Re: Historical evidence for Jesus

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 08 2002 - 10:41:35 EST

  • Next message: bivalve: "Re: Critique of ID & No Free Lunch"

    Not worried about myself . I dont the NT teaches an imminent return of
    Christ in the 1st century.

    What worries me is the damage caused by fundamentalist/dispensational
    teaching which forces an interpretation (and a dodgy one ) onto the NT. To
    Christians who start to question this can result in a domino effect on their
    faith and perhpas it is happening to Jim.

    It is the same as insisting on a literal 6 day view of Genesis. When it
    crumbles faith goes

    Michael

      Subject: Re: Historical evidence for Jesus

    > Hi Michael,
    >
    > What is that "worries" you? Are you concerned about Jim's recent mindset
    change
    > -- or do think he has raised a serious issue in your mind?
    >
    > Walt
    >
    >
    > Michael Roberts wrote:
    >
    > > > One major problem with Christianity is that Jesus' return is 2000
    years
    > > > overdue (Mt 24:29-35, Mk 13:24-31, Luke 21:5-36, Rev 1:1-3).
    > >
    > > Jim wrote this and I am a bit worried. These passages due talk of an
    > > imminent return of Christ but dont say when .Further the exact meaning
    of
    > > these passages is not clear and Christians have always been divided. Too
    > > many scholars Liberal, Conservative or Dispensationalist try to force
    their
    > > opinion on to them. 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
    > >
    > > Michael.
    > > >
    > > > It's really all about the truth and trustworthiness. For practical
    > > > purposes, Christianity takes huge hits every time a YEC opens his or
    > > > her mouth. I used to equate Christianity with people who were honest
    > > > truth-seekers. I guess I've grown up.
    > > >
    > > > Jim Eisele
    > > > Genesis in Question
    > > > http://genesisinquestion.org
    > > >
    >
    > --
    > ===================================
    > Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
    >
    > In any consistent theory, there must
    > exist true but not provable statements.
    > (Godel's Theorem)
    >
    > You can only find the truth with logic
    > If you have already found the truth
    > without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
    > ===================================
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 08 2002 - 20:33:10 EST