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.