Re: Historical evidence for Jesus

From: Jim Eisele (jeisele@starpower.net)
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 18:04:59 EST

  • Next message: Dr. Blake Nelson: "Re: Historical evidence for Jesus"

    Hi Dick,

    Thanks for your thorough response.

    >If the word "shortly" is giving you heartburn, I am not sure I would give
    >up my faith on the basis of a single word. In a 15 billion year old
    >universe, 2000 years isn't a big chunk.

    You do very thorough work and don't "lie" like other Christians.
    But, you start with the belief that the Bible is true and fit the
    evidence to that. Consider the flip side:

    Jesus was supposed to come back. He didn't. Christianity became
    mythology. If you don't start with the assumption that the Bible
    is the inerrant, historical Word of God, which conclusion do you
    reach? You are imposing 19th-20th century knowledge on 1st century
    text. Don't get me wrong. Living forever "sounds kind of cool."
    The saving grace of Christianity is that it is a belief. No matter
    how much I may want to live forever (despite all of the earthly sacrifices
    required for that - it is all starting to seem like such a strange
    belief system) I can't be a Christian if the story doesn't add up.

    >A "generation" may be thought of as 30-33 years. But the Greek
    >ghen-eh-ah' is derived from ghen'-os meaning a tribe or "nation," and may
    >have been the original word changed by a scribal glitch or even the
    >intended meaning of the phrase just as it was written. And the nation of
    >Israel has not passed away.

    God allowed a word with a completely different meaning that completely
    destroys Christ's credibility to become part of the sacred text? Be
    careful that you're not worshipping a demon (not that I believe in
    demons and goblins and spooks).

    >The sun hasn't darkened and the stars are still in heaven, so the Son of
    >man isn't due the way I read it.

    >Again, we haven't seen these "great signs," and we should see these first
    >before the second coming.

    The more logical answer is that it is simply a false prophecy. Jesus
    predicted these things would happen within a generation.

    >True. All were martyred but John as far as we know. So the disciples knew
    >they would physically die before the second coming. And Christ knew they
    >would be martyred.

    They really believed Jesus was coming back. False hope is an ugly thing.
    BTW, my agnostic list is skeptical about the value of evidence of these
    "martyrdoms". I don't see it as a central point. But one need look no
    further than your local YEC leader to see how Christians can acquire a
    warped sense of reality if they think it fill further their cause.
    At one time I thought that this evidence was very convincing - before I
    studied the much better fitting "mythology of Jesus created when he failed
    to return" scenario.

    >>I used to equate Christianity with people who were honest truth-seekers.

    >Some still are, Jim.

    As long as the inerrant historicity of the Bible isn't compromised, at
    least :-)

    >>I guess I've grown up.

    >Perhaps you've just reached an awkward age.

    Catholic to born again YEC to day-ager to agnostic. Yeah, the search for
    the truth can be awkward. You have to admit you're wrong sometimes.
    But, once you admit you are wrong, you gain a tremendous sense of freedom.
    But keep sending those "pro eternal life" arguments my way. It's a great
    idea. Real effective at winning converts :-) Especially with a little
    threat of hell thrown in for good measure :-)

    Jim Eisele
    Genesis in Question
    http://genesisinquestion.org



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 19:55:30 EST