The Resurrection Revolution

Thank you Bishop for what you do. Despite all the static, I know your clear teaching on the reality of the Resurrection and the New Creation gets through to those who need to hear it. Thank you so much for your prayers.

"In other words, can the Bishop or any other clergy tell us, in no uncertain terms, that our Lord and Savior looks down with acceptance that the bulk of Christianity equates His resurrection (and they dont even have the 3 days and 3 nights correct)"

Consider,

The three days are Thursday Night (considered Friday according to the Jewish beginning of the next day), Friday Night, & Saturday night (actually, Sunday.) 3 Days/3 Nights. Also known as the Triduum on the liturgical calendar.

If, as the good Bishop says, "Death is the last weapon of the tyrant," then surely, The Big Lie is the FIRST weapon in the tyrant's arsenal.

And so it goes with the Jesus story (virgin birth, death, resurrection, Son of God, eternal life for believers, etc.)and the tyranny of the Christian faith.

What need of the final weapon of Death when the first weapon of The Big Lie has served Xianity so well over the centuries?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary/Clinton

"The stupid, self-centered idea of a personal eternal life, with hell and all the other contraptions, simply is not worth considering anymore in the light of modern thinking, to avoid the word "science" so many superstitious jump on as "just another religion."

Gerry - When you use the word, "eternal life" are you referring to the Christian understanding of a time when this whole world will be made new (where there will be more suffering, abuse, war, illness, and death?)

Or are you referring to a place that is beyond this creation? (Which is a mistaken view that many people have of the Christian faith.)

I can see why you would call the second meaning "stupid" because this is "pie in the sky" pop theology which really isn't rooted at all in historic Christianity.

But if you are meaning the first meaning (eternal life as this world being renewed in the future) I would respond that Christians cling to this central doctrine of the faith because it's the only way to make sense of the biblical story of a God who created this world, called it good, and now longs for it to be redeemed.

The anchors around thd Bishop's neck remain. I have read Henry VIII's history and the history of the historic Jesus. The conclusions are straight forward and no more difficult than adding 2 + 2. My rational thinking is based on having a PhD in the sciences but a high school graduate would be able to make the same correct conclusion.

ALL HAVE BLOOOD ON THEiR HANDS!:
JEWs Should be a-shamed of their Religio(n)!

CHRiSTIAN(s) should be a-shamed of their Religio(n)!

ISLAM(s) should be a-shamed of their Religio(n)!

HiNDU(s) should be a-shamed of their Religio(n)!

BUDDiST(s) should be a-shamed of their Religio(n)!

WiCAANs, PAGANS, SHAMANS, VODDOiSTS et al Too!

And other "PRE-APOCALYPTiC" (splinters) SuperStupidStitious competing Faith, Belief & or Religion SYSTEM(s)!

:j
:o
:z
:e v z.us

It has always intrigued me why the pious are so bent on the illusion of material resurrection of the "flesh", be it Jesus' or their own "flesh". The material, the cells and molecules of our body are constantly replaced; there probably is not a single cell left from our birth when we die. The material of our body always has been and always will be (eternal life?) recycled anyway in the most astonishing metamorphoses.

That forces us to conclude that the essence of a person is not the matter ("flesh") which constitutes his body but the "organizing" principle, aka life, that puts matter together in the most wonderful shapes and functions. Nobody talks about architecture in terms of bricks. You have to have bricks to make architecture manifest, but bricks are no architecture.

The old resurrection myths stem from a time when knowledge about any sort of metabolism was unknown (although the idea was already present, e.g. in Ovid's metamorphoses: "In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas corpora.")

And, of course, this "principle", of which I and everybody else is one more or less brilliant manifestation certainly does not die when the matter which constitutes my particular body disintegrates, to be used for new forms of life.

The stupid, self-centered idea of a personal eternal life, with hell and all the other contraptions, simply is not worth considering anymore in the light of modern thinking, to avoid the word "science" so many superstitious jump on as "just another religion".

Excellent job sir. One additional thing though sir truly Godly works are the result of a salvation already received not a cause of it.

Shell Script Shell Script Shell Script

"Facts need to be "thumped". Once again"

You have no facts. Only strings you copy.
You have no facts. Only strings you copy
You have no facts. Only strings you copy.

You fail the Touring Test.

Stop wasting bandwidth.

Save the electrons!
Save the electrons!
Save the electrons!

D.,W. Van Winkle:

Do not make the mistake of thinking that Shell Script So Limited is sentient. It is a chat 'bot with a string library that it copies to the blogs. There is no sign of intelligence in its behavior. It was probably written to the specification of Dominik Crossan to publicize the Jesus Seminar. Do not trouble yourself further with it.

"I have a debate on the resurrection at http://resurrectiondebate.blogspot.com/
The Christians are getting hammered there"

I checked out that website Steven and I am puzzled by your above assessment.

"The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life),"

Check out "resurrection" in Webster's Dictionary (meaning #2.)

A 1st Century Jew (not to mention the New Testament writers) would not understand why you would make such an equation.

In other words, can the Bishop or any other clergy tell us, in no uncertain terms, that our Lord and Savior looks down with acceptance that the bulk of Christianity equates His resurrection (and they dont even have the 3 days and 3 nights correct) with fertility rites of ancient pagans?

That is not the Jesus Christ I read about in scripture.

I would like the Bishop to comment how the festival surrounding Ishtar, or Astarte...along with bunnies and eggs has anything whatsoever to do with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is nothing scriptural about it. Even the mention of Easter in the NT is widely known by many scholars as a human-interjected mistranslation (or better put, substitution) of the greek word 'pascha' (or Passover).

The book of Hebrews tells us our Lord and Savior is the same yesterday, today and foever. That same Jesus Christ, who previously was the logos before becoming flesh, continuously warns us not to follow the way of the heathen. Easter, as well as other 'Christian' 'holidays' (counterfeits of Holy Days) are nothing but error. Please elaborate on how and where the Nicene council got their 'authority' to change things?

Whatever excuse, Catholic or otherwise....the reality: Rev. 12:9 tells it all.

Dear Mr Wright (are you married?):

You say that the "news" that God can conquer death is BAD NEWS for tyrants.

The "news" that Mickey Mouse loves Minnie Mouse is GOOD NEWS for the wedding industry.

But we wouldn't want to spend to much time in the Reality-Based world of the Pol Pots and Stalins and Husseins, would we now?

Too scary....

"The word 'resurrection' in the first century, whether used by people who believed in it (Christians and some Jews) or by those who didn't (pagans and some other Jews), ALWAYS meant something to do with people being physically, concretely, bodily alive having been physically, concretely, bodily dead."

Ehh... Not so much, not in the way that makes Christians feel their tale is somehow distinguished from similar Pagan figures. ...certainly not in the sense that Christians believe they, too, would be physically-resurrected, or in the sense there's really something theologically-unique about their story.

Wasn't unlike the way in which Christians believe on some level that the death of your Jesus happens every year, in some way, actually... literalistic book-as-authority Christianity added notions of a literal, one time physical formality, where, to all appearances, this simply wasn't a distinction anyone *drew* before the need-to-believe-the-book-is-arbiter- of-physical-reality bit came in.

There just weren't the particular kinds of *divisions* between what a book said and ordinary reality, really. But our modern understandings of ourselves, we say that a myth is a tale that may have never happened, but is always true.

You might, quite fairly, suggest that these views of ancient practices and beliefs are through the lens of our modern understandings, but I think this idea for Christians is really a product of introducing a Hebrew sort of idea of the authority of a book into a place a bit primed with Aristotelian notions of the supremacy of the mind, (Even if Aristotle believed the mind overrides actual evidence and observation)

This is the kind of argument between Christians I just wonder why you're all spooled up about, like the transubstantiation thing... It's like, if your bread doesn't actually turn into long pork, really, what's the diff?

:)

Rip,

The anchors around thd Bishop's neck remain. I have read Henry VIII's history and the history of the historic Jesus. The conclusions are straight forward and no more difficult than adding 2 + 2. Rational thinking is based on having a PhD in the sciences but a high school graduate would be able to make the same correct conclusion.

Concerned Christian Now Liberated

Re: first anchor “he is a bishop/priest in a religion established by a murdering king.”

This strikes me as an ad hominum abusive and lacks epistemic value.

Re: second anchor, “his scholarship pales in the light of Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen (also On Faith panelists) and the other historic Jesus exegetes noted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

What qualifies you to authoritatively evaluate his scholarship relative to that of Crossan, Borg and Frekriksen? You cited a web site that made no such clam (unless I missed it somewhere). This web site summarizes in a helpful way the various viewpoints and books written by these scholars but does not provide relative evaluations as to the merits of their scholarship. Therefore it seems that the evaluative remarks rest upon your own authority. I have clearly identified myself as D.W. Van Winkle. You can Google me at Google scholar. It strikes me as far too easy to make arguments and statements under the cover of anonymity. Please share with us the basis of your authoritative evaluative remarks.

Peace,
Rip

Pseudo, Pseudo, Pseudo,

More thumping for your perusal:

Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty, wingy, talking, flying, fictional, thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits (e.g. The Easter collection) analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Pseudo,

Facts need to be "thumped". Once again,

Bishop Wright although well educated has a few anchors around his neck.

One, he is a bishop/priest in a religion established by a murdering king.

Two, his scholarship pales in the light of Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen (also On Faith panelists) and the other historic Jesus exegetes noted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Anchor One is sufficient to vitiate anything the Bishop has to say related to religion."

I have a debate on the resurrection at http://resurrectiondebate.blogspot.com/

The Christians are getting hammered there

In addition, Wright recently gave a lecture on Can a Scientist Believe in The Resurrection

There was a discussion forum set up at

http://www.jamesgregoryforum.org/viewforum.php?f=4

I quoted Wright, and pointed out where he overstated and distorted the facts.

The organisers could not answer any of my questions, and so deleted almost all of my posts.

That is how Christians treat questions from sceptics. They are deleted and ignored.

Dear Bishop Wright

I wish you a wonderful Easter 2008!

It is vital for Christians to hear the basics of their faith as you have presented them. All too often we are tempted to exchange the basic, simple but miraculous truths on which Christianity is based for sophisticated ideas which seem to satisfy a rational mind, as if satisfying the rational mind is the purpose for which Jesus was born.

Your remark that you pray for those who respond to your essays here On Faith touched me deeply. I am very grateful for your prayers.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Bishop, your education is grossly lacking.

Copied from another thread I doubt you'll read. Once upon a time there was a person who thought she would rise from the dead right here on earth just like her father the sun does every day.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted on March 22, 2008 16:07

Thank God:
What Cal said, "If Jesus was not literally and bodily raised from the dead - as He said He would be and demonstrated in front of witnesses who just days before had abandoned Him in fear of the mob that called for His crucifixion -- then all humanity is without hope" is as dumb as it can get.

People have been on earth millions of years. The human race has been nearly wiped out several times only to climb back to the position of predominant species.

Thank God, have a little faith in God that the survival of humanity, this world and next and on and on does not depend on whether or not one screwball book is correct or what it says can be wiggled around.

People have been burying their dead for a very long time. Here to fore it has been assumed that the dead move on to a new world. It was that way when Jesus supposedly walked the earth. And, most compelling of all is that Jesus subscribed to that theory with a twist for HERself.

Jesus said, Matthew 18:8
Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

That is known as hell of the first kind, the condition of the dead person's body that is duplicated in the next world. Missing part of the body here be missing it there. Missing a critical part of the body, the heart for example and never come back to life there.

There's more to what ancient people conjured about the next world. Objects in the near vicinity of the dead body are also duplicated so bury him with stuff he'll need, sword and shield for example. And they condemn the enemy to everlasting death by removing his living heart, (Aztecs). An eternity of torture was accomplished by inserting an object in the body that delivered a fatal wound while still alive. The object is also duplicated in place thus the fatal wound goes on and on...

The Egyptians used a pole shoved through the condemned person's body, the abdomen of the victim held upright making a cross. Takes about 3 hours to die from that wound. When the condemned comes back to life in the next world the pole come along still inserted in the body so he dies again and again and again...each time taking about 3 hours to die. That was known as "death on the cross" what happened to Bible Jesus.

The person on whom Jesus is based, the would be Pharaoh, Amenophis IV was condemned to "death on the cross" Egyptian style. She was convicted of blasphemy orchestrated by the high priest for claiming to be the son of God, Pharaoh. She wasn't even Pharaoh's biological child. Her mother claimed to have been impregnated by the sun God. The sun was assumed to be a living being and a God too.

The sun was assumed to die every day and come back to life here on earth. People die and come back to life in the next world. It was further assumed that the mother had nothing to do with the inherited characteristics of the child. Therefore Amenophis IV being the biological child of the sun would, upon her death not come back to life in the next world but here on earth like here heavenly father the sun.

Ignorance is a horrible thing. Get educated at http://www.hoax-buster.org No one has ever or should ever come back to life here.

Dying once is enough for this world. And you can forget the forever wound and forever torture as well. They are the work of con men known as witch doctors, (ministers). You get a whole new young and perfectly healthy body in the next world but you bring all your memories along so be more careful about stupidity for it will haunt you in your grave.

Those you hurt, kill, murder for sure will be waiting for you. That's the source of the notion of condemning people to hell. Wanna rob'em gotta kill'em but they'll be waiting for us. No they won't said the high priest, Pharaoh etc.

The truth will set you free to be a decent human being without threats of hell or a bunch of emotional garbage, (love thy enemies BS) originated by a person who thought her father was the sun.

Shell Script Shell Script Shell Script

You continue to concatenate strings not of your own making.

You fail the Touring Test.

Concatenated Shell Script So Limited:

Cut and paste is a waste.
Cut and paste is a waste.
Cut and paste is a waste.

It is useless to ask you if you have ever had an original thought.
It is useless to ask you if you have ever had an original thought.
It is useless to ask you if you have ever had an original thought.

Save the electrons!
Save the electrons!
Save the electrons!

E FAVORITE:

"As CCNL says, Happy Bunny Day."

Out of gas? Cutting and pasting from Concatenated Shell Script So Limited is an exercise in wasted bandwidth. The Shell Script cuts and pastes from popular press fools. So as its copiest, what are you?

CHRIST IS RISEN

He is risen indeed.

Hallelujah!

Thank you, Tom- for your love, for your faith, and for your work in the Church of Christ Jesus.

HAPPY RESURRECTION DAY!

Bishop Wright - I'm astute enough to recognize that you are an excellent writer, Christian apologist and obfuscator.

As CCNL says, Happy Bunny Day.

Rip Van Winkle,

Bishop Wright although well educated has a few anchors around his neck.

One, he is a bishop/priest in a religion established by a murdering king.

Two, his scholarship pales in the light of Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen (also On Faith panelists) and the other historic Jesus exegetes noted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Anchor One is sufficient to vitiate anything the Bishop has to say related to religion.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

I suggest that you read carefuly N.T. Wright's THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD. I believe that he more than adequately addresses your issues.

I am sorry but I don’t find your notes from a large Catholic university's graduate theology class to be very authoritative. My friend, N.T. Wright's book merits careful and thoughtful reading. It is more carefully reasoned than your course notes.

Tom has been my friend and classmate since 1978. He completed his Ph.D. from Oxford while I completed mine from Cambridge. He is no goats toe. Ignore him to your peril.

Many New Testament scholars regard him as working out the first grand synthesis of New Testament scholarship since R. Bultmann.

Of course, I disagree with some of his interpretations of passages form the Hebrew Bible. But his scholarship is excellent. It merits careful reading.

Peace,
Rip

He has risen.

Happy Bunny Day to everyone since Easter did not happen!!

Can you still be a Christian without the Resurrection? There are too many flaws to include the resurrection story in the current Christian orthodoxies. Clean it up and see what is left historically and then redefine Christianity.

Some facts:

From an analyses of the documents by many contemporary NT exegetes:

The Resurrection is fiction i.e. it was added to make Jesus akin to the Caesars and Greek half gods/half men.

(1a) Mark 8:31-33 = Matt 16:2l-23 = Luke 9:22, (1b) Mark 9:9b = Matt 17:9b, (1c) Mark 9:12b = Matt 17:12b, (1d) Mark 9:30-32= Matt 17:22-23 = Luke 9:43b-45, (1e) Luke 17:25, (1f) Mark 10:32-34 = Matt 20:17-19 = Luke 18:31-34, (1g) Matt 26:1-2, (1h) Mark 14:21 = Matt 26:24 = Luke 22:22, (1i) Mark 14:41= Matt 26:45b,(1j) Luke 24:7

Conclusion: Many references but only a single attestation and from the Second stratum (60-80 AD).

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/017_Resurrection_of_Jesus

From the course notes of a large Catholic university's graduate theology class:

"Heaven is a Spirit state (no physical bodies abide there.)

Christ's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."

Amazing how this agrees with Professor Crossan and many other contemporary NT exegetes' conclusions based on attestations and stratums.

Some added tidbits:

According to Reimarus as referenced in R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,

"Reimarus (1774-1779) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55

"Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."