From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 03 2002 - 14:55:01 EST
I will put some responses in
Michael
> Michael writes
>
> >At the begining of acts jesus says no one know the
> >times or seasons - that is good enough for me - and ought to be good
enough
> >for anyone
>
> Not compelling in the least.
This was a one-line response to a complex question. I recently marked a
degree essay (prob about 3rd year in a BA in bible or theology) on Luke and
the Second Coming. When you look into this you see how simplistic it is to
claim that Jesus was convinced that his return was imminent as argued by
Schweitzer and others 100 years ago. The parallel passages in Matt Mk and
Luke on the destruction of the temple cannot be shoe-horned int some scheme
whether an immediate return or Raptue etc. The details are not clear and it
is best for us to being similarly imprecise recognising that Jesus will
return but who knows when.
Here's my latest thinking.
>
> 1. Jesus is a false prophet.
Is that sufficient grounds to say that? Look at the rest of the Gospels and
ask ; did Jesus live , how and why did he die, did he rise agian etc?
> 2. Christianity benefited from political clout (Constantine).
Well Christianty thrived for 300 years before Constantine c 323AD, also
consider church where harassed (Iron Curtain) or where no political clout -
Africa etc.
> 3. Our religious thought is evolving.
In a sense that is true, but why does that mean we must jettison old ideas
e.g. trinity Jesus as Christ etc.
It is common practice by too many to put up a straw man of orthodox
Christianity - usually some kind of literalist fundamentalism , shoot it to
bits and say Christianity is wrong.
This is what Bish Spong , Schermer, dennett, Dawkins and others do.
> 4. Our knowledge is growing.
So what!
> 5. More and more things that used to be ascribed to God and demons
> are being ascribed to science and physical laws.
We should not pit God agianst science but see that science "explains" what
we couldnt before and that an explanation does not exclude God. A moderate
grasp of the History of science would help here as we consider how science
and God went together from 1550 or so.
This type of statement is historically laughable even though it is widely
held by the chattering classes among agnostics. They need to do some
homework.
> 6. well, that's it for the purposes of this list (glad I joined an
> agnostic list also :-)
Remember some agnostics are as bad scholars etc as yEC.
>
> BTW, you've selected weak evidence over strong. I can't see how that
> will sustain you :-(
Well, it has sustained me for over 34 years now and I dont think I am a
wobbly christian.
>
> Jim Eisele
> Genesis in Question
> http://genesisinquestion.org
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 04 2002 - 21:54:03 EST