Re: [Phys-L] Science and Christianity

[brian whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

On 6/13/2012 12:53 PM, Aburr@aol.com wrote:
> /snip/
> > I'm not familiar with the Theological equivalent of this ability to
> > grant equal validity to conflicting assumptions."
> There are many examples. The one that comes first to mind is the 
> concepts of "free will" and "predestination"
-it is said some Christian sects are more convinced than others  of a 
predestiny - I have
heard it said of Presbyterians, for example.
>     There is a book to be written - quite likely an infamous book - which
>     would shed new light on a person who, with John, was at first
>     unsure who
>     was to be the long-forecast savior of his people, but who grew
>     convinced
>     of his role, and made efforts to fulfill the old testament
>     indications
>     of that great Advent."
>
> John was never in doubt about his role and it is a stretch to say that 
> Jesus was ever in doubt either.
> Certainly John was never "*at first* unsure who
> was to be the long-forecast savior of his people"
> Alex. F. Burr
Matthew 3: 13,14,15 seems to involve John's doubting the wisdom of 
Baptizing Jesus, but he
was convinced of the rightfulness of that action.  Jesus: a role that 
first focused on the Jews,
 but later encompasses Gentiles?        But the Devil quotes the Bible, 
no doubt:
my interest is in bringing to bear some SCIENTIFIC insights into what is 
otherwise
 the forbidden territory of Faith and Belief.

Brian W
> In a message dated 6/13/2012 11:19:11 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, 
> betwys1@sbcglobal.net writes:
>
>     There is a book to be written - quite likely an infamous book - which
>     would shed new light on a person who, with John, was at first
>     unsure who
>     was to be the long-forecast savior of his people, but who grew
>     convinced
>     of his role, and made efforts to fulfill the old testament
>     indications
>     of that great Advent.