From googling "Marcus Borg on the resurrection of Jesus" I found:
The Scandal of the Empty Tomb: The Glory of the Resurrection
R. Albert Mohler Jr.
excerpted"I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time brings dead people back to life." That blunt assessment comes from John Dominic Crossan, a leading figure in the Jesus Seminar, and one of the most influential authors on religion in post-Christian America. Thomas Sheehan, another fellow of the Seminar, put it even more directly: "Jesus, regardless of where his corpse ended up, is dead and remains dead."
In 1993 the Jesus Seminar released their version of the New Testament gospels. Using the same color-coded system, the seminar voted that only 18% of the sayings of Jesus recorded in the New Testament are either true or probably true. Put simply, their red letter edition of the gospels shows very little red.
Turning to the central issue of the resurrection of Jesus, the seminar released the following conclusions:
* The resurrection of Jesus did not involve the resuscitation of a corpse.
* Belief in Jesus' resurrection did not depend on what happened to his body.
* The body of Jesus decayed as do other corpses.
* The resurrection was not an event that happened on the first Easter Sunday; it was not an event that could have been recorded by a video camera.
* It is not necessary to believe in the historical veracity of the resurrection narratives.
Marcus Borg, another fellow of the Jesus Seminar, denies that the empty tomb is necessary to the Christian faith. "I think the resurrection of Jesus really happened, but I have no idea if it involves anything happening to his corpse, and, therefore, I have no idea whether it involves an empty tomb.... So I would have no problem whatsoever with archaeologists finding the corpse of Jesus. For me that would not be a discrediting of the Christian faith or the Christian tradition."
The empty tomb does not matter? The Apostle Paul saw the case quite differently. Speaking for the modern secular naturalistic worldview, the Jesus Seminar may dismiss the resurrection as myth, claiming that, as all right-thinking moderns know, dead persons simply do not rise from the dead. Paul, who evidently would not qualify for membership on the Jesus Seminar, leaves no room for negotiation: "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." [I Corinthians 15:13-14]
Paul sets himself—and the true Church—over against Bultmann, the Jesus Seminar, and all who deny or deride the empty tomb. Either the tomb is empty, or our faith is in vain. Paul wants nothing to do with Bultmann's effort to find a spiritual meaning without a historical event, nor with the Jesus Seminar's anti-supernaturalism. Against modern skeptics, Paul cared deeply about whether the tomb was empty.
I had the following saved in my computer for the debate about universalism from a few months ago, but don't recall if I posted it. It's pertinent for what you're asking though, Darin.
Excerpted from this link:
Liberal Christianity
Liberal Christianity, Progressive Christianity or Liberalism is a movement of Christianity that is characterised by these points;
* diversity of opinion
* less emphasis on the literal interpretation of Scripture
* an intimate, personal, and sometimes ambiguous view of God
* wider scope in their views on salvation (including universalist beliefs)
* non-traditional views on heaven and hell
* an emphasis on inclusive fellowship and community
* an embracing of higher criticism of the Bible.
The tenets of Liberal theology
* Liberal theology is individualistic, and as such values personal and subjective religious experience above doctrines, Church authority or the literal word of scripture.
* It claims that a religion is a community of individuals united by common intuitions and experiences, and therefore the value of the Church is in providing a supportive framework in which new conceptions of God can be explored, not in issuing decrees, upholding rigid dogmas or in exercising power over the religious community.
* It maintains that, while God remains immutable, theists relationship with, and understanding of God change through history, and therefore that no religious truths are necessarily fixed, as each person's experience can reveal a novel aspect of God.
Liberal theology and religious language
Liberal theologians view religious language (i.e. descriptions of God, or of religious experience) as inevitably limited. Our language belongs to the world of phenomena, whereas religious experiences exist in the realm of noumena, so no matter how hard we try, our language can never describe God factually, but only in metaphors and analogies, symbols and myths etc.
These myths, analogies etc. are important in forming religious communities and traditions, and can be a useful way of expressing a particular thought or feeling about God, but we cannot hope for them to sum up God's nature (God is non-reducible, non-naturalisable, and essentially ineffable).
One of the original Liberal theologians, Friedrich Schleiermacher argued that theology's place was to describe internal feelings, rather than external truths or facts (italics mine)
The Albert Mohler article talks about Rudolph Bultmann who, along with the much earlier Schleiermacher, agreed with the current Jesus Seminar that "un-scientific" beliefs (as in a real resurrection of Jesus) are not necessary to be a "Christian."
There are, obviously, many liberal Christians today who see Jesus primarily as a great teacher. They emphasize "loving tolerance" and accepting everyone as they are. This includes "not judging" certain types of sinners, such as active homosexuals. For these kinds of "Christians" it is more important to be what they call "Christ-like" in not condemning anyone at all (excepting conservative Christians)...so much for their "loving tolerance" (which ends right ^^^ there ^^^)....
I don't think first century Jews would follow the teachings of a dead rabbi unless he had a successor. This was how teachings got passed along in oral traditions. In both the N.T. and in early church history, the Jewish successor of Jesus was James, the brother of the Lord. The next 32 or so "bishops of the church in Jerusalem" according to Eusebius, were [Jewish] blood-relatives of Jesus. The oral tradition they all passed along was that Jesus rose [physically, literally] from the dead.
What your questions seem to boil down to is: Can someone be a gnostic Christian and still be truly saved? The Jesus Seminar and some other liberals aren't necessarily "gnostic" as they actually state the body of Jesus did
not rise from the dead. There is a realm of mystery in their beliefs as to who or what the Apostles and early Christians saw in the resurrection appearances.
Personally speaking, I would rather have someone asking, "What did the early Christians see? Was it really Jesus?" than have them write it off as a hallucination.
In this sense, your physicist friend might be on the right track if s/he is asking these things. Also, a big attraction to Judaism among Gentiles in Jesus' day was its teachings on morality, which Jesus reiterated and expanded.
Considering Jesus is a good place to begin. Thanks.