"But what kind of event was it? The answer to this question falls into two quite different camps; those who insist that Jesus shrugged off his grave clothes and walked out of his tomb to meet his disciples as he would have before his death, and those who believe that the Spirit of Christ remained with them after his death as it remains to the Church to this day."

There's actually another camp as well mate- those who think that resurrection of the dead is a bronze age myth.

Peter,

You object to Wright's taking 'the physical view' of Jesus' as an historical event to be investigated 'without the eyes of faith'.

Firstly, Wright took a large portion of his 817pp tome, The Resurrection of the Son of God (RSG), to demonstrate from the biblical text that Jesus' resurrection was soma, in a physical body.

He concluded: ‘The historian, of whatever persuasion, has no option but to affirm both the empty tomb and the "meetings" with Jesus as "historical events" in all the senses we sketched.... They took place as real events: they were significant events; they are, in the normal sense required by historians, provable events; historians can and should write about them. We cannot account for early Christianity without them' (Wright 2003:709).

If Jesus' Resurrection must be perceived through <<the eyes of faith>>, is this a leap of faith or faith founded on the facts of the Resurrection?

Your claim is that Wright <<effectively excludes the activity of the "Spirit as a datum of Easter Faith">>.

This is not true. Wright cites a post-biblical passage from the Mishna where it states that 'saintliness leads to the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead' (RSG 193). He supports 'all those who are given new, resurrection life by the Spirit' (RSG 258).

<<Wright takes this physical view from the traditions of Israel.>>

That's partially true. Wright demonstrates from the NT that Jesus' resurrection was a bodily resurrection because of the use of SOMA (physical body) to refer to it and the characteristics of a physical being.

Of the Holy Spirit he stated: 'Paul not only believed that Jesus had been bodily raised from the dead; he believed he knew how it was done, both in the sense of where the power came from (the Spirit of the creator God), and in the sense he knew what the difference was (corruptibility and non-corruptibility) between the body which died on the cross and the body which rose' (RSG 360).

I have yet to read Carnley.

In Truth and Reality nobody can even account for the appearance of a single thing. Or their own seeming appearance here. Even to do that they would have to account for the totality of everyone and everything beginning from day one up until the present moment. And take into account all of the multi-dimensional space-time paradoxes in which we simultaneously exist.

And yet all of these deluded "scholars" presume to know and thus describe what supposedly happened re the fictitious character named "Jesus" in Palestine/Galilee 2000 years ago.

Furthermore unless they actually witnessed and participated (up close and personal)in the Teaching Demonstration of Saint Jesus of Galilee while he was alive in a living-breathing-feeling human form everything they say is mere speculation, hearsay or gossip - everything.

But of course the "resurrection" never happened - could not have happened.
These two references give an esoteric Spiritual Understanding of the life and teaching of Saint Jesus of Galilee.

http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/bloodsac.html

http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/exochrist.html

This essay provides a summary description of the Forgotten non-christian, universa,l Spiritual Esotericism of Saint Jesus of Galilee
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/up/forgottenesotericismjesus.html

yeah we know Sellicks thinks that the death of the early apostles was all in vain as they refused to deny their resurrected Lord. These men who cowardly ran from Christ being crucified were now 'brainwahed' enough to know that His resurrection guareented theirs. I often wonder why the unbelievers spend their lives regurgating old heresies in things they don't believe in and yet hold on to some dead form of tradition.

Peter,

You complain about the apparent biblical contradiction re Jesus' resurrection:

<<the maze of biblical texts that deal with the Resurrection, many of which are at cross purposes, even to themselves as to the nature of Jesus' risen body. For example, the appearance of Jesus in the locked room in John 20:19-28 both affirms the bodily reality of the risen Christ as the one bearing the wounds of crucifixion and, in contradiction, one who can appear and disappear at will>>.

That's not contradiction unless you have a presupposition that Jesus' resurrected body had to be the same as the body he had before the crucifixion. N T Wright explains this well, using the term 'transphysicality' to describe the nature of the resurrected body - many qualities that were physical (Jesus talked, could be touched, and he ate food) and other qualities in the 2 examples you gave of something beyond the physical, i.e. transphysical.

The same applies on the Emmaus Rd with the transphysicality of the resurrected Lord.

It's not a matter of the two texts wanting it 'both ways' - Jesus physical and non-physical. That's what the biblical texts state. Why can't you accept that instead of hypothesising your contradiction? It doesn't exist, except in your presuppositions.

Scholars, theologians, and any other kinds of writer can battle it out, with whatever arguments they want. For what's in the bible,band what happened as it's written, I'll trust what the bible says. There does not need any more justification then that.

The tomb was empty. Jesus was physically there and ate with them to show as much. Later Jesus told the apstoles to wait before He amended to heaven. They did so and then recieved the Holy Spirit.

These are the events as told in the bible that answer all the debate. The questioning nature from there comes from whether the bible itself is trustworthy or not. For me it is trustworthy. That's all that's needed. It does not need to be explained more by Theolgians explaining the nature of the Reserectiin or of the Holy Spirit. Nor does it need to be questioned by theologians that do not think the bible is trustworthy. It either is trustworthy and a person is Christian. Or it isn't trustworthy and the person should move on and seek the truth.

For those that hold the bible as trustworthy, then the matter can be confirmed by other events in the bible. If Jesus was able to raise Lazerath after he died, then Jesus Himself could also come back to life in a physical body. There are more examples of people being brought back to life in the bible. If any are believed, the. Why doubt that Jesus was risen physically? If none of those events are believed then why believe anything in the bible. It should be simple. The bible is either trustworthy and inspired by God throughout it. Or it is not trustworthy and people should move on.

There is no middle ground.

Not_Now.Soon,

No sarcasm intended but the typos are rather amusing !

Not_now.Soon.

Actually, your correct.

Unfortunately for the uncle Petes of Christendom, they still wage the fourteenth century war which the Catholics lost to the reformation.

God sent the plague for his own reasons. The reformation was a huge positive.

Dan

NNS,

I'm concerned by your naive approach to the Bible and the Resurrection with statements like:
(1) <<I'll trust what the bible says. There does not need any more justification then that>>, and
(2) <<For me it is trustworthy. That's all that's needed>>

That's not a biblical approach. We whose lives have been changed by commitment to Jesus are told, 'Keep the Lord Christ holy in your hearts. Always be ready to answer everyone who asks you to explain about the hope you have' (1 Peter 3:15). If people say, 'I'd like you to explain your hope but I don't believe or can't trust the Bible', will you say, 'Believe me; it is trustworthy and don't question further'? My fellow Aussies wouldn't accept that as historical evidence.

<<For me it [the Bible] is trustworthy>>

This is opinion and not evidence. The Bible can be demonstrated as historically trustworthy using the criteria of ancient historians, archaeology, etc. See: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/free-ebooks/ten-top-biblical-archaeology-discoveries/

<<If none of those events are believed then why believe anything in the bible>>

I would reword what you've asked: If none of those events can be demonstrated to be trustworthy, why believe many things in the Bible?

The fact is: We can demonstrate the reliability of the Bible, using historical criteria. Then we go to that trustworthy Bible to discover what the Trinitarian God has revealed and demonstrated.

I know you are enthusiastic for God and the Bible but all Christians are called on to be 'ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks'.

P.S. I also found your typos distracting. As a suggestion, try what I do: Type the post in a new email that allows me to spell check before copy and paste to OLO.

It probably never occurs to either scholar, the could be both wrong and hypothetical, thousands of miles wide of the mark! And never ever assumed due to almost unbelievable intellectual arrogance!?


The study (speculation about) of myth and legend only confer knowledge of ancient belief and the social mores of the day! Which may, parenthetically, have no basis or foundation in the almighty, irrefutable truth.
Alan B.

OzSpen,
I feel like I am repeating myself here. How does a physical body that is “more than physical” because it has been made immortal appear and disappear at will and be unrecognised by the disciples on the Emmaus road and to May in John? And I repeat, how does this physical body ascend to heaven to sit at the right hand of God? One can only believe that the resurrection was physical by ignoring the things that make it unthinkable and thus untransmissible.

Certainly, it is important for all the NY writers to portray the resurrection as physical because the risen Jesus would have to be the crucified one, complete with the wounds of crucifixion of Jesus’ death for any idea of him taking our place can be credited. This lies at the base of our understanding of the incarnation as the kenotic hymn found in Philippians bears witness.

About the Spirit. You object that Wright takes the Spirit seriously but It is interesting that he has to quote the Mishna to do so. Carnley’s reading is that Wright was bound up so tightly with the Biblical Theology School, that has long been abandoned by most scholars, that he could not think that the Jews of Jesus’ time could think otherwise that in the tradition. Most of the NT undermines this approach.

Paul (and Matthew) may have believed that the resurrection was physical, but they were men groping towards the truth as we are and conditioned by their time as we are. The problem here is that you and other fundamentalist readers cannot cope with the fact the bible is an historical document compiled by men seeking the truth in their own lights. The world has changed! We no longer live in their time or see the world as they see it.

As for “transphysicality” that is just speculation. What is the biblical basis for it? It is just an argument invented by Wright to solve a central contradiction to his scheme.

Adam was the man of dust, Jesus became a life-giving spirit

This article simply explores the subject of choice. We choose to believe through personal analysis of any given subject, in many personal ways, and we arrive at an outcome or decision by personal choice, based on our own biases.

Peter constantly argues the case for science to guide our study of the Christian Bible, and to convince us of the merits of science to achieve this decision.

But the Bible will confound a scientist at every turn.

One could say, at the risk of accusation from believers, of profanity; it is as true to call the Bible a scientific document, as it is as true to call the Bible a record of Chinese whispers.

But what truely the Bible holds, is a memory code. This is especially true considering its origins from the transition of civilisation to literacy. The style of Biblical script is to transmit a memory through code.

Translating this code of civilisation, using the fallibility of human frailty through science is doomed.

For the importance of this code is to enlighten the chosen in Gods ways.
It is to educate us in the thinking processes of God himself. That is, in the thinking processes of an infinitely powerful God who is not bound by human constraints; nor are his actions bound up in the laws of science, as are our own limited views.

God has no thinking path. He is all thought and all action in one. Unlimited in options and unlimited in power to exercise his will.
There is no requirement on God to conform to mans puny ways of thinking and deducing, since man is puny in front of him, and if not for Gods mercy, insignificant in total.

So it is now easy to imagine, Christ is was and shall be, resurrected in human form to sit at the right hand of God in heaven. There is no problem with that situation.

Dan.

Sells,

<<I feel like I am repeating myself here.>> You are.

How did Jesus' resurrected physical body appear and disappear? That's based on the fact it was more than physical. N T Wright's word, 'transphysicality' (which he placed in inverted commas) was a created word that covered the reality of what happened.

Others now use 'transphysical', e.g. http://ericweiss.com/the-long-trajectory-10-transphysical-humans.

<<Carnley’s reading is that Wright was bound up so tightly with the Biblical Theology School, that has long been abandoned by most scholars>>

That seems to be Carnley's presupposition. I’ll make my judgment after reading his book.

<<Paul (and Matthew) may have believed that the resurrection was physical, but they were men groping towards the truth as we are and conditioned by their time as we are.>>

This demonstrates your low view of biblical authority (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Paul and Matthew were writing God-breathed / inspired Scripture, which you reject by your statement these 2 writers 'may have believed' in a physical resurrection. In his massive body of research, Wright has demonstrated it was a physical resurrection with extra-physical qualities that he called 'transphysical'.

Peter regarded Paul's writings as Scripture: Paul's 'letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction' (2 Pet 3:16).

<<The problem here is that you and other fundamentalist readers cannot cope with....>>

There you go again with your pejorative Appeal to Ridicule Logical Fallacy, http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/42/Appeal-to-Ridicule

We cannot have a rational dialogue when you resort to fallacious reasoning like this.

I'm an evangelical, born again Christian, just like the former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey. Would you call him a 'fundamentalist' and put him down like you've done to me? Would you call the evangelical Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Glenn Davies, a ‘fundamentalist reader’?

<<Adam was the man of dust, Jesus became a life-giving spirit.>>

Do you deny Jesus was a man of human flesh?

strangely enough most the early believers could not read or write. The power was not in their intellectual ability to defend the gospel but in the power of the gospel itself. What you read in Scripture makes much more sense than what the god deniers claim as science and history. The corruption of man is undeniable. Creation is by far more rational than the idiotic big bang theory or the lies of evolution. The old testament scriptures all pointed to the Messiah. Prophecy after prophecy has been fulfilled. Men who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus willingly gave up their lives after seeing the resurrected Christ. Any person with any interest in truth can't go past Truth personified who is Jesus Christ. All who reject Christ will die without Him and suffer an eternity in hell. All who come to Him and repent will receive eternal life. Its not rocket science.

The rejection of the gospel is not an intellectual problem. It is a sin problem. Man's heart is wicked and needs cleansing. Those objecting to Christ being Saviour, Son of God, Messiah don't reject Him because they are intellectual. As the book of Romans tells us that they are in bondage to their own lusts and are full of pride and arrogance.

I'm going to go with ' I don't know';
- Just as I've done previously with many other religious topics such as:

'Do you believe in God?'
'Is there an afterlife?' etc.

It all comes back to this close minded belief that there's only 2 camps;
- 'Believers and Non-believers'
(And the resulting endless argument over who is right and who is wrong)

And in truth there really is only 2 camps but they aren't the two listed above.

Those camps are 'Those who claim to know';
(In which case both believers and Non-believers are in the same camp - 'They know')
And 'those that don't know'

I don't know what happened two thousand years ago, I wasn't there.
I'm not going to have a 'set in stone' opinion on something I wasn't personally a witness to with the 5 senses God gave me;
- that is, if he indeed exists.

Faith can get stuffed;
I don't want to get in the habit of trusting in what I 'believe'.
I trust in what I know.

Which gets me to my actual comment...

Peter wrote:
"The answer to this question falls into two quite different camps".

Well, there's a third view:

“… In fact Jesus never died on the cross. It takes at least forty-eight hours for a person to die on the Jewish cross; and there have been known cases where people have existed almost six days on the cross without dying. Because Jesus was taken down from the cross after only six hours, there is no possibility of his dying on the cross. It was a conspiracy between a rich sympathizer of Jesus and Pontius Pilate to crucify Jesus as late as possible on Friday – because on Saturday, Jews stop everything; their Sabbath does not allow any act. By the evening of Friday everything stops...
http://www.oshonews.com/2016/09/24/jesus-in-kashmir/

Apparently, the Sanhedrin were penalised after the crucifixion of Jesus.
They lost the autonomy for their court to determine capital punishments;
- Not too sure of the details about this but there is a story there.

Your a stickler for conspiracy theories AC.

What would be more interesting, if the Kashmiri theory is correct, what were the focus of his teaching during that period.

I got a few minutes into the video and fell asleep.

I think Christians have enough problems with the story, simply sticking to the original plot.

Uncle Pete keeps us on our toes with that one. Never a dull moment!

Dan.

Hey diver dan,

"Your a stickler for conspiracy theories AC."

I can't really argue because it certainly appears that way;
However, I'd like to say that I never specifically set out with that intention in mind.

- It just kind of happened.
You get curious on the internet and start clicking and there's no telling where you'll end up...

Saying 'I don't know' (to myself) is the manner in which I ground myself from letting all the 'conspiratorial type things' (not the best description) I've read get the better of me.

You know the types of people who try to be a part of the discussion and sound knowledgeable but just talk utter crap?
(It does sound a little like me hey)
I try not to be like them or dig myself into a hole pretending to know something I don't.
If I know little of a topic, it's just easier to admit that I know little of a topic than to pretend that I do.

"What would be more interesting, if the Kashmiri theory is correct, what were the focus of his teaching during that period."

I don't know if it's true or not, but would certainly agree that his teachings after the crucifixion would be of interest if it is in fact true.

I can't remember watching the video in question, I found the link to the article some years ago.

One of the most difficult features of Christianity AC, is unearthing the true intent of its scriptures.

Most of it is fragmented patches strung together by who knows who during a long course of (mostly Jewish) history.

Our uncle Pete sure knows how to open a can of worms.

Then the Catholics monopolised its entirety for very selfish reasons; mostly to exclude the poor folk from any sort of autonomy.

Then came the plague. That sorted that out, and it's been down hill with the wind behind it ever since.

And here we are today, as the little folk on the bottom of the heap, putting in our two bobs worth.

That is a very positive progress from its original Catholic capture. Smothering the truth that is available from interpretation, by couching its literature in the vagaries of Latin was one very effective innovation scotched by the plague, and the reformation.

Suddenly, ordinary people could read the bible directly in their own homes, and in their daily language, making their own personal sense of it. Very bad feature for the Catholic Church.

Dan

A little further with that AC. And more on your theme of conspiracy theories, my favourite is the return of the Nephilim.

But of course, the book of Enoch was removed from the apocrypha five hundred years ago by the Catholics of course. This book should be reinstated. It's the oldest book in the bible.

Effectively, its historically set pre-flood thus pr- Noah .

It's got all the good stuff in it in reference to bad angles and their evil doings on earth.

Dan

This debate seems to me to be akin to fitting a square peg into a round hole. The comments from "Not now.Soon" support this notion by stating that one either accepts the biblical doctrine or one doesn't. There is no half way house, however disconcerting for the believers.

Pliny,

<<This debate seems to me to be akin to fitting a square peg into a round hole. The comments from "Not now.Soon" support this notion by stating that one either accepts the biblical doctrine or one doesn't. There is no half way house, however disconcerting for the believers.>>

Are you suggesting a 'half way house' on the interpretation of Jesus' resurrection? If so, based on the biblical data, which transitional position do you advocate?

Hey diver dan,
I'm not necessarily against the Christian religion; well not too much;
But I do think there's a danger within all religions for people to lose all sense of themselves and get all twisted up arguing over what did and didn't happen a hundred generations ago and what it all means and how to look at it all in different ways and whether it should be taken literally...
- It all just seems like a pointless recipe for arguing in circles with each other -

I consider skipping all that potentially dangerous stuff that ends up with people doing stupid things and don't clogg up your brain in the first place.

Whats the golden rule? 'Do unto others' right?
Or 'Treat others the way you'd like to be treated' (The non-religious version)

Then just learn ethics.
'Everyone has the right to live however they choose so long as it doesn't have a negative or detrimental impact on others'.
(The difference between morals and ethics is that ethics is knowing the difference between right and wrong and morals is how you act upon that knowledge.)

I've tried to stay away from the weirder conspiracy stuff that included demons and religious stuff, ufo's and paranormal etc;
- But I probably did end up crossing over eventually into religious type beliefs by looking at new world order;
then freemasons, kabbalah, talmud, etc.
There's really no other place to end up at.

I've never really looked at Book of Enoch stuff in depth;
But I think it's about tall Nephilim that used humans as slaves to mine gold or something;
That mated with the female humans or something;
Reptilians?

I usually go with global geopolitical issues but lately I've been listening to 'Dogmen Encounters'.
- I've really got to get my TV antenna fixed...
(Not that normal TV is much better)

Here's a 'werewolf' encounter from the Gold Coast.
http://youtu.be/-tSabpU9_iY

bankers use to be taught to be able to identify the genuine note by looking at it many times. Most were good at detecting the fraudulent because they knew the genuine article. Similar thing with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He claimed to be the only way to God. He said that all who came before Him were thieves and robbers (John 10:8). Many study the fraudulent notes of which their are many. In doing so they miss out on Truth personified, the giver of eternal life and their own Saviour and Creator. At the end of the day their will be no excuses for denying the obvious.

OzSpen,
On the authority of the bible. My observation of fundamentalist attitudes to the bible is that they mistake the sign for the thing signified. The bible is the human witness (sign) to the Word (signified). Scripture does not record that the Word became a book, but became flesh in the body of Jesus. Jesus is the object of faith. The bible is man's attempt to bear witness to this object. It is therefore historically conditioned as well as being conditioned by the place in time and in the world by the various writers. The reason we have four gospels and not only one is that there have been different voices that bear witness, each with their own peculiarities. However, this does not mean that the Gospel is fragmented although witness to it differs between NT writers. I do believe that they are each spirit inspired and that they all witness effectively to the gospel but in different ways.

When we make the bible the object of faith we enter into an idolatrous relationship to it. This is not a free place! We are continually wracked by uncertainty because we have so much detail to accommodate. We are forced to rely on individual quotations to back up our arguments and we miss the main thrust. I have insisted before that one reads the bible through theological lens' and we find what we need to find to back up our theology. This goes to show that the bible is not enough for healthy faith. We must look to the traditions of the Church for that. The bible on its own is a snare to trap the unwary as we have seen in the case of the footballer who made a list of all those who are going to hell.

R: Are you suggesting a 'half way house' on the interpretation of Jesus' resurrection? If so, based on the biblical data, which transitional position do you advocate?
OzSpen

I am not supporting either side of the argument - physical resurrection or spiritual. I was just commenting that it is impossible to be 'half pregnant. The resurrection is not of itself an issue for me as a non-believer.

Pliny,

<<The resurrection is not of itself an issue for me as a non-believer.>>

It will be one day when you stand before the Almighty God in judgment. John Bunyan (of The Pilgrims' Progress fame) challenged believer and non-believer:

'The resurrection of the just, then, is the rising of the bodies of the just, and the resurrection of the unjust, the rising of their bodies, at the last judgment. This also is the meaning of that saying of Paul to Agrippa, "I stand," saith he, "and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers" (Acts 26:6), which promise at first began to be fulfilled in the resurrection of the body of Christ (Acts 13:32,33), and hath its accomplishment, when the dead, small and great, are raised out of their graves....' See: http://biblehub.com/library/bunyan/the_works_of_john_bunyan_volumes_1-3/the_resurrection_of_the_dead.htm

P.S. I'm a friend at a distance of Pliny the Younger, http://www.britannica.com/biography/Pliny-the-Younger

To Individual.

Sorry about that, that really was a lot of errors. Hope it didn't make it too hard to read.

To OzSpen.

I didn't mean that trusting the bible was a means of dismissing questions, or of avoiding explanations. (Though I see where your coming from on this). But it should be one of the strongest foundations for a Christian. Something that can correct and guide a person reading it. And for a Christian, trusting the bible is an extension of trusting God. Better understanding helps. But you don't have to understand it to be able to trust its words.

What I mean is this. Don't count the bible as coming from God, but somehow it still needs correcting on one thing or another. That doesn't make sense. It is either trustworthy and can be built on for teaching, edifying, and correcting, or it isn't trustworthy. A scholar, theology, or tradition that teaches on the bible and leads away from what's actually in it is an insult on the faith of Christianity.

To Peter.

What you said about treating the bible as an idol is thought provoking. I've heard this same logic before. Except that time the idea was that we should come to God directly. Pray and expect to hear from Him. Those who are in His flock hear Him sort of logic. The logic of church theologies and traditions holding more reliability for the word of God then the written bible is bad reasoning. Traditions and theology should build from what in the bible, and gave a history coming from that. Not distance itself from the bible. Definately not to replace it.

Sells,

<<On the authority of the bible. My observation of fundamentalist attitudes to the bible is that they mistake the sign for the thing signified. The bible is the human witness (sign) to the Word (signified). Scripture does not record that the Word became a book, but became flesh in the body of Jesus.>>

This is false again. You push your presuppositions. God-breathed Scripture is recorded in the Book of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17). This is a fact.

For Paul who wrote this under the inspiration of the Spirit, he referred primarily to the Old Testament Scripture. Where was that contained in the first century? On papyri, parchment, ostraca, etc. God's revelation was in written form. http://www.josh.org/materials-scribes-used-bible/

We know how the New Testament was transmitted in writing and now you give your opinion: <<The bible is man's attempt to bear witness to this object>>

The Gospel of Luke demolishes your thesis: 'Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught' (Luke 1:1-4).

Luke compiled A NARRATIVE and WROTE AN ORDERLY ACCOUNT. He didn't have an existential experience of faith. He received the messages from EYEWITNESSES.

Your replies constantly regurgitate your presuppositional bias against the God-breathed written Scripture. I don't worship the Book of Scripture but God has revealed himself through this Book.

<<My observation of fundamentalist attitudes to the bible>>

There you go again with your Ad Hominem (Abusive) Logical Fallacy: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Hominem-Abusive.

If you were to meet the former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, now Lord George Carey (whose beliefs are similar to mine), would you label his 'fundamentalist attitudes to the bible'? How about evangelical Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Glenn Davies? Will you resort to fallacious reasoning with these two evangelical Anglican leaders?

Strange it is not to me, Sells from his position of advocating theological mastery over the simple Biblical message, aims both barrels of scorn at Israel Falou for quoting a simple black and white message from the Bible as evidence in support of his position.

A scriptural message which simply says " repent or be damned", where this simple piece of scripture goes on to nominate in order, a list including among many other sins of the sinners, homosexuality.

Without admitting to it, but simply (ok on this point to simplify apparently) tick-off the cowardly act of an anti-Christian atheistic antagonist in Alan Joyce, CEO of Qantas, the the gay rights pin-up boy and initiator of cowardice, to persecute one fellow Christian taking a stand against sin, as described by scripture, and using scripture to enlighten those in the world, in the grip of sin.

To Sells, Falou is to "blame" for speaking boldly against sin. His way is primitive and unrefined. So by association then, Saint Paul whom Falou references for authentication of his stand against sin, if alive and with us today, would also be advised to tone it down.

Sells again holds himself above all as the master of absurdity, with his indefensible position on theology V Biblical simplicity.

Dan

I think I kind of get where Sells is going:
"The bible is the human witness (sign) to the Word (signified). Scripture does not record that the Word became a book, but became flesh in the body of Jesus."

Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the light" right?
He didn't say "This book they're going to write in a hundred years or so, it's the way the truth and the light" did he not?

Why are you all fighting for anyway?
You're all just proving my point that you all just get twisted up arguing in circles.

What would Jesus say?

Once again 'I don't know';
- I'm an agnostic but I'll let the religiously inclined consider it.
Aren't you both supposed to be on the same team anyway?

I think I read somewhere that Jesus supposedly stayed with the Essenes during the years of his life not mentioned in the bible, thou I don't know how much truth there is to it.
Interesting they seem to have similar pacifist type beliefs.
OzSpen interesting there's mention of Pliny the Elder here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

AC
two scholars battle it out over the resurrection is but a euphemism for life.

Obviously the Jews were unhappy with the new Jewish sect, Christianity.
Many today are unhappy with a new kid on the block as an off-shoot sect of Christianity called Islam.
The Catholics were very unhappy with a tear away sect called Protestantism.

People are unhappy restless creatures. Show me anywhere there is no discord.

And people disagree with each other for fundamental reasons all over the world on every conceivable topic.

I thought that was a strange statement coming from you AC. Why would Christians above all, not disagree with each other?

Maybe you could expand on your criticism a bit.

Dan

oZSpen
Yes

Sells,

<<oZSpen
Yes>>

You decided to not comment on any other portion of my post than the last question.

It's unusual for you that you are short of words, especially when your world view is exposed for its weaknesses.

Hey diver dan,

"People are unhappy restless creatures. Show me anywhere there is no discord."

Yes that's a fair and reasonable statement;
The opposing argument to that might be this:

'But is your 'religion' not supposed to be something more, something higher than simply a recipe to argue amongst yourselves?'

"And people disagree with each other for fundamental reasons all over the world on every conceivable topic."

Yeah sure, but you'd think that after 2000 years and 100+ generations you might have these smaller 'fine print technicalities' you're in disagreement on ironed out by now, huh?

If not, then why not just admit the fact that your religion (or particular belief system) is in and of itself a cause of constant disagreement - spanning millennia?

The opposite of disagreement is agreement.
Imagine if you had a belief system where you built on things you're in agreement of (like ethics and accomplishment for example) rather than spent millennia going around in circles focused on the things you were in disagreement of?

- That don't really realistically matter too much to anyone's lives anyway?
How is your religious argument going to help someone put food on their table or truly enrich someone's life?

"I thought that was a strange statement coming from you AC. Why would Christians above all, not disagree with each other?"

- Well why would they not just agree instead?

Aren't you all supposed to be on the same team?

Everything is awesome, everything is cool when you're part of a team
Everything is awesome, when you're living out a dream
http://youtu.be/lUEbWo1uIrg

There's no 'i' in team you know.
Why are you fighting or in disagreement?
Why are you STILL fighting or in disagreement for 2000 years?

OzSpen,
I am disappointed that you resort to personal slur. I assure you that my world view is not under threat. What you fail to understand is that Evangelicalism is a product of modernity. It is a way of thinking that is completely under the control of the current culture the insists on material evidence. It does not represent mainstream theological thought i.e the thought of the Church fathers or the doctors of the church. That Wright produces a book that has to resort to made-up concepts, is fraught with contradictions and as such is unthinkable, demonstrates the basic weakness of this methodology. In other words, this is a prime example of the failure of the Evangelical mind. It is no wonder that our secular society would not be caught dead in a church that insists that our intellect be left at the door. This is why I give you a hard time, because you have mistaken belief for faith and have closed the door to anyone who asks the simplest questions. BTW you still have not given me an answer to the question "where are the bones of Jesus".

Sells,

<<What you fail to understand is that Evangelicalism is a product of modernity. It is a way of thinking that is completely under the control of the current culture the insists on material evidence.>>

False assessment again. Evangelicalism is a product of the Evangel, the Good News: 'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst' (1 Timothy 1:15).

It is a direct result of Jesus' command to his disciples: 'Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age’ (Matthew 28:18-20). The Book of Acts describes the spread of the Evangel.

Evangelicalism is not a cultural creation but a biblical mandate from Jesus Himself.

<<It does not represent mainstream theological thought i.e. the thought of the Church fathers or the doctors of the church>>.

This is false again. One of the leading Church Fathers, Irenaeus, refuted your statement:

'Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets, and who by Moses set forth the dispensation of the law, — [principles] which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him. So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine' (Against Heresies, Bk 2, 11.7), http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm.

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (fourth century) wrote: ‘God chose that man should seek salvation by faith rather than by works, lest anyone should glory in his deeds and thereby incur sin’ (In Ps. 43 Enarr. 14, Explanations of Twelve Psalms of David).

Evangelicalism is not a recent invention.

(continued)

(continued)

Sells

<<That Wright produces a book that has to resort to made-up concepts>>

You gave not one example while you berate N. T. Wright, an eminent historical Jesus' scholar, with your Ad Hominem (Abusive) Logical Fallacy, http://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Abusive.html

<<[They are concepts] fraught with contradictions and as such is unthinkable, demonstrates the basic weakness of this methodology>>.

Not one example again and it's a red herring fallacy.

<<In other words, this is a prime example of the failure of the Evangelical mind. It is no wonder that our secular society would not be caught dead in a church that insists that our intellect be left at the door. This is why I give you a hard time, because you have mistaken belief for faith and have closed the door to anyone who asks the simplest questions.>>

But you want people to be caught in a dead, liberal Anglican church with attendance plummeting??

Some of the finest contemporary scholars are/were Evangelicals: William Lane Craig, D A Carson, R C H Lenski, Norman Geisler, Australian Anglican ancient historian Dr Paul Barnett, the late Anglican Dr Leon Morris, Alister McGrath, Oxford Professor John Lennox, F F Bruce, Carl F H Henry, Gleason Archer, Craig Blomberg, Anglican theologian Graeme Goldsworthy, Lord George Carey, Wayne Grudem, Kenneth Kitchen, Anglican J I Packer, Ravi Zacharias, etc.

Your claim of Evangelicals kicking the intellect out the door commits a straw man fallacy.

<<BTW you still have not given me an answer to the question "where are the bones of Jesus">>

Ever heard of Jesus' resurrection and ascension?? In your worldview you want Jesus' bones. In my worldview, I accept what the authoritative Scriptures state and you will never find Jesus’ bones on earth - NEVER.

As with all subjectively "academia" thinking, it dilutes the further outward from its core and into the real living world, and where the raw edge of human existence always gravitates towards.
It's time to leave university behind. Not only is God dead in that environment, it is unrealistic to believe that square thinking derived and encouraged between its walls, is fitting for a round world you must one day enter...or die and fossilise.

The evangelical message of Christianity always flourishes through time. It's fitting for the human race which must, by nature of its existence become humble to learn the important lessons of life, IE from dust you came, and to dust you shall return...raw philosopy which all must accomodate.

Dan

OzSpen,
Now we have it! Even if you put it in capitals there is the remote chance that archaeologists could dig up bones that are identified with Jesus. Your whole belief is vulnerable to a fact because it rests on a fact. If the bones of Jesus will never be found on earth where are they to be found? The only answer is that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. Thus we have the usual problem of the mixture between material and spiritual. Which is it? Is heaven a material place?

Sells,

<<Now we have it! Even if you put it in capitals there is the remote chance that archaeologists could dig up bones that are identified with Jesus. Your whole belief is vulnerable to a fact because it rests on a fact.>>

If you believed the Scriptures you would not make those confusing statements. There is zero chance that archaeologists will dig up his body because of the biblical details surrounding his Ascension.

Luke recorded it as it happened for Jesus' ascension:

"6 Then they gathered round him and asked him, ‘Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?’
7 He said to them: ‘It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.’
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 ‘Men of Galilee,’ they said, ‘why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven’" (Acts 1:6-9).

<<If the bones of Jesus will never be found on earth where are they to be found? The only answer is that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father.>>

The answer is in the above text: 'He was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight' (Ac 1:9). It doesn't state that the spiritual Jesus ascended. 'He', the one standing with his disciples, ascended. It was not his spirit that went up into the cloud. You regularly push for an understanding that is beyond what the text states.

(continued)

(continued)

Sells,

<<Thus we have the usual problem of the mixture between material and spiritual. Which is it? Is heaven a material place?>>

You don't like the language of N T Wright that the resurrected Jesus' body was transphysical. Factually, it was more than physical. And this same Jesus 'will come back ... from heaven'.

We know heaven is a place, based on the testimony of Jesus: 'My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?' (John 14:2).
For you to even ask if heaven is a 'material place' demonstrates you refuse to believe what Jesus said about its being a 'place'.

The 'rooms' or 'mansions' in John 14:2 are from the transliterated Greek word, mone (pronounced monay) which has the sense of 'assured residence' or 'assured home'.

Eminent Australian Anglican commentator of the Gospel of John, the late Dr Leon Morris, stated: '"My Father's house" clearly refers to heaven. The meaning of "mansions" is not so clear. It seems better understood as "permanent residences" than as "steps along the way of development".... "Many" should not be misinterpreted as though it signified for all. "The phrase means that there is room and to spare for all the redeemed in heaven"' (Morris 1971:638-39).

AC

Argument which is reasonable and designed to unearth a truth of a matter, if not eristic and deliberately divisive in its attempt to simply win the argument, is legitimate.

I'm interested to know why you think Christians are exempt from arguing a case between each other.

Dan

"I'm interested to know why you think Christians are exempt from arguing a case between each other."

I don't think Christians are exempt from arguing a case between each other, but you're conflating 'people' for 'content'.

I'm saying the 'content' - by default - is flawed;
- If all it does is cause one to argue in disagreement constantly from it's inception, thoughout the centuries, seemingly endlessly;
- Then one might argue that this bible stuff is NOT 'the way'.

If millions of people;
generations and generations and generations;
- have argued over this very same stuff for millennia -

Then what's the bigger picture to all this?

What makes either Sells or OzSpen think they above all others are going to come to some consensus or agreement where generations and generations before them obviously could not;

(Because if they did - then Sells and OzSpen wouldn't be arguing about it)

What is this 'belief system' you wish to sell me;
- That you say can 'save me';

What is it anymore than a recipe to feel 'like you have some authority' and argue amongst yourselves?

How in the hell is that going to save me?
- Anymore than lose all sense of myself and waste my life going round in circles whist tying my brain into knots;

Would Jesus sit down patiently and explain things to both Sells and OzSpen so they can come to agreement;
Or would he just knock both their heads together?

OzSpen
This argument is becoming rather strange. If heaven is a material place then it must take up space in the universe. It is not on earth but must be extraterrestrial. Behind the moon is no good, we have looked. Likewise anywhere else in the Solar system. Of course, it could be quite a few light-years away in another part of our galaxy. This is my last post on this thread.

Sells,

<<This argument is becoming rather strange. If heaven is a material place then it must take up space in the universe. It is not on earth but must be extraterrestrial. Behind the moon is no good, we have looked. Likewise anywhere else in the Solar system. Of course, it could be quite a few light-years away in another part of our galaxy. This is my last post on this thread.>>

It is strange because you make it that way. What did Jesus say about heaven? 'In my Father’s house there are many dwelling-places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?' (John 14:2 NRSV).

Jesus did not state it was 'a material place'. Neither did I.

You are promoting your postmodern, deconstructionist, reader-response hermeneutic again.

To Sells. In your last post you said:

"If heaven is a material place then it must take up space in the universe. It is not on earth but must be extraterrestrial. Behind the moon is no good, we have looked. Likewise anywhere else in the Solar system. Of course, it could be quite a few light-years away in another part of our galaxy."

You know arguably you can go in this direction of thought of heaven being a physical place in one way or another. I think it was the parable of the rich man and the poor begger Lazerath, where after both died, the rich man was in a hell like place (or arguably in hell itself), and the begger Lazerath, was being comforted in a heaven like place (if not heaven itself). Based on that description there's no reason to conclude that a physical heaven doesn't exist. But on the other hand there's not enough discription of the people to conclude that they have a physical body either. (They could be the souls living in an afterlife realm just as easily as they are in new living bodies).

My issue with a lot of scholarly debate in the bible, is that often what is debated isn't actually in the bible to confirm or correct it. It's just people flexing their scholarly studies, while arguing over which person has it right. Why not accept the simple answers and trust what the bible says instead of guess at answers people don't know, or make up stuff that is counter to what's in the bible. I know it it must seem too simple to just stick with what you know and say you don't know on the other matters that you can't confirm, but honestly I think that's a better approach then building a theology that is counter to what's actually in the bible. (Let those who aren't Christian come up with explanations that disregard what's actually in the bible. Let Christians actually trust God enough to believe Him and what He's recorded for us in the written word).

AC.

As it is necessary the law be argued in a courtroom among the legal fraternity to achieve a just outcome for the accused and the plaintiff, its correct to believe, argument between Christians designed to establish the correct interpretation of the new law of Christ contained in the New Testament, should be clarified by debate, as were the previous laws of Mose.

It can't be assumed that Christians hold naturally all metaphysical knowledge as a priori to Christian knowledge.

Your point is to assume the teachings of Christ should be straight forward and clear of necessity for argument. It not a reasonable position in view of the facts.

Obviously the scriptures a vague enough to include the points being debated here on this thread, as contestable.

Then you conclude, if there is need for debate regarding the basics of the belief system, then how can you believe becoming a Christian will bring you benefit, and not simply more confusion.

There are options for you. The simple answer is this. There are two basic schools of thought. One less described among themselves as liberal Christians, (viz Sellec); the other as Evangelical, (viz OzSpen).

Evangelicals are often denigrated as fundamentalists, who essentially believe more as you do, that the scripture should be taken at face value, ignoring conflicting scriptures as requiring the guidance of the Holy Spirit for its interpretation.

The liberal believers take a worldly view, and can best be described as humanists. Their view of scripture is one where science is introduced in attempts to justify the vagaries of their creed.

Hopefully you get to the bottom of this text before you succumb to boredom.

Dan

Dan,

I commend you for the reply you made to AC, Posted by diver dan, Friday, 2 August 2019 9:18:48 PM.

Much of what you stated I agree with. However, I'd like to take up this point you made:

<<Evangelicals are often denigrated as fundamentalists, who essentially believe more as you do, that the scripture should be taken at face value, ignoring conflicting scriptures as requiring the guidance of the Holy Spirit for its interpretation.>>

Liberal Christianity, as with Peter Sellick, sometimes has a tendency to be pejorative in calling Evangelicals 'fundamentalists'. This is a Guilt by Association or Ad Hominem (Abusive) fallacy. See: http://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-guilt-by-association/

My understanding is that Scripture, like all writings, should be taken at face value or as literal. This means that when I read On Line Opinion articles, Captain Cook's diaries, the early church fathers, and the Bible I acknowledge that these writings can contain narrative (which includes figures of speech such as metaphor and simile), biography, teaching, poetry, etc. I read each type of literature in that way.

I consider it to be avoidance by Christians to do what you stated: <<ignoring conflicting scriptures as requiring the guidance of the Holy Spirit for its interpretation.>>

I have come across Scripture verses that have apparent conflict but to this point, after 55 years as a Christian, I have not found one I'm unable to resolve. Old Testament scholar, the late Professor Gleason Archer wrote this 'Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties' to address this issue. See: http://ia800606.us.archive.org/19/items/B-001-014-054/B-001-014-054.pdf

G'day OzSpen.

On this point you stalled on :

<<Evangelicals are often denigrated as fundamentalists, who essentially believe more as you do, that the scripture should be taken at face value, ignoring conflicting scriptures as requiring the guidance of the Holy Spirit for its interpretation.>>

It's one of my flat earth statements which hold truth, but is an oblique view I admit, and you are correct to pull it out for examination.

I was attempting to stimulate discussion with our regular poster AC, who is a refreshing thinker on most subjects. His appearance on this thread proves the point.

I've learned the lesson in life long ago, and now have a first base statement in my head whenever I embark on a mission of whatever it may be; "NOTHING is simple".

I apply that here too to the point you raised.

I have many many good friends however, who are evangelical in their thinking. They are always the most refreshing people to be with.
It's their simple faith in the message of Christ. Their straightforward application of it in the worlds in which they live. And mostly I would describe their lives as uncomplicated.

So as you may conclude, I sometimes struggle with their simple views, and criticise them quitely to myself as a rule. But their application of simplicity to their Christian belief is endearing.

Using those people as an example for the question to be asked, how far should the scriptures be progressively dismantled in attempts to find other than their first stated and obvious meaning, is a debatable point to me.

Now returning to the point you raised. The Bible is an intriguing piece of literature.
What a shame I feel, the book of Enoch was removed. What difference do you believe, the message in that lost work would make, to the point you and the Sells are contesting?
Keeping in mind, during the life of Christ, this was a highly visible work which early Christians were gifted with.

Dan.

Hey diver dan,
"Then you conclude, if there is need for debate regarding the basics of the belief system, then how can you believe becoming a Christian will bring you benefit, and not simply more confusion."

I have many thoughts and opinions in regards to religion;
And probably not nearly enough time, patience or word count to address it all.

I'm not saying there aren't benefits in becoming a Christian 'Pro's';
(Talking as an agnostic though, meaning - 'in this life');
I'm just saying that I acknowledge there's a least a few 'Cons'.

All this stuff are secondary issues though

If you go back to the primary issue with me;
And ask me he number 1 question 'Do you believe in God?'
My answer is going to be 'I don't know'.

Now OzSpen would argue I'm wrong because this scripture over here says this and this scripture over there says that;
Backing up his arguments with more scripture;
"...after 55 years as a Christian, I have not found one I'm unable to resolve."

But here's the catch.

'Thou shalt not bear false witness.'

I can't say I know god exists and that I believe in him, when I don't know.

I could talk more about this issue but my heads throbbing already so maybe I'll come back and touch on it more tomorrow.

"There are options for you. The simple answer is this. There are two basic schools of thought. One less described among themselves as liberal Christians, (viz Sellec); the other as Evangelical, (viz OzSpen)."

Thanks for explaining this in a way where I better understand whats going on here, though I still don't think I entirely get it all.