Premier Christian Radio
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
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
news:1141474838.0...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for letting us know - I'll be listening.
David
Gareth McCaughan
> 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
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
<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?
>
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
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
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.
Michael J Davis
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
> 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
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
>> 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
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
> 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
>
> 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
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
> 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
<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
<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
> 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
>>> 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 :-)
Kendall K. Down
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
> 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
Sorrry, I had server problems and the first message got lost in the
ether and then re-appeared.
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
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
> 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
--
Paul
http://www.deancentral.net/
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
> 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
> 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
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
> 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
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
> 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 :-)
Michael J Davis
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.