Re: The death of the RTB model

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Thu Feb 16 2006 - 14:04:10 EST

These views of Polk probably originate from Charlie Moule, one of the
leading NT scholars in Britain now over 90 who taught him. It is I think in
his Birth of the New Testament.

Somewhere in his books he must talk about his analogy of the resurrection .
We retain our software and get new and better hardware, i.e going from
Windows 3 in a pre-intel 286 sized computer to top of the range today. That
was in a small group of Anglican clergy and he and I were the only ones who
accepted the empty tomb. I cant remember whether Ted's friend with the showy
feathers was there!!!!

This whole discussion bores me as there is so little in Genesis on "early
man" so identification of Adam seems futile. As historical data early
Genesis is so imprecise and stylised that we waste our time with this kind
of thing.

The important thing is that when or wherever the first humans appeared i.e.
Adam and Eve appeared they needed redeeming. As John Greene in History
Humanity and Evolution p37 said,"the account of man's fall from grace in
Genesis despite its historical inaccuracy gives a better and truer picture
of the human condition than Darwin's idea

Michael

PS as everyone takes Gen 1 6-8 metaphorically I can do the same to Gen 2
&3!!!!! ( though I would put it in another way.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <RFaussette@aol.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>; <janmatch@earthlink.net>;
<dickfischer@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: The death of the RTB model

> My instincts are with the historic church on this one; also with the
> gospel
> writers, who were forced to confront the idolatrous fact that Jesus had
> really been God in the flesh; and with Polkinghorne, who puts it like this
> in his newest book (Exploring Reality):
>
> "One of the most significant things about Jesus of Nazareth is that we
> have
> heard of him."
>
> "Yet we have all heard of Jesus. We should not rest content with any
> account of him that does not make this fact intelligible. The story of
> Jesus continued after his death. [His] followers ... proclaimed that God
> had made him 'both Lord (a title particularly associated with the one true
> God of Israel) and Messiah'. They took that faith right across the known
> world and many of them lost their lives rather than deny it when they were
> persecuted. Their confident proclamation has come down through the
> centuries to us today, set out in the writings of the New Testament, and
> it
> is supported by the continuing witness of the Church. From the first, the
> origin of that continuing story has been asserted to lie in the fact that
> God raised Jesus from the dead the third day after his death and burial."
>
> The "Son of God" term in the NT has special significance, applied to Jesus
> in specific ways consistent with the proclamation described above.
> Whether
> or not Jesus fully understood all of his significance at the time (I tend
> to
> think he did), he was in fact the incarnation of God or else the NT is
> incomprehensible.
>
> Ted
>
>
Received on Thu Feb 16 14:14:51 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 16 2006 - 14:14:51 EST