Re: The death of the RTB model

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Feb 16 2006 - 12:03:31 EST

*What if Jesus was only a man and knew he would not be saved, but sacrificed
himself anyway so that we would have an archetype, a role model, a man who
knew the law and had it written on his heart and would die rather than
betray his principles... Would he be any less than the Son of God? *

Well, yes. He would be, as you say, "only a man." The kenosis, the
atonement, the resurretion -- the Gospel -- would have no real meaning at
all. The statement "Jesus is Lord" would be at best vaucous, at worst a
sacriligious lie.

On 2/15/06, RFaussette@aol.com <RFaussette@aol.com> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/15/2006 3:22:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> dickfischer@verizon.net writes:
>
> Assigning Genesis to the whims of allegorical interpretation gets you out
> of the frying pan into the fire. You have Christ, a living person at one
> end of a direct line of descent from a non-living forefather. Where do
> the non-real persons dovetail into flesh and blood human beings? What
> living patriarch had a fictitious father?
>
> Hi Dick,
> I am on other lists with biblical historians and even some biblical
> minimalists to whose arguments I've been exposed. There is reason to believe
> that Genesis was written after the primary history and that it is completely
> allegorical.
> I did not know this when I began re-reading Genesis from a Darwinian
> perspective many years ago. I knew that the Jewish people had survived
> longer than any other people had ever survived because of what was in the
> bible, and so I knew the law of god was adaptive.
> This is explicitly stated in the bible:
>
> You shall observe my institutions and my laws: *the man who keeps them
> shall have life through them.* I am the Lord
>
>
> And people who do not keep them are "spewed out of the land;" a biblical
> euphemism for extinction. That meant all the stories were teaching us
> something about how to survive, and they do. There is a rational underlying
> meaning to Genesis that you can see if you use the keys of basic psychology
> and basic anthropology and it conforms perfectly to the tenets of Darwinian
> selection. In other words, Genesis is essentially rational, once you read it
> from a Darwinian perspective.
>
> I take the Adam and Eve story and the story of Jacob and Esau to explain
> two things: the rational nature of the fall and the redemption because that
> is the core of all religion, and the rational nature of the Jacob and Esau
> story because Darwin pointed out to me what Jacob had done to Laban's
> flocks.
>
> There have been a number of recent papers on the high mean IQs of
> Ashkenazi Jews. The origin of their high mean IQs are in Genesis. I looked
> for it because I knew the kabbalists believed the secret of nature was in
> Genesis and Darwin said selection was in Genesis.
>
> The paper I've been recommending explains these stories from a Darwinian
> perspective. You are welcome to it.
>
> You wrote:
>
> By implication, this calls into question the legitimacy of the death and
> resurrection of Christ himself.
>
>
> By your implication, Dick. I use my mind to apprehend what I can
> understand. I use my faith when my mind fails. Faith was good enough for
> Jesus. It is good enough for me.
>
> Face the worst case scenario, Dick. What if Jesus was only a man and knew
> he would not be saved, but sacrificed himself anyway so that we would have
> an archetype, a role model, a man who knew the law and had it written on his
> heart and would die rather than betray his principles... Would he be any
> less than the Son of God? Not to me. Even in the worst case scenario.
>
> rich faussette
>
Received on Thu Feb 16 12:04:40 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 16 2006 - 12:04:40 EST