You say:

“One of the central problems I have with philosophical realists’ readings of the Bible is that they try to smuggle out the empirical fact that they are reading and interpreting the Bible. The Bible does not impose itself on you and interpret itself for you—it does not tell you that it is fundamentally a philosophical realist. Rather, you are reading the Bible as if it were a text written from a philosophically realist perspective.”

I am not trying to smuggle out the fact that I am reading and interpreting the Bible. We all interpret what we read. I am not sure why you would even suggest that anyone pretends that they are not interpreting. I have never met any Christian (never) that suggests that the Bible doesn’t need to be interpreted. We are supposed to interpret the Bible through the power of the Holy Spirit.

You and I both interpret…the question is whether on points of disagreement: one of us is right, one of us is wrong, we are both right, we are both wrong, or there is no right or wrong. But we all interpret, including you. The thing is that you think you are just as right as I think I am but the tone of your writing relays a message that it is only the realist who believe they are right.

You wrote:
“I don’t know what Jesus’ “mindset” was and, frankly, I don’t think you do either—on what grounds do you claim to know Jesus’ “mindset”?”

First of all, we both interpret scripture and make decisions about what we think it means…see above. You do it. As you said, you follow in the “way of Jesus” and you couldn’t do that without intellectually determining what that way is. And His way, includes his worldview. So why do your words attack me for doing the very thing you do?

It didn’t take you long to read what I wrote and decide that I was a realist. And you read what I wrote from a non-realists perspective. So we both read from our paradigm…that is no secret. But I acknowledge that you can read from a non-realist paradigm and pick out a realist. Why was it so easy to identify me as a realist? Because I said things that fit my paradigm and belief system. I make dogmatic statements. I assume that history is real, etc. My words jump off the page and scream “realist”.

You use totally different langauge. You don’t make dogmatic statements about whether the resurrection actually happened. You are very careful in your choice of words to make sure that you aren’t being presumptuous with history. It didn’t take me long to recognize that you thought differently than me…I just didn’t understand the way you thought or what the labels were that applied to it.

So if we can both read each others words and draw conclusions on what our philosophical perspectives are, why do you suggest that can’t be done with Bible writers and characters? I just apply the same logic to reading the Bible that you apply to reading my words. I read the words of Paul and I see a realist. I read the words the writers of the Bible attribute to Jesus and I see a realist. Are you suggesting that Jesus wasn’t a realist? Or are you suggesting that it isn’t fair to judge such a thing? You analyze my words and judge me so just apply the same analysis to Jesus words(or Pauls, or Johns, or Lukes, etc.) and make up your own mind.

One of my points is that I keep getting replies to my posts that challenge me and say (or imply) that it is inappropriate to take dogmatic positions on issues…but the writers of the Bible clearly take dogmatic positions. One may challenge whether I have rightly divided the word but I don’t see how one can challenge the fact that the writers were realists. And if the writers and Jesus were realists…it seems like being a realist isn’t so bad.

I can back up my view. I already gave you the example of Jesus. Here is Paul:
1 Corinthians 15:12 through 1 Corinthians 15:20 (NLT)
12But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? 13For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. 14And if Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless. 15And we apostles would all be lying about God, for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave, but that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless, and you are still under condemnation for your sins. 18In that case, all who have died believing in Christ have perished! 19And if we have hope in Christ only for this life, we are the most miserable people in the world.
20But the fact is that Christ has been raised from the dead. He has become the first of a great harvest of those who will be raised to life again.

He is not unclear about his view of history. You may say that he is wrong and that he can’t possibly be so certain becuase there is nothing real beneath the layers of interpretation but I am not trying to determine whether he is right or wrong…I am trying to show that he thinks he is right. Paul thinks he is 100% right about the hisorical event of the resurrection. He is a realist.

Please understand that I am not attacking your sincerity or your faith. I am merely pointing out that, as to this one issue, my worldview and philosophical outlook is consistent with the writers of the Bible and with Jesus. It can’t be a wrong way to look at the world in a way that is consistent with Jesus

I have shown you texts that prove my point and that I believe you will agree show a realist perspective from Christ and form Paul. If you can show me passages that indicate I am wrong and that Jesus or any of the NT writers seemed to be non-realists, I would be interested in seeing them. But please don’t take a process of intellectual discovery and trash it by attacking me instead of pursuing the topic.