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