tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post4225952305465535797..comments2024-03-29T22:00:02.999+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Seeing the risen JesusPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3105993901410629832010-04-05T12:09:45.008+12:002010-04-05T12:09:45.008+12:00I think it's for me to choose what I focus on,...I think it's for me to choose what I focus on, Anonymous!<br /><br />The sentence you point out could be attended to as well. My personal aim here is not to critique the whole statement iota and tau; but I am interested in the comments of others ... so thank you for yours.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-50034937597411364292010-04-05T11:53:26.301+12:002010-04-05T11:53:26.301+12:00Unfortunately, there is indeed more in that messag...Unfortunately, there is indeed more in that message that troubles me but I decided to stay with just that point at this time. I am not a theologian nor Bible scholar, but a Christian (and Anglican) who studies diligently but informally under reputable teachers of reformed theology. <br /><br />I particularly like the posts that Peter makes to his blog, and the questions he raises. Also, the comments by Outis are excellent. I am grateful that Peter responds so helpfully to my comments.Judahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02068822541550519981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10067367710198801382010-04-05T11:26:45.323+12:002010-04-05T11:26:45.323+12:00Rather than "could be nuanced better", w...Rather than "could be nuanced better", wouldn't it have been fairer to quote the whole text and precede it with, "This is not written by me. Can you guess by whom? Easter 2010"<br /><br />(http://anglicandownunder.blogspot.com/2010/03/stretching-spiritual-muscles.html)<br /><br />Following your recent posts, I suggest most of your readers would have guessed, Bishop Spong.<br /><br />Judah and Outis have started hitting the nail on the head. I wonder why you didn't point out in the last sentence of the piece, "God raised Christ by divine love and power, in and through the heart-love of the disciples."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78177901042009385542010-04-05T08:31:37.417+12:002010-04-05T08:31:37.417+12:00I think the Archbishops' message could be nuan...I think the Archbishops' message could be nuanced better!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57696403527116281282010-04-05T02:59:24.664+12:002010-04-05T02:59:24.664+12:00Did Saul love Jesus when He appeared to him? It do...Did Saul love Jesus when He appeared to him? It doesn't look that way; more like unmerited grace that converts.<br />OutisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75090222005550209192010-04-04T22:08:26.297+12:002010-04-04T22:08:26.297+12:00Having now read the archbishops' message, I am...Having now read the archbishops' message, I am vaguely troubled by it. While it is true that no-one comes to Jesus unless the Father draws him, to suggest Saul/Paul was anything other than a hostile witness appears to me to be an attempt to water down the impact of his eyewitness account... and why would the archbishops want to do so? <br /><br />Saul loathed and detested Jesus and aggressively persecuted His followers. He had no love for Jesus when he met Him on the road to Damascus, and it was a totally life-shattering experience. He was hostile and saw Him. Seeing Him turned Saul around. So why seemingly discount the power of Saul's witness with their claim "the witnesses that God had already chosen"? Yes, God had already chosen Saul, but Saul did not know that himself at the time.<br /><br />(Sorry about the two posts together, but I am somewhat troubled by that message.)Judahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02068822541550519981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-50362386635512940382010-04-04T21:08:45.432+12:002010-04-04T21:08:45.432+12:00It is interesting that there was no refutation bac...It is interesting that there was no refutation back then that the tomb was indeed empty. How easy it would have been to squash those resurrection claims by producing His dead body. <br /><br />And how could it have been secretly stolen (another theory - again, no refutation of the claim that the tomb was empty) with all the security measures undertaken to prevent that very thing since the resurrection was rumoured? Just imagine silently pushing an approx 2 ton rock up an incline to be able to get into the tomb in the first place! What's more, who had both the motive and ability to do so?Judahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02068822541550519981noreply@blogger.com