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.