The Lord is my shepherd I shall not want, is a statement of fact from the 23rd Psalm. No matter what the world has thrown against me, from evil pagan Judges and Magistrates to thieving Roman Catholic businessmen, the system in Australia is designed to stop people being absolutely so desperate that they kill each other. It would be a miracle for every homeless person if the Judges and Magistrates of Australia were Christians, and the courts of Australia were restored to their Christian roots and performed their functions as Christians, instead of acting as pagan gods, in a godbothered country.

We have plenty of opportunities for miracles, and currently there are 100,000 homeless people according to the latest figures freezing their lives away sleeping rough in the cities of Australia. The only reason they are still living rough, is that Australia lets lawyers sit in Parliament and they serve themselves. Repeal S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and watch the miracles.

Lawyers were a curse on the population in Palestine 2000 years ago, and they are still a curse on the population in Australia in 2009. In Luke 11: 46 and 52 Jesus Christ singles them out. The miracles have stopped because lawyers stop them happening. The paganists have made themselves into gods, and it is no wonder Australia is suffering a failure of miracles. The first sentence in the Book of Ruth chronicles what happens when Judges rule.

These self serving highly superannuated burdens on society cost each and every one of us every day. They stop Miracles from happening. We need only one miracle to happen in Australia. We need KR to read his Bible, listen to his inner conscience, convince the former Slater and Gordon Lawyer who is his Deputy, that God wants to bless Australia and will do as asked in line 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 if Australia will listen to His teachings. Assassins killed three Family Court Judges, and lots of Judges die in office or soon after. Give us a jury trial miracle, and Christian freedom

[So what was it that I misunderstood in Sells' position? It looked pretty straightforward to me - there is no biblical support for the resurrection itself.]

It is not stated anywhere in the bible "Jesus turned his body from death back to life at this moment", but it is indeed stated that Jesus rose from the dead.

[>>Scripture, in fact all literature, from reading the back of the corn flakes packet to higher forms, must be interpreted.<<

I take this as agreement with my position, that the Gospels are not a reliable historical record of events.]

I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly here. Are you saying that the gospels are not a reliable historical record, because they need to be interpreted?

A company's audited yearly financial statements need to be interpreted. Does this mean they aren't historically reliable? Clearly not. That would be a non sequitur of an embarrassing order to claim that...!?

[After all your puff and bluster, there are still no eyewitness accounts of all those miracles, or indeed of the resurrection]

Indeed. However, the gospels, written beginning from 30 years later, tell of eyewitness accounts. The eyewitnesses themselves didnt write the texts, but they were consulted. Check out the beginning of Luke Chapter 1

You must be confusing me with soemone who has read the Gospels, Trav.

>>...but it is indeed stated that Jesus rose from the dead<<

If you have any disagreement, talk to Sells. He has, I suspect, read them through and through.

But from the little I know, to believe this you'd have to first believe in angels, and then that someone had actually spoken to an angel.

If you heard that story for the first time, however many years after the "event", what would you have thought? Oh yes, I can see that. Let me write it down.

>>A company's audited yearly financial statements need to be interpreted. Does this mean they aren't historically reliable?<<

Poor example.

The type of "interpretation" required for understanding the Gospels, apparently, is the ability to determine, consistently, what is fact and what is fable. As Dan says on this exact topic, "Fairly often the literal view is not the intended meaning"

In a set of accounts, it is rare for the auditor to say "fairly often, the numbers don't represent the true position".

>>The eyewitnesses themselves didnt write the texts, but they were consulted. Check out the beginning of Luke Chapter 1<<

As Mandy Rice-Davies once pointed out, "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"

[You must be confusing me with soemone who has read the Gospels, Trav.]

I could give you numerous places where this is stated in the gospels, and the bible. But I suggest you go read it for yourself :-).

[If you heard that story for the first time, however many years after the "event", what would you have thought? Oh yes, I can see that. Let me write it down.]

Why are you talking about me for? This was a different time and place.

In those days, people memorised everything, because 90% of people weren't literate. So their memories were impeccable. And these resurrection stories show up in numerous different sources all within the lifetimes of the eye witnesses. (Paul, Mark, Q, (probably M and L also), then into Matthew and Luke all within 40-50 years)

[The type of "interpretation" required for understanding the Gospels, apparently, is the ability to determine, consistently, what is fact and what is fable. As Dan says on this exact topic, "Fairly often the literal view is not the intended meaning"]

I believe Dan was talking about the bible, not the gospels there. Either way, Dan's already stated that the resurrection accounts were clearly intended as history. Go have a read, you'll see what I mean. The gospels are clearly intended as literal history, there is no doubt about that:

"Luke 1 (NIV)

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

[As Mandy Rice-Davies once pointed out, "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?]

Indeed he would. But knowing what we know about Oral Traditions, early and multiple attestation, validation from hostile sources and the like, there's good reasons to take him seriously :-)

Trav,

Re: Your comments on oral lore and literacy.

It depends on what means literate. The House of David have ministered to Gentiles ministered of the lower middle class.

Upper class people, before Constantine, generally would not become involved in a Jewish sect, because it would been socially undesirable Promotions and appointments would not have been available.

Slaves and rural workers were not living in areas, where donations supported the ministeries.

Typical middle class Gentiles, in Galilee, of Greek learning, would often have been literate in Greek and Aramaic. I am unsure the of Vulgar Latin and Koine Greek (rather than Attic) Greek in Galilee. The alleged Jesus' phaseolgy (trans.) does in places places, seem to suggest a sound education in Attic Greek; literacy from a mere wheelwright and general artisan.

Romans also inscribed monuments and the hoi ploi could read them.

There were two matters, however, of some import. Firstly, the stories were displaced in location, as well as time. Secondly, expensive scribes we used to produce presentable documents.

When choosing which documents to bind in a works, ancient publishers chose the most popular stories. Owing to the high cost to people on modest (not poverty) incomes their were favourites.

A bit off topic, so far as the very early Church is concerned:

Later after Constantine (?), the Romand Emperors had to appeal to the early Popes to stop hounding windows nor to remarry (Did Paul have something to say on ths?], so the Chutch could benefit fron bequests. The point is the widowis had money and the means to have been educated.

Word of mouth is import. It is personal and provides endorsement. Confabulations can be tailored to target audiences.

Bronhill,
Welcome to the Forum.

In disagreement with one thing you said, as George often points out, I don’t see anything in the teaching of Christian religion that is incompatible with good science or good education. In fact, a few centuries ago, at a time when modern science was establishing itself, most educated people of the era had a solidly Christian worldview.

About the Tower of Babel, though I haven’t studied it deeply, I’ve read nothing substantial showing such an explanation is not a practical starting point for understanding the current diversity among languages and ethnicities. You claim my position is ‘uneducated’ but haven’t given any reason why. I trust you give more to your students.