Re: The death of the RTB model

From: Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu Feb 16 2006 - 20:18:23 EST

Michael,

Polkinghorne presents his views on our resurrection in _Faith of a
Physicist_ chapter on eschatology, and in _Quarks, Chaos and Christianity,
in a more compact way, in "How will it end?" I think his argument for the
historicity of the resurrection of Christ in the latter book is quite nice.

In my humble, humble, humble opinion, I share your views on Gen. 1-3.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>; <RFaussette@aol.com>;
<asa@calvin.edu>; <janmatch@earthlink.net>; <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: The death of the RTB model

> 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 20:19:31 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 16 2006 - 20:19:31 EST