Thank you. Yeah, I'm not a fan of Borg and Crossan. I've listened to some of their talks and interviews, and read some of their material. I read all of Borg's book Convictions. I'm just not persuaded.

They (and presumably you) come at the Bible in a very different way. And you certainly have that prerogative. I believe in freedom of thought and conscience. :-)

But I just am not persuaded that the progressive take on the Bible is objectively more credible than the more traditional understanding. The latter (and I say this genuinely, again not argumentatively) seems to be much more grounded in a honest "original intent" hermeneutic.

For example, there is a lot in the New Testament about eternal life. I don't see how we can just wave that away. There is a lot about judgment. We can't just dismiss that or downplay that.

And when it comes to "Christ crucified," I'm sorry, but I don't see how ANYONE can read I Corinthians 15 (at least by any sort of honest, traditional hermeneutic) and conclude that Paul is saying anything other than Jesus died, was buried, and LITERALLY rose from the dead! And that because of Christ conquering death, we can look forward to life after death. And if we can't -- if Christ's resurrection didn't really, literally, actually happen, then "your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!"

He concludes by saying "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable."

I don't think I'm reading anything INTO Paul's words. I think I'm honestly confronting Paul's words. I'm loooking at what he actually said -- and meant.

At least that's my aim.