Thanks for the free publicity David!

We are indeed a bible based church which accepts the authority of God’s word in all that we do and how we live.  You could call us reformed evangelicals if you wanted to characterise us in a broad sense, but we’d rather be seen to be a part of God’s holy church by displaying and living out the new commandment to love one another as God and his Son have loved us and we’re seeking to grow in maturity and christlikeness day by day

Anyone is welcome to join us at the Mt Claremont Community Centre at 107 Montgomery Road Mt Claremont at 9am and 5pm on sundays, so if you know people coming to Perth looking for a place to join in part of the body of Christ, tell them about us. 

It is disappointing to live in an area which has leadership that comes out with statements that are contrary to the teachings of the bible, the creeds and the 39 articles, and even though we are non-denominational and not linked to any specific denomination, we are praying hard for the one true living God to reveal himself to all who live in the west, be they liberal, aethist, agnostic or whatever.

[sorry for the ad mark - couldn’t help myself!]

G’day Peter Biblical history means a lot if you have faith, especially if you are brought up with the bible, but to the majority “history is written by the victors”. Of course I love the Bible and believe that the messages inspired by God should be taken to heart. But to try to use the Bible as a literal Law book and as an intro to Christianity, well that is another matter.

Alan, You have some very good points. I have come to realise recently that many of my ideas have been brought up in the past. Paradigms of Prostestantism.  eg The Unitarians were very influential at times and places but few in numbers and stagant in growth, even after 150 yrs. Like you say. They , like me, took a liberal veiw on many things including the resurrection and the Trinity. Times are changing and I hope that we can all keep open minds.

to try to use the Bible .........  as an intro to Christianity, well that is another matter.

I know of no better introduction myself than going to the original documents. There are 1,000’s of books written on the subject - but only one source. Choose any one of the four gospels - and we see see eyewitness accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ himself. Where else should I be looking ?

In my understanding the church has not historically taught an out-and-out physical resurrection.  It has taught that Jesus rose physically but had trans-physical capacities, existing in 4 dimensions as it were.

The idea that the resurrection was purely spiritual is I suppose a 20th century theology, but by now it is nothing new. 

Peter Carnley, in his book “The Structure of Resurrection Belief” (1987), argues that a spiritual understanding of the resurrection existed among the early christians.  His basis for believing this was the textual evidence of the bible itself.  So for example Paul in 1 Cor 15 describes resurrection, saying: “it was sown a phyiscal body, it was raised a spiritual body” and, further “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven”. (NT Wright I think denies that these words should be taken to support a spirtualistic understanding.)

What’s more, the present pope also appears to believe that the resurrection was spiritual and not physical, as he says in his book “Introduction to Christianity” (1968).  His view is that the resurrection was experienced and known by the first disciples in the Eucharist.  So the Emmaus story becomes the classic resurrection story, in which Jesus is suddenly recognised in the breaking of bread and the reading of scriptures.  Likewise Cardinal Ratzinger (as he was) says that belief in “resurrection of the body” according to the Creed does not mean resurrection of the flesh but belief in the raising of the integral person to life in heaven.

I have extensive quotes from both books if people want them.

As for Thomas touching Jesus’ bloodied side and flesh, it is possible to read this as a symbol of the eucharist, in which Thomas experiences the ‘real presence’ of Christ in the sacrament of christ’s body and blood. Jesus’ appearance here is mysterious because we know that, only a moment before, he suddenly appeared in the locked room, where the disciples are breaking bread.

I think that it is at least possible to understand all of the gospel appearances as apparitions seen in the wake of Jesus’ death, or as symbols of his mysterious presence in the eucharistic meal.  These served to convince the disciples that he was risen in the heavens.

I am not endorsing any one view, but I am saying that these ideas are not exactly novel or eccentric.  They are well-attested, and there should be room for them in the church.

Hi Christopher,

As for Thomas touching Jesus’ bloodied side and flesh, it is possible to read this as a symbol of the eucharist, in which Thomas experiences the ‘real presence’ of Christ in the sacrament of christ’s body and blood. Jesus’ appearance here is mysterious because we know that, only a moment before, he suddenly appeared in the locked room, where the disciples are breaking bread.

I think that it is at least possible to understand all of the gospel appearances as apparitions seen in the wake of Jesus’ death, or as symbols of his mysterious presence in the eucharistic meal.  These served to convince the disciples that he was risen in the heavens.

You appear to be applying an allegorical reading of the text of John 20:24-29, which I would argue is a misreading of the type of literature being used by the author in this passage. Generally, if the Bible is speaking allegorically/metaphorically, the text itself makes clear that allegory etc. is being used (for e.g. Jesus’ words “I am the true vine” in John 15:1). I can’t see any evidence in the text that such an allegorical/metaphorical meaning exists. In addition, you argue that:

Jesus’ appearance here is mysterious because we know that, only a moment before, he suddenly appeared in the locked room, where the disciples are breaking bread.

The text hear makes no mention of what the disciples were doing when they were meeting together. You’ve read something into the text that isn’t there.

The key to this passage can be found in verse 29:

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”.

It’s a story about believing the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus, not some symbolic & or mysterious resurrection via the Lord’s Supper.

I would also argue that a “spiritual only” resurrection argument can only be sustained by selective quoting of the biblical evidence, or twisting the plain meaning of the text. 3 of the 4 gospels make reference to the physical nature of Jesus’ resurrection:

Matthew 28:8

Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshipped him.

Luke 24:36-42

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.”

John 21:13

Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish.

The resurrected Jesus can be hugged, challenges people to poke him, eats and cooks breakfast. Pretty good evidence for me that there was definitely a physical component to the resurrection. Consequently,for me belief in a “spiritual-only” resurrection is unbiblical, and as such there is no room for it in the church.

In my understanding the church has not historically taught an out-and-out physical resurrection.  It has taught that Jesus rose physically but had trans-physical capacities, existing in 4 dimensions as it were.

That’s because the Lord’s resurrection was not a mere resuscitation. His body was transformed as the first fruits of the new heavens and earth (2 Pet 3:13). The Christian Hope is that we will share in that new universe with bodies like his…

[He will] will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body. (Phil 3:21)

Our resurrection body - like his - is purpose built for a physical existence in a new universe.

1 Corinthians 15:50-53 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

If Christ was not raised to this new life, what chance have I?

1 Corinthians 15:20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Personally, I can’t wait! (OK… I can wait for God’s timing.)

Michael

Hi guys,

While I agree that Pope Benedict’s attempts to reduce the Johannine resurrection account to a sacramental allegory are very weak exegesis indeed, I think the arguments Chris is using regarding 1 Corinthians 15 deserve fuller engagement and warrant some emendation of the language we use to express the evangelical position (not the position itself).

In modern parlance we use ‘physical’ to mean something akin to ‘tangible’, which I take it is the sense in which most people on this thread intend it. We also use ‘spiritual’ to mean something like ‘intangible’.

However this uses words in ways quite at odds with the thought categories of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul uses ‘physical’ to refer to something more like ‘of this creation’, and runs ‘physical’ as a dichotomy against ‘spiritual’ - the former referring to this life, the latter referring to post-resurrection life. So he says, as Chris points out, the body is ‘sown’ physical and then, like a seed, dies, and is raised as a ‘spiritual body’. And this transformation from a physical to a spiritual body is necessary, because ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven’ - only the transformed body can.

The key issue to be defended by evangelicals, in the language which Paul uses in 1 Corinthians, is the continuity of Jesus’ pre- and post-resurrection life both being “bodily”. I would contend the gospel accounts show us that the nature of that body was both transcendent of the limitations of this physical realm (so was able to appear in locked rooms etc) but also tangible and able to enjoy and engage with creation (be touched, eat etc.)

Thus while I appreciate what people are trying to say when they defend the ‘physical resurrection’, I think we could run closer to Paul’s thought categories by defending the ‘bodily, tangible, spiritual resurrection’. Of course we need to realise, then, that the biblical idea of the spiritual does not exclude the bodily nature nor tangible property.

Blessings
Matt

Ed - sorry, misattributed Pope Benedict’s exegesis to Dr Carnley.

Hi Matt,

Generally agree with what you say, although part of the issue turns on the degree to which systematic theology should take account of the way in which the meaning of words changes over time.

A major problem with folk like the Dean of Perth is that they never make it entirely explicit exactly what position they are arguing against.  From the tone of the rhetoric it is clearly one they believe to be widely held, even amongst Christians.  However, I know of no thoughtful conservative Christian who would argue for a mere resuscitation or deny that Jesus’ risen body was transformed.  I suspect the 64 denarius question to ask Dr Shepherd would be ‘if we were to discover the bones of Jesus of Nazareth tomorrow in a Middle Eastern tomb, to what extent would your view of the resurrection be challenged or undermined?”

I also think the Dean wants to have a bet each way. OTOH he argues that Paul held a view of the resurrection in which the empty tomb was incidental or perhaps even un-necessary.  He then goes on to suggest that the evangelists had a similar view, which they expressed through symbolic narratives.  However, those narratives emphasise the very features (the empty tomb, the tangibility of Jesus’ body) which he alleges were either inimical or irrelevant to the Pauline view!  I actually think the Dean would have a more consistent argument if he were to say the NT contains mutually incompatible understandings of Jesus’ resurrection and its our responsibility to pick and choose which if any we find most congenial.  I’d strongly disagree of course (not least because I believe he radically misunderstands Paul) , but at least I’d give him credit for following through the logic of his own position.

Mark.

Oh, and Christopher, I’d be interested to know if Pope Benedict would stand by the views he expressed in 1968.  My understanding is that Ratzinger had a brief radical turn in the 60’s, only to become disillusioned and more conservative following the student unrest of ‘68.  A book published in that year may represent a more liberal position from which he has since retreated somewhat

Certainly some Catholic friends of mine had been expecting the pope to be more conservative than what he is, because of his previously held job which gave him the nickname of the rottweiler. Some are wonderfully pleased though, as he is apparently taking his role as bishop of Rome more seriously than most predecessors, and has been getting to know his men in Rome. We will wait to see how he continues, as to how radical or conservative he currently is.

Archbishop Herft’s office have assured me of an answer to my queries by the end of the week. I"ll let you know when they arrive!

I doubt the erstwhile Cardinal Ratzinger is going to be anything other than conservative. I wouldn’t be shocked to see him move to pre Vatican 2 standards.

Hi All,

Sandy Grant has finally received a response from Archbishop Herft. Here’s his comments re what it said:

That link gives me a new email; should it actually link to an article or am I supposed to write in and ask???

Try this (the Sola Panel blog).

Friends,

not sure if anyone is still following this thread. I’ve had an llluminating email exchange with Archbishop Roger over the past few months,which is now available to read here or here.