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