michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk wrote:
> A superb post Ted. For which I may be labelled as an unthinking fundi.
>
> Wright is by no means unique in his arguments for the resurrectionand he has
> given us the best contemporary argument fro the bodily resurrection of Jeus
> who left behind an empty tomb. In contrast to some who want a resuscitated
> Jesus or some phantom
Sadly, all the extravagant praise in the world will not disguise the fact that Paul wrote that Jesus became a life-giving spirit and that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and that God gives a new body to what is planted in the ground, which is not the body which is to be.
Nor will it alter any of the plagiarism found in the NT miracle stories and documented in http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm
Despite the Bishop of Durham's work, sceptics will continue to point out what the Bible actually says.
I recommend Richard Carrier's chapter in 'The Empty Tomb', where what Paul actually says is discussed.
Do sceptics need rationalistic presuppositions when they can read the Bible, which claims Peter and Paul saw things in dreams and visions and took them to be real people?
Received on Wed Oct 19 13:03:45 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 19 2005 - 13:03:48 EDT