RE: Believe it even if it isn't true theology

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Sat Feb 18 2006 - 12:09:12 EST

Rich wrote:
 
>Every Jewish scholar of significance, says genesis is allegorical and
was never meant to be taken literally.
 
And how many of these Jewish scholars accept Jesus as the Messiah? How
did they miss that one?
 
Dick Fischer
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of RFaussette@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 11:37 AM
To: glennmorton@entouch.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Believe it even if it isn't true theology
 
In a message dated 2/17/2006 8:07:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
glennmorton@entouch.net writes:
This illustrates what is so wrong with the liberal apologetic. It is the
same thing that I complain about with the
allegorical/metaphorical/accommodationalist(Hencerforth the AMA)
approach to Genesis. Let me say this louldly
 
If Jesus were proven to have only been a man tomorrow, I would no longer
regard him as the Son of God.
Glenn,
As an avid anthropologist, you should know better. You left out the
deeds I listed that identify Jesus as the Son of God primary among them
dying rather than betray the law which was written on his heart, like a
sheep with no hesitation, no wrestling with God, just obedience. Did
Jesus say he was concerned about whether or not genesis was literal or
allegorical? No, he had faith. He did his father's will. Do you demand
more than he deserved?
 
Let me also correct you. The Darwinian understanding of the bible IS the
conservative understanding, not the liberal apologetic. If you could get
past genesis and exodus you would see the necessary conservatism of
Leviticus, but you can't get past the allegorical nature of genesis.
 
Let me say this loudly. Every Jewish scholar of significance, says
genesis is allegorical and was never meant to be taken literally.
 
You are also presenting a hypothetical when you say IF Jesus was proven
to be a man. That will never happen. There is no proof of disproof of
that. Miracles are suspensions of the natural law and you cannot
reproduce them at will in the lab. If you could, they would no longer be
miracles.
 
THAT is the situation you are in, but you don't face it. How do you move
past not being able to rationally determine the nature of Jesus'
ontology?
 
With faith, which submits to the law intuitively and acts without
understanding.
 
The whole message of Jesus is rejected by your demands for proof. Yes, I
know it is a paradox. That's why Jesus spoke in parables and that's the
hurdle you must jump.
 
rich faussette
Received on Sat Feb 18 12:09:04 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 18 2006 - 12:09:04 EST