Re: Historical evidence for Jesus

From: Jan de Koning (
Date: Mon Dec 16 2002 - 21:53:35 EST

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Evolution wars"

    Re the posting copied below. I have tried several times to point to the
    different ways of thinking in different times. I have not had a single
    valid answer to those remarks. I repeat, you cannot read a document
    produced 2000 to 4000 years ago using a 20th century way of raeding
    scientific documents. It does not do justice to the documents, nor is it
    valid scientific way of doing scientific work.

    It is my prayer, that all who have trouble with that statement, will not
    only try to understand the statement, but also agree that I do not want to
    force them to agree to "my" way of reading the Bible, but also that they
    should not try to force others to read the bible in their way, which I
    think is un-historical, and un-scientific.

    I do not want to get involved in this debate again, until i read an
    explanation, why people 4000 years ago should like I do. God spoke to them
    in their language, not mine. It makes reading the Bible faithfully more
    difficult, but it does make it more beneficial as well.

    Jan de Koning

    At 07:13 AM 16/12/2002 -0500, Walter Hicks wrote:

    >I have stopped subscribing to ASA but will respond since this was mailed
    >directly to me.
    >I think that Jim's point that his exiting Christianity "was not a choice" is
    >well taken. Such changes seldom are, but rather come about due to a series of
    >input data that conflicts with original beliefs. As Sondra Brasile
    >said, much of
    >the credit can be given to the posts on ASA list, which portray the bible
    >as an
    >almost worthless document insofar as scientific or historical accuracy is
    >Jim is still in the "I want to debate" mode while Burgy is pointing out
    >that it
    >is going to take more than a casual influx of email to illuminate a
    >path back to
    >Jim Eisele wrote:
    > > Hi John,
    > >
    > > It's nice of you to write :-)
    > >
    > > >Wally wrote (about a month ago): "The proper response is manly atheism.
    > > >Seize the bull by the horns and live life without the God that does not
    > > >exist anyhow. ... IMO that leads one to eventually think the problem
    > > through
    > > >completely and tends to result in the path followed by C. S. Lewis: From
    > > >atheism to theism to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ."
    > >
    > > >A recent book, THE MOST RELUCTANT CONVERT, by David Downing is a great
    > > >description of the process C. S. Lewis went through. The Dec 2002
    > issue of
    > > >PERSPECTIVES has my review on it -- an earlier version of my review,
    > along
    > > >with ties to the thoughts of Blaise Pascal, was published two months
    > ago on
    > > >Metanexus.
    > >
    > > >Jim -- I really recommend this particular book very highly. What C. S.
    > > Lewis
    > > >went through, I also encountered, and it may be what you are beginning to
    > > >encounter also. Even if not, it is fascinating reading.
    > >
    > > I hope the ASA continues to press the weakness of creationism (which I,
    > > personally, just about equate with YEC). I do think this cancer in our
    > > culture is best opposed by Christians (that gives Christians an escape
    > > path like I had in Creation and Time, by Hugh Ross).
    > >
    > > But, obviously I am not the first person to stumble across intellectual
    > > challenges to Christianity. I would like to mention one thing. My
    > > exiting Christianity WAS NOT A CHOICE. It was sort of like coming to a
    > > red light at an intersection. As nice as is would be if the darn thing
    > > were green, reality is reality. Unfortunately, your post doesn't leave
    > > much to comment on, as it is merely a referral.
    > >
    > > Jim
    > >
    > > _________________________________________________________________
    > > Protect your PC - get VirusScan Online
    > >
    >Walt Hicks <>
    >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 : Wed Dec 18 2002 - 11:30:01 EST