.

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.