The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

Contra_Mundum · #5 (**permalink**) 02-07-2005, 06:13 PM

JD,
Just use any material you like without any attribution to me. Say you learned it elsewhere if you want. I don't want to be an integral part of a "mediated" discussion with an unknown guy, if you know what I mean.

He'll doubtless answer you back with more of his scholarship. He's invested so much in his work, he's pretty proud of the fact that he was able to intellectually justify his Christian faith, even if it meant some modifications from his earlier beliefs. He didn't have to convert to Judaism because of his new interpretations. He doubtless heard the similar to the above before...

I'll try to help you understand any responses you get, if you need it. I took a look at the link and the discussion there, and I won't personally jump in. I have no credibility there, no bona fides. I see a whole bunch of intellectual compromising going on there, and I'm sure I personally would grate against the popular Christian guys in channel. If I "took on" one of their apologists with his comfortable compromise, it would get ugly fast. He'd want to know why I as a so-called brother was sabotaging the "progress" he thought he was making with these other "seekers".

The problem with such compromise is the questions it raises for honest believers like yourself. You may not have been shaken at all in faith, but your post shows that he's raising confusions of some kind. He sounds like a scholar who must know what he's talking about, saying that OT believers didn't really expect a virgin-born Messiah (even though the gospels clearly say they did). But he's OK with that. He's got a "simple" explanation for it--this is just Jesus presented for early Christians with 1st century superstitions. Dead OT believers and their genuine expectations are of little relevance, either to them, or even less to us. Ultimately this neo-orthodox type of apologetic will get nowhere.

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by Contra_Mundum]