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