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

From: Timothy Kennelly <timothykennelly@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun Feb 19 2006 - 13:05:39 EST

 
   
  Probably none Mr. Fischer, but that does not mean one can not learn from such scholarship. I have learned more about the Bible and how it should be read from Maimonides, than from any other author, and I have read more books by Christian authors on the use and reading of Bible than I can easily remember.
Your comment is of mean intention and it betrays an arrogance which is distasteful.
   
  Timothy E. Kennelly
   
  
Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
        
            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

   
  -----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

                
---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
Received on Sun Feb 19 13:06:12 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 19 2006 - 13:06:12 EST