Andrew - I think our disagreements come down to what we think the ‘much better ways of reading the texts’ are. I can’t think how I could have made it any clearer, with abundance of reference and argument, step by step, that it is regressive to confine the reference to Hinnom in Jesus’s usage of gehenna to earlier phases of its usage - just as it is regressive to confine other NT terminology to purely OT usage. This is so basic, that if we disagree here, we open up an unbridgeable gap.

Fundamentally, I believe that your approach to New Testament interpretation is deeply flawed - something which I have indicated in previous posts, though in slightly less temperate language.

I know your views on the intermediate state - I was just being provocative by raising it, somewhat out of the context of the subject of the thread. Again, I don’t think your view is sustainable; there is sufficient evidence in OT and NT to suggest that consciousness is maintained after death and before resurrection of the body.

Seriously, I think it is one thing to have discussions on your own website with tinpot debaters like myself, but your ideas are worthy of better debate than this, and should be exposed to the searchlight of serious academic discussion. I am actually quite concerned that you are developing such a major revision of NT interpretation outside of the formative influence of critical interaction with trained theological minds. I have seen no reviews of your first book anywhere - and that is a serious omission, as it is a far profounder postmodern revision of theology than I think anyone has realised - maybe even yourself. This doesn’t make your position right - but it should be given serious attention and thought, teasing out all the issues which are raised, both textually (which are not a few), philosophically and theologically.