(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