From: Jim Eisele (jeisele@starpower.net)
Date: Sun Nov 03 2002 - 12:39:08 EST
Hi Michael,
>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.
I think it is time to use a word that I first saw on the ASA list.
That sounds like a dodge. Let's be specific and get back on point.
Matthew 24:34-35. What, exactly, is this referring to? It seems to
me that you are obscuring a simple false prophecy that exposes Jesus to
be something less than the Son of God.
>The details are not clear
I don't see how they could be clearer. Please elaborate. I respect
your experience. But you're making it very difficult for me to respect
any conclusions that you seem to have reached.
>did Jesus live
I think so. Some people are so fed up with the church that they don't
even believe that.
>how and why did he die,
Don't know. Not surprising at all that a false prophet who was
challenging the authorities developed enemies in high places.
>did he rise agian etc?
No, but I guess that gives people false hope.
>Well Christianty thrived for 300 years before Constantine c 323AD, also
>consider church where harassed (Iron Curtain) or where no political clout -
>Africa etc.
Jesus is an answer to the God question. Christianity emerged from the
pack as the "God winner." I'm not an expert on Constantine. My guess
is that Christianity's success is not merely dependent on convincing
evidence. The weak evidence for other religions aids its cause greatly.
>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.
I wish I had firm numbers here. But church avoiders far outnumber
churchgoers on any given Sunday. There's just not enough truth in
Christianity. That is why alternatives are being chosen.
>> 4. Our knowledge is growing.
>So what!
So, falsehoods, including Christian falsehoods, are being exposed. One
little falsehood, no big deal. False creation account, no Adam and Eve,
false Jesus prophecy, various other difficulties - who needs it!
>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.
God is invisible. Science is tangible. Science has disproved Christian
"truths." It is merely wishful thinking that conflict can be avoided.
>Remember some agnostics are as bad scholars etc as yEC.
I'll take your word for it.
>Well, it has sustained me for over 34 years now and I dont think I am a
>wobbly christian.
No, I don't think that you are. But an unstable foundation for a belief
system is doomed. Maybe you're just holding back on Mt 24 :-)
Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 04 2002 - 21:56:57 EST