'Religions' don't hold any moral authority over 'ethics in its own right'.
I don't need to be religious to be a good person.

The way to the truth is to seperate arguments that do hold merit from those that don't.
What if 'Religion' went head to head in a battle with 'Ethics' what would we learn?
What if we took each religion, and each went head to head in a battle with 'Ethics' what would we learn?

With 'Ethics' I have a sound baseline with which to judge the quality of your particular religious belief system.

I could talk about the flaws that I see in religious ideology, but I just don't have the room left to go into it.

As for heaven and hell, it seems like an offer me or inducement to scare me into thinking and acting a certain way.

Sorry Not_Now.Soon, I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Armchair Critic,

I asked: "Do you know God's reason why you don't want to come to Him for eternal life?"

Your response was:

<<What's God got to do with it, don't I have freewill? Not sure what you're trying to say?
- Why God wants me to follow this defiant path, is that what you're asking?>>

God's diagnosis of what you described as your "defiant path" is:

"But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

"Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused" (Romans 1:18-21).

My desire in responding to you is not to impose my values or beliefs on you but to encourage you to use your free will to examine God's diagnosis and treatment of the human condition from,

(1) the reliable OT, http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/0396/on-the-reliability-of-the-old-testament.aspx, and

(2) the trustworthy NT, http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/products/the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament-2/

Banjo,

<<I could have guessed it, OzSpen. I’m sure the Gospels, in particular, are very highly valued by most practicing Christians.>>

Yep! That's because they are reliable historical documents as research has demonstrated:

(1) Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (1987): http://www.ivpress.com/the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels

(2) Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament (2016): http://www.bhacademic.com/product/the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament/

Are you open to accept this historical evidence to demonstrate the credibility of the NT?

According to you statement, I don't think you'll want to pursue the evidence from reliable biblical documents because:

<<I'm a tough nut to crack, and not only that I'm already happy and humble in my present beliefs>>.

Hey Ozspen,
How can you be sure it's 'God's Diagnosis' if it was clearly written by someone 'other than God'?
In my view the best you can hope to argue here is 'Man's interpretation' of 'God's Diagnosis'.

The passage you presented:
"But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

I have real doubts about the writers underlying motives, understanding of science and leaps of logic.
- But then it was written 2 thousand years ago.

"They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them."
Again it feels like mindcuffs, They're stating something as fact in a manner that would prevent any questioning.

"They know" - where did we hear that before I wonder...

It doesn't leave a lot of room for someone to say 'I don't know' does it?
It seems like an outright ban on 'I don't know'.
'I don't know, NOT ALLOWED

"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky."

I can imagine the discussion:
"How could you not know? Can you not see the earth and the sky?"
- "Yes I can see the earth and the sky."
"Well how can you NOT KNOW?"
- "Ummm... OK"

"Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature."

Maybe you look around see the land, the plants and the animals and within that you see God.
- But that doesn't necessarily mean I see GOD when I look at those things.
Sure it's all amazing and wonderful the beauty and diversity of all the different animals and creatures that inhabit the earth.
- But all I see is the land, the plants and the animals.

[Cont.]

"So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

It looks to me like they are forcing a belief on others with no room to question.
It looks like no more a religion than a means to control civil society during those times.

You must do as we say...

Methaphor:
Lets say hypothetically Christians were defined as people who spent their days walking aroung their town centre in a clockwise direction.
Lets say hypothetically Islamists were defined as people who spent their days walking around their town centre in an anti-clockwise direction.
Now lets say it doesn't really matter what each society believes, what's important is that in each society everyone is going in the same direction.
You can't have people stopping and blocking the way 'fence sitters questioning the status qao', and even worse you can't have people coming at you head on walking in the opposite direction 'disbelievers or adherents of different faiths', because if you allow that to happen the system that works as a whole would collapse.

Social engineering in ancient times might not be different from the political correctness religion of today.

In regards to the bible, at this point I've decided that I don't wish to read it.
I don't want to be tainted by it in the way that I've seen others lose sense of themselves and start rambling incoherent convoluted babble that only seems to try to: Display some moral authority by baffling me with bs.

(please don't take offense - I'm just trying to show you the 'I don't know' side of the fence)

The thing I haven't talked about yet is from a viewpoint of ethics I see fundamental flaws in your ideology.

Hey Not_Now.Soon,

'Without some insight on the matter it is easy to just say I don't know'

- My Fence-sitter attitude isn't a non-decision on the basis of laziness or ignorance in consideration of the topic;
It's just as much an informed and educated decision, it's just that I think differently to others.

I didn't say think 'and believe' in that last sentence; because I don't want to rely on 'belief',
I don't want to get into the bad sloppy habit of 'trusting in whatever I believe'.
- This would erode my ability to use the brain rationally and also opens one up to be manipulated by FEAR.

I trust in what I know, and if I don't know - I just say "I dunno".
It's really easy, and it saves a whole lot of bs later on.

Don't you hate people (well you wouldn't lol) who butt into conversations and claim to know something when they clearly don't know anything?
They come out with the most dumbest and retarded ideas just to try and be part of the conversation?
Lots of people do it but I'm not them, I'm just someone with enough courage to say 'I Don't Know'.

If God does exist, then he knows my heart and that I'm being true to the gifts he gave me.
He knows I align myself with the idea of 'pure ethics' rather than 'stoneage stories' that attempt to teach ethics but have the effect of baffling one with bs. Most Christians to me are not as moral and ethical as they make themselves out to be.

[Cont.]

I'll plan for the worst and hope for the best.

Do you think heaven will be a floating Hilton up in the clouds?
What if 'heaven' or 'hell' is the place - NOT say a location - but more a 'state of mind' that your soul will reside in if you are given some of Gods power when you die?
What if you get to see how your actions affected others in a positive or negative way; and how that positive or negative impression you made on others caused them to act as well, like a ripple effect of all your good and bad deeds amplified and you can see it all, your whole entire life clear as day.
The mark you left upon others was it good or bad? Will your soul be crushed by darkness of what you see or will you be filled with light by your mark on the world?

On the other hand we might just be roadkill when we die or God may be a kid with an Ant-farm, and that's how 'I don't know' works.

Also, this is for OzSpen,

- Since were on the topic and I forgot to mention it earlier -

What does the historical record say about this?

Jesus in Kashmir
http://www.oshonews.com/2016/09/24/jesus-in-kashmir/

Obviously I'm not saying it's true since I stand for the 'I don't know' side of the argument.
After all, I wasn't there at the time.
That's the beauty of 'I don't know'.

Armchair Critic,

<<Hey Ozspen,How can you be sure it's 'God's Diagnosis' if it was clearly written by someone 'other than God'?
In my view the best you can hope to argue here is 'Man's interpretation' of 'God's Diagnosis'.>>

It's God's diagnosis because the apostle Paul who wrote Romans 1 (which gives the diagnosis and solution why people refuse to come to God) affirms the nature of Scripture elsewhere in his writings:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17).

So, Romans 1 is breathed out (given/inspired) by God. It is given by God to human beings to write. All Scripture in the original writings is inspired by God. It is NOT written by somebody not directed by God (1 Peter 1:21).

Nice try AC but you don't come down on God's side as articulated in the reliable Scriptures.

Armchair Critic,

<<Obviously I'm not saying it's true since I stand for the 'I don't know' side of the argument.
After all, I wasn't there at the time.
That's the beauty of 'I don't know'.>>

So, is it true that Captain Cook and his crew sailed up the east coast of what would be Australia in 1770?

Is it a true fact or are you living in the 'I don't know' realm of historical investigation in relation to Captain Cook?

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

In response to my comment : “I’m sure the Gospels, in particular, are very highly valued by most practicing Christians”, you replied :

« That's because they are reliable historical documents as research has demonstrated », and you point to the evangelical Craig Blomberg’s treatises on the historical reliability of the gospels (1987) and the New Testament (2016).
.

I have not read either of those books but I did browse through Blomberg’s “Can We Still Believe the Bible?” (2014).

He appears to be something of a maverick so far as the evangelical community is concerned. To quote Joseph M. Holden, President and Professor of Apologetics & Theology, Veritas International University (an evangelical institution) :

« Blomberg offers many reasons why evangelicals should not still believe the Bible and should not have justified true belief in the doctrines of the Bible. Perhaps the more important question we should be asking is, “Can We Still Believe the Ideas Offered by NT Evangelical Scholars? » :

http://defendinginerrancy.com/book-review-craig-l-blombergs-can-we-still-believe-the-bible/
.

I am dubious about your statement that most practicing Christians value the gospels because they “are reliable historical documents”. I am more inclined to think that it is because their adherence to Church doctrine commands that they believe that the texts are the result of “divine inspiration”, and as such, are inerrant (incapable of being wrong), and sacred.
.

Please be assured, OzSpen, that I do not make peremptory judgements and keep my beliefs to a strict minimum. They tend to cloud my vision. My mind remains open. I do my best to stay in touch with new developments concerning the god hypothesis. In the meantime, I consider that it is just that – a hypothesis – and everything that has ever been said or written about it, either pure speculation or wishful thinking at the best, or attempted manipulation or mind control at the worst.

I have done my own anthropological research on religion, from its original conception by primeval man to the present day. There are a couple of books I can recommend if you are interested.

.

.

(Continued …)

.

To be complete, OzSpen, I should add that as there have been no major revelations since the bible was compiled about 2,000 years ago, it is highly unlikely that any will be forthcoming any time in the future. The die is cast.

Nevertheless, the need to believe in a god in some form or other, remains strong – e.g., a physical resuscitated Jesus (which you appear to favour) – the rest of the divine family, et al, presumably remaining purely spiritual.

It will be a long time before our public libraries class the bible as an important anthology of monotheistic mythology, alongside all the other major mythologies of the world : Greek, Nors, etc. (their numbers are legion).

It will be a long time before we find a cure for religion.

.

Hey OzSpen
"Nice try AC but you don't come down on God's side as articulated in the reliable Scriptures."

I'm not trying to live my life according to the scriptures.
I live my life according to my mind making fair and reasonable judgements and my conscience.
I'm being true to my beliefs and trying to be the best and fairest person I can be;
I'm happy and humble in my beliefs, and have my own path to follow.

The thing with me is that I just wont be motivated by fear or control tactics.
If you want to win me over you have to do it with ethics and merit.

"So, is it true that Captain Cook and his crew sailed up the east coast of what would be Australia in 1770?"

I don't know mate you're telling the story...
(keywords: 'I Don't Know')

How can I know for sure?
I wasn't there, wasn't even born until nearly 200 years after that.
You're asking me to state something as fact for which I don't have first hand information for.
- All I can state is that I'm lead to believe he did (keyword: 'believe') , based on an assumption (keyword: 'assumption') that the information relating to the topic is accurate.

If I were to witness historical records myself I could speculate with more conviction; (keyword: 'speculate')
And with even more corroborating evidence I could come to a more solid conclusion in regards to whether or not the claim is likely accurate or not; (keyword: 'likely')
- But I could never state it as a fact because I wasn't there.

I don't get the luxury of 'knowing' because I wasn't there.
The best I get is 'discernment'.

Banjo,

<<I am dubious about your statement that most practicing Christians value the gospels because they “are reliable historical documents”. I am more inclined to think that it is because their adherence to Church doctrine commands that they believe that the texts are the result of “divine inspiration”, and as such, are inerrant (incapable of being wrong), and sacred.>>

In my worshipping with and working among practising evangelical Christians for over 50 years. I can agree with you that many believe the Scriptures because of divine inspiration and many consider the original documents inerrant.

However, the facts are: In these reliable NT documents (Blomberg 1987; Blomberg 2016; F F Bruce 1959) we find a statement about the nature of these documents, OT and NT:

"From childhood you [Timothy] have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS BREATHED OUT BY GOD and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:15-16).

"Breathed out by God" = theopneustos, i.e. theos (God) + pneuma (breath). Some translations have this word as meaning, 'All Scripture is inspired by God' The meaning is the same.

Thus, Christians are justified in supporting the view that the original documents are breathed out by the God who is perfect (Psalm 18:30).

This does not mean that the manuscripts that have reached us do not have variants/typos or changes in them.

<< My mind remains open>>

How can that be since you self-identify as a fence-sitter?

<<There are a couple of books I can recommend if you are interested.>>

Please do that on this open forum.

By the way, even a secular online Huffington Post reported on rocks archaeology recently found in Iraq that confirm the reliability of the OT: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simcha-jacobovici/2500-year-old-jewish-tabl_b_6579996.html

Yuyutsu,

<<There is difference between knowing God and having information ABOUT God. The information may be correct and wonderful to have, but it is still only information, it is still only on an intellectual / theoretical level>>

You assume you know the nature of my relationship with God. How can that be when you don't know me personally?

<<an analogy would be the difference between passing a driving theory test and actually knowing to drive. Knowing God Himself is a total and direct experience beyond anything which words can describe. Such knowledge ends all suffering.>>

Are you stating that you know God and I don't?

In your Hindu worldview, does my giving examples of suffering in my life demonstrate to you that I don't know God?

Don't you ever experience trials, difficulties or sufferings in life?

By the way you speak of "knowing God" as if there is one God to know. One estimate has been that there are 330 million Hindu gods. How can Hinduism be both monotheistic and polytheistic? See: http://www.allaboutreligion.org/hinduism-gods-faq.htm.

Banjo,

<<I should add that as there have been no major revelations since the bible was compiled about 2,000 years ago, it is highly unlikely that any will be forthcoming any time in the future. The die is cast.>>

That statement indicates your limited understanding of the Bible. To name 2,000 years, you are only thinking of the NT. The OT is much older than that.

What makes you so sure there will be no major new revelations to add to Scripture? Why is <<the die cast>>?

Dear OzSpen,

«You assume you know the nature of my relationship with God. How can that be when you don't know me personally?»

I don't know you personally, but the fact that you complain about suffering means that you do not yet know God. Yes, you may have much information about God, so do I, but we still suffer until we know God in fact, directly.

Once you experience God as the only reality there is, the only truth, the only joy, everything else fades into insignificance, including pain. Yes, even if you know God, when undergoing surgery the nerves still fire and inform the brain that something is broken in the body, so the sensation of pain is still there, but living in the constant joy of God, you no longer interpret it as "suffering".

«Are you stating that you know God and I don't?»

No, neither of us does and only a few living do.

Knowing God is a long-term project, it takes lifetimes, but is the only worthwhile pursuit.

«In your Hindu worldview, does my giving examples of suffering in my life demonstrate to you that I don't know God?»

The fact that you have physical pains does not demonstrate so, but that you complain and feel bad about it does.

«Don't you ever experience trials, difficulties or sufferings in life?»

Yes.

«By the way you speak of "knowing God" as if there is one God to know.»

Why "as if"?

«How can Hinduism be both monotheistic and polytheistic?»

The link you provided already explains it.

Let me summarise/reiterate: we differentiate between 'God' with a capital 'G', and 'gods' with a small 'g'. Since it is nearly impossible to worship God who has no attributes, Hindus use the god(s) that are personally most appealing to them as representations of God for the sake of worship. Christians, Jews and Muslims, on the other hand, use only one particular god to approach God - Hindus have no problem with their choice, provided that this Abrahamic god is the most appealing for His worshippers.

To Armchair Critic.

Tuesday, 29 January 2019 2:05:02 AM
Saturday, 2 February 2019 1:28:39 PM

This is the second time you brought up "butting in." Look back and you'll see that I've been in this discussion longer then you have. That and your first comment in this discussion wasn't addressed to anyone. Since this is a public forum I thought you were just adding to the discussion. Not butting in. I responded to what you said. Since then you have responded with to me directly from what I've said, as I've responded directly to you based on what you've said. I don't see where your coming from with the complaint of butting in.

Not to annoy you more. But I do know that God exists. However I don't think of that as a special right or a a special thing I've done to earn it. All I've done is search for Him.

Perhaps it's about the way I searched that let me Find God, compared to the way others searched, without any luck. Perhaps it's my attitude, or what I've been through in life that helped me be open to finding God, while others didn't. Perhaps it was my age? There are too many what ifs and argued variables that I've heard about for why some people don't find God and others do. Honestly I don't understand it why it's not obvious to everyone that God is real. All I did was search for Him. As a kid I prayed asking if God was real, or if it was all a thing in my head. (First time I heard the argument of the brain tricking you into faith). Guess what? God responded. There wasn't any words spoken, but there was a sense of sadness come over me, like a hurt parent would say "why would you even ask that?" I don't see any reason why I should be able to find God but you or anyone else can't.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Since then I've tried to pay attention to the kinds of prayers that I received an answer to, or a response for. There are the prayers answered that are just between God and me. They didn't affect anyone else and could be categorized under the suspension of "just your brain tricking you." The problem here is that that criticism doesn't fit all of the examples, nor does it explain the other kinds of prayers answered. A second set of prayers are prayers I said for others. When the prayer is answered and the issue is resolved, it can't be mind tricks. The criticism there is that it's all coincide. The weakness that is it's just an excuse to not consider God answering a prayer. There was even one example of God answering a prayer to not be tired while I was driving. It was a physical change immediately. Any explanation I've heard try to fit that experience is just scratching at strays.

I know others have found God by some other means. There are many testimonies of God rescuing people out of their drugs, their alcohol, or their divorce. There are testimonies of a miracle of one kind or another. Even just people who know by observation from following God, then walking away and seeing the difference in their life, and coming back to their faith.

(Continued)

(Continued)

When someone says they "know God," I usually believe them, because I know that there are many ways God has reached people in their lives. That doesn't mean I'll believe or disbelieve what else they say, but I come from the stance that it should be obvious to everyone that God exists. I've had to come to terms with not knowing why it isn't as clear cut to you or anyone else whether God is real or not. Many like you even say they've looked into the matter. It baffles me that they come away saying they don't know.

With this in mind I'll give you a method I heard someone else give for finding God, and trying to hear from Him. Hope you get to see results by it. The suggestion is to pray to God with the question "God do you love me?" Then just wait and see what you see immediately, throughout the day, or as the week goes by. Just be observant. Hope you get an answer to solve the "I don't know," situation you are in. But for me, I can not take the stance of not knowing. He's real. I know it. Saying otherwise would just be dishonest.

Yuyutsu,

<<the fact that you complain about suffering means that you do not yet know God>>

False again. I have mentioned sufferings but not complained about them. I've told you God's purpose in my trials according to James 1:2-4, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jas+1%3A2-4&version=NIVUK

<<living in the constant joy of God, you no longer interpret it as "suffering">>

I understand it as pain and trials that are real and not an illusion.

<<Knowing God is a long-term project, it takes lifetimes>>

I agree that it’s a lifelong project, but you and I only have one life: "just as it is appointed for people to die once—and after this, judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).

<<Since it is nearly impossible to worship God who has no attributes>>

To the contrary, God has many supernatural attributes, including: Independence (aseity), unchangeable in being, infinite, omnipresence, unity, knowable, spirituality, invisibility, omniscience, wisdom, truthfulness, goodness, love, holiness, righteousness/justice, jealousy, wrath, will, omnipotence, sovereignty, perfection, blessedness and beauty (all supported by Scripture).

Dear OzSpen,

«I have mentioned sufferings but not complained about them.»

Yes, you know the theory (as per James 1:2-4), but do you actually live it? Could you honestly say that you have no wish, weakness or preference whatsoever to have this pain and [what you experience as] suffering stop/gone?

«I understand it as pain and trials that are real and not an illusion.»

Pain is an essential ingredient of the world and of existence, but its sting is only relative to the realness of the world. Knowing God, you realise the illusion that the world is, that the only reality and truth whatsoever, is God.

«but you and I only have one life: "just as it is appointed for people to die once»

People die only once, but you are not a [singular] people - you only temporarily assume and identify with a mortal human body, that is not you!

«To the contrary, God has many supernatural attributes»

And so it is useful and practical for us to believe as a way of endearment and showing our love to God. Hindus too believe so while suspending the theological understanding that it is impossible for the human mind to conceive of God and that any attribute (natural or supernatural, including existence itself), positive as it may seem, would have placed an unacceptable/ridiculous shackle of limitation on God.

In a way, you could say that the attributes you listed are the reflection of God upon this world, a way to feel God's presence so long as we hold this world to be true, but then we ultimately need to go beyond and experience God directly, where no words can describe.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

« I can agree with you that many believe the Scriptures because of divine inspiration and many consider the original documents inerrant »
.

As you may know, the notion of original documents or “original text” of the New Testament, poses another problem. See : “The Multivalence of the Term “Original Text” in New Testament Textual Criticism” by Eldon Jay Epp :

http://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/33598_Foster.pdf
.

Commenting on my statement “my mind remains open”, you write :

« How can that be since you self-identify as a fence-sitter? »

I don’t. You do.

I feel in perfect symbiosis with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s definition of “scientific objectivity” :

« Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered as an ideal for scientific inquiry, as a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and as the basis of the authority of science in society »

I see myself in a similar state of mind as that of primeval man before he invented the concept of the supernatural, god and religion. I consider myself simply as “an ordinary person”. That is the only label I am prepared to accept. How others judge me is beyond my control.

Might I add that for a scientist, nothing is definitive. All that we know, or think that we know, is simply the “best explanation” that we can agree upon at any particular time until a “better explanation” comes to light.

Call this “sitting on the fence” if you like. I do not. I am personally convinced that there is no god – until evidence to the contrary comes to light.

If, as you say you believe, Jesus, resurrected with a physical body about 2,000 years ago, the probability that he is still alive and well is so infinitesimal that it may be considered non-existent.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Mathematically, it is a “zero probability” but not an “impossibility”. “Zero probability” applies within the box of possibilities. “Impossibility” applies to everything outside the box of possibilities (e.g., if the dice are loaded, there may be “zero probability” of landing two sixes, but it is “impossible” to land a six and a seven as there are no sevens on the dice).

Even though there is “zero probability” of a god, it is not “impossible”. That is what I mean when I say my mind remains open.

I think that also replies to your question : “What makes you so sure there will be no major new revelations to add to Scripture? Why is <<the die cast>>?”.
.

You also observed : “To name 2,000 years, you are only thinking of the NT. The OT is much older than that”.

That’s correct, OzSpen. The Old Testament was written over an extremely long period of several centuries, the oldest being the books of the various prophets – Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve "minor prophets" which were written between the 8th and 6th centuries BC, with the exceptions of Jonah and Daniel, which were written much later.

That simply adds grist to my mill. I did not wish to go back that far as I considered there was nothing in the Old Testament to prove there was a god, and our discussion was centred on the New Testament claim of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazerath which I understood you considered to be a “divine revelation” – or, at least, somehow related to your concept of God.

However, if you wish to consider that the purported resurrection of Jesus did not occur at all and/or that it was not a divine revelation, then the probability of a god is even more infinitesimal – even much more closer to “zero probability” – though still not “impossible”.
.

Here are the references of the anthropological books I mentioned previously :

“Ancient Society” by Lewis Henry Morgan

“Primitive Culture” (Volumes 1&2) by Edward Burnett Taylor

.

Banjo,

I want to tune only one of your points:

<<As you may know, the notion of original documents or “original text” of the New Testament, poses another problem. See : “The Multivalence of the Term “Original Text” in New Testament Textual Criticism” by Eldon Jay Epp>>

No problem if the original documents are not available. Will you discount Homer’s epic poetry of the Odyssey because the nearest document we have access to consists of 13 verses dated to Roman times.

The earliest Homer MSS is 300BC when it was written 400 years earlier. We don’t have originals but would you throw out the Odyssey because of this? http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/oldest-greek-fragment-homer-discovered-clay-tablet-180969602/

The same applies with the Bible. We don’t need the original documents to know the approximate content of the originals. We have it in: (1) Existing biblical documents, close in time to originals, (2) writings of early church fathers, and (3) the Jewish Tanakh.

Dr Laird Harris’s explanation helpfully explains the need to have authoritative original documents behind the copies, using the example of a pencil:

“With a tape … we measure it as 6 1/2 inches. A more carefully made office ruler indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking with an engineer’s scale, we find it to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not satisfied still, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against the standard United States yard marked on platinum bar preserved in Washington. Suppose … a clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the precious metal.… This once happened to Britain’s standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their being dependent on more accurate gauges” (Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, 1969:88-89).

Yuyutsu,

<<Could you honestly say that you have no wish, weakness or preference whatsoever to have this pain and [what you experience as] suffering stop/gone?>>

With that question you imposed your worldview on me. I pray for God's will in my sufferings: healing or God’s higher purpose: 'Here is what we can be sure of when we come to God in prayer. If we ask anything in keeping with what he wants, he hears us. If we know that God hears what we ask for, we know that we have it' (1 John 5:14-15).

<<Pain is an essential ingredient of the world and of existence, but its sting is only relative to the realness of the world. Knowing God, you realise the illusion that the world is, that the only reality and truth whatsoever, is God.>>

Not so! Pain is real and so it the world of the heavens and the earth. To claim the world is an illusion and God's truth is the only reality belongs to one feet planted in the air.

<<People die only once, but you are not a [singular] people - you only temporarily assume and identify with a mortal human body, that is not you!>>

When I (singular) breathe my last breath, my mortal body will go to the grave or the crematorium to become dust. My soul goes to be with Jesus: 'For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain' (Phil 1:21).

<<In a way, you could say that the attributes you listed are the reflection of God upon this world, a way to feel God's presence so long as we hold this world to be true...>>

You have turned my words into what you want them to mean and they are false. God's attributes relate to his character. They are: (a) The incommunicable attributes of God, e.g. his eternity, self-existence, etc. and (b) communicable attributes, e.g. spirituality, goodness, love, etc.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

Commenting on my statement : “the notion of original documents or “original text” of the New Testament, poses another problem”, you wrote :

« No problem if the original documents are not available … The earliest Homer MSS is 300BC when it was written 400 years earlier. We don’t have originals but would you throw out the Odyssey because of this? »
.

As far as I know, nobody has ever suggested that Homer’s manuscripts are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts – nor that anybody should believe that they are. Whereas Church doctrine commands that the 2.4 billion Christians around the world believe that the 27 books of the New Testament are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts.

You wrote in your post on the bottom of page 20 of this thread :

« Thus, Christians are justified in supporting the view that the original documents are breathed out by the God who is perfect (Psalm 18:30). This does not mean that the manuscripts that have reached us do not have variants/typos or changes in them »

That’s fine, but one may ask just how much of the “breathing” has been done by the hypothetical god and how much by multiple scribe copyists down the ages – the original texts having long disappeared ?

In the absence of the original texts, diverse and numerous copies of the New Testament were canonised (officially adopted and declared authentic and authoritative) by the various Christian denominations.

The canonisation process was extremely complex and lasted several centuries.

It is therefore incorrect to refer to the “original texts” of the New Testament as these have long been lost and forgotten. It is more than likely that most – if not all – of the texts we have today are fairly substantially different from the original autographs (manuscripts in the authors’ own handwriting or as dictated by him).

That said, OzSpen, I agree with you that it is of no importance – but it does raise serious questions about the factualness and truthfulness of the New Testament authors in their evangelistic pursuits.

.

Banjo,

<<As far as I know, nobody has ever suggested that Homer’s manuscripts are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts – nor that anybody should believe that they are. Whereas Church doctrine commands that the 2.4 billion Christians around the world believe that the 27 books of the New Testament are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts.>>

That wasn't the issue to which I responded. It was whether we can depend on the copies when we don't have the originals. For the NT, the answer is 'Yes', just as it is for Homer's The Odyssey.

In those NT documents for which we have reliable evidence for their historical authenticity, we read that those documents were 'breathed out by God' who is perfect (2 Tim 3:16; Num 23:19).

You don't seem to want to accept this evidence but run off with what you want to talk about - biblical inspiration. I've given you answers for this, but you're not listening.

Dear OzSpen,

That you pray to God in your sufferings is excellent, but completely avoids my question. Have you truly no weakness whatsoever of selfishly preferring to not have pain? If so then you are a saint!

Pain is real only to the extent that the world is real. That the world is an illusion and God's truth is the only reality is planted securely in scripture, the Upanishads.

The Upanishads delve into the nature of God, His perceived "with-qualities" (saguna Brahman) and the final Truth of their absence (nirguna Brahman). There is much theological material online, but you would find most of it difficult due to the use of Sanskrit terms. I found this excellent and deep discussion here that uses only minimal Sanskrit: http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2008/05/god-as-both-nirguna-brahman-and-saguna.html

An excerpt:

Since we cannot form in our mind any clear and accurate concept of infinity, whatever our mind imagines God to be is not the absolute truth about him. All his divine qualities or attributes, such as his omnipresence, his omnipotence, his omniscience, and his omnibenevolence or all-embracing love, are perfectly true from the limited perspective of our mind, but none of them really define his absolute and infinite reality. His infinite reality transcends all qualities and attributes, and everything that our mind can possibly conceive.

Yuyutsu,

<<Pain is real only to the extent that the world is real. That the world is an illusion and God's truth is the only reality is planted securely in scripture, the Upanishads.>>

That's a sad statement about the irrelevance and lack of truthfunless of the Upanishads.

By following the text of the Upanishads, you are jumping off the cliff of reality into unreality.

No matter which way you try to persuade me, the fact remains that the world in which you and I live can be seen, felt, touched, smelt and digested. It is NOT an illusion. It is real and the Upanishads have a message that doesn't match reality.

If I were in your presence, both of us would see real persons - not an illusion. Why can't you admit you've been sold a lie?

To Banjo Paterson.

In your replies to OzSpen, you made this point:

<<That’s fine, but one may ask just how much of the “breathing” has been done by the hypothetical god and how much by multiple scribe copyists down the ages – the original texts having long disappeared ?

In the absence of the original texts, diverse and numerous copies of the New Testament were canonised (officially adopted and declared authentic and authoritative) by the various Christian denominations.>>

The point is a hypothetical for you because God is a hypothetical to you. But hear my point anyways even if you have to treat it as a hypothetical.

If God exists, and is not hypothetical. Then that changes everything as we understand it, because that means God has a say in what happens in the world. If God is real and intreasted enough in us to communicate to us through prophets, history, miracles, Angels, religous costoms, prays and visions, then that changes the dynamic of the if God exists but is not active in our lives or our world, to God being active and part of it.

Continue on the thought that God is real, and active towards us and our lives. Now move to the big issue that your point brings up. How powerful is God. And can His words, His communication to us, last theoughout the ages.

If God is real, active and even slightly as powerful as is recorded in the bible, then He is also able to protect His words and preserve them throughout time. And if He can do that, then there's little reason to count the bible being flawed by not being the origional manuscripts. Then if the bible is accurate, then the point of God's authority and power is also supported.

I understand this is will be a hypothetical for you. But in order to consider if God is real, (even hypothetically). It's worth it to consider the scope of what that includes.

Banjo,

<< how much of the “breathing” has been done by the hypothetical god and how much by multiple scribe copyists down the ages – the original texts having long disappeared ?>>

Your presuppositions about God are speaking. The NT has many more MSS or partial MSS to compare to ensure highly reliable documents are produced.

If you chuck out the NT, you also need to disregard the writings of Homer, Aristotle and Plato. The NT documents are more numerous and closer to the originals than any other documents from history.

Homer's Iliad was written in 900 BC and the earliest MSS found dates to 400 BC, leaving a gap of 500 years. There are 643 MSS or partial MSS, providing ca. 95% accuracy. Would you chuck out Homer's writings because we don't have the originals?

For the NT, there are 5,600 MSS or partial MSS, written between ca. AD 50-100. The earliest NT MSS is p52, John Rylands Fragment of John 18:31-33, 37-38. That's a time span from the original of ca. 29 years. With the NT, has ca. 99.5% accuracy.

Therefore, your statement is incorrect: <<It is more than likely that most – if not all – of the texts we have today are fairly substantially different from the original autographs (manuscripts in the authors’ own handwriting or as dictated by him).>>

That's not what the research finds, but it is what your presuppositions decide.

<<In the absence of the original texts, diverse and numerous copies of the New Testament were canonised (officially adopted and declared authentic and authoritative) by the various Christian denominations.>>

False! There were no official denominations at the time of the Council of Carthage in AD 397 when the NT was canonised. This Council decreed: "that aside from the canonical Scriptures nothing is to be read in church under the name of Divine Scriptures." It gave a list of the books of the NT.

<<it does raise serious questions about the factualness and truthfulness of the New Testament authors in their evangelistic pursuits.>>

I have countered that in a previous post.

Dear OzSpen,

I am not trying to persuade you, I merely am answering your questions.

Regarding my holy scriptures, when you live in a house of glass it is unwise to throw stones.

Your faith in the world and in your senses seems greater than your faith in God, in the seen more than in the unseen. This is not religion, it is materialism.

Within a few decades we shall both leave this world behind and our senses will turn into dust. For the religious, this is a cause for great joy rather than for sadness, for once we stop craving for the world and its sensory pleasures we will remain with God forever.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

«... the issue to which I responded …was whether we can depend on the copies when we don't have the originals. For the NT, the answer is 'Yes', just as it is for Homer's the Odyssey »
.

Of course – but that does not mean that they are exact reproductions of the autographs (manuscripts in the author’s own handwriting or as dictated by him). That is the problem.

As you acknowledged yourself regarding the New Testament copies: “This does not mean that the manuscripts that have reached us do not have variants/typos or changes in them”. Unfortunately, we have no way of determining this precisely because we cannot compare the copies with the original autographs.

According to the experts, the copyists of various Christian denominations modified the texts down the ages according to their personal interpretations and to accommodate their own particular group’s doctrine. Scientific analysis is helpless in detecting precisely what has been added, deleted or modified – nor which of the various versions, if any, are credible.

As for Homer, he is a highly controversial, enigmatic, legendary figure. Whether he actually existed or not is of little importance. Nor does it matter who actually wrote the Odyssey. Some experts consider it was written by a single poet, others that it is the work of several different contributors.

If, as you suggest, we consider that the New Testament and the Odyssey, as we know them today, are the result of exactly the same process, we have no way of knowing who actually wrote either of them.

The one major difference between the two is that Christianity claims that a hypothetical god inspired unknown sections of the former, alone, which is why the New Testament copies have been canonised and declared authentic and authoritative in their entirety by all Christian denominations.

The 2.4 billion Christians who adhere to Christian doctrine are held to believe that the copies of the New Testament are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts.

Homer’s Odyssey just collects dust on the book shelves of most public libraries.

.

Banjo,

<<that does not mean that they are exact reproductions of the autographs (manuscripts in the author’s own handwriting or as dictated by him). That is the problem.>>

It's a problem for your presuppositions but not for one who takes bibliology seriously. One estimate is that there are thousands of 'errors' in the Bible. These 'errors' are mostly grammatical, punctuation and spelling variants. Philip Schaff calculated 150,000 variants known when he wrote and not one affected 'an article of faith or precept of duty’.

<<variants/typos or changes in them”. Unfortunately, we have no way of determining this precisely because we cannot compare the copies with the original autographs.>>

Again you fail the test. We have many ways to compare the copies to arrive at close to the original text. New Testament scholar and professor at Princeton University, USA, estimated the Hindu, Mahabharata copies, as 90% accurate; Homer's Iliad about 95%; NT about 99.5% accurate. Of the 0.5% in question, not one variant affects a single doctrine.

As for the NT vs the Odyssey, you claim <<we have no way of knowing who actually wrote either of them.>>

Not true. The NT was not written by one person but is a compilation of 27 books.

The Apostle Paul began the epistle to the Romans: 'I, Paul, am writing this letter. I serve Christ Jesus. I have been appointed to be an apostle. God set me apart to tell others his good news' (Rom 1:1) and concluded with 'I, Tertius, wrote down this letter. I greet you as a believer in the Lord' (Rom 16:22). It was common for early writers to use an amanuensis, a person who wrote what another dictated.

<<The 2.4 billion Christians who adhere to Christian doctrine are held to believe that the copies of the New Testament are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts.>>

False! Many Christians may take that view but it’s because of lack of teaching on the originals being the only God-breathed documents.

<<Homer’s Odyssey just collects dust on the book shelves of most public libraries.>>

That's irrelevant.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You wrote :

« We have many ways to compare the copies to arrive at close to the original text. New Testament scholar and professor at Princeton University, USA, estimated the Hindu, Mahabharata copies, as 90% accurate; Homer's Iliad about 95%; NT about 99.5% accurate. Of the 0.5% in question, not one variant affects a single doctrine »
.

I am aware of Bruce Metzger’s comparative study of copies of ancient manuscripts to which you refer. He has done a remarkable job acclaimed by his peers.

Unfortunately, as none of the original autographs remained in existence (all having been destroyed hundreds, if not thousands of years previously) the statistics you mention were mainly based on the comparison of copies complemented in part by additional information from other, more or less “independent” sources. The results are interesting but by no means do they constitute any sort of proof.

The comparative study would have produced exactly the same results had it been based on fraudulent “original” manuscripts of the New Testament books.

Belief in the validity of the results of Metzger’s study is a question of personal faith – as is belief in the existence of a hypothetical god. There is nothing wrong with that, but it should be recognized for what it is, and not mistaken for scientific proof.

The early Christian leaders studied and debated the various copies in their possession for several hundred years before canonisation of the 27 books by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1545, the “Thirty-nine Articles” of the Church of England in 1563 and the Westminster Confession of Faith of Calvinism in 1647.

Sufficient time had passed for the original autographs to resurface if they had existed. As they did not, the copies could not be proven authentic but, more importantly, they could not be proven false.

The 2.4 billion Christians who adhere to Christian doctrine are held to believe that the copies of the New Testament are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts. Whether they actually do or not is another matter – many probably don’t.

.

Banjo,

<<The comparative study would have produced exactly the same results had it been based on fraudulent “original” manuscripts of the New Testament books.>>

You're not listening. No matter what evidence I provide, you respond with your presuppositions, e.g. "fraudulent “original” manuscripts".

<<Belief in the validity of the results of Metzger’s study is a question of personal faith – as is belief in the existence of a hypothetical god>>

There you go again with dumping your presuppositions on me/us.

<<Sufficient time had passed for the original autographs to resurface if they had existed>>

Many MSS were written on papyri that disintegrates in a Middle Eastern environment, unless preserved in an environment where that is prohibited. I've demonstrated this to you with the discovery of P52 papyrus MSS. It is in the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester, UK.

'The first side of the fragment contains the beginning of seven lines from John 18:31-33. The reverse of the fragment contains the end of seven lines from John 18:37-38', http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/search-resources/special-collections/guide-to-special-collections/st-john-fragment/

Many scholars regard it as the earliest portion of any NT writing ever found, dating to ca. AD 100-150. It was found in an archaeological dig in Egypt.

The majority of scholars date John's Gospel to the period AD 90-100, although J A T Robinson dates it to before AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem.

<<The 2.4 billion Christians who adhere to Christian doctrine are held to believe that the copies of the New Testament are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts. Whether they actually do or not is another matter – many probably don’t.>>

I answered that statement in Posted by OzSpen, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 7:19:05 PM but here you are repeating it. I consider that to be spin.

Let's leave the topic there. I pray that God will open your heart to the truth of Jesus found in the reliable NT.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

To my observation : “The comparative study would have produced exactly the same results had it been based on fraudulent “original” manuscripts of the New Testament books”, you replied :

« … you respond with your presuppositions, e.g. "fraudulent “original” manuscripts" »
.

That is not a “presupposition” on my part – a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action (OED definition) – it is an important risk factor which Bruce Metzger’s does not mention in his comparative study of the copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Metzger could not have ignored that forgeries were rife in the ancient world – perhaps even more so than today, due to the development of modern scientific techniques of detection.

I think the important point is that the early Christian leaders’ decision to canonise the 27 books of the New Testament, despite the fact that they were modified copies, was taken knowing that it was impossible to prove they were in any way significantly different from the original autographs – given that the autographs no longer existed.

Metzger’s study does nothing to confirm or infirm the authenticity of the canonised copies.

That said, OzSpen, please be assured that I consider that the New Testament, as we know it, contains lots of interesting narratives. It is a very human anthology of morality, irrespective of who wrote it or why.
.

You conclude :

« Let's leave the topic there. I pray that God will open your heart to the truth of Jesus found in the reliable NT »

My heart is wide open, OzSpen. If there is any “truth of Jesus” in what you consider to be the “reliable NT”, then it must have already entered, c.f. my posts here.

I have a lot of admiration for the figure of Jesus : his revolt, his calm, his courage, his steadfastness, his loyalty, his politeness, his passive resistance … all, qualities to which I, personally, aspire. He was a great man, a great example.

Bye for now …

.