Premier Christian Radio

3 views
Skip to first unread message

ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk

unread,
Mar 4, 2006, 7:20:38 AM3/4/06
to
I should be debating the resurrection of Jesus on 15/04/2006 on
Unbelievable on Premier Christian Radio.

I shall , naturally, be speaking in favour of the resurrection. I'm all
for people rising from the dead. But I shall also be examining the
evidence, at least as much as can be done on a radio programme.

David Lane

unread,
Mar 4, 2006, 11:32:12 AM3/4/06
to
<ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141474838.0...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Thanks for letting us know - I'll be listening.

David

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Mar 4, 2006, 7:30:10 PM3/4/06
to
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes:

> I should be debating the resurrection of Jesus on 15/04/2006 on
> Unbelievable on Premier Christian Radio.

With whom?

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Mar 4, 2006, 12:49:02 PM3/4/06
to
In message <1141474838.0...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:

Oh well, do let me know if you lack any arguments.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premiere archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Michael J Davis

unread,
Mar 5, 2006, 7:01:10 AM3/5/06
to
In message <87wtf9e...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>, Gareth McCaughan
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes

>ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>> I should be debating the resurrection of Jesus on 15/04/2006 on
>> Unbelievable on Premier Christian Radio.
>
>With whom?
>
Jesus?

Mike

[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Mar 5, 2006, 7:47:15 AM3/5/06
to
Mike Davis wrote:

> In message <87wtf9e...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>, Gareth McCaughan
> <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes
>> ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes:
>>
>>> I should be debating the resurrection of Jesus on 15/04/2006 on
>>> Unbelievable on Premier Christian Radio.
>>
>> With whom?
>>
> Jesus?

Now, *that* would be interesting listening.

ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk

unread,
Mar 5, 2006, 8:54:51 AM3/5/06
to
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes:
>
> > I should be debating the resurrection of Jesus on 15/04/2006 on
> > Unbelievable on Premier Christian Radio.
>
> With whom?

With A.N.Other, or possible the Reverend A.N.Other. I don't think they
have lined uo anybody yet.

Hopefully they don't have anybody who knows Greek....

ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk

unread,
Mar 5, 2006, 8:57:46 AM3/5/06
to
Michael J Davis wrote:
> In message <87wtf9e...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>, Gareth McCaughan
> <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes
> >ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes:
> >
> >> I should be debating the resurrection of Jesus on 15/04/2006 on
> >> Unbelievable on Premier Christian Radio.
> >
> >With whom?

> Jesus?


Well, they might have somebody who claims to be able to channel Jesus,
but that is not quite the same thing.

I have an article about the forthcoming debate at
http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/

Mark Goodge

unread,
Mar 5, 2006, 11:09:32 AM3/5/06
to
On 5 Mar 2006 05:54:51 -0800, ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk put finger to
keyboard and typed:

Because if they do, then that will allow them to see through your
arguments with ease?

Mark
--
Visit: http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - Useful stuff for the web
Listen: http://www.goodge.co.uk/files/dweeb.mp3 - you'll love it!

Andrew McMullon

unread,
Mar 5, 2006, 1:59:15 PM3/5/06
to
In article <m83m029chm546hrn7...@news.markshouse.net>
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On 5 Mar 2006 05:54:51 -0800, ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>>Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>>> ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes:
>>>
>>> > I should be debating the resurrection of Jesus on 15/04/2006 on
>>> > Unbelievable on Premier Christian Radio.
>>>
>>> With whom?
>>
>>With A.N.Other, or possible the Reverend A.N.Other. I don't think they
>>have lined uo anybody yet.
>>
>>Hopefully they don't have anybody who knows Greek....
>
> Because if they do, then that will allow them to see through your
> arguments with ease?

I'd suggest Howard Marshall or Prof James Dunn.


--
and...@mcmullon.plus.com

Michael J Davis

unread,
Mar 5, 2006, 9:56:19 AM3/5/06
to
In message <1141567066....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes

>Michael J Davis wrote:
>> In message <87wtf9e...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>, Gareth McCaughan
>> <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes
>> >ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes:
>> >
>> >> I should be debating the resurrection of Jesus on 15/04/2006 on
>> >> Unbelievable on Premier Christian Radio.
>> >
>> >With whom?
>
>> Jesus?
>
>
>Well, they might have somebody who claims to be able to channel Jesus,
>but that is not quite the same thing.

A *Christian* do you mean?

>I have an article about the forthcoming debate at
>http://stevencarrwork.blogspot.com/

Thanks

ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk

unread,
Mar 5, 2006, 4:58:00 PM3/5/06
to
Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2006 05:54:51 -0800, ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk put finger to
> keyboard and typed:

> >Hopefully they don't have anybody who knows Greek....
>

> Because if they do, then that will allow them to see through your
> arguments with ease?

In much the same way that David Irving would wipe the floor with
somebody who did not know German well enough to debate the Fuehrerbefehl

ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk

unread,
Apr 1, 2006, 2:59:08 AM4/1/06
to

My opponent will be Canon Michael Cole.

I was asked, weeks ago, to provide a summary of the arguments I will be
using, for him to look at.

I have not yet received any summary of what he is likely to say.

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Apr 1, 2006, 12:55:08 PM4/1/06
to
Steven Carr wrote:

>> I should be debating the resurrection of Jesus on 15/04/2006 on
>> Unbelievable on Premier Christian Radio.

...


> My opponent will be Canon Michael Cole.
>
> I was asked, weeks ago, to provide a summary of the arguments I will be
> using, for him to look at.
>
> I have not yet received any summary of what he is likely to say.

That's pretty poor. I take it you've asked them a couple of
times? Perhaps you should get in touch and say that if Michael
Cole isn't willing to abide by a prearranged list of arguments
then you aren't either.

ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk

unread,
Apr 2, 2006, 9:03:48 AM4/2/06
to

There is still a while to go before the debate, so I'm not too worried.
Justin Brierley is a pretty good, fair , moderator.

ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 3:53:09 AM4/8/06
to
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> Steven Carr wrote:
>
> >> I should be debating the resurrection of Jesus on 15/04/2006 on
> >> Unbelievable on Premier Christian Radio.
> ...
> > My opponent will be Canon Michael Cole.
> >
> > I was asked, weeks ago, to provide a summary of the arguments I will be
> > using, for him to look at.
> >
> > I have not yet received any summary of what he is likely to say.

GARETH


> That's pretty poor. I take it you've asked them a couple of
> times? Perhaps you should get in touch and say that if Michael
> Cole isn't willing to abide by a prearranged list of arguments
> then you aren't either.

CARR
As I predicted, I did finally get a summary of what my opponent intends
to say.

Here is the email. As you can see, it is nothing but preaching and
bluster.


And a Grahamk Kendrick song, for which I have difficulty finding a
classification.

Perhaps Graham Kendrick will be resurrected to eternal life, but God
might accidentally forget to raise his guitar with him. Well, he now
has Gene Pitney, and I know who I would prefer to listen to.


--------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Steven

I've had a reply from Canon Michael Cole. I'm afraid its just a few
notes from a thought of the day that is going out at Easter - not
particularly a rebuttal of your arguments - he's looking out another
script with more detail, but we'll have to wait and see for that.

Let's remember that the discussion may well, and indeed should, range
into other areas regarding the resurrection, aside from the argument
you want to pursue - so we'll see where the flow of the programme takes
us.

In the meantime here's what he sent me:


TUESDAY APRIL 5 THE RISEN LORD.

God......brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus. Hebrews 13 v 20.

The Resurrection -'The best attested fact of human history'- That
is the considered opinion of a former expert in legal evidence. Easter
Sunday is 'The day that changed the world''

There are many reasons why Christians believe Jesus is alive today -
the empty tomb, the teaching of the Scriptures, the changed lives of
millions, the fact of the church and the failure to find the dead
bones. In today's reading we are simply told 'God brought Jesus
back from the dead' The God of Creation becomes the God of a New
Creation.

Writing to the Church at Corinth Paul reflects on what would be the
situation if God hadn't brought Jesus back from the dead. There would
be no hope, no forgiveness, no future, no truth in the Scriptures and
no reliable preaching and teaching -in fact there would be no
faith.(See 1 Corinthians 15 v 12-19)

But Jesus is alive today. Wherever we shall be today and what ever our
situation Jesus knows about it and promises to be with us. He is seated
at the Father's right hand in glory, praying for us and keeping open
the way to the Father's throne.

One of Graham Kendrick's hymns about Easter has this verse ; 'At
the right hand of the Father, now seated on high, You have begun Your
eternal reign of justice and joy. Glory, Glory, Glory, Glory' Let's
make the chorus today's prayer -

The Prayer ;Lord, You're alive, You're alive, You have risen! And
the power and the glory is given, Alleluia! Jesus to You. Amen.

Tony Gillam

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 4:36:27 AM4/8/06
to
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:

>
> Perhaps Graham Kendrick will be resurrected to eternal life, but God
> might accidentally forget to raise his guitar with him. Well, he now
> has Gene Pitney, and I know who I would prefer to listen to.
>

Digressing slightly, I hear that the funeral arrangements are delayed
because it will take a week to make an oak coffin but only 24 hours from
balsa.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria

Mark Goodge

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 4:40:02 AM4/8/06
to
On 8 Apr 2006 00:53:09 -0700, ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>


>Perhaps Graham Kendrick will be resurrected to eternal life, but God
>might accidentally forget to raise his guitar with him. Well, he now
>has Gene Pitney, and I know who I would prefer to listen to.

Apparently, it will take up to three weeks to make a coffin for Gene
Pitney from oak, but only 24 hours from balsa.

Mark
--
Visit: http://www.MineOfUseless.info - everything you never needed to know!

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 12:16:09 PM4/8/06
to
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes:

> Perhaps Graham Kendrick will be resurrected to eternal life, but God
> might accidentally forget to raise his guitar with him.

You are beginning to catch sight of the grace and mercy
of God. :-)

(Actually, the song from which he quotes is one of Kendrick's
better ones.)

> I've had a reply from Canon Michael Cole. I'm afraid its just a few
> notes from a thought of the day that is going out at Easter - not
> particularly a rebuttal of your arguments - he's looking out another
> script with more detail, but we'll have to wait and see for that.
>
> Let's remember that the discussion may well, and indeed should, range
> into other areas regarding the resurrection, aside from the argument
> you want to pursue - so we'll see where the flow of the programme takes
> us.

Sounds like they, at least, aren't going to try to hold you
to your proposed line(s) of argument.

> TUESDAY APRIL 5 THE RISEN LORD.
>
> God......brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus. Hebrews 13 v 20.

[etc]

Hmm, well, not much debate fodder there. He's assuming the
Resurrection, not defending it. Which is fair enough for a
"thought for the day", but pretty pointless for a debate.

Richard Emblem

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 12:51:08 PM4/8/06
to
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:40:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On 8 Apr 2006 00:53:09 -0700, ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>
>>
>>Perhaps Graham Kendrick will be resurrected to eternal life, but God
>>might accidentally forget to raise his guitar with him. Well, he now
>>has Gene Pitney, and I know who I would prefer to listen to.
>
>Apparently, it will take up to three weeks to make a coffin for Gene
>Pitney from oak, but only 24 hours from balsa.

Sorry Mark, Tony Gillam wins by just 4 minutes!
--

Richard Emblem
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" Benjamin Franklin.

Richard Emblem

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 12:56:35 PM4/8/06
to
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:40:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On 8 Apr 2006 00:53:09 -0700, ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>
>>
>>Perhaps Graham Kendrick will be resurrected to eternal life, but God
>>might accidentally forget to raise his guitar with him. Well, he now
>>has Gene Pitney, and I know who I would prefer to listen to.
>
>Apparently, it will take up to three weeks to make a coffin for Gene
>Pitney from oak, but only 24 hours from balsa.

Tony wins by 4 minutes! ;-)

Robert Marshall

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 5:42:43 PM4/8/06
to
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006, Richard Emblem wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:40:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 8 Apr 2006 00:53:09 -0700, ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk put finger
>>to keyboard and typed:
>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps Graham Kendrick will be resurrected to eternal life, but
>>>God might accidentally forget to raise his guitar with him. Well,
>>>he now has Gene Pitney, and I know who I would prefer to listen to.
>>
>>Apparently, it will take up to three weeks to make a coffin for Gene
>>Pitney from oak, but only 24 hours from balsa.
>
> Sorry Mark, Tony Gillam wins by just 4 minutes!

... and by two weeks

Robert
--
Conformity means death for any comunity. A loyal opposition is a
necessity in any community Karol Wojtyla (1969)
Links and things http://rmstar.blogspot.com/

Simon Robinson

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 9:40:26 PM4/8/06
to
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:40:02 +0100, Mark Goodge
>>> Perhaps Graham Kendrick will be resurrected to eternal life, but God
>>> might accidentally forget to raise his guitar with him. Well, he now
>>> has Gene Pitney, and I know who I would prefer to listen to.
>> Apparently, it will take up to three weeks to make a coffin for Gene
>> Pitney from oak, but only 24 hours from balsa.

Richard Emblem wrote:
> Tony wins by 4 minutes! ;-)

Also looks like you lost to yourself by 5 minutes :-)

Simon
http://www.simonrobinson.com

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 2:29:15 PM4/8/06
to
In message <1144482789....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:

> As I predicted, I did finally get a summary of what my opponent intends
> to say.
> Here is the email. As you can see, it is nothing but preaching and
> bluster.

I suspect that you are calling it "debate" and they regard it as
"discussion" - in which case the canon's remarks are as good as any to get
the discussion going.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============

| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk

unread,
Apr 9, 2006, 9:02:18 AM4/9/06
to
Kendall K. Down wrote:
> I suspect that you are calling it "debate" and they regard it as
> "discussion" - in which case the canon's remarks are as good as any to get
> the discussion going.

Not perhaps as good as Paul's.

''Who will rescue me from this body of death?', says Paul, blissfully
unaware that his body is going to be saved.

Paul had seen what had happened to Jesus , saw where his own body was
heading, and thought 'I want out of here.'


Or Paul's 'The last Adam became a life-giving spirit'.

Or 1 Peter's 'All flesh is grass', which apparently means that flesh
will be restored.

All good ways to start a discussion on why the Corinthians converted to
Christianity, while not believing that dead bodies could rise.

This is a bit like finding Mormons from 1850 who denied that the Golden
Plates were genuine. Why would they have become Mormons, and does
finding early Mormons who denied the Book of Mormon was inspired cast
any doubt on the inspriation of the Book of Mormon?

Richard Emblem

unread,
Apr 9, 2006, 12:08:35 PM4/9/06
to

Sorrry, I had server problems and the first message got lost in the
ether and then re-appeared.

ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk

unread,
Apr 15, 2006, 2:34:01 PM4/15/06
to
http://www.knightslayer.dsl.pipex.com/resurrection.mp3 has a recording
of the show.

The Christians were reduced to saying that I was the Antichrist, and
that they had a bit of the True Cross.

Personally, I think Canon Michael got roasted.

I would like to thank the moderator for being so fair and even. It does
him credit.

Paul Dean

unread,
Apr 15, 2006, 3:26:31 PM4/15/06
to
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 20:34:01 +0200, <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote:

30MB? You've got to be joking. Was it a 24 hour debateathon or what

--
Paul
http://www.deancentral.net/

ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk

unread,
Apr 15, 2006, 6:21:08 PM4/15/06
to
Paul Dean wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 20:34:01 +0200, <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > http://www.knightslayer.dsl.pipex.com/resurrection.mp3 has a recording
> > of the show.
>
> 30MB? You've got to be joking. Was it a 24 hour debateathon or what

I have seen 1.5 hour radio programmes come in at 20 meg or more, so it
is not unreasonable.

You have to remember my technical incompetence.

Can't I compress it with zip or Outlook or something?

Perhaps I should just chop out all of what Canon Michael Cole said? :-)
That would make it smaller :-)

Paul Wright

unread,
Apr 15, 2006, 11:24:08 PM4/15/06
to
In article <1145126041.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:
> http://www.knightslayer.dsl.pipex.com/resurrection.mp3 has a recording
> of the show.
>
> The Christians were reduced to saying that I was the Antichrist, and
> that they had a bit of the True Cross.
>
> Personally, I think Canon Michael got roasted.

I don't think he addressed your point, certainly, but I don't think the
format lent itself to that, because they kept breaking up your debate to
let the great unwashed have their say. Alas, almost everyone who phoned
in was unable to understand what the topic was (including the atheist
who unexpectedly started talking about Creationism) and whose arguments
were whose. It's not really a Christian problem, more the fact that most
people aren't very logical, and the ones who can actually be bothered to
phone a radio programme are probably nutters to start with: you get the
equivalent of the True Cross/God's Ways are Not Our Ways/OMG! U R teh
Satan!!!111!! stuff on Any Answers, but from a politcal standpoint.

I can reveal that evangelical Christians (who I imagine comprise
Premier's listenership, given the musical choices[1] and suchlike) are
trained to move the focus away from the argument and onto your personal
response to Jesus, by the way, which was why it happened more than 3
times before I gave up counting. ALTAR CALL HERE, ARGUMENT WEAK, and all
that (there was even one who had the whole "you can do this *tonight*"
always-be-closing patter: amazing). I was glad that Canon Michael was
above that.

> I would like to thank the moderator for being so fair and even. It
> does him credit.

Yes, I liked him. I don't envy his job if the people who phone in are
always like that.

[1] Matt Redman: that brought back some memories.

--
Paul Wright | http://pobox.com/~pw201 | http://blog.noctua.org.uk/
Reply address is valid but discards anything which isn't plain text

Paul Dean

unread,
Apr 16, 2006, 2:35:36 AM4/16/06
to

Encode it at a lower bitrate.

--
Paul
http://www.deancentral.net/

ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk

unread,
Apr 16, 2006, 4:52:44 AM4/16/06
to
Paul Wright wrote:
> In article <1145126041.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > http://www.knightslayer.dsl.pipex.com/resurrection.mp3 has a recording
> > of the show.
> >
> > The Christians were reduced to saying that I was the Antichrist, and
> > that they had a bit of the True Cross.
> >
> > Personally, I think Canon Michael got roasted.
>
> I don't think he addressed your point, certainly, but I don't think the
> format lent itself to that, because they kept breaking up your debate to
> let the great unwashed have their say. Alas, almost everyone who phoned
> in was unable to understand what the topic was (including the atheist
> who unexpectedly started talking about Creationism) and whose arguments
> were whose.

Actually many of the people seemed to have abandoned the idea that
Jesus was physically resurrected into an eternal body.

They seemed to forget that it is all very nice and good to have an
eternal body, but it does mean you only have one pair of ears, and
can't hear millions of prayers all at once.

And having a physical, resurrected eternal body does prevent one from
being omnipresent. How can Jesus hear people when he is literally not
there?

It is one of the inconsistincies of Christianity. A bit like believers
in ghosts who believe ghosts can walk through walls, but not sink
through the floor.

Or Canon Michael who maintained that the body of Jesus before the
resurrection was God made flesh, but a body that houses God cannot be
described as a spriritual body.

> I can reveal that evangelical Christians (who I imagine comprise
> Premier's listenership, given the musical choices[1] and suchlike) are
> trained to move the focus away from the argument and onto your personal
> response to Jesus, by the way, which was why it happened more than 3
> times before I gave up counting. ALTAR CALL HERE, ARGUMENT WEAK, and all
> that (there was even one who had the whole "you can do this *tonight*"
> always-be-closing patter: amazing). I was glad that Canon Michael was
> above that.


I did like the way that the Christians of today who rang in condemned
the earliest Christians in Corinth for denying a resurrection. Why had
the Corinthians become Christians, if they denied the resurrection? (In
reality, they accepted the resurrection but denied that dead bodies
could rise. Before you criticise them, as Kent Hovind's question 'Were
you there?')

Canon Michael never addressed the fact that the earliest Christian
creeds (Romans 1, 1 Cor. 15, Philippians 3) never have a resurrected
Jesus walking the earth.

As far as time allowed, I addressed everything he said, apart from his
inconsistency in claiming that the disciples could not possibly have
recognised Jesus as God from his behaviour and teaching (only from the
resurrection), while Canon Michael used C.S. Lewis, who claimed that
the behaviour and teaching of Jesus meant he was mad, bad or God.

There were many more things he didn't address, and anybody who has
studied as he has and comes up with the 24,000 manuscripts argument is
simply someone who will say anything. Happily, in this information age,
Christians can no longer hide the truth.

Far from being on any Index., Bart Ehrman's books are on the NY Times
bestseller list.

The Christians were incredibly disturbed by the plain English of what
Paul says.

Paul says in Romans 7 that he wants to be rescued from his body of
death. He clearly does not think his body will be saved. He had seen
what happened to Jesus body, saw where his body was heading, and said
'I want out of there.'

And 1 Cor. 5:5 has Paul say very plainly that the flesh and the spirit
will suffer different fates.

But the Gospels say the flesh and the spirit will be saved together ,as
did the later Christians who took 1 Corinthians 15 and forged a new
letter (3 Corinthians) making Paul say all the things that the real
Paul never said.

We just have to look at modern Christians to see that the Gospels are
false.

The audience who rang in had more faith than the disciples who doubted
even after the resurrection (Matthew 28:17).

And, just before the show started, there was an advert for a talk on
how to interpret dreams.

If modern Christians think that what happens in dreams is somehow real,
then perhaps a Christian of 2,000 years ago might think Jesus would
'appear' to him in a dream.

Just talking to Christians , seeing their faith, makes you realise that
it is not true.

And the more faith modern Christians have, the more the Corinthians
would have belived Jesus walked the earth after being resurrected, and
the more obvious it is that he didn't.

Phil Saunders

unread,
Apr 16, 2006, 6:04:27 AM4/16/06
to
<ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1145177564.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Paul Wright wrote:
>> In article <1145126041.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> > http://www.knightslayer.dsl.pipex.com/resurrection.mp3 has a recording
>> > of the show.
>> >
>> > The Christians were reduced to saying that I was the Antichrist, and
>> > that they had a bit of the True Cross.
>> >
>> > Personally, I think Canon Michael got roasted.
>>
>> I don't think he addressed your point, certainly, but I don't think the
>> format lent itself to that, because they kept breaking up your debate to
>> let the great unwashed have their say. Alas, almost everyone who phoned
>> in was unable to understand what the topic was (including the atheist
>> who unexpectedly started talking about Creationism) and whose arguments
>> were whose.
>
> Actually many of the people seemed to have abandoned the idea that
> Jesus was physically resurrected into an eternal body.

Sadly many have, I havent though.

> They seemed to forget that it is all very nice and good to have an
> eternal body, but it does mean you only have one pair of ears, and
> can't hear millions of prayers all at once.

Indeed and Jesus, the man, has only got one pair of ears. Of course if He
were limited like you or i then His ears would be all He could hear with.
Isnt time the reason you can only listen to one thing erm at a time?

> And having a physical, resurrected eternal body does prevent one from
> being omnipresent. How can Jesus hear people when he is literally not
> there?

Jesus isnt omnipresent.

> It is one of the inconsistincies of Christianity. A bit like believers
> in ghosts who believe ghosts can walk through walls, but not sink
> through the floor.

I think you have misunderstood. Jesus does need to be everywhere to be all
knowing.

> Or Canon Michael who maintained that the body of Jesus before the
> resurrection was God made flesh, but a body that houses God cannot be
> described as a spriritual body.

Indeed it wasnt a spiritual body, anymore than ours are.

snipped your very weak argument about the state of Jesus' resurrected body.

Phil

Simon Robinson

unread,
Apr 16, 2006, 3:55:06 PM4/16/06
to
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:
> It is one of the inconsistincies of Christianity. A bit like believers
> in ghosts who believe ghosts can walk through walls, but not sink
> through the floor.

No, the ghosts float above the floor as they move. They can sink through
the floor if they choose, but generally they choose not to. No
inconsistency there :-)

Simon
http://www.simonrobinson.com

Michael J Davis

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 7:02:24 AM4/17/06
to
In message <1145126041.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes

Thank you for that, I enjoyed it.

>The Christians were reduced to saying that I was the Antichrist, and
>that they had a bit of the True Cross.

Hardly. The main argument was that your points weren't really relevant
to whether Jesus had risen or not. Talking about the difference between
Paul's description and Jesus' words was a bit over the heads of those on
the programme, I think.

No one said *you* were the antichrist, only that some of those arguing
against the resurrection were doing the job of the antichrist, IIUC.

The 'true cross' interjection was new to me, too.

>Personally, I think Canon Michael got roasted.

I didn't. But I was glad of the good spirit in which you both operated.


>
>I would like to thank the moderator for being so fair and even. It does
>him credit.

I thought so too.

Anyway, nice to hear your voice.

ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 10:11:12 AM4/17/06
to
Michael J Davis wrote:

<skip>

> Hardly. The main argument was that your points weren't really relevant
> to whether Jesus had risen or not. Talking about the difference between
> Paul's description and Jesus' words was a bit over the heads of those on
> the programme, I think.

And, of course, they are.

The earliest Christians did not believe in the bodily resurrection. Not
of Jesus, and not of themselves. It is not in any of their creeds.

Paul is clear that the present body and the spirit will have different
fates. One will be destroyed and the other will be saved.

So there goes the Christianity of the Gospels. Anonymous documents,
describing people who could not have behaved they way they are
depicted, and contradicting what the people who were there claimed had
happened.

Paul Dean

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 10:53:21 AM4/17/06
to
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:11:12 +0200, <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> So there goes the Christianity of the Gospels. Anonymous documents,
> describing people who could not have behaved they way they are
> depicted, and contradicting what the people who were there claimed had
> happened.

You must be too clever for me - I can't see what you're getting at. What
in the gospels are you referring to?

--
Paul
http://www.deancentral.net/

Michael J Davis

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 1:07:09 PM4/17/06
to
In message <1145283072.5...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes

>Michael J Davis wrote:
>
><skip>
>
>> Hardly. The main argument was that your points weren't really relevant
>> to whether Jesus had risen or not. Talking about the difference between
>> Paul's description and Jesus' words was a bit over the heads of those on
>> the programme, I think.
>
>And, of course, they are.
>
>The earliest Christians did not believe in the bodily resurrection. Not
>of Jesus, and not of themselves. It is not in any of their creeds.

eh? which creeds are those?

The whole emphasis of the gospels - post resurrection - is the physical
nature of Jesus, touching, eating etc, *but* with a difference - passing
through closed doors etc. Going to Galilee 'before them'.

The point Paul is making is 'if Jesus is not risen, we are wasting our
time' - why should he make that point if he doesn't believe in physical
resurrection? Why should he (expecting it any day) talk about 'meeting
them in the air'?

>Paul is clear that the present body and the spirit will have different
>fates. One will be destroyed and the other will be saved.

Paul is talking about our sinful nature 'sarx' and our heavenly nature;
not about physical and spiritual separation.

>So there goes the Christianity of the Gospels. Anonymous documents,
>describing people who could not have behaved they way they are
>depicted, and contradicting what the people who were there claimed had
>happened.

IYO, of course. (I like the way you work the word 'anonymous' in there,
as though it makes any difference to your argument. Just like
Shakespeare wasn't written by William Shakespeare, but by someone else
using the same name!)

Phil Saunders

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 3:22:08 PM4/17/06
to
<ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1145283072.5...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

> Michael J Davis wrote:
>
> <skip>
>
>> Hardly. The main argument was that your points weren't really relevant
>> to whether Jesus had risen or not. Talking about the difference between
>> Paul's description and Jesus' words was a bit over the heads of those on
>> the programme, I think.
>
> And, of course, they are.
>
> The earliest Christians did not believe in the bodily resurrection. Not
> of Jesus, and not of themselves. It is not in any of their creeds.

What silly nonsense. There are many things that are not in the creeds but
that doesnt indicate that they were not believed.


> Paul is clear that the present body and the spirit will have different
> fates. One will be destroyed and the other will be saved.

The clairty for that claim exists only in your mind.

> So there goes the Christianity of the Gospels. Anonymous documents,
> describing people who could not have behaved they way they are
> depicted, and contradicting what the people who were there claimed had
> happened.

Thankfully not all athiest use such weak and childish arguments otherwise we
would think they were all asses.

Phil

Philip Gardner

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 4:59:33 PM4/17/06
to
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Michael J Davis wrote:
>
> <skip>
>
>> Hardly. The main argument was that your points weren't
>> really relevant to whether Jesus had risen or not. Talking
>> about the difference between Paul's description and Jesus'
>> words was a bit over the heads of those on the programme, I
>> think.
>
> And, of course, they are.
>
> The earliest Christians did not believe in the bodily
> resurrection. Not of Jesus, and not of themselves. It is not
> in any of their creeds.

It is generally thought that 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5 is an extract from
an early Christian creed. Certainly Paul presents it as what he had
received. And although that simply says that Christ was raised from
the dead, without specifying *bodily* resurrection, it is clear from
verses 35ff that Paul does believe in a bodily resurrection; and it is
equally clear that he is not presenting some new idea to the
Corinthians, but explaining why it would be nonsensical to believe in
a kind of Christianity without resurrection. (Note, by the way, that
it was only some of the Corinthians who were saying there is no
resurrection of the dead.)

So on what basis do you say that the earliest Christians did not
believe in the bodily resurrection?

> Paul is clear that the present body and the spirit will have
> different fates. One will be destroyed and the other will be
> saved.

The present body dies, and is raised as a different kind of body; in 1
Cor. 15 Paul uses the analogy of a seed and the plant that grows from
it. But you know that. Does Paul say anywhere that the body will not
be raised from the dead, or that salvation is purely spiritual? No.

> So there goes the Christianity of the Gospels. Anonymous
> documents,

It is true that we know little about the authors, apart from what can
be deduced from the Gospels themselves, but so what?

> describing people who could not have behaved they
> way they are depicted

So you claim; I am not convinced. The lack of faith/understanding of
the disciples is not at all surprising, given the radical nature of
Jesus's message and the way in which it challenged the generally held
views of the time - particularly about what kind of Messiah was to be
expected.

> and contradicting what the people who
> were there claimed had happened.

What on earth do you mean? Are you suggesting that we have independent
evidence of what Mary Magdalene, Peter, John and so on claimed had
happened? Or who do you mean by "the people who were there"?

Phil

ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 5:16:41 PM4/17/06
to
Michael J Davis wrote:
> In message <1145283072.5...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes

CARR


> >The earliest Christians did not believe in the bodily resurrection. Not
> >of Jesus, and not of themselves. It is not in any of their creeds.

MIKE


> eh? which creeds are those?

CARR
You want me to do your research for you? 1 Cor 15, Romans 1 and
Philippians 3 are generally held to contain the earliest creeds.

and none document a belief in a resurrected Jesus walking the earth.

MIKE


> The whole emphasis of the gospels - post resurrection - is the physical
> nature of Jesus, touching, eating etc, *but* with a difference - passing
> through closed doors etc. Going to Galilee 'before them'.


CARR
Mike proves my point for me,. Time and time again, modern Christians
show themselves to be living proof that the Gospels are false.


If Paul thought the Corinthians were idiots for denying a bodily
resurrection, and knew the Gospel stories, he (being almost as clever
as Mike) may well have hit upon Mike's brilliant idea to use the Gospel
stories to show the Corinthians just what they had miseed.

MIKE


> The point Paul is making is 'if Jesus is not risen, we are wasting our
> time' - why should he make that point if he doesn't believe in physical
> resurrection? Why should he (expecting it any day) talk about 'meeting
> them in the air'?


CARR
And none of that passage Mike quotes has anything to say about a flesh
and bones body walking the earth.

Paul says 'Look. Jesus was resurrected. You say dead bodies won't rise.
Idiots! You just don't get it do you? What goes in the ground is dead.
It is just a marker, and God will give it a new body, made of heavenly
material.'


CARR


> >Paul is clear that the present body and the spirit will have different
> >fates. One will be destroyed and the other will be saved.


MIKE


> Paul is talking about our sinful nature 'sarx' and our heavenly nature;
> not about physical and spiritual separation.

So 'sarx' stops meaning 'body' , does it? Paul never uses the word
'body' when you say he is talking about a body, and when he uses the
word body, you deny that he means body. Paul means whatever you want it
to mean in the looking-glass world of Mike.

'The last Adam became a life-giving spirit' wrote Paul, happily unaware
of how people would refuse to accept what he wrote.

<skip>

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 4:08:41 PM4/17/06
to
In message <op.s728l...@paul.mshome.net>
"Paul Dean" <paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:

> Encode it at a lower bitrate.

It is, after all, merely speech, so a lower bitrate would be quite acceptable.

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 8:11:48 PM4/17/06
to
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes:

>>> http://www.knightslayer.dsl.pipex.com/resurrection.mp3 has a recording
>>> of the show.
>>
>> 30MB? You've got to be joking. Was it a 24 hour debateathon or what
>
> I have seen 1.5 hour radio programmes come in at 20 meg or more, so it
> is not unreasonable.
>
> You have to remember my technical incompetence.
>
> Can't I compress it with zip or Outlook or something?
>
> Perhaps I should just chop out all of what Canon Michael Cole said? :-)
> That would make it smaller :-)

You could chop out the commercial breaks and musical interludes.

Random discovery made while listening: Rowan Williams at 1.5x
normal speed sounds rather similar to Richard Dawkins at normal
speed.

Paul Wright (I think it was) mentioned the numerous altar-calls
from the people who phoned in; he said he stopped counting after
the third. I think there were either 5 or 6, depending on how
broadly you define the term. (One more if you count callers after
you and Canon Michael had left.)

I'm not convinced that either side got, er, "roasted", but it's
hard to give anyone a good roasting when you only ever get 30 seconds
at a stretch and keep being interrupted by people who want to talk
about irrelevancies. Only a small fraction of the program really
addressed your main argument, and scarcely any of it addressed his --
which admittedly was partly because he didn't so much state any
arguments as allude vaguely to them.

Steve Hague

unread,
Apr 18, 2006, 6:59:30 AM4/18/06
to
<ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1145126041.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Just listening to it now. 30mb, but took under 4 minutes to download.
Incidentally, this thread didn't show up on my computer at home using
news.individual.net. I'll post something to that effect from home.
Steve Hague

Gordon Hudson

unread,
Apr 18, 2006, 10:32:33 AM4/18/06
to
"Kendall K. Down" <webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote in message
news:a16c25194...@diggingsonline.com...

> In message <op.s728l...@paul.mshome.net>
> "Paul Dean" <paul_nos...@deancentral.net> wrote:
>
>> Encode it at a lower bitrate.
>
> It is, after all, merely speech, so a lower bitrate would be quite
> acceptable.
>

Real audio can do 45 mins in less than 4MB with very acceptable results.

Michael J Davis

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 3:19:36 PM4/19/06
to
In message <1145308601....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes

>Michael J Davis wrote:
>> In message <1145283072.5...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
>> ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes
>
>CARR
>> >The earliest Christians did not believe in the bodily resurrection. Not
>> >of Jesus, and not of themselves. It is not in any of their creeds.
>
>MIKE
>> eh? which creeds are those?
>
>CARR
>You want me to do your research for you? 1 Cor 15, Romans 1 and
>Philippians 3 are generally held to contain the earliest creeds.
>
>and none document a belief in a resurrected Jesus walking the earth.

1. They contain statements of belief certainly,

2. but the central truth does not need emphasis.


>
>MIKE
>> The whole emphasis of the gospels - post resurrection - is the physical
>> nature of Jesus, touching, eating etc, *but* with a difference - passing
>> through closed doors etc. Going to Galilee 'before them'.
>
>CARR
>Mike proves my point for me,. Time and time again, modern Christians
>show themselves to be living proof that the Gospels are false.

Rubbish. The risen Jesus is described as being *both* physical *and* yet
different. If you can't believe that you have to say that they are
false, I can see that.

> If Paul thought the Corinthians were idiots for denying a bodily
>resurrection, and knew the Gospel stories, he (being almost as clever
>as Mike) may well have hit upon Mike's brilliant idea to use the Gospel
>stories to show the Corinthians just what they had miseed.

You need to remember that the Gospels hadn't been written when Paul
wrote to the Corinthians, so a few stories and Paul's teaching may have
been all they had. They were struggling to make sense of what they were
told. Anyway they weren't denying a bodily resurrection, they were
speculating on exactly what it would be like. Paul is saying "don't
waste your time bothering about it!"

>MIKE
>> The point Paul is making is 'if Jesus is not risen, we are wasting our
>> time' - why should he make that point if he doesn't believe in physical
>> resurrection? Why should he (expecting it any day) talk about 'meeting
>> them in the air'?
>
>CARR
>And none of that passage Mike quotes has anything to say about a flesh
>and bones body walking the earth.
>
>Paul says 'Look. Jesus was resurrected. You say dead bodies won't rise.
>Idiots! You just don't get it do you? What goes in the ground is dead.
>It is just a marker, and God will give it a new body, made of heavenly
>material.'

You may read that into it. All I see is that he is saying is that it is
'changed'.

>CARR
>> >Paul is clear that the present body and the spirit will have different
>> >fates. One will be destroyed and the other will be saved.
>
>MIKE
>> Paul is talking about our sinful nature 'sarx' and our heavenly nature;
>> not about physical and spiritual separation.
>
>So 'sarx' stops meaning 'body' , does it? Paul never uses the word
>'body' when you say he is talking about a body, and when he uses the
>word body, you deny that he means body. Paul means whatever you want it
>to mean in the looking-glass world of Mike.

Paul is quite specific about the need for our 'fleshy appetites'

>'The last Adam became a life-giving spirit' wrote Paul, happily unaware
>of how people would refuse to accept what he wrote.

In the next verse he contrasts the 'natural' with the 'heavenly', to
round off the contrast.

Michael J Davis

unread,
May 1, 2006, 7:47:27 AM5/1/06
to
In message <1145177564.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk writes

>Paul Wright wrote:
>> In article <1145126041.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>>ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> > http://www.knightslayer.dsl.pipex.com/resurrection.mp3 has a recording
>> > of the show.
>> >
>> > The Christians were reduced to saying that I was the Antichrist, and
>> > that they had a bit of the True Cross.
>> >
>> > Personally, I think Canon Michael got roasted.
>>
>> I don't think he addressed your point, certainly, but I don't think the
>> format lent itself to that, because they kept breaking up your debate to
>> let the great unwashed have their say. Alas, almost everyone who phoned
>> in was unable to understand what the topic was (including the atheist
>> who unexpectedly started talking about Creationism) and whose arguments
>> were whose.
>
>Actually many of the people seemed to have abandoned the idea that
>Jesus was physically resurrected into an eternal body.

"The people"? do you mean those who phoned in? I didn't hear that.

>They seemed to forget that it is all very nice and good to have an
>eternal body, but it does mean you only have one pair of ears, and
>can't hear millions of prayers all at once.

I think you just haven't understood the most general Christian
understanding of Jesus resurrection.

>And having a physical, resurrected eternal body does prevent one from
>being omnipresent. How can Jesus hear people when he is literally not
>there?

Oh, why, if Jesus is also the second person of the Trinity?

>It is one of the inconsistincies of Christianity. A bit like believers
>in ghosts who believe ghosts can walk through walls, but not sink
>through the floor.

It may be a mystery and seem inconsistent, that I accept. But your
simile is silly.

>Or Canon Michael who maintained that the body of Jesus before the
>resurrection was God made flesh, but a body that houses God cannot be
>described as a spriritual body.

'Houses God' that is not part of Christian belief.

>> I can reveal that evangelical Christians (who I imagine comprise
>> Premier's listenership, given the musical choices[1] and suchlike) are
>> trained to move the focus away from the argument and onto your personal
>> response to Jesus, by the way, which was why it happened more than 3
>> times before I gave up counting. ALTAR CALL HERE, ARGUMENT WEAK, and all
>> that (there was even one who had the whole "you can do this *tonight*"
>> always-be-closing patter: amazing). I was glad that Canon Michael was
>> above that.
>
>I did like the way that the Christians of today who rang in condemned
>the earliest Christians in Corinth for denying a resurrection. Why had
>the Corinthians become Christians, if they denied the resurrection? (In
>reality, they accepted the resurrection but denied that dead bodies
>could rise. Before you criticise them, as Kent Hovind's question 'Were
>you there?')

The problem was that - as you know - the Corinthians had no 'Gospels'
available to them. They were trying to understand what they had been
taught by Paul and co.

>Canon Michael never addressed the fact that the earliest Christian
>creeds (Romans 1, 1 Cor. 15, Philippians 3) never have a resurrected
>Jesus walking the earth.

I think someone else has remarked that these were not 'complete creeds'
however much they may have emphasised some aspects of faith.

>As far as time allowed, I addressed everything he said, apart from his
>inconsistency in claiming that the disciples could not possibly have
>recognised Jesus as God from his behaviour and teaching (only from the
>resurrection), while Canon Michael used C.S. Lewis, who claimed that
>the behaviour and teaching of Jesus meant he was mad, bad or God.
>
>There were many more things he didn't address, and anybody who has
>studied as he has and comes up with the 24,000 manuscripts argument is
>simply someone who will say anything. Happily, in this information age,
>Christians can no longer hide the truth.
>
>Far from being on any Index., Bart Ehrman's books are on the NY Times
>bestseller list.
>
>The Christians were incredibly disturbed by the plain English of what
>Paul says.

Which Christians?

>Paul says in Romans 7 that he wants to be rescued from his body of
>death. He clearly does not think his body will be saved. He had seen
>what happened to Jesus body, saw where his body was heading, and said
>'I want out of there.'
>
>And 1 Cor. 5:5 has Paul say very plainly that the flesh and the spirit
>will suffer different fates.

We dealt with that before.

>
>But the Gospels say the flesh and the spirit will be saved together ,as
>did the later Christians who took 1 Corinthians 15 and forged a new
>letter (3 Corinthians) making Paul say all the things that the real
>Paul never said.
>
>We just have to look at modern Christians to see that the Gospels are
>false.
>
> The audience who rang in had more faith than the disciples who doubted
>even after the resurrection (Matthew 28:17).

Yes. The doubts are expressed so we understand how it isn't blindingly
obvious, and that faith is required!

>And, just before the show started, there was an advert for a talk on
>how to interpret dreams.

(I wasn't wildly happy about that!)

>If modern Christians think that what happens in dreams is somehow real,
>then perhaps a Christian of 2,000 years ago might think Jesus would
>'appear' to him in a dream.

It happens. But that's not for me to affirm nor you to deny.

>Just talking to Christians , seeing their faith, makes you realise that
>it is not true.

Oh?

>And the more faith modern Christians have, the more the Corinthians
>would have belived Jesus walked the earth after being resurrected, and
>the more obvious it is that he didn't.

!

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages