Easter About Life, not Death

c945t

c632t [a] [/a]

c307t [a] [/a]

c413t [a] [/a]

c548t [a] [/a]

c998t [a] [/a]

c369t [a] [/a]

c968t [a] [/a]

c949t [a] [/a]

c5t [a] [/a]

c704t [a] [/a]

c411t [a] [/a]

c33t [a] [/a]

c286t [a] [/a]

c362t [a] [/a]

c737t [a] [/a]

c605t [a] [/a]

c837t [a] [/a]

c423t [a] [/a]

c520t [a] [/a]

c840t [a] [/a]

c637t [a] [/a]

c706t [a] [/a]

c438t [a] [/a]

c791t [a] [/a]

c694t [a] [/a]

c92t [a] [/a]

c599t [a] [/a]

c453t [a] [/a]

c870t [a] [/a]

c200t [a] [/a]

c680t [a] [/a]

c755t [a] [/a]

c252t [a] [/a]

c755t [a] [/a]

c137t [a] [/a]

c232t [a] [/a]

c832t [a] [/a]

c517t [a] [/a]

c699t [a] [/a]

c146t [a] [/a]

c310t [a] [/a]

c118t [a] [/a]

c443t [a] [/a]

c390t [a] [/a]

c540t [a] [/a]

c799t [a] [/a]

c438t [a] [/a]

c124t [a] [/a]

c477t [a] [/a]

c379t [a] [/a]

c173t [a] [/a]

c795t [a] [/a]

c74t [a] [/a]

c458t [a] [/a]

c980t [a] [/a]

c179t [a] [/a]

c191t [a] [/a]

c585t [a] [/a]

c246t [a] [/a]

c369t [a] [/a]

c635t [a] [/a]

c75t [a] [/a]

c299t [a] [/a]

c692t [a] [/a]

c174t [a] [/a]

c327t [a] [/a]

c801t [a] [/a]

c267t [a] [/a]

c579t [a] [/a]

c597t [a] [/a]

c606t [a] [/a]

c587t [a] [/a]

c229t [a] [/a]

c733t [a] [/a]

c561t [a] [/a]

c18t [a] [/a]

c401t [a] [/a]

c34t [a] [/a]

c713t [a] [/a]

c874t [a] [/a]

c39t [a] [/a]

c3t [a] [/a]

c505t [a] [/a]

c159t [a] [/a]

c56t [a] [/a]

c535t [a] [/a]

c62t [a] [/a]

c671t [a] [/a]

c189t [a] [/a]

c996t [a] [/a]

c411t [a] [/a]

c30t [a] [/a]

c808t [a] [/a]

c299t [a] [/a]

c393t [a] [/a]

c525t [a] [/a]

c989t [a] [/a]

c417t [a] [/a]

c617t [a] [/a]

c297t [a] [/a]

c604t [a] [/a]

c127t [a] [/a]

c140t [a] [/a]

c504t [a] [/a]

c325t [a] [/a]

c940t [a] [/a]

c290t [a] [/a]

c684t [a] [/a]

c479t [a] [/a]

c849t [a] [/a]

c464t [a] [/a]

c638t [a] [/a]

c467t [a] [/a]

c983t [a] [/a]

c835t [a] [/a]

c544t [a] [/a]

c214t [a] [/a]

c741t [a] [/a]

c18t [a] [/a]

c835t [a] [/a]

c876t [a] [/a]

c881t [a] [/a]

c392t [a] [/a]

c835t [a] [/a]

c924t [a] [/a]

c810t [a] [/a]

c821t [a] [/a]

c553t [a] [/a]

c205t [a] [/a]

c701t [a] [/a]

c463t [a] [/a]

c170t [a] [/a]

c511t [a] [/a]

c937t [a] [/a]

c880t [a] [/a]

c473t [a] [/a]

c474t [a] [/a]

c165t [a] [/a]

c211t [a] [/a]

c663t [a] [/a]

c477t [a] [/a]

c13t [a] [/a]

c204t [a] [/a]

c128t [a] [/a]

c751t [a] [/a]

c815t [a] [/a]

c232t [a] [/a]

c488t [a] [/a]

c618t [a] [/a]

c430t [a] [/a]

c177t [a] [/a]

c267t [a] [/a]

c417t [a] [/a]

c562t [a] [/a]

c706t [a] [/a]

c457t [a] [/a]

c821t [a] [/a]

c949t [a] [/a]

c161t [a] [/a]

c980t [a] [/a]

c558t [a] [/a]

c551t [a] [/a]

c698t [a] [/a]

c333t [a] [/a]

c31t [a] [/a]

c541t [a] [/a]

c931t [a] [/a]

c268t [a] [/a]

c183t [a] [/a]

c870t [a] [/a]

c401t [a] [/a]

c822t [a] [/a]

c435t [a] [/a]

c386t [a] [/a]

c271t [a] [/a]

c232t [a] [/a]

c437t [a] [/a]

c212t [a] [/a]

c793t [a] [/a]

c264t [a] [/a]

c852t [a] [/a]

c45t [a] [/a]

c919t [a] [/a]

c502t [a] [/a]

c727t [a] [/a]

c859t [a] [/a]

c450t [a] [/a]

c180t [a] [/a]

c193t [a] [/a]

c853t [a] [/a]

c503t [a] [/a]

c570t [a] [/a]

c376t [a] [/a]

c239t [a] [/a]

c580t [a] [/a]

c295t [a] [/a]

c188t [a] [/a]

c409t [a] [/a]

c96t [a] [/a]

c373t [a] [/a]

c931t [a] [/a]

c106t [a] [/a]

c59t [a] [/a]

c987t [a] [/a]

c970t [a] [/a]

c755t [a] [/a]

c727t [a] [/a]

c519t [a] [/a]

c267t [a] [/a]

c469t [a] [/a]

c733t [a] [/a]

c384t [a] [/a]

c168t [a] [/a]

c975t [a] [/a]

c19t [a] [/a]

c649t [a] [/a]

c992t [a] [/a]

c644t [a] [/a]

c693t [a] [/a]

c198t [a] [/a]

c545t [a] [/a]

c512t [a] [/a]

c142t [a] [/a]

c844t [a] [/a]

c402t [a] [/a]

c671t [a] [/a]

c772t [a] [/a]

c6t [a] [/a]

c60t [a] [/a]

c838t [a] [/a]

c725t [a] [/a]

c880t [a] [/a]

c148t [a] [/a]

c624t [a] [/a]

c92t [a] [/a]

c375t [a] [/a]

c761t [a] [/a]

c63t [a] [/a]

c501t [a] [/a]

c740t [a] [/a]

c623t [a] [/a]

c469t [a] [/a]

c274t [a] [/a]

c763t [a] [/a]

c760t [a] [/a]

c923t [a] [/a]

c923t [a] [/a]

c942t [a] [/a]

c946t [a] [/a]

c606t [a] [/a]

c79t [a] [/a]

c346t [a] [/a]

c860t [a] [/a]

c926t [a] [/a]

c839t [a] [/a]

c120t [a] [/a]

c603t [a] [/a]

c949t [a] [/a]

c956t [a] [/a]

c619t [a] [/a]

c183t [a] [/a]

c386t [a] [/a]

c624t [a] [/a]

c2t [a] [/a]

c649t [a] [/a]

c774t [a] [/a]

c824t [a] [/a]

c46t [a] [/a]

c815t [a] [/a]

c478t [a] [/a]

c876t [a] [/a]

c399t [a] [/a]

c442t [a] [/a]

c412t [a] [/a]

c335t [a] [/a]

c662t [a] [/a]

c339t [a] [/a]

c380t [a] [/a]

c956t [a] [/a]

c400t [a] [/a]

c682t [a] [/a]

c656t [a] [/a]

c904t [a] [/a]

c680t [a] [/a]

c149t [a] [/a]

c377t [a] [/a]

c922t [a] [/a]

c957t [a] [/a]

c657t [a] [/a]

c401t [a] [/a]

c910t [a] [/a]

c652t [a] [/a]

c816t [a] [/a]

c719t [a] [/a]

c718t [a] [/a]

c997t [a] [/a]

c50t [a] [/a]

c120t [a] [/a]

c999t [a] [/a]

c271t [a] [/a]

c378t [a] [/a]

c289t [a] [/a]

c154t [a] [/a]

c170t [a] [/a]

c400t [a] [/a]

c439t [a] [/a]

c574t [a] [/a]

c240t [a] [/a]

c626t [a] [/a]

c614t [a] [/a]

c148t [a] [/a]

c428t [a] [/a]

c8t [a] [/a]

c127t [a] [/a]

c579t [a] [/a]

c570t [a] [/a]

c575t [a] [/a]

c779t [a] [/a]

c938t [a] [/a]

c642t [a] [/a]

c95t [a] [/a]

c651t [a] [/a]

c36t [a] [/a]

c284t [a] [/a]

c744t [a] [/a]

c324t [a] [/a]

c457t [a] [/a]

c894t [a] [/a]

c582t [a] [/a]

c692t [a] [/a]

c217t [a] [/a]

c645t [a] [/a]

c328t [a] [/a]

c323t [a] [/a]

c562t [a] [/a]

c257t [a] [/a]

c464t [a] [/a]

c75t [a] [/a]

c436t [a] [/a]

c250t [a] [/a]

c864t [a] [/a]

c357t [a] [/a]

c724t [a] [/a]

c264t [a] [/a]

c406t [a] [/a]

c285t [a] [/a]

c550t [a] [/a]

c164t [a] [/a]

c584t [a] [/a]

c364t [a] [/a]

c936t [a] [/a]

c632t [a] [/a]

c552t [a] [/a]

c645t [a] [/a]

c148t [a] [/a]

c620t [a] [/a]

c53t [a] [/a]

c6t [a] [/a]

c415t [a] [/a]

c638t [a] [/a]

c700t [a] [/a]

c818t [a] [/a]

c222t [a] [/a]

c530t [a] [/a]

c268t [a] [/a]

c27t [a] [/a]

c897t [a] [/a]

c879t [a] [/a]

c897t [a] [/a]

c34t [a] [/a]

c923t [a] [/a]

c632t [a] [/a]

c738t [a] [/a]

c203t [a] [/a]

c457t [a] [/a]

c506t [a] [/a]

c703t [a] [/a]

c526t [a] [/a]

c264t [a] [/a]

c227t [a] [/a]

c707t [a] [/a]

c12t [a] [/a]

c742t [a] [/a]

c1t [a] [/a]

c425t [a] [/a]

c843t [a] [/a]

c19t [a] [/a]

c685t [a] [/a]

c514t [a] [/a]

c428t [a] [/a]

c902t [a] [/a]

c845t [a] [/a]

c353t [a] [/a]

c896t [a] [/a]

c825t [a] [/a]

c967t [a] [/a]

c204t [a] [/a]

c886t [a] [/a]

c700t [a] [/a]

c553t [a] [/a]

c237t [a] [/a]

c79t [a] [/a]

c54t [a] [/a]

c72t [a] [/a]

c34t [a] [/a]

c536t [a] [/a]

c72t [a] [/a]

c329t [a] [/a]

c337t [a] [/a]

c407t [a] [/a]

c100t [a] [/a]

Evolution means that some things are known at one time and not another, that we cannot and do not know the answers to all questions of faith--that is why it is faith. Jesus was said to appear but he was also thought to be returning soon. Was Pentalcost a form of the Second Coming? Consider what we may come to know about Christ and God in a hundered, or a thouand years--when this and other tough Biblical question mayn solve themselves more clearly. Look at how much more we have come to know in the last 5-6oo years?

The stress of not knowing often produces the tension to seek and eventually find answeres, and should not be prematurely silenced with false certainity.

Borg is an extraordinary intlelect who has thought long and hard on these issus and I take his opinions and insights as lazers into an amorphous darkness.

bunojwce aymlw iupylmnr dopsvza eqkx kzqg npugowz

bunojwce aymlw iupylmnr dopsvza eqkx kzqg npugowz

bunojwce aymlw iupylmnr dopsvza eqkx kzqg npugowz

bunojwce aymlw iupylmnr dopsvza eqkx kzqg npugowz

free downloads t mobile ringtones
http://idisk.mac.com/ringtonesforyou/Public/index.html

On one hand, I really appreciate the vision of Christ represented in the post that started this thread.

But I have some questions about the assertion that it doesn't really matter if Christ were really, physically alive after the crucifixion and what we call the resurrection. A week ago my son called me on the phone to tell me that he had just been in an automobile accident. And he said, "Dad, I'm OK." For that I was most grateful.

Sure, he could have "lived on" in my memory, the things I've enjoyed about him could continue to inspire me, and his legacy could stay alive in some sense. But there's no way you could convince me that it would have been the same as it was when he said, "Dad, I'm OK." For some reason, at that moment, his actual physical life seemed especially significant. A living son was better than a funeral.

If "Jesus is Lord" I'm not sure that I can reduce that to just his inspiring legacy or even the verdict of God on his life. And I'm not sure that I'd dismiss the historic beliefs regarding the resurrection (that Jesus rose and lives) to a trivial quibble about a corpse.

Cal

Dear Mr. Mark,

I do believe we are making progress, slow as it may be. I will try to further your understanding of Paul’s recognition of Christ and the literal resurrection from the dead. First of all, Paul ‘met’ Jesus on the road to Damascus. This may not be the physical presence we wish to establish, but there was definitely something in the physical realm, “The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they HEARD THE SOUND but did not see anyone (Acts 9:7).” Secondly, “But now he has reconciled you by Christ's PHYSICAL BODY THROUGH DEATH to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation… (Colossians 1:22).” Thirdly, “Even though I am not PHYSICALLY present, I am with you in spirit. (1 Cor 5:3).” Between the second and third examples, Paul establishes clearly when He means physical in the literal sense or when it is meant to be taken spiritually. Fourthly, “In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who WHILE TESTIFYING BEFORE PONTIUS PILATE made the good confession…(1 Timothy 6:13). Now, either Pontius Pilate was a real person or he was not (this can be verified by archaeology and other extra-biblical manuscripts). All four Gospels must have copied from Paul because each of them talks about this meeting. :) Fifthly, “Remember Jesus Christ, RAISED FROM THE DEAD, DESCENDED FROM DAVID. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal (2 Timothy 2:8-9).” There is no reason whatsoever to appeal to this if it never happened. “Regarding his Son, who as to his HUMAN NATURE was a DESCENDANT of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his RESURRECTION from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.…(Rom 1:3-4).” “I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and HIM CRUCIFIED (1 Cor 2:2).” For I RECEIVED from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the NIGHT HE WAS BETRAYED, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me (1 Cor 11:23-24)." “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…(1 Cor 15:3-4).” “But CHRIST HAS INDEED BEEN RAISED FROM THE DEAD, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the RESURRECTION of the dead comes also through a MAN (1 Cor 15:20-21).”

No wonder Christ was ‘portrayed’ as crucified!!!!!!!

If we take, not only Paul’s understanding of the literal resurrection, but the other disciple’s such as Peter, “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was PUT TO DEATH IN THE BODY but made alive by the Spirit (1 Peter 3:18),” we are given a much wider acceptance by everyone that this resurrection was literal. “It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand (1 Peter 3:21-22).” If there were no resurrection, or if it was only spiritually, then why would Christ GO INTO HEAVEN? “Therefore, since Christ suffered in his BODY…(1 Peter 4:1). “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a WITNESS OF CHRIST’S SUFFERINGS and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed…(1 Peter 5:1).

And John “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge JESUS CHRIST AS COMING IN THE FLESH, have gone out into the world (2 John 1:7).” Clearly he believed in the importance of a literal flesh and blood Jesus. He lived and died believing this.

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he SUFFERED DEATH, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (Heb 2:9). Since the children have FLESH AND BLOOD, he too shared in their HUMANITY so that by his DEATH he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil (Heb 2:14). “During the days of JESUS’ LIFE ON EARTH…(Heb 5:7). Therefore, when CHRIST came into the WORLD…(Heb 10:5). And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the BODY of JESUS CHRIST once for all (Heb 10:10).

Take all of these verses and CLEARLY the New Testament writers BELIEVED that Christ actually lived and was crucified on this earth!

As to section 3 of your argument, it is back to whether we believe the writers or not. There is no proof either way, so we are at a standstill on this one.

Point 4 of your fact and theory explanation is backwards! The ‘FACTS’ do not change or they would not be FACTS! Our understanding or theory about those facts may change, but if they are facts they DO NOT change. There also may be an increase of facts furthering our understanding, but they do not change. When scientists use theory it means just that a THEORY. They use LAW if it is indisputable or at least has NEVER been proven wrong.

Fifth point: “Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.” http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookEner1.html
This goes very well with “Thus the heavens and the earth were COMPLETED in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done (Genesis 2:1-3).” Nothing has ever violated this principle.
Second Law of Thermodynamics
“Heat cannot be transfer from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible. This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. Perfect order in the Universe occurred the instance after the Big Bang when energy and matter and all of the forces of the Universe were unified.” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.html
And again, this goes nicely with a BEGINNING for the universe. The only other options (at this time) are Steady State or Oscillating Universe, which imply matter to have always existed. This goes back to my argument stating that there are only two possibilities, in the long run, to that one molecule being in this universe now, always existed or created.
The Bible does not CONTRADICT science but actually is in harmony with it. I do agree that there are many puzzling aspects to the creation story, but this must be INTERPRETATION problems as we see science corroborating not contradicting the story.
Point 6: This standard question comes from lack of thought. The answer is NO. Power resides in the act of overcoming obstacles (good triumphs over evil through Christ), and we see from this question God would be creating an obstacle that he could not overcome. With God, all things are possible. Do not ask me about the ‘square circle’ either. If it were possible to square a circle then logically it would be something else and we would name it thus. A ‘Squircle’! But what is that? A squared circle. I do not know what it looks like, but that is its definition when you square a circle.
As to your mention of Mithras, I am completely in the dark. I do not know this myth. I will have to get back to you about this subject…sounds intriguing.
Keep up the dialogue…very fascinating.

Dear Rich Augustus -

There's one point to my previous posts that you haven't tackled, ie: the fact that the elements of Jesus' lifestory mirror those of gods that predated his appearance on earth. One of the most-often-cited of these Jesus-mirroring gods is Mithras - a god who was around in various forms for 2,000 years before the advent of Christ, but was known as Mithras for at least 100-200 years before the advent of Christ. Consider:

"Mithras had had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental meal. He had sacrificed himself to redeem mankind. Descending into the underworld, he had conquered death and had risen to life again on the third day. The holy day for this sun god was, of course, Sunday (Christians continued to follow the Jewish Sabbath until the fourth century). His many titles included ‘the Truth,’ ‘the Light,’ and ‘the Good Shepherd.’ For those who worshipped him, invoking the name of Mithras healed the sick and worked miracles. Mithras could dispense mercy and grant immortality; to his devotees he offered hope. By drinking his blood and eating his flesh (by proxy, from a slain bull) they too could conquer death. On a Day of Judgement those already dead would be raised back to life." ( http://tinyurl.com/64eeo )

Mithras evolved into the Roman god, Sol Invictus. There are other gods that share lifestory elements with Jesus - Apollo, Horace, Dionysis etc.

What do you make of these gods and the fact that their life stories contain many elements that later found their way into the Jesus narrative?

Dear Rich Augustus -

Thanks for your response. I'm pressed for time, so this will be a quick response to your last post.

1. The Q Document:

yes, I know that this is a hypothetical, but I mentioned it as Biblical scholars have certainly dealt with it in their theorizing.

As far as the "two source" argument (ie: Q & Mark), that's also a theory that probably will never be proven. It's my understanding that scholars who speak of the Q say that Matthew is copied from Mark OR Q OR both. That suggests a great similarity between Mark & Q as well. But I am willing to go with a duo-source for the gospels for the sake of argument...and completeness of said argument.

2. The Paul/Peter question.

I think you draw a false analogy between Paul's regard of Peter and Jesus. Paul's writings state that he definitely met Peter. The same can't be said of Paul's meeting Jesus. In addition, I'm not sold on the belief that when Paul refers to Cephas that he is really referring to Peter, for the simple reason that in Galatians 2, he refers to Cephas and Peter as if they were separate individuals:

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Galatians 2.7,11) )

3. "What possible motive could extra-biblical historians have in ‘parroting’ the Gospels?"

Why assume there is a motive involved? Why not assume they were simply parroting received opinion? This happens all the time. Look at how the US media parroted Bushco's lies about Saddam Hussein during the run-up to the Iraq war. Look at the editorials and op-ed columns that were written after Colin Powell appeared at the UN, avering that Powell had proved that SH had WMD, yet Powell's information was all a pack of lies...and he KNEW it was a pack of lies when he delivered it to the world. Look at the recent Duke Lacrosse player scandal and ask yourself what "motive" the media would have in convicting those young men in the press for a rape they didn't commit.

There doesn't need to be a motive involved to report "what everybody already knows," whether it's a false rape case or the case for Jesus existence. It could be a case of laziness on the part of the reporter.

4. Using the words "fact" and "theory" interchangably in the context of discussing science.

I do this because both facts and theories change as science learns more about our world. But it's important to realize that while "details" (ie: facts) may often change within a scientific theory, the grand, over-lying theories rarely change.

Absolutists (ie: religionists) tend to see facts" as things that are beyond change, but science doesn't see it that way. More importantly, science views "theories" as being pretty well established whereas religionists like to portray scientific theory as being mere conjecture.

We're talking about different dictionary definitions of a word being used in context...or out of context.

5. "Returning to science for a moment, it is interesting the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics disagree with matter as always having existed."

You'll need to explain your reasoning here as I'm not following what you're saying.

6. "Is it really too hard for God to do anything?"

The standard question is: if god is all-powerful, could he create a rock that is so heavy that he (god) couldn't lift it?

Gotta go

Mr. Mark,

Let us take your remarks one by one. Since you keep referring to the ‘Q’ document, let us deal with this first. The ‘Q’ document is a hypothesis proposed 200 years ago, and still no evidence has been found (archaeological or otherwise). But let us assume for the moment that evidence has been found. According to the hypothesis this would mean a TWO source beginning and would only strengthen the Gospels (from the diagram displayed concerning the Q document). My reasoning is this; if Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, and the ‘Q’ document is the precursor to Matthew and Luke also, this would mean that the Q document would be more in agreement with those Gospels than not. How can you copy something and be so wrong?! The abundance, not the lack thereof, in material from the Gospels and other New Testament manuscripts help to establish authenticity and historicity.

As to the assumption that Paul did not believe in the corporeal Jesus is untrue. Paul only mentions Peter about seven times; did he believe him to be corporeal? The logic is the same. Actually your logic is weaker because he mentions Jesus many more times than this. Did Peter get the idea that Christ was crucified from Paul or was this reversed? Paul’s writings are generally held to be written first. Paul was trying to establish WHY he was crucified not whether it happened. Paul had no doubt as to the literal crucifixion of Jesus…he died for it!

What possible motive could extra-biblical historians have in ‘parroting’ the Gospels? The only reason you can come up with is the Christians rewrote or forged history with no proof whatsoever. Talk about conspiracy theories!!!

As to science and their theories, we are only at the beginning of our understanding on this grand scale. There is no human being alive who would state that we know everything, hence we are incomplete in our knowledge. There is only one of two answers that will ultimately answer the question of where even one molecule in this universe came from; either it has always existed (eternal) or it was created. There are no other alternatives. Returning to science for a moment, it is interesting the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics disagree with matter as always having existed. Yes, I know your ‘faith’ that someday it will be answered, but ‘suspend’ your belief until then. That is still faith as I see it and to quote the Bible, “Now faith is being SURE of what we HOPE for and CERTAIN of what we DO NOT SEE(Heb 11:1).

When taken as a whole, my Christianity is not so ‘illogical’ as you purport. I readily admit the gaps in knowledge as any honest person would do, but to say that because there are gaps in understanding that this somehow shows that it is completely wrong, is simply a fallacious argument. There are gaps in scientific knowledge also, but I do not discount all of it for lack of this knowledge. Curiously, you use ‘fact’ and ‘theory’ in the same sentence (“disparaging scientific facts like the theory of evolution”) as if they are synonymous or can be interchanged. No, not even the scientific community has done that!

For the record; Christians were persecuted and put to death in the Roman coliseum (conspiracy again?), and not ‘stepping’ into something blindly as if they had a choice. If God created the world in six literal days so be it! I do not know, but if He is omnipotent, then it could have been an instant if he so desired. Is it really too hard for God to do anything? Only if you don't have hope in the unseen...wait but you do! LOL

Once again, I have enjoyed your response. Thanks for the dialogue.

Mr. Mark -

I'm enjoying watching this conversation. I realize I'm simply an observer to this back-and-forth, but wanted to interject one point. I'm not alone in saying that the idea of science (i.e. evolutionary science) and Christianity being inevitably and inherently in conflict is a misperception. Many of us do not deem scientific knowledge as incongruous to Christian faith, and in fact we may find it an essential piece of human knowledge in terms of how we perceive, or make sense of, the world. Faith and science are by no means mutually exclusive. The "Earth was made 6000 years ago" sorts of beliefs, I think, are on the fringe today. Do you encounter many Christians who think that way?

Rich Augustus wrote:

"I believe the Gospels have given four different viewpoints to the same event. They were written at different times and different places which is one of your criteria. There are even other letters (the rest of the New Testament) that further the understanding and attest to them. Why continue writing about something that is false, by different authors, and then compiling them into one big fallacious book over many years?"

It's my understanding that the 4 gospels are indeed different viewpoints (agendas?) of events. However, I beileve that Biblical scholars are pretty much in agreement that Mark was written first, that Matthew and Luke use Mark as a source, and that John was the last to be written (as a "fulfillment of scripture" document). Certainly. there are passages in both Matthew and Luke that are nearly identical to those in Mark. Throw into that the lost "Q" document that even Mark probably used, and we can state to a good degree of certainty that all 4 gospels are based on the same source.

When we go to the NT letters of Paul, we read almost no details of Jesus life. My belief is because Paul didn't know anything about a corporeal Jesus, ergo, no corporeal details. When we go to non-Biblical sources, we are faced with the fact that none of these documents add even a single detail to the life of Jesus - they all recount the stories from the synoptic gospels. That's a good sign that the non-Biblical historians are simply parroting the NT stories, rather than providing independent confirmation of the Jesus stories. Worse, many of the most-famous of these non-Biblical sources are now thought to be later-century forgeries, added by Xians to enhance the historic reputation of the Jesus story.

You ask, "Why continue to write about something for centuries if it is false?" As George Costanza said on Seinfeld, "it's not a lie if you believe it's true."

For instance - many Xians like yourself write on these boards today. They have access to the same information I have, information that proves (at least, to me) that the Bible is a big fallacious document. Yet, their faith lead them to ardently believe that the Bible is the literal, innerant truth, even to the point of their disparaging scientific facts like the theory of evolution. They can't believe the overwhelming evidence that the earth is billions of years old because they read the Bible, add up the generations that have lived since "Adam & Eve" were created...and determine that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Now, WHY ON EARTH would they believe such an obvious fallacy? Because, the Bible tells 'em so, that's why. Once you believe such things, then it's a bit easier to step into the lion's den, or the colliseum...or to refuse medical treatment a la the Xian Scientists.

You see, you've asked an entirely logical question! The answer, however, is the product of illogic - the illogical suspension of disbelief that religions demand of our intellect to take them at their word.

In short, the answer to your question is this: they believe in god because they believe in belief.

Mr. Mark,

I’ll try to make another point; if a person writing about a certain event puts certain facts (ie. verifiable dates, landmarks, and people) into his account, how would we know if any of the other events by the author were true given your reasoning that authors use verisimilitude to make the story more interesting? It would mean that it is at best a historical novel. But without these stories archaeology would be sterile and quite possibly taken out of context. How are we to know if certain archaeological finds are within a certain time period? Take the Roman Coliseum, if it were not for written records we would have no idea when this was built, who built it, or its use (Christian persecution?). Sure, there would be many speculations, some quite close in their reasoning, but would still be speculation no matter how good their reasoning. These writings put history in context with or without the prejudicial prism of the individual writing them, at least to a certain extent.

You are right when saying that all written records should be scrutinized, but when shown to coincide with verifiable events of its era, this should at least lend credence to this writer. Luke was considered an unreliable source for historical information until archaeology proved he was right! For instance, Scholars questioned Luke's credibility since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a leader of Chalcis who ruled from 40-36 BC. However, an inscription dated to the time of Tiberius (14-37 AD) was found, which records a temple dedication naming Lysanius as the "tetrarch of Abila" (Abilene near Damascus). This matched Luke's account and stunned the liberal scholarship of the day. If archaeology hadn’t found this, would Luke have been wrong? Did he add this verisimilitude to embellish his story when many people didn’t believe it anyway?!

I believe the Gospels have given four different viewpoints to the same event. They were written at different times and different places which is one of your criteria. There are even other letters (the rest of the New Testament) that further the understanding and attest to them. Why continue writing about something that is false, by different authors, and then compiling them into one big fallacious book over many years? "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom YOU crucified, both Lord and Christ (Luke 2:36)." Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day (Luke 2:41). Christianity started somewhere (got to have Roman coliseums to fill for persecution)! Why would they convert? By showing that THEY (and all men) crucified Christ (which they could verify or repudiate), they were accepting their culpability and repented and received forgiveness of sins.

Your candid and interesting discussion was, by far, the best I have had. It challenged me to further my study and face head-on the difficulties in my beliefs (there are difficulties in any belief). I, too, strive to know more about these things and you have pointed out some motivating factors. I encourage you to continue striving for that truth for which you search! Thank you again for the cerebral engagement. If you wish to engage further please feel free to contact me at richaugustus@sbcglobal.net. If not,take care. I hope MY God gives you that truth for which you search.

Simply Fascinating!

Dear Rich Augustus -

Thanks for your reply.

You raise an interesting point about history, ie: what history are we to believe, what can be discarded as myth and legend, etc.? We all know that saying, "history is written by the victorious," and anybody who considers themselves to be well read knows that any book on any subject must be approached with both an open mind and a healthy dollop of skepticism as an author's prejudices have a way of seeping into even the most-objective writings.

Everyone has an agenda to a certain extent, even historians. When I look at history, I give more credence to histories for which there are multiple sources, especially if those multiple sources appear to have an independence about them, ie: they aren't all based on the same pre-existing source. I give more credence to a history that provides a natural explanation for why things happened as opposed to a supernatural explanation. When it comes to "evidence," I'll take dispassionate forensic and archaeological evidence over eyewitness and first-person accounts every time. And, even though I do believe that sometimes, "history repeats itself," I tend not to believe life stories of personages when the salient events of a person's life coincide directly with the events of historic people (and gods!) who preceded them on this earth.

Ergo, you can see why the Biblical narrative has a very had time making a case to me that it an historic account on anything but the most generalized level (ie: a timeline with an obvious nod to history). Taken together, the evidence is overwhelming - at least to me - that Jesus didn't exist.

Ultimately, I try to crunch such data with an open mind, allowing that new evidence could well have me doing a 180º turn at some future date, while avoiding the cheap relativism that gives one room to elevate (or denigrate) competing information to the level of a he said/she said argument over the facts. In such a worldview, all "facts" - no matter how impressive or laughable their pedigree - are given an equal standing in one's attempt to discern the truth. At that point, we most typically enter the realm of facts v received opinion, and while opinions are important, I prefer opinions formed after examining the best factual evidence over facts that have been gerrymandered to fit an existing opinion (even if I 've blurred that line myself on occasion).

Thanks for the chat.

Mr. Mark,

Once again, thank you for responding. I understand there is going to be uncertainty with any writer of history, but what is the standard to which we hold our beliefs? You stated and I quote, “The movie even shows book burnings, which we KNOW HAPPENED UNDER HITLER.” How do we know this to be absolute fact? Were there WITNESSES? Do we believe them? If several witnesses gave an account of this book burning, would it have holes, inconsistencies, plain old exaggeration, or even complete fabrication? There are people who do not believe that astronauts landed on the moon, and this happened less than 40 years ago!

Why believe the Roman’s or any other’s account of history (and I am not disputing the great historians of history)? Is it because they do not have an ‘agenda’ or some hidden reason to distort the truth? It makes no sense to create the Christian religion, perpetuate numerous documents about it over the years (the New Testament was written over a span of time), all the while being tortured knowing it was made up. We can go to other first century historians to document the cruelty against Christians. Were these just fabrications? If all history comes into question why believe Christians were tortured and killed at all? It is plausible because it comes from reliable witnesses. What were the ulterior motives to fisherman? To fabricate the greatest hoax in history and die for a known lie??!!

We all examine the information that comes our way and we process that information to satisfy our insatiable appetite for knowledge. During this process we must make a decision as to its legitimacy and truth, from there we move on from that satisfactory answer to take in more information about a given subject. The problem is that we must make a decision without absolute knowledge concerning our decisions. We all do this on a daily basis; I have never been to Asia but I believe it to be there and other information about it (but of course not all).

It seems you have processed much information and made your decision. I guess my question to you would be, “What would it take to change your mind? Would it change with new information?” I do not claim that I know all things, but that information (including yours) comes to bear upon my decisions daily. One thing people can’t take from me is my understanding of my life as a Christian. Beyond even the historical aspect of the New Testament, what is written there, as pertains to human nature and specifically mine, is untouchable by any other document. The website you referenced stated, “None of these points are meant to stand on their own, but collectively they provide a very strong argument against the story of Jesus Christ being based on a real person.” I believe the same logic applies to my life. There is not one specific instance, but a lifetime of accumulation of those instances pointing to the historicity of Jesus Christ.
As I stated before, it comes down to credibility of the witnesses and whether one chooses to believe them without absolute knowledge. We do not have the original Declaration of Independence. The witnesses are pretty good though! As to the “Quirinius” problem, there are scholars who have explanations to harmonize Luke’s history. The debate goes on! Thank You!!!!

Rich Augustus wrote:

"Luke's accuracy is demonstrated by the fact that he names key historical figures in the correct time sequence. He also uses the correct, and often obscure, government titles in various geographical areas, including the politarchs of Thessalonica, the temple wardens of Ephesus, the procouncil of Cyprus, and the "first man of the island" in Malta."

I really must dispute this assertation that correctly citing historic figures, dates etc in a story makes the entire story true. Were that the case, then we would all need to believe that Indiana Jones was a real person because he came face to face with Hitler in the movie "Search for the Holy Grail." The movie even shows book burnings, which we know happened under Hitler. The equation "Hitler existed, ergo Indian Jones existed" is no more valid than asserting that any story is true in every detail just because *some* details ring true.

Authors have always added artistic verisimilitude to their stories by setting them in specific times and in specific places with specific people taking part in their narratives. No one avers that Julius Caesar actually spoke the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth while accepting the fact that JC did exist. No one believes that the "facts" presented in every book or movie set in NYC are true. Why would one extend such a belief to anything written in the Bible?

There are much simpler explanations to explain how Luke "got it right," the most-glaring of which is that he wrote his gospel well after the events of which he wrote had transpired. Who knows how many of his "obscure to our present knowledge" facts were actually quite well know and disseminated during the time he wrote? Granted, mass communication wasn't then what it is now, but I would think that it is more logical to assume that Luke was adding details that meant something to him - and the population at large during his day - to add a hint of realism to his story, rather than embedding obscure facts that would need to wait two milleniae for their ultimate confirmation...ie: a confirmation to future generations who would walk the earth long after Luke and his contemporaries had passed on.

The other side of the coin is how much Luke got wrong...or should I say, how much of what Luke wrote contradicts what was written in Mark, Matthew and John, beginning with a different version of Jesus' genealogy than that offered by Matthew, and continuing through the details (both great and small) of the passion story. Hell, Luke even contradicts HIMSELF when it comes to citing historic personages: ie: Luke implies in 1:5 that Jesus was born while Herod was alive (Matthew also states that Jesus was born when Herod ruled), and then states clearly in 2:1 that Jesus was born at least 10 years after the death of Herod when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Asserting that any book of the Bible is historically accurate because a few details ring true is akin to asserting that the Bush Administration told the truth on Saddam Hussein possessing WsMD in 2002, simply because SH possessed them at one time in the not-too-distant past...and because no one doubted that SH did exist as a real person.

Thanks for the dialogue.

Mr. Mark,

I looked at the website you provided…very provocative! I have heard of both ‘camps’ but never a flat-out denial of the historical figure of Christ (are we in 2007 AD?). Nevertheless, I believe your contention is that the factual history of the New Testament is in question. From the website you provided: Concerning Livy, “Whether these things are actually true or not is debatable, but there is no debate about the fact that Livy was writing a history that he believed to be factual and straight forward, not metaphorical or allegorical.”

You used this to indicate, not whether something is factual, but to indicate the skill of his historical writing and to the extent of belief in it. Wikipedia on Livy: “In keeping with his poetic tendencies, he did little to distinguish between fact and fiction. Although he frequently plagiarized previous authors, he hoped that moral lessons from the past would serve to advance the Roman society of his day.” Style of writing should have no bearing on its believability. Obviously, the disciples were not schooled in the classic Roman rhetoric and poetic styles that may influence someone’s decision to believe them (especially Rome). But this is exactly what happens when someone relates the facts as they know them (not knowing how they will be parsed as to their believability). Wikipedia on Tacitus: Tacitus is remembered first and foremost as Rome's greatest historian, the equal—if not the superior—of Thucydides, the ancient Greeks' foremost historian; the Encyclopædia Britannica opined that he "ranks beyond dispute in the highest place among men of letters of all ages". Though his work is the most reliable source for the history of his era, its factual accuracy is occasionally questioned…”

Again, we have at the other end of the Roman spectrum someone who has been scrutinized and found to be more believable.

Let us consider the historical significance of Luke: “Luke's accuracy is demonstrated by the fact that he names key historical figures in the correct time sequence. He also uses the correct, and often obscure, government titles in various geographical areas, including the politarchs of Thessalonica, the temple wardens of Ephesus, the procouncil of Cyprus, and the "first man of the island" in Malta. In Luke's announcement of Jesus' public ministry, he mentions, "Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene". Scholars questioned Luke's credibility since the only Lysanius known for centuries was a leader of Chalcis who ruled from 40-36 BC. However, an inscription dated to the time of Tiberius (14-37 AD) was found, which records a temple dedication naming Lysanius as the "tetrarch of Abila" (Abilene near Damascus). This matched Luke's account and stunned the liberal scholarship of the day. 2 When reviewing the research and writings of Saint Luke, Famous historian A.N. Sherwin-White declares:
In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error. 8
For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. 9

Please see the following link where these excepts are from: http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/saint-luke.htm

‘Your’ website (and biblical scholars) has stated that Mark was the first Gospel written. If Luke copied from Mark, then this would lend even more credence to what Mark has written (Luke as being a first-rate historian) because of the diligence to his work.

It is interesting that you would have no doubt as to the existence of the apostles and their deaths (‘false’ stories), but only to the story they have to tell. It is absolutely incredulous that they would die for a known lie (some theological mumbo jumbo they supposedly made up). Would Tacitus be tortured for some known falsehood he put forth? Putting Jesus only in the spirit realm doesn’t work from the New Testament, because Jesus fulfilled prophecies of the Old Testament (are the books of the Old Testament credible? Too much digression!). Why was Jesus crucified? Is there a credible reason?

It all comes down to credibility. Are the disciples believable? They staked their life on it (according to the story).
Please see Josh McDowell’s book ‘Evidence That Demands a Verdict’ for a more detailed analysis of textual criticisms and their historical accuracies.

I really appreciate your time on this Mr. Mark! I will be reading that website in more detail when I have time. Fascinating debate!!!!

Rich Augustus wrote:
"Mr Mark:

"Very interesting! Please excuse my interjection, for I do not speak for Shawn B., but I have never heard of that particular viewpoint before, “Your questions are easily answered if you look at them through the prism of Jesus only having ever existed as a spirit, never as a corporeal being.” Is it your contention that Jesus never lived physically? If this is the case, then we are all talking for nothing: Jesus never lived; never died; and the Jews, Romans, and the rest of Israel were only experiencing a vision along with the disciples! If I am misunderstanding that quote, please forgive me."

Most Biblical scholars contend that Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and that Paul's writings were written before any of the gospels. However, these scholars *assume* that Paul wrote his epistles around 50CE, but no one can prove this because the earliest extant copies of Paul's writings date from the second century, and they are copies, not originals.

If Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and if Jesus lived as a corporeal being, then one might well ask why Paul doesn't mention any of the big events in Jesus' life? Why is he so silent on the miracles and the other stories that are recounted in the synoptic gosepls? Some say, "well, Paul just assumed that everyone knew all about the life of Jesus, so he didn't bother," but that seems inadequate an explanation to me. For a guy who spent dozens of verses at a time explaining church doctrine, it seems unbelievable that he wouldn't get into the details of Jesus' life.

"But Paul talks constantly about Jesus' crucifixion," you might say. True, but Paul also talks about crucifixion in a metaphorical sense, as when he says, " I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." Obviously, Paul wasn't physically crucified. If Paul can use the term metaphorically in this instance, what's to say he wasn't using it metaphorically when he referred to Jesus' crucifixion?

A better instance comes in Galatians 3:1, where Paul says, "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified." Notice, Paul says that Christ was "portrayed" as crucified. Paul is not saying that the Galatians attended the actual, physical crucifixion. He's saying that the crucifixion was "portrayed" to them, and "before your very eyes," to boot. This is pure metaphor.

Of course, there were hundreds of letters that were purported to have been authored by Paul, but only a handful of those made it into the NT, and today, at least 6 of Paul's letters in the Bible are considered to have been written by others. It's possible that Paul went into details of Jesus' life in these other letters, but the Bible letters are strangely silent on the details of Jesus' life.

If you accept that Paul's letters preceeded the writing of the gospels, then one can conjecture that Paul wrote nothing of Jesus' life because he knew nothing of said life. The reason might be that he just didn't know a story that "everyone knew," OR, it could be that the story didn't happen, at least in the physical world.

Paul's belief in Jesus strongly parallels the beliefs of the mystery religions, where gods did battles in the spirit world. Paul's writings about Jesus make perfect sense if seen in the context of a god who lived and died in the "highest heaven" of the spirit world, rather than as a corporeal being.

When it comes to the NT gospel writers, they wrote after Paul. Mark was first gospel, and the leanest. Matthew and Luke add details to the story of Mark, expanding on the life of Jesus. John is basically a gospel that takes OT prophecies (some of which weren't really prochecies at all!) and gerrymanders them into the Mark/Q story to show (not always very artfully) that Jesus came to fulfill OT prophecies.

My view is that the gospel writers weren't satisfied with a Jesus who was only a spirit, so they created a corporeal existence for him, borrowing heavily from religious archetypes and/or Jewish mythology, maybe even throwing in a few items from the life of one of the myriad people named Jesus who lived at that time. It's along the lines of NASA deciding to put men on the early space flights rather than sending them up unmanned: the public had more interest in manned space flight than unmanned (spiritual?) flight.

It's also important to remember that neither Paul'sw ritings nor the gospels were written with the intent of them being bound together under a single cover. They were written for specific people, by pewole who had different agendas. The fallacy of much Xian scholarship is that it ignores this fact and tries (without success) to explain away the contradictions between the various books, rather than taking them for what they are.

If you'd like to read an interesting take on all this, see here:

http://tinyurl.com/2suqxe

Dr. Borg,

I love your books and insights. Awesome stuff! Keep them coming. However, you do understand that your words about Easter come across as pure relativism. How would you address this charge? Does it have anything to do with your understanding of the nature of religious truth in general?

Mr Mark:

Very interesting! Please excuse my interjection, for I do not speak for Shawn B., but I have never heard of that particular viewpoint before, “Your questions are easily answered if you look at them through the prism of Jesus only having ever existed as a spirit, never as a corporeal being.” Is it your contention that Jesus never lived physically? If this is the case, then we are all talking for nothing: Jesus never lived; never died; and the Jews, Romans, and the rest of Israel were only experiencing a vision along with the disciples! If I am misunderstanding that quote, please forgive me.

As to the visions, the New Testament does not give any evidence for the resurrection being a vision. On the contrary, it attempts to establish it as a historical, physical, and literal event. While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence (Luke 24:36-43).

Why wouldn't the New Testament state it as a vision if that is what Jesus meant? Certainly the Jewish leaders thought differently about his physical resurrection after three days by placing guards at the tomb to prevent it!

Shawn B wrote:

"As for your reference to Dominic's explanation of 1 Corinthians 15, I'd have to read his entire commentary of the chapter. How does he "interpret" the text? What does he think it means in "context"? How is the "culture" involved? What does the rest of "scripture" say?

"How does he explain:

* rose again on the third day (v4)
* seen by Cephas, then by the twelve (v5)
* seen by over 500 brethren (v6)
* seen by James then all the apostles (v7)
* seen by me also (v8)
* Christ is risen from the dead (v20)"

Shawn -

Your questions are easily answered if you look at them through the prism of Jesus only having ever existed as a spirit, never as a corporeal being.

This is the Jesus that Paul believed in - a spiritual being who appeared to people in visions. When Paul writes that Jesus "appeared" to all of these various people, he means that Jesus appeared to them as a spirit, or in a vision. The giveaway is when Paul states in vs 8, "And last of all he was seen of me also."

This begs the question: how did Paul "see" Jesus? The answer: as a vision. In fact, Paul couldn't even "see" Jesus with his eyes on the road to Damascus as Acts 9:5 states that he was "blinded" by the apparition. We can deduce by this that Paul saw Jesus IN HIS MIND - not with his eyes and certainly not in the flesh. The importance of this way of seeing Jesus has direct impact on the phrase you have cited in I Corinthians 15. Reread that passage and you will see that every one of those people could have "seen" Jesus as a vision. Paul's words in vs 8 have the effect of saying, "and finally, he was seen by me IN THE SAME WAY HE WAS SEEN BY OTHERS," ie: as a vision. Notice that Paul does NOT say that Jesus appeared to the twelve or the 500 et al "in his body of flesh." Paul is saying that every one of these people saw Jesus in the same way that Paul saw Jesus.

Not only does this make perfect sense, it makes the only sense, for Paul says that, "He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve." Remember that Judas was supposedly dead at this point, and according to Acts 1: 9-26, the apostle Matthias wasn't elected to the group until after the ascension. How did Jesus appear to "the twelve" if one of the twelve had hanged himself and his replacement had not yet been selected? The answer: Jesus appeared as a spirit to Judas who was himself in the spirit world.

Or, does "the twelve" refer to the disciples at all? If so, how does that square with Paul saying in the same chapter, 15:7" After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles." After that? In vs 15:5, he says the 12 had already seen him. Does Paul mean that Jesus appeared to the 12 twice, even though they numbered only 11 at athe time? If so, why doesn't he write that Jesus "again" appeared to "all of the apostles?"

As far as the death and resurrection of Jesus: Paul believed that this all happend in heaven, in the spirit world, the same way the battle between God and Lucifer happened in the spirit world. This is a common theme in many of the mystery religions of the time, and it was certainly a belief among the Gnostic sects of the early church. Certainly, Marcion saw Paul's writings as being in this tradition. That fact that Marcion was branded a heretic for such beliefs doesn't mean a whole lot when it looks as if Paul shared the same beliefs.

Interesting stuff.

I'm so afraid of jacob, I'm not signing my name

Oh no...Jacob mentioned my name. Should I be honored or terrified :-)

EOG,

"White-washed tombs" - this is a description that Jesus used for the Pharisees. He compared their teaching to tombs which had been "painted" to look nice, but were full of de@th. They were hypocrites and didn't follow the law they preached. The other examples were from Jesus' teachings also.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." (Matthew 23:27-28)

I'll write more later...

SHAWN B
[FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, AND TO DISTINGUISH WHAT YOU AND I WROTE, I WILL RESPOND TO YOUR POST IN CAPS]

I'd enjoy discussing this topic (biblical literalism) some more.

SO WOULD I.

The "literalist" reader of the Bible tries to understand the author's intent by the plain reading of the text which includes recognizing figurative language.

INTERESTING,

When is figurative language is involved?

THAT IS THE QUESTION, ISN'T IT?

One method of telling is when there's an obvious comparison being presented. For example:
"You are the salt of the earth"
"I am the vine"
"You white-washed tombs" I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS ONE.
"I am the bread of life"
"I would gather you as a hen gathers her chicks"
When it is apparent that a comparison is being made the text is understood to be figurative. And...the comparison also needs to make sense. Life comes from a vine, a hen protects her chicks, and tombs are full of and bones.

I REALIZE YOU ARE USING EXPLICIT COMPARISIONS AS AN EXAMPLE OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE, BUT ARE THERE OTHER SORTS OF CATEGORIES WHERE A 'LITERALIST' TAKES PARTS OF SCRIPTURE TO MEAN SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT SEEMS TO MEAN IN PLAIN LANGUAGE?

There are other places where the plain reading of the text does not include figurative language...for example, Jesus turning water into wine. There does not seem to be a need for understanding this figuratively. We also see that further comments show that others believed the water became wine. The guests drank the liquid and pronounced it so. Another example are the plagues of Egypt. Pharaoh confirmed the water was changed into bl00d, the people were sleeping with frogs, and flies covered the land. There appears to be no underlying meaning or need of comparison here. Thus no need to force one.

SEEMS A BIT SUBJECTIVE TO ME.

I've oversimplified this approach greatly. There are other considerations related to cultural and historical context.

HOW DO YOU VIEW GENESIS? DO YOU THINK GOD LITERALLY MADE ALL OF CREATION IN 6 DAYS, PERFORMING THE SPECIFIC TASKS IN THE VAROUS MORNINGS AND EVENINGS AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE, CULMINATING WHEN GOD FASHIONS ADAM OUT OF A CLUMP OF MUD, AND EVE F ROM ADAM'S RIB? DO YOU TAKE THIS LITERALLY, AS 'FACT'?

SEEMS LIKE THE CRITERIA OF PLAIN LANGUAGE, ON THE ONE HAND, AND AN 'INTERPRETATION' WITHIN A CULTURAL/HISTORICAL CONTEXT, ON THE OTHER, MIGHT BE HARD TO SQUARE WITH EACH OTHER?
AS AN ASIDE, DO YOU THINK THAT GENESIS HAS ANY BEARING, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, ON EVOLUTION? I MAY BE WRONG, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE BIBLICAL LITERALISTS HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH THE NOTION OF EVOLUTION.

RATHER THAN VIEWING THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF GENESIS TO BE SORT OF AN ASSEMBLY MANUAL FOR THE UNIVERSE, MIGHT IT BETTER BE VIEWED AS A POWERFUL STATEMENT BY A SMALL GROUP OF MONOTHEISTS IN A SEA OF POLYTHEISTS, TO BE A PROCLAIMATION LIKE... HEY, GUYS! THERE IS ONE GOD. AND OUR ONE GOD CAN DO X, Y, AND Z, BEFORE LUNCH, AND YOU NEED THREE GODS, EACH OF WHICH CAN DO JUST X, OR Y, OR Z, BUT CERTAINLY NOT ALL OF THEM.

The "literalist" camp is broader than the term indicates. Very few people are "strict" literalists. A more appropriate term for the approach is "Literal, historical, grammatical". It seeks to understand biblical text in light of its historical, cultural, and literary context.

THAT SEEMS MUCH MORE REASONABLE TO ME THAN WHAT I HAVE UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE LITERALIST VIEW.

Thus, to be in the literalist camp includes seeing metaphors, allegories, poetry, and other literary devices in the text.

I WONDER TO WHAT DEGREE OTHER BIBLICAL LITERALISTS WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.

The important thing is to understand what the meaning is before making application. AND also not trying to spiritualize it, or write it off as allegorical, when there is no justification to do so. The resurrection, I believe, falls into this category.

I have read a significant amount of scholarly works on the NT. I am FAR from a phd on the subject. But using this method, the literal-historical-grammatical, leads to the conclusion of a physical resurrection. And of course there are rich spiritual applications.
As for your reference to Dominic's explanation of 1 Corinthians 15, I'd have to read his entire commentary of the chapter. How does he "interpret" the text? What does he think it means in "context"? How is the "culture" involved? What does the rest of "scripture" say?
How does he explain:
* rose again on the third day (v4)
* seen by Cephas, then by the twelve (v5)
* seen by over 500 brethren (v6)
* seen by James then all the apostles (v7)
* seen by me also (v8)
* Christ is risen from the (v20)

I DON'T KNOW HOW HE'D RESPOND. WHY DON'T YOU ASK HIM? I EXCERPTED JUST A PORTION OF ONE OF HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS DISCUSSION, WHICH SEEMED TO REFER TO THE SAME BOOK AS WE WERE DISCUSSING. HE HAS WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ON JESUS AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY, SO HE MAY WELL HAVE TREATED 1 CORNTHIANS 15 MORE EXTENSIVELY SOMEWHERE.

The fact that the "raised" body has a spiritual component does not negate the teaching that the physical body was raised.

BUT WOULD IT ALSO BE TRUE THAT IF THE PHYSICAL RESURRECTION WAS NOT FACTUALLY TRUE, THAT THE SPIRITUAL FORCE WOULD BE REDUCED, OR EVEN ABSENT? IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S WHAT SOME FOLKS THINK WHO HAVE RESPONDED TO THIS WEEK'S QUESTION. THAT STIKES ME AS A RATHER FRAGILE AND BRITTLE APPRECIATION OF THE LIFE OF JESUS.

These ideas are not mutually exclusive. It's not "either/or" but "both/and".
Basically he gives a nice story with his opinion. For each opinion posted in support of a "spiritual" resurrection there is one in support of a "physical". The key is to get away from an opinion and explain the text. This goes for the conservative and liberal scholar. Opinions are opinions.
The reformers cry was "to the text!" Our cry should be the same.
(disclaimer...there is much more to say about this topic and my examples were skeletal. Don't beat me up about a lack of thoroughness or obvious gap in logic. Thanks.)

I'M SORRY IF WHAT I WROTE BEFORE ELICITED THIS, I DON'T MEAN TO BEAT YOU UP. INDEED, MY ANSWERS COULD PROBABLY STAND SOME EDITING. NEVERTHELESS, I FIND THIS CONVERSATION VERY INTERESTING. IT SEEMS LIKE YOU AND I DON'T AGREE, BUT I FOR ONE WOULD LIKE TO LEARN FROM YOU.

Shawn B.,

Excellent points! It is far too difficult to go into all of the details of each point on this thread. Such as: Thomas said he wouldn't believe Jesus was risen until he put his fingers into the holes left by crucifixion. Was this an apparition that transformed him after Jesus 'appeared' to him? There are certainly many more instances that can be referenced if the ladies and gentlemen on this blog wish to continue this discussion.
The physical resurrection must have happened for there to be any sort of Christianity today. To assume that the disciples would have given their lives for some metaphysical or spiritual explanation only to the resurrection is simply ludicrous.

EOG,

I'd enjoy discussing this topic (biblical literalism) some more. But first consider today's article in USATODAY about Zach Johnson's win at the Masters...

"Toward the end of this heavily populated
showdown that lasted nearly six hours and
left the giant white leaderboards void of
red numbers for the first time in four
decades, relative unknown Zach Johnson broke
from the pack and broke Woods' back with the
day's most accurate shot-making."

Now either Zack is a very violent man and assaulted tiger, or we have some figurative language involved. Fortunately, we know Tiger is O.K. Everyone who read this today understands that Zack did not take a 9-iron and fracture one of Tigers vertebra. The "literal" meaning of Zach beating Tiger is given using figurative language.

The "literalist" reader of the Bible tries to understand the authors intent by the plain reading of the text which includes recognizing figurative language.

When is figurative language is involved? One method of telling is when there's an obvious comparison being presented. For example:

"You are the salt of the earth"
"I am the vine"
"You white-washed tombs"
"I am the bread of life"
"I would gather you as a hen gathers her chicks"

When it is apparant that a comparison is being made the text is understood to be figurative. And...the comparison also needs to make sense. Life comes from a vine, a hen protects her chicks, and tombs are full of and bones.

There are other places where the plain reading of the text does not include figurative language...for example, Jesus turning water into wine. There does not seem to be a need for understanding this figuratively. We also see that further comments show that others believed the water became wine. The guests drank the liquid and pronounced it so. Another example are the plagues of Egypt. Pharaoh confirmed the water was changed into bl00d, the people were sleeping with frogs, and flies covered the land. There appears to be no underlying meaning or need of comparison here. Thus no need to force one.

I've oversimplified this approach greatly. There are other considerations related to cultural and historical context.

The "literalist" camp is broader than the term indicates. Very few people are "strict" literalists. A more appropriate term for the approach is "Literal, historical, grammatical". It seeks to understand biblical text in light of its historical, cultural, and literary context.

Thus, to be in the literalist camp includes seeing metaphors, allegories, poetry, and other literary devices in the text.

The important thing is to understand what the meaning is before making application. AND also not trying to spiritualize it, or write it off as allegorical, when there is no justification to do so. The resurrection, I believe, falls into this category.

I have read a significant amount of scholarly works on the NT. I am FAR from a phd on the subject. But using this method, the literal-historical-grammatical, leads to the conclusion of a physical resurrection. And of course there are rich spiritual applications.

As for your reference to Dominic's explanation of 1 Corinthians 15, I'd have to read his entire commentary of the chapter. How does he "interpret" the text? What does he think it means in "context"? How is the "culture" involved? What does the rest of "scripture" say?

How does he explain:

* rose again on the third day (v4)
* seen by Cephas, then by the twelve (v5)
* seen by over 500 brethren (v6)
* seen by James then all the apostles (v7)
* seen by me also (v8)
* Christ is risen from the (v20)

The fact that the "raised" body has a spiritual component does not negate the teaching that the physical body was raised. These ideas are not mutually exclusive. It's not "either/or" but "both/and".

Basically he gives a nice story with his opinion. For each opinion posted in support of a "spiritual" resurrection there is one in support of a "physical". The key is to get away from an opinion and explain the text. This goes for the conservative and liberal scholar. Opinions are opinions.

The reformers cry was "to the text!" Our cry should be the same.

(disclaimer...there is much more to say about this topic and my examples were skeletal. Don't beat me up about a lack of thoroughness or obvious gap in logic. Thanks.)

EOG: you write that I distinguish matter and mind and that I should also consider spirit. We all distinguish matter and mind and there is a complex anthropology implied in our words - and others. Re spirit - I do consider that the life-giving spirit which the second Adam became is life-giving to our mortal bodies now and in the age to come - in words and explanations, we forget the requirement to incarnate the spirit - to open ourselves in a fleshly way to the leading of the Spirit. Without the Incarnation, or enfleshment for the anglo-saxons out there, there is no message of salvation. Jesus' crucifixion results in a glorious fire cast out on the whole earth - we are invited to take part in this costly grace through that same death. Then in obeying (Shema) such a call we will discover the experience of the Spirit in our fleshly bodies, incarnated as love as it was in Jesus (not as a vain triumphalism). This is more than words - and it is not confined to the Judeo-Christian tradition or even to humanity alone.

If anyone knows the story of Abraham and Isaac: Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death (Hebrews 11:19). The Bible speaks figuratively in many verses, but other verses illuminate these metaphors if one would only take the time to search.

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost (1Cor. 1:17,18) And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised (1 Cor. 15:14,15). But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay (Acts 13:37).

What about the other people that were raised from the dead such as Lazarus? Was this metaphorical? If you do believe this to be figurative, then there is probably a general lack of believing in miracles already. Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead (Acts 26:8)?!

There are many other references to the resurrection in the New Testament, but the Bible clearly speaks to the literal and physical resurrection of Christ in addition to the varied spiritual significances that are attached.

In a court of Law, jurors are asked not to come to the trial with any presuppositions or predeterminations about the case. If someone is able to do that regarding the evidence (biblical, extra-biblical, moral, spiritual) of Jesus' historicity and resurrection, a true, logical decision can be made.

In my opinion, the single biggest reason people do not want to accept the evidence regarding Jesus is the moral obligations that are required of a Christian. Most don't want someone else (Jesus is Lord if you accept the evidence) telling them what to do. Lifestyle changes prevent more people from becoming Christians than any amount of evidence. Think about it.

Shawn B

Thanks for your thoughts on my comments, but I don't really understand a couple of your responses. First, how is it possible to be completely in the literalist camp, but also allow for metaphorical meaning? Second, your interpretation of the literal/physical meaning of 1 Corinthians 15 seems to overstate the case a bit, as least as far as scholarly views on the subject.

How do you know what parts of scripture to take literally, and what parts to take metaphorically? Unless I'm missing something, it seems like you are trying to have it both ways.

As for 1 Corinthians 15, I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar, or know how secular schools treat this book, but in a piece posted by John Dominic Crossan on April 5, 2007 9:36 AM, seems to address your point:

"...it took Paul the 58 verses of 1 Corinthians 15 to (try to) explain the exact status of Jesus’ body after his bodily resurrection. It did not seem as easy a question for him as for many contemporary Christians for whom Jesus simply exited the tomb to a new and never-again-to-die life. And, were you there, you would have seen that departure.

Finally, I imagine myself asking this question of Paul. We have found the remains of Jesus, Paul, so what about his bodily resurrection? Get a life, Dominic! A human person is always a combination of body and soul so—if the bones are in a tomb somewhere—God has given Jesus a new and Spirit-filled body. We can only speak of that new body, Dominic, metaphorically and never literally—like the seed that dies and lives again in absolute continuity and discontinuity with what went before (see 1 Corinthians 15:36-50)."

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Agwo wrote:

"The real question should, if Jesus was alive today...He would not use science to measure the reasonableness of Faith."

You don't give Jesus much credit as a communicator.

Jesus spoke in parables that his audience understood. These parables were all drawn from life situations that were common in the era - sowing seeds, the son who leaves home and returns, etc.

I have no doubt that were Jesus alive today, he would most certainly use scientific knowledge and advancement in his parables. "A worker was sitting at his computer...an astronaut had landed on the moon...as nature has evolved its species, so must man evolve his spirit."

The one thing I'm ceratin of is that were Jesus alive today, he wouldn't be throwing up examples of Bronze Age life in his parables - at least if he hoped to connect to his audience.

Science may not be the ultimate measure of faith to a modern-day Jesus, but it would certainly be a factor in his connecting with his audience...and employed as an example of the glory of god's creation.

It is so east to raise questions about what will happen if the Resurrection is disproved.

I have no view to express because to do so is to sow the 1st seed of doubt. A recent CNN survey asked what will be Christ's priority if He were alive. Over 70% of the surveyed said it would be poverty, 7% said it would abortion and 3% believed it would be homosexuality.

This made me to understand that many people thought Jesus as a Politician and not a priest.

The real question should, if Jesus was alive today, which media house would help Him spread the GOSPEL without charge. Since He was not preaching the main stream doctrine nor supporting popular or unpopular politicians, my guess is that no media house would give Him air time.

And one thing is clear too, He would not be dining with people who ordain as priests, people who have taken what displeases God as a way of life. He will not stone them, but He will tell them to repent and be saved.

Also He would not use science to measure the reasonableness of Faith.

Marco, SHAWN et al:

Read DIANETICS By: G-d appointed & Plagiarizing Novelist of the:

L Ron Hubbard "D.I.A.N.E.T.I.C.S." (Egoistic, self centered & Money hungry minded natured)

Note: The Freudian Slips of Genuine Prophecy's runs insultingly ramped in those Psychology or Psychiatric-Science as in disguise and as being another money Capitalizing fake religious venture that preys on “Confused Suckers of the Multitudes in the minute of their moment or exposure to any of their Dianetic Deciples not team Leaders or players at that. Oh No You Don't. Not Us!

Important: That “T.I.M.E. T.R.A.C.K”. theory (not Reality nor historic Fact) is terribly FLAWED!
VERY W.E.A.K. & Dangerous to ones health. Just like and is equally poisoning of minds like all the other ancient Pre-Apocalyptic belief systems of their Lores & Epochs..

Ha, Going all the way back to Momma & even Dada's UTERO or Back sliding at “Sperm & Egg” embrace, is INSANE works of unbelievable proportions!

Better TOM CRUISE & Other Pay me [I am for profit yet I do things for FREE) but for a Better PHILOSOPHY in Reality. a/k/a TRANSFINITY in the and with the ECLATi in ALL. . NO? Ya? Anyone out there?! Ya Mon. :=)/

“Reality is Truly Good Faith. Like the LOVE via our Warmth as being in our Photofinite TEMPERATUREs (TIME here is not your ordinary clock time)) of the ECLATi Miracle”

The notion of "rising from the dead" comes from the sun god. The ancient Egyptians saw the sun "rise from the dead" every morning and "die again" burn to a heap of ashes every evening. They called that Phoenixing. Ignornat Europeans have put every superstition possible on the Phoenix bird that's nothing more than the sun, "rising from the dead."

Amenophis IV, Jesus and Moses both, believed the sun was her father. That was probably because her mother, the queen became pregnant with her in the absence of the king and needed to name a father.

The attributes of the child are 100% that of the father, (a dog was good enough to mother the Romans as mother contributes nothing, the virgin Mary was the mother of God but not a God). With that in mind, Amenophis IV 'presumed' she would live all eternity here on this earth while all other people would go on to new worlds because that's what the sun does, dies and "rises from the dead" every day here on earth.

The real Jesus, Amenophis IV expected to "rise from the dead" in body. The Bible is a hoax and like most hoaxes leave lots of room for all kinds of interpretations that always gravitate to the invisible, faith world. The real Jesus had no concept of a ghost as I understand her thinking, such as it was.

I read the above at, you guessed it, http://www.hoax-buster.org It makes a lot more sense than anything anyone else has said on the subject of Jesus rising from the dead.

"Dead men tell no tales" but live hoaxes are hardly more than tales.

EOG,

Here's my response to your comments...

EOG Wrote: You claim: "The entire theme for this week's question is the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus, I am trying to stick to the point."To the contrary, it seems to me that much of the discussion is between those who take a literal/physical view of the resurrection, and those who take a more metaphorical/spiritual view.

Response: My comment was in response to a previous poster saying that one should consider the "spiritual" rising of Jesus as an option.

EOG wrote: "While you acknowledge the use of metaphor in the Bible, you seem to fall squarely in the literal/physical camp. For example, your conclulsion that "The message of the resurrection has everything to do with what happened to Christ's body." is somehow proven or even exclusively supported by I Corinthians 15:14 (" And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.")."

Response: Yes...I am completely in the literalist camp. However, a literalist who understands that there are metaphors in the Scripture. Just like we would literally interpret the metaphor of "she has a green thumb" to mean "she's a good gardner". However, I see no metaphor regarding the resurrection of Christ.

Eog wrote: "I don't see how your conclusion follows from that piece of scripture."

Response: 1 Corinthians 15 is all about the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. There really is no getting around it. Even Bible scholars at secular schools teach this. They may not believe it, but they understand what Paul was claiming.

Dr. Borg,

Thank you for sharing your insights. I very much appreciate your contributions to understanding how (and why) Jesus is Lord.

In reflecting this Easter, I wonder if you and I are in agreement. This is where my thinking is at:

Contemplation of Christ’s love for God, brilliant community activism through collaboration within his immediate contexts, and overall concern for others inspires us today to live as Christ lived. This means that Jesus is Lord, experienced in us today through our own public actions.

Paying attention to the Historical Jesus then is instructive to examining the horribly oppressive webs that entangle the world and how it operates today; the call for us to live differently could lead us towards a more right relationship with God, self, other and world. This means that Jesus is Lord, demonstrated by our following the moral example of Jesus as prophet.

This expands the saving power of Christ beyond the common focus on Christ’s death as the salvific moment, out to encapsulate Jesus’ public actions as prophet, because we have our own peasant villages today.

It would be beneficial to me to know, would you agree with how I understand things this Easter?

I would be interested in hearing anyone's reactions to the role of religion in the grieving process. Comments can be posted at 'Liberating Losses'

http://lookinginthedistance.blogspot.com

All comments are approved by the moderator prior to publication to prevent nonsense comments such as some of those above.

excuse me. i became from Luxemburg and i need help.

Yeah, Mr Borg, take speed123's word for it, just about everyone here but him is part of a blinded, self-serving pack of wolves.

If it weren't for good, loving, compassionate, humble Christians like speed123 giving you a pep talk, you'd probably be beside yourself as you read through these awful posts.

Hippty-Hop-Hop, Easter's on it's way...

Excellent essay, Mr. Borg. I just picked up your book "Jesus" and I found it to be thought provoking as well.

As for the pack of wolves on these boards, don't mind them, they are blinded, as you say, by the worship of the lords of culture and commerce and their own self serving form of reason.

BGONE et al:

In telling us that Easter should be more than squabbing about whether anything unusual happened to Jesus' corpse, Marcus Borg--as the above comments show--managed to get folk to focus on Jesus' corpse. When I asked him whether Jesus said anything after they killed him, he wrote me, in effect, that dead men tell no tales. The way he puts on this blog his spiritualization (metaphorization) of Jesus' resurrection is plain: "Were the skeletal remains of Jesus to be indisputably identified, it would not matter to me"; the Jesus story is "the central revelation of God's dream for the world." Only a dream. How sad.
With Easter's joy in my heart, I repeat the last five words of the blog just before mine: "No Empty Tomb, no hope."

Got it. Jesus is the ruler of the world. But Jesus is nowhere to be found so the clergy will have to fill in while we wait for Jesus to return.

It's a massive sacle, mega con. The rulers of this world will have to go and the religious authorities put in their place. That's a pipe dream that came true when a ruler of 1/4 of the world decided to overthrow the other three rulers and become the supreme ruler of the world himself.

His name is Constantine the great. Great what? Great mind that understood people, how they have faith in magic, the mystical, the supernatural. The founder of Christianity as we know it was Constantine by marrying the 'ruler' of the world to the imaginary 'Jesus Lord' filling both offices himself. Whether or not Paul or any of the so-called founders of Christianity ever existed is questionable and completely unnecessary.

This scenario conforms to 'imaginary' numbers expressed as a+bi. The number of people mentally capable of understanding that is an extremely small percentage of world population. a is the world leader and b is Jesus who is (i) imaginary. The two were combined into one by Constantine who was both head of state and head of church. Bottom line, Constaine was a con man and his 'big' con continues.

The bright star in the sky is proof the Bible is a hoax. That opens the mind so it can question the religious authorities that get their authority from the state which recognizes the Bible as the word of God. That is unAmerican and unconstitutional. The time has come to bring the Constantine con to justice. Better late than never.

http://www.hoax-buster.org has the basis in fact for the Bible. It's a hoax folks. That's the best news since the first shot at Bunker Hill. Constantine is it's author but he didn't write it, only copied and edited the work of others who themselves copied and edited the work of others making it difficult but clearly not impossible to understand.

The story that testifies to the "empty" tomb is central to the hope we have in faith for life beyond, not just of spiritual but also of physical dimension. Empty Tomb is at the core of Christianity and its beliefs. There can't be remains of Jesus' body. If there were, it would be a pulling of a capstone which is sure to lead to mass despair. If one insists that it is okay as long as his Spirit rose and sits at the heavenly throne. Jesus may well have left his body behind. But this is not in step with what St. Paul said about our body being transformed into a glorious body. Our spirit will be embodied, and the only question will be, "With what kind of material?" His Empty Tomb suggests that the material forming our current body will be recycled and transformed into some new "glorious" material, which will make up our new body. Well, much of this is of course speculation; my point is, "No Empty Tomb, no hope."

Bob:

Your comment on Borg's piece begins with "So close; but insufficient; skeletal remains 'matter' - they are matter - stuff; resurrection without 'stuff' is cerebral only."

Implicit in your piece is that reality can be divided into two categories that are roughly equivalent to mind (cerebral) and body (stuff), but it seems to me that Borg is talking about another dimension of reality, that of spirit.

Shawn

You claim: "The entire theme for this week's question is the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus, I am trying to stick to the point."

To the contrary, it seems to me that much of the discussion is between those who take a literal/physical view of the resurrection, and those who take a more metaphorical/spiritual view.

While you acknowledge the use of metaphor in the Bible, you seem to fall squarely in the literal/physical camp. For example, your conclulsion that "The message of the resurrection has everything to do with what happened to Christ's body." is somehow proven or even exclusively supported by I Corinthians 15:14 (" And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.").

I don't see how your conclusion follows from that piece of scripture. Certainly not to the exclusion of the notion that the risen Christ, in the words of Marcus Borg, is "experiencing him as “Lord,” as a divine reality who is one with God and who invites our allegiance and loyalty."

And thank you...I am enjoying life. We were created to :)

The entire theme for this week's question is the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus, I am trying to stick to the point.

Obviously there are many metaphors in the Scriptures. I believe that this literary device was used by Biblical authors. Jesus said he was a "door" and "vine". Those are metaphors. The literal interpretation of the Scriptures includes understanding symbolism, metaphors, and other such devices.

The Christian faith also has many other components than the physical resurrection of Christ. I think the believers writing on these threads know that, but again, to the original question...

Although the term "he is risen" can be a metaphor, and perhaps today has been used as such for other great leaders, the Bible is clear about the resurrection of Christ being a physical event. Thus I have a hard time with someone trying to spiritualize it beyond what is related to the actual event.

And yes, as someone will point out, the resurrection of Christ included a significant spiritual act of God. Holding to a physical resurrection does not deny that fact.

My support from Paul's writing clearly shows he meant a physical event. And I'm sure his Damascus road experience had something to do with that.

Shawn - please consider that "Christ is risen" can mean more than Jesus started breathing again after three days of being dead.

It can be a metaphor for renewed life, hope, new beginnings, new insights, reborn in the spirit.

Enjoy life - we're lucky to be here.

quote from article - "As I understand Easter, to the extent that Easter can be understood, it is not about something happening to the corpse of Jesus, but about the continuing experience of Jesus among his followers after his death."

All I can say to that is quoted from Paul,

" And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty." I Corinthians 15:14

The message of the resurrection has everything to do with what happened to Christ's body.

So close; but insufficient; skeletal remains 'matter' - they are matter - stuff; resurrection without 'stuff' is cerebral only. While it is true that information rules - it is also true that this wod is 'formation' - form, substance, revealing itself through the creative word by which the world's matter emerged - the Lord rules - matter reflects this glory. Psalm 22 begins with the almost untranslatable dedication to the hart of the dawn - a reality to be known, not merely thought about. God in the flesh.