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.