All Comments (59)

If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. I Corinthians 15:17-20

In regard to the authenticity of the resurrection, it is very difficult to imagine that the hundreds of people who saw Jesus alive and attested to the same decades later by Paul and others would have had their lives so changed by a myth or deception. Jesus, Himself, said plainly the same and did what He said after three days in the tomb. These witnesses were men and women who often went willingly to their deaths, were exiled, excommunicated, hunted down, and still emerged three centuries later having conquered peacefully the Roman world. They did so for the hope set before them and the certainty that a bodily resurrection was part and parcel of their faith. The joy of Easter after the despair of Good Friday is not the tall tale Bishop Spong would make it into after two millenia of certainty rooted in the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Squire, in this case nature speaks loudly enough!

Well, boys, (George Miller and Billy L) there is no god or gods, so I guess there's not much point of saying anything else. Go have your security blanket and mouth your pious phrases for all the other Pharisees to hear. Most people can do without that. Oh, and don't fail to quote your Bible...you seem to have been delinquent on that score. That's all (as the lady in "The Devil Wore Prada" says).

Country Squire,

Why bother to respond? In your first response to me you totally discount the Bible and anything associated with it as fantasy, myth, fairytale, etc. You insult me, later tell me to get a life, etc and totally gloss ovet the fact that I have a very close cousin who is gay; too bad he rarely acts gay in the traditional sense - happy.

Your posts not withstanding, the issue started out as response to Spong's comments, remember? It is not proper for anybody to teach much of what he has been openly espousing WHEN IT CLEARLY GOES AGAINST THE TEACHING OF THE ORGANIZATION FOR WHOM YOU ARE EMPLOYED. If he worked for the LGBT and advocated that gays not be able to marry, would he be kept on staff? NO!

Let's keep comments germain to Spong's comments and stop thumping chests. I've got to go get sized for my leather gloves, so have a good day...

Country Squire, you don't think stealing from the poor or refusing care to the sick is perverse? Oh, you're only thinking about sex! Must be a guilty conscience!
My friend, there is no difference between homosexuality, fornication, or any other sin of the flesh! We can develope a habit, or we can throw caution to the wind and do what feels good {physically}, either way we need to ask forgivness and try to do better. We can do nothing without God!
The same goes for taking care of those less fortunate or weak! We are our brothers keepers and we need each other. We are all the body of Christ.

Bill L,

Responding to Squire can be an exercise in frustration. He does not need to justify his position on anything but insists that we defend ourselves. It is sad that one cannot receive calm well thought out responses here but instead most are on the defensive, which really arouses suspicion. Why are ALL people who do not agree with alternate lifestyles automatically considered to be a gay basher, homophobe, etc? Really, I am not afraid of my gay cousin. Further, mention sin or the Bible and you have crossed over into being a knuckle dragging neandrethal from the Iron, Bronze or Stone Age, depending on who is posting. It would be much more worthwhile if more people had the capacity to be positive and not be armchair shrinks, presuming to know all about one's background and beliefs, much less how we arrived at them.

If belief in the Bible and recognition of sin, and I will start with looking in the mirror to find that, means that I'm a knuckle dragger, then so be it, I guess that I will have to get some heavy leather reinforced gloves. I'd rather have sore knuckles than an embittered heart toward anybody who at all differs from my viewpoint, as many here seem to have.

Bill L., you are certainly welcome to your opinions regarding perversions and sins, as you call them, but I am afraid, my friend, that you are totally wrong, and your venomous comments are no different than George Miller's spouting of fundy hate talk. What a shame for both of you.

Christianity is offensive because it reveals our perversions and sins! Yes we sin and need to repent of it! You don't like it or believe it? Too bad, it's true!
In days of old, people didn't believe in bathing or cleaning up as necessary for health. The truth is, it is! The same goes for your spirit.
Don't stay sanitary, then die! Don't repent, then die spiritually! Life in Christ is forever, so is hell. HOW OFFENSIVE!!

George Miller: now that you have vented your hostility to E Favorite and Country Squire, I hope you feel better. You still did not answer the points I made regarding your religious position. If you are honest, you will do so, if not, forget it. You stand exposed with what you have said. As for your comments to E Favorite re: their "anal retentive and legalistic attitude," you don't call that vitriolic and egregious? Get a life, pal.

Squire,

Your responses are so vitriolic that I really wonder if you are in need of a bong hit to mellow out. Either way, they are way out of line for what my posts and seem to demonstrate a certain level of hostility just below the Postal level. I try to be positive, not leveling accusations, yet you seem to read between the lines better that on them.

Read a dictionary definition of homosexuality or lesbianism and the definition will include sex with the same gender. That is not a Biblical definition. Nobody but you can measure your affect or feelings for another person, gender not withstanding. I'll not call homosexual acts a sin, for I am NOT one to judge, thank goodness, or I'd be dead now. Let a neutral 3rd party, neither gay nor straight, provide the definition; either way it involves action.

I try to be reasonable and as understanding as I can be, and yes I do have a gay cousin in the Manhattan. I am not insulated from it and love him dearly. In conclusion, I tire of trying to be fair and non-judgemental, for I cannot judge, yet reading your vitriolic, self-defensive responses. It is not lost on me that there is much prejudice against gays today and that is sad. People are people and are entitled to their choices, period. I also do not agree with all of the "rights" that gays feel that they are being deprived of and abhore the equation to civil rights. African Americans are born a certain color and it does not involve any voluntary act; being gay, by definition, not mine, does.

Have a good day.

E Favorite,

I doubt that God would be very impressed with me at all. Obvously, that is why Jesus died for our sins, and apparently you figure that mine are plenty, and they admittedly were out of control at one point in the past. It is fruitless to debate with one so convinced of the absence of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, so I guess we will both find out one day and, yes, will face Him.

As for the anal retentive, legalistic attitude that you demonstrate re: AA and the 12 steps, well, AA is not the only 12 step program and there ARE faith based ones as well, which utilize a modified form of the steps with God as the higher power (with Him as the HP you are then confronted with admitting that the behavior in question is a sin, according to what you would consider the arcane writings in the Bible). I have been to a purely secular 12 group that did not formally recognize sin as a step but all members were Christian and were more grieved about sinning against God than relapsing.

If you have ever been to a 12 step meeting then you know that all kinds of people with all different higher powers attend and some are sincere Christians, struggling with out of control behaviors which are contrary to their belief system, ie a sin, and which they obviously want to deal with. No, recognition of sin is NOT a formal step in the AA 12 steps, but then I've never to AA.

On the other hand, if you've never been to a 12 step group, please get your head out of the books and in touch with real people and their needs and hurts. That is what 12 programs are about.

George Miller,

Assuming there is an all-knowing, judgemental God and that you'll meet him when you die, I doubt he'll be very impressed with your view of His holy word as "fire insurance" and better than "no policy at all."

For your sake, I hope God doesn't read this blog!

Well, the 12 steps mention God (in a vague way)but not sin. Here they are, straight from AA:

http://www.aa.org/en_services_for_members.cfm?PageID=98&SubPage=117

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

George Miller,
Ya know, I suppose it goes along with your biblical fundamentalist Christianity, but your remarks that imply "sinning" only if a gay person ACTS on their homosexuality is an egregious position today that constantly needs rebutting. As a gay man, I find that kind of talk abusive and oppressive and I relegate it to the trash bin, along with any biblical references that people might want to apply to homosexuality as understood in the modern world. Two thousand years ago who knows what was meant by the story tellers that wrote things for the Jewish scriptures and those who wrote in what is called the New Testament. I refer back, as well, to my previous remarks to you.

This kind of judgemental attitude based on Iron Age documents and ancient fables is about as harmful and "sinful" (to use your jargon) as anything I can think of. You stand accused of furthering this poisonous thinking by saying those kinds of things, sir. I know it might be difficult but you must use critical thinking and intellectual honesty to confront these attitudes, for your own good and the good of the rest of the human community. I suppose the gay sheep and other creatures of nature that exhibit homosexual activity are "sinning." Oh, please.

Anonymous,

You are correct. There is a step in which you make restitution as best as you can with ANYBODY and everybody who you have hurt or alienated with the addiction. That is a huge step and painful as it drags up many memories that you'd like to keep well in the past, but must deal with in order to own your behavior and take responsibility.

Have a good day!

Jen,

According to gays, they are NOT second class citizens. Never having been involved in any of those behaviors, alternate lifesytles, I can only draw a parallel to how they feel. It can be likened to the person who struggles with an addiction, does not want to act on it (drugs, alcohol, sex, food, etc) but feels helpless to resist. The defining act is not the urge but acting on it. Feeling gay does not make someone gay; that would be defined by who one engages in certain sex acts with.

I do not believe that anybody wants to be treated as less than a wholly loveable, rational, person who is to be respected for who they are, period.

Have a good day

E favorite -- Recognition of sin is integral to theistic 12 step programs. Healing cannot occur without it. As I understand it, it is one of the 12 steps.

In all fairness, George Miller, it seems to me that you have replaced one addictive behavior,
which is not "sin" as I see it, with another addictive interest: the Bible, Church, religion,
Christianity, whatever. Think about that. It also amazes me how many people think that a supernatural being which they call God can intervene and conduct activities and/or initiate changes within a human being...I don't think so. To me, this is all pure fantasy.

George Miller,

Do you honestly believe that your cousin or homosexuals in general "choose" to be?

Why would anyone "choose" to be 2nd class citizens and face harrassment and discrimination?

BTW, there is no gay "lifestyle". Homosexuals exist (and always have existed) in every corner of the globe leading a wide variety of "lifestyles".

I'm familiar with 12 step programs and do not recall acknowledging "sin" as a part of the road to recovery. I recall acknowledging being "powerless" over alcohol (or whatever the addiction) and asking for help from an undefined "higher power."

Country Squire,

This is a difficult response, since you place no stock in the validity of the Bible and I do; we hold to very different worldviews. Thank you for your loving words of encouragement.

Yes I am VERY familiar with the word SIN. I have worked through a 12 step program, with God's help alone, to overcome an addiction, so please withhold your lectures about how I need to figure out my life and how to order it.(I have confessed before a group of my peers that I was an addict; gone through the various times that I acted on it, broke the law and wallowed in guilt and shame.) I never presumed to do so in any of my posts and it is extremely presumptuous of you to begin to think you understand me and where I am coming from. None of us should ever make that presumtion, myself included. The only reason I would like to hear sin preached more is so that people can turn away from it and to the grace of God and His salvation - period. As far as giving up certain behaviors, no preaching needed for that since the Holy Spirit will teach about it through the Bible, which you decry.

Really, what someone writes about a "group" of people that you think I fit into really has no impact on me. For me to say that I have no fears would be a lie and I'm not even going to go there. We all have fears of some nature. I am most concerned with doing what I feel and understand that God wants me to do and while I do not fear not pleasing Him, I do fear grieving Him by becoming insensitive to Him. I do not ask you to understand since I am talking about a relationship, not adherence to a set of rules. With all due respect, I doubt I'll be looking her up in the library any time soon.

At any rate, I try to keep my posts as positive as possible. Have a good week.

BTW, I'd rather have the Bible for fire insurance than no policy at all.

Well, George Miller, it must be comforting to you to use those old wornout words like "sin" to throw at people...it makes them look so sick, so fallen, so bad, so, well........you know.....terrible. You, self-righteous and convinced that even you "sin" from time to time, can sit back and preach to all of us "sinners." Well, my friend, I don't believe in a "fall of Man" ( a concept trumped up by Augustine of Hippo) nor do I place much credence in Iron Age books written by people whose only reality was mythic.

Bishop Spong is only trying to make some little sense of the fictions and fables that you love so much in the Bible, trying to make something credible and understandable to people living, not in the Iron Age, but in the 21st century...you know, there is a difference, I think. I'm sure Jack Spong appreciates your prayers, although we don't really believe that such does any good, but is a self-expression only, which isn't all bad. But the arrogance of your proposition is what is unsettling. I am so glad to hear that you have decided on the basis of YOUR interpretation of the Scriptures that homosexuality and cohabitation are such sins....gee whiz, there must be billions of people that are running around as upfront sinners today. Glad you are excused, or are you?

It must be comforting to be a biblical fundamentalist, but as Karen Armstrong has written in her book about Fundamentalism, you and others who share these views are, bottom line,
just fearful, fearful of a world you don't understand, that threatens you, and that doesn't guarantee that little you will survive death. Now that is really frightening isn't it? But, George, life is not so organized and set. It is, however, up to you to make the most of what your life is here on Earth, and leave the guessing game, or certainty game that you probably play, out of the equation. I would hate to put all my chips on the Bible as my life preserver, it is only pages of paper with ink on them, with much that is not historical or civilized. Not much of a bet to me.

Roy,

No, Jesus does not hate gays. Read Romans 1 to see what God says through Paul about it. If Jesus hated anybody, He would not have died and risen to attone for our sins. My cousin is, in fact, gay and I do not hate him any more than Jesus would. I pray for him, tell him I love him and that his decision to live as he does has no influence on my love for him. Neither do I pull punches re: the spritiual and scriptual ramifications. What most people see when gay is mentioned is gay bashing, etc. but the fact is that it is a sexual sin just like adultery, extra marital sex, etc., only committed with the same sex. A sexual sin is the only type of sin that is said to be committed against one's own body (Paul wrote it, but I cannot remember where), regardless of who the partner, opposite sex or not. The good bishop also promoted open acceptance of couples living together, not trying to counsel them to examine their lifestyle in light of the Scriptures and to consider marriage. To him, all lifestyles are ok. All roads DO NOT lead to Rome, despite his teachings.

As to being a bigot, well, match the good bishop's claims against the Scripture and you will find that what he has been espousing for the past 20 years does not match with Holy Writ. No, he bucks what the Bible says about homosexuality, cohabitation - both are sins, yes - SIN, a word not used in society today by enough pastors but a reality nonetheless, as well as the above about the efficicaciousness of Jesus' resurrection in seuring salvation for those who cling to his promises.

Truly, it grieves me to see that a person of his position with his views representing a church is given so much press. It has the destructive potential to lead many people not given to investigating his claims into dark, deadly spiritual dead ends. I pray for the bishop and hope that the Lord will reveal Himself to him in a real way, so that the bishop can rightly represent the Word of God and not one man's opinion.

God bless, Roy,

George

The myth of the resurrection is just that - a myth in the Greek tradition of Osiris.

Jesus made the blind man see. If only he could work such miracles today - the world would be a better place - free from the handcuffs of so called organized religions.

Bill L wrote:
"Mr Mark, I didn't know tht you were a Gnostic!"

I'm not, but by all the evidence, Paul certainly was a gnostic.

Considering that Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Xianity, it's amazing that Xians throughout history have rejected Paul's Gnostic beliefs by gerrymandering Paul's beliefs into the straight jacket of the "corporeal Jesus" school.

At least you (Bill L) have heard about the gnostics. I doubt that 10% of self-identified Xians would even know that word, let alone what it all meant.

Mr Mark, I didn't know tht you were a Gnostic!

Justin Jackson wrote:
"Mr. Spong says that "the only thing Paul...said about the burial of Jesus is that 'he was buried.'" He then goes on to say that Paul left "no details, no myths, no Joseph."

"If Mr. Spong is referring to 1 Corinthians 15, it goes quite a bit further than that: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." (verses 3-8, NIV)"

Justin actually makes the good Bishop's point.

Who wrote Corinthians? Paul. How did Paul see Jesus on the road to Damascus? As a corporeal being, or as a spirit (in Paul's words, a "vision"). The answer: as a spirit.

Now, go back and read I Corinthians 15 in light of how Paul states that HE saw Jesus. There is nothing in that passage that gives any indication that anyone EVER saw Jesus in anything but spirit form, as did Paul. The clincher is the final line, where Paul wraps it all into one neat little package ("and last of all he appeared to me also') that states CLEARLY that every sighting of Jesus that ever happened was of Jesus the spirit, not Jesus in the flesh.

But, you may ask, what about Jesus before he died? THAT Jesus - according to Paul - was also a spirit, who lived and died in the spirit world. The give away for this is Paul saying "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." Paul using thr phrase "according to the Scriptures" points AWAY from a corporeal saviour and points to a saviour who fought his battles in heaven. Jesus' battles with sin and death were like unto the battle of Lucifer v God that also happened in heaven and in the spirit world. Many mythical gods fought heavenly battles. Paul is saying that Jesus died in heaven for our sins, was buried in the spiritual (not physical) world of Hades and was raised back into heaven after 3 days.

Ergo, no bones of Jesus becasue he was purely a spirit, not a corporeal being.

Interesting stuff here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#7

How in the world can you call yourself a Christian and not believe in Christ bodily resurrection? That is like calling yourself a Muslim and not believing Muhammad was Allahs prophet. What's the point in calling yourself something when you dont even believe its core belief?

How in the world can you call yourself a Christian and not believe in Christ bodily resurrection? That is like calling yourself a Muslim and not believing Muhammad was Allahs prophet. What's the point in calling yourself something when you dont even believe its core belief?

Atheist priest:

You write "...might have some meaning for people with a mind".

So you are not an atheist after all. Indeed, you believe in a 'mind'.

What, atheist priest, is this 'mind' you believe in?

God can do as God wishes! He gave Abraham the promise of mercy if he could find just ten righteous people in the cities, but there weren't any. When he led Lot out of the city, he rained down fire as a warning to all people of all time.
Jesus mercifully waits for all those who will come to him without coercion. At the end of that time he will return in glory to destroy his enemys and even death itself. He doesn't force things now because he wants your love, not fear. Suffering in this world is our fault, not Gods.
Your suffering in eternity is not Gods doing, but your own choice. I choose Jesus and life!

You sound like the twig that condenms and challenges the oncoming forest fire! Same result!

QUOTE Bill L:
Jesus did not hate gays! He hated the sin. If he hated the sinner, then we'd all be in trouble!

okay, so He only hates the sin of any sinner. explain Sodom & G.

His death really doesn't mean a thing - His mission over, either way of Him hating just the sin or sinner. He achieved nothing.
His lovely little millenium will come to naught as long as there are boring things like Holy Days, no love of pleasure/free will, tradition, tradition, tradition.
Keep killing 'sin' - it will always be back.
In any child born in this period, if they were killed/slaughtered .. it could go on for ages, but eventually Nature would win out, God would loose & realise His creation, with or without an Earth.. won't ever much like Him, because it'd be boring.

God knows our hearts.. & should easily understand why we hate His ways because He could see in us that all we would want is to have the freedom He has.. that's He's denied for HOW LONG NOW!!!!!!! - what He hasn't given us, freedom to be as free as Him, no matter how free a person you are on Earth, it's nothing to what He has kept as a COVETING GOD for HIMSELF. sure, we have free will, & the only way for His fears to be put to rest, to never be unchallenged, is if He just DID AWAY with all His stupid nonsense. If He is such a perfect God He wouldnt have had 1/3 of the angels & most of humankind against Him in the first place.
but God can appear to win in the last days due to weak hearts who would love Him only to think they could handle his Laws forever. they really couldn't tollerate it THAT long. somebody would snap & cause another rebellion, even if it wasnt me. Even if He looks like He's winning, He can't. It'll just happen all over again.
All Hail your stupid Saviour, The Mighty JEsus Christ.

Well, "Anonymous," and you rightly are anonymous, because if your friends read your statements they would think ill of you...I am so pleased to read of your certainty about the resurrection, so called, of Jesus of Nazareth. Happy Easter to you, for whatever that's worth. I'll vote for Bishop Spong, who hopes to make something real out of the mythic fables of the New Testament gospels which might have some meaning for people with a mind. You might do well to trust the Jesus Seminar people and Bishop Spong more than Iron Age documents which were probably fiction. And, in parting, let me confess that I am indeed an Episcopal priest who is an atheist...so what...are you going to call my bishop??? So what?

'Bishop' Spong -- How do you know Jesus' physical resurrection is myth? By analysis?

I guess we´ll just have to take your word and trust your gifted intelligence...and the vote of those Jesus Seminarians. A democratic vote, to be sure, is only trumped by the almighty dollar.

After all, those of us who experience the living Jesus are just deluded morons...and you of course are an honest American Episcopal Bishop who was bold enough to proclaim our faith was but a myth. How could you possibly be wrong? Who could know better?

Jesus did not hate gays! He hated the sin. If he hated the sinner, then we'd all be in trouble!

Roy, Jesus did hate gays. You don't have to be a bigot to know that.

in that photo John Shelby Spong has an uncanny resembllance to Freddy Kruegger (aka Nightmare On Elm Street)

.. this is neither compliment nor insult.

It is a shame that the Episcopal church, which I was raised to respect for their moderation and tolerance has sice become a haven for bigots who are self appointed judges of what they deem heretical "notions" and posionous heretical teachings. No doubt these bigots are fully in support of the idea that Jesus hated gays.

Barker, Mary Mother of God comes from the fact that Jesus is God and man, and Mary is mother of his flesh, which cannot be seperated from his spirit. His Spirit always was and his flesh came into being at conception. It has nothing to do with beliefs from other religions. There are always similarities in some things between religions. Look at American Indian religions and Christianity. There was no contact yet many similarities {creator Father, loving Mother created by the Father}. People will always try to discredit Christianity or any other religion. Some because they don't want to answer to their own behavior, and some because they hate, some because they're tired of do gooders. Others because of the many hipocrites.

George Miller - look at that - six hours later and your comment still hasn't been removed for being too conservative! Wow - the Post must be into free speech or something.

As to the US formerly having "hard fast opinions about homosexulity, cohabitation, abortion, and so on" don't forget other hard fast opinions that we've lost along the way, like slavery, no voting for women and child labor.

It seems to me that more energy needs to be spent struggling to understand as opposed to struggling to be right.

So many inconsistencies in this thread top to bottom.

So much that is defensive and vitriolic.

We should not confuse vitriol with righteous anger.

Some of us need to chew a couple of metaphorical Tums and settle down before we speak.

It is a shame that the Episcopal church, which I was raised in and have since denounced, did not defrock Sprong for his heretical "notions" and teachings. He has been espousing his posionous heretical teachings for a long time and it was allowed to go unchecked; what a poor comment on the modern church. No doubt, he would be fully in support of the recently ordained gay bishop. Such a weakness in the church as a whole in America, not just the Episcopal church, is what makes me decry this as a Christian nation. Now, we are more like the Roman Empire in it's decline than the country that scarcely 50 years ago had hard fast opinions about homosexulity, cohabitation, abortion, and so on.

Mr. Sprong may not believe in the resurrection, and if that is the case then Jesus was not raised on the 3rd day to attone for his sins. Personally, that theology would make me very nervous as I would have to somehow fulfill the requirements of the law regarding my sins, and I believe that even Mr. Sprong has sinned.

It was very saddening to even see that the Post included the retired bishop among it's contributors, to be numbered amont men like Chuck Colson. I know the Post is liberal and will probably not post this; there are to few conservative voices represented in the Post.

SKELETONMAN tells us: It seems to me that so much of what Jesus preached is contained within just a few words of scripture (Luke 17:20-21) - "...behold, the kingdom of God is within you" - yet we fail time and again to yield to this call for introspective faith.

ANN O. replies: Indeed. ISTM that a very great deal of the disagreement between non-believers and believers revolves around the question of "evidence". The main problem as I see it is that the empiricist non-believers look only outward, to the physical world, and admit only *one kind* of evidence, the evidence of their senses. Believers, on the other hand, look within for evidence, and find such realities as the graces God offers us to love Him, ourselves, and our fellow man. True, we make mistakes about interior events as well as exterior ones. But that's the cost of being human, and we have reason to help us correct our mistakes -- about *both* those interior events and exterior, empirical ones.

Ann O.

It's interesting to note how little we have all changed in the 2000-odd years since Jesus walked this earth.

Then as now, the human weakness for the physical world, the need for a 'cure' from without oneself, the inability of individuals to look within themselves fuels much of the discontent we see around us.

It seems to me that so much of what Jesus preached is contained within just a few words of scripture (Luke 17:20-21) - "...behold, the kingdom of God is within you" - yet we fail time and again to yield to this call for introspective faith.

Once the mantle of introspective faith is taken up, then questions like the empty tomb kind of fall away. Which in my mind, is the essence of what Jesus taught and challenged us to see.

Maybe some of you should glance at...better yet, read Burton Mack's great volume on "Who Wrote the New Testament?" about the beginnings of the Christian myth. He basically says that the gospels are fictions, and I'd agree. Nothing new there, just the same as most of the literature of the 1st century. So, if the gospels are fictions, debate about resurrections in a non sequitur and irrelevant, don't you think? Earl Doherty, G.A. Wells, and others say the same thing. Check them out before you rattle on about bodies, tombs, sightings by disciples and other fanciful stories grounded in nothing but imaginations. That's all.

The variance in accounts can have another explanation.

Perhaps we have 4 accounts so we can have 4 different views. Perhaps the accounts weren't supposed to match exactly.

Similar to four people seeing a sunset in the mountains. One might emphasize the purple sky, one might record the exact time the sun disappears, one could record the reactions of others standing around him, one might write about the effect of the shadows on the landscape. The 4 saw the same sunset but noticed different aspects and recorded such.

I believe this is the reason we have 4 gospels and why they have varying views of the life of Christ.

As for the differences pointed out....are they really that dissimilar? "Sunrise, early in the morning, while it was yet dark, as it began to dawn." The reasonable reader would admit that 4 different people could record sunrise in these terms and not be contradicting each other.

Barker - "Mary, mother of God" is the term used to distinguish her from Mary Magdalene or any other Mary. I didn't know about the Greek usage - interesting

Mr. Spong says that "the only thing Paul...said about the burial of Jesus is that 'he was buried.'" He then goes on to say that Paul left "no details, no myths, no Joseph."

If Mr. Spong is referring to 1 Corinthians 15, it goes quite a bit further than that: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." (verses 3-8, NIV)

No details Mr. Spong? Nothing that could be construed as myth Mr. Spong?

Paul is claiming that Jesus (the Christ) died and rose again, according to ancient prophecy, and then appeared to many people! To me, these seem like interesting details.

BISHOP SPONG tells us:

No one in the world of academic theology that I know treats the supposed discovery of the tomb of Jesus as if it had any credibility. It is based on the idea that the resurrection of Jesus was in fact a physical resuscitation.

ANN O. replies : Oh, come now. Have you never heard of Bishop N.T. Wright's much admired work on the Resurrection?

True, Jesus' body was said to be morphed into a superior sort of body, but it retained its basic 3-D mode -- shaped, colored, moved, held conversations, ate.
.

Ann O.

"No one in the world of academic theology that I know treats the supposed discovery of the tomb of Jesus as if it had any credibility."

Then you should get out more. The Jesus Seminar echo chamber has been rightly and roundly ridiculed for the way its presumptuous and asinine presuppositions stack the deck against any scholarly debate.

N.T. Wright has written compellingly about the historical evidence for the empty tomb and the physical resurrection of Jesus. He has interacted irenically and extensively with Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan and has regularly trounced them in debates about the historicity of the Gospel accounts. He is one of many.

Bishop Spong,

My dictionary says Joseph of Arimathea, not "Aramathea" (your spelling).

Regards.

E Favorite,

The simple fact that you say "MOTHER OF GOD" idea straight from Greek Mythology. How could that possibly make any sense is mind boggling to me.

Moshe - I've also heard that St Thomas preached the gospel in India, Japan and Mexico, and that Mary Magdalene and Mary Mother of God went to live in France. These people get around.

The issues of whether Jesus survived the cruxification and whether the tomb in Jerusalem contained his remains are two different things. I too see that story that the "Tomb of Jesus" has been found in Jerusalem to be nothing more than a publicity stunt.

However, I do believe that Jesus did rise, having survived the cruxification. There is a tradition in India that he went there the "ressurection". According to the Indian tradition, Jesus lived into old age, and died in Kashmir. A building in Srinagar, Kashmir is known as the tomb of Jesus (or "Isa" as he was called in that part of the world), and has been known as such for 1900 years.

See http://www.tombofjesus.com for more information on this very interesting possibility.

Moshe

Who are you, Spong, to say there is no importance in what happened to Christ's physical body after burial? - Unless you know something we don't - -and are covering it so as nobody can attain & use Christ's bones as drumsticks in a death metal band?

If the stories don't agree, is that proof that they're untrue? Consider the Kennedy Assassination...if you compared the accounts of all the witnesses, you might end by believing that the central event didn't happen at all, so disparate are the details and memories of times and events. Certainly the Bible is mistaken on many points, as are human beings perpetually...but the central message of the resurrection accounts is still difficult to dismiss.

The resurrection of Jesus is one of the few stories that is told repeatedly in the bible--more than 5 times--so it provides an excellent test for the orthodox claim of scriptural inerrancy and reliability. When we compare the accounts, we see they don't agree.

What time did the women visit the tomb?
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the women?
Matthew: Ma