Theism.net
Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster
e-mail: jordantheistDELETETHIS@bellsouth.net
Meet Kris
---------- Original Message
----------------------------------
From: Kris Key
<krkey2000@yahoo.com
Date: Thu,
>Dear Sir
>
>I saw your website. I would be
very interested in talking to you; I would especially be interested in
listening to your side of the bible. I am a member of [a freethought] group and
I think I am going through what you did years ago.
>
>Kris
Date: Sat,
Subject: Re: I saw your website
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir
It is obvious to me that you’re
not a young earth creationist. NO YEC would quote doctor Wells or even use the Big
Bang. What I am wondering is how you approach the character of Jesus, mainly
verses which would seem to be false prophecies (Mark 9:1 and Matt 26:64). I
have read them over more than a few times and unless the phrase "
I would like to thank you for the
time you are giving me. I wish to assure you that I have no desire to try to
"convert" you back to atheism. I simply wish to listen.
Thanks for being polite, too.
Both sides of the Christian-atheist debates have had "colorful" folk
show less than appropriate manners (i.e., Mrs. O'Hair and Robert Turkel).
Thank you for your time.
Kris
Reply:
You are correct that I am not
a YEC (Young Earth Creationist). I am
agnostic on the issue considering I was not present at the time of creation.
Though I would defend neither position energetically, I heavily lean towards
Old Earth Creation. A YEC advocate
occasionally impresses me with evidence but the Old Testament language used a
word for days that clearly represents periods of time rather than 24-hour
increments while the language clearly provided a 24-hour measurement word for
days that the author could have used for clarity. Either way, it is a non-issue
to me, for Jesus either resurrected or He did not, regardless of YEC/OEC
concerns. As far as the Big-Bang, I am of the bumper sticker adage, “God willed
it, BANG it happened.”
I expect your reference to 50
witnesses is actually the 500 witnesses of Christ’s ascension into Heaven
referenced in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. It is more than just a claim
because it was written in a generation that could have refuted its veracity.
Though it cannot serve as a be-all end-all, it remains an actual document in
harmony with the Gospel accounts of Christ’s post-death appearances. Secular
explanations of Christ’s disciples’ visions of Him after His death fail to satisfy
scientific scrutiny. (See my Part Three response to Steve Locks http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/locks3.htm)
I agree that "
---------- Original Message
----------------------------------
From: Kris Key
<krkey2000@yahoo.com
Date: Thu,
> Dear Sir
>We talked earlier and I would
be interested in carrying that conversation on again.
>Here are some questions:
>1. Why are many Old Testament
prophecies (20) about Jesus referenced in the New Testament taken out of context,
not being messianic prophecies at all? Why would Jesus’ disciples, and Jesus
himself in Matthew 4:13-16, misrepresent the Old Testament text? Surely the Son
of God would not allow a disciple to persist in distorted understanding of the
scriptures, nor teach a synagogue class an unjustified misinterpretation of
scripture?
>
>2. Why doesn't Jesus fit the
real, clearly identifiable, messianic prophesies of the Old Testament? Why do
the gospel writers ignore these prophecies? Why does the church condemn first
century Jews for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, when he clearly does not
fulfill the Old Testament prophecies of Messiah? Why must we wait until Jesus'
second coming to see the clearest prophecies fulfilled?
>
>3. Why do the two genealogies
of Jesus in Matthew and Luke disagree? If someone is declared to be the son of
God, surely his credentials must be impeccable, mustn't they? Two variant
genealogies cast suspicion on the true origin of this man, don't they?
>
>4. Why does the genealogy in Matthew
1 show that Jesus descended through a cursed line? (21) Jeconiah (Jehoiachin)
and his father Jehoiakim were both cursed by God himself, who said that neither
of these men would have any descendent on the throne of David. How could Jesus
possibly be the Messiah, destined to rule forever on the throne of David, if he
descended through either of these men?
>
>5. If the genealogy in Luke
is that of Mary and not Joseph, then why does it list Joseph in the line rather
than Mary? Why is no other genealogy of a woman recorded anywhere else in
scripture? And if this is Mary's genealogy, then Jesus descended through
Nathan, not Solomon, making the prophecies in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and 1 Chronicles
22:10 false.
>
>6. If, using the genealogy in
Luke, Jesus’ claim to descent from David, of the tribe of Judah, is through
Mary rather than Joseph then how can it be that Mary's cousin, Elizabeth, was
descended from the house of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5)?
>
>7. Why does Jesus misquote
the Old Testament? (22)
>
>8. Why does Jesus refer to
the writings of Moses (Mark
>
>9. How can it be that Jesus
contradicts the Old Testament (1 Samuel 21-22), saying that Abiathar gave David
the showbread instead of Ahimelech, and saying that David had men with him,
when he was actually alone (Mark
>
>10. Why does Jesus quote a
non-existent verse of Old Testament scripture (John
>
>11. Why would Jesus
deliberately obscure the gospel by speaking in parables so that people would
not understand, turn, and be forgiven (Mark
>
>12. Why was Jesus in the tomb
for only two and a half days at the most, when he said he would be there three
days and three nights (Matthew 12:40)? Surely the Son of God would say
precisely what he means, wouldn't he?
>
>13. Why would Jesus prophesy that
his kingdom would come in glory before some of those listening to him died, but
the kingdom still has not come (Matthew 16:18, Matthew 10:23, Mark 9:1, Luke
21:31-32)? Surely the son of God could not have spoken a false prophecy, could
he?
>
>14. Why did Jesus say his
followers must hate their families? Surely, when the son of God said
"hate" he meant "hate," didn't he? Why would the son of God
confuse us by using hyperbole? How could the examples of Luke 9:59-62, even if
allegorical, be hyperbole anyway? Jesus clearly called a man to the
irresponsible, disrespectful action of leaving his father, implying that he was
not even to attend his funeral, and he called another to leave his family
without even saying farewell or letting them know he was deserting them.
>
>15. Why was Jesus
disrespectful of his mother? (24) In John 2:4, Jesus uses the same words with
his mother that demons use when they meet Jesus (25). Surely the son of God
knew that Mary had the blessing of the Father, didn't he, not to mention that
the son of God would never be rude?
>
>16. Why did Jesus lie to his
brothers about going to
>
>17. Why did Jesus, by his own
admission, break the Sabbath law (John
>
>18. Why did Jesus say the
ruler's daughter was not dead? (Matthew 9:18-25; Luke 8:41-56) Either Jesus
lied, or he performed no miracle, but the context clearly shows that it was
understood to be a miracle.
>
>You say Christianity is reasonable, I believe myself to be fair; so, I want to see what you can do. I want to say I do not believe in goal posting, I am seriously willing to consider Christianity if you can answer these reasonably.
>
> Kris
Great questions! Nonetheless,
they have already been addressed elsewhere such as Glenn Miller’s http://www.christian-thinktank.com/, J.P. Holding’s http://www.tektonics.org/, and Lee Strobel’s book Case for Christ. Overall, I am
what I would term as a “Resurrectionist.”
I am sold on the veracity of Christ’s resurrection. If my position is
factual, Christian apologetics regarding your issues are plausible.
I remain open to further
correspondence with you.
Freethinkingly yours,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From Kris Key <krkey2000@yahoo.com
Date:
Subject: we talked in the past
Dear Sir
>How are you doing, we used to talk under my old email address
xxxxxx@yahoo.com
Good to hear from you again. I've updated your e-mail address.
>but I had to delete that account because I was getting way
too much spam per day(easily over 50 hits), I so loath those worthless vermin.
I know-I know, me too!
>Speaking as someone who is well versed in atheistic
philosophy, how do you refute such views as Markan priority for the books of
Matthew and Luke (far more important issue to me than the next) JPED for the
Pentateuch and the contradictory resurrection accounts of Jesus?
Actually, I neither refute nor promote Markan priority. You want
I should? As far as contradictory Gospel accounts, what contradictions? Most
atheists' claims of contradictions aren't even contradictions in the original
text. Overall, my only problem with Christian apologetics while an atheist is
that I was convinced no God existed; therefore, the apologetics must be wrong.
Once I became convinced of Christ's resurrection, Christian apologetics made
great sense.
>I am not sure if we are debating, unlike what you did with
Jay, it seems more like, that when I get a chance, I ask you questions. And I
would like to thank you for answering them.
You are always welcome to ask, speak, etc.
>Oh by the way, what part of
I moved to Cobb 11 years ago from
<snip>
Again, Chris, my focus is on the details of the Resurrection
regarding theistic and non-theistic scholars' agreements. Outside of that, I
don't spend much time, for Christian apologetics satisfy me. I expect you'll
find that if you correspond with me in my area of focus (which I welcome and
encourage), it'll provide us ample time for dialog. So far, no skeptic has
provided me a plausible alternative to Resurrection veracity.
My latest correspondence has been with
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/extras/mail/cavin.htm
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/cavin.htm
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/probable.htm
Let's stay in touch. Right now, I'm weary from Cavin so I'm going
lights out for now.
In Truth,
"
From: Kris Key <krkey2000@yahoo.com
Date:
Subject: Re: Let's talk again
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir
How do you explain Matthew 26:64, it seems that Jesus is saying
to the high priest that he shall see the second coming.
Chris
Last I knew, that one baffles even apologists. Any comments?
From: Patrick Narkinsky <patrick@wingedpigs.com>
Date: Sat,
>> How do you explain Matthew 26:64, it seems that Jesus is
saying to the high priest that he [they] shall see the second coming.
This one took me for a ride for quite a while. At this point, I think the answer lies in
recognizing that there was some kind of second coming in 70AD, when
A number of people have argued, quite persuasively, that many of
the eschatological predictions Jesus made did not refer to the "end of the
world", but to "the end of the [promised] land." The basic argument is founded on the
ambiguous meaning of the Greek hE GE, which can mean both "land" and
"world." It is pretty well established that "hE GE" was a
well-established euphemism for
It also makes many New Testament texts that are otherwise pretty
opaque much more transparent - for example, how many times does revelation say
"soon"? Also, the Christology of Hebrews works much better if we
assume that the temple has permanently passed before it's writing.
I suppose the thing I would emphasize here is that, according to
any responsible scholar or pastor that I know, futurist eschatology is not a
core doctrine of the Christian faith. So
I think we must keep an open mind about this question. Put a little more
bluntly, while Dispensationalism has become enshrined as orthodoxy among
evangelicals, it has never enjoyed much support among scholars (liberal OR
conservative) and it is at best 150 years old. People were Christians long
before "Left Behind" was on the map, and will continue to be
Christians if it must be thrown on theology's junk pile. Why defend it?
A couple of very good books in this connection:
- R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus.
- Kenneth Gentry, Before
- N.T. Wright, New Testament & The People of God, Jesus
& the
- J.A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament
For what it's worth, I would not want anyone to think that my
referencing Gentry means I'm a theonomist - I'm way too Anabaptist to ever
trust the government (or the Calvinists for that matter) that much. :)
Peace,
Patrick
"Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do
not make six."
-Leo Tolstoy
From: Steve Meikle <strefanash@clear.net.nz>
Date:
I must agree with Patrick that eschatology is not core doctrine,
and as I myself place it much lower down on the scale of importance than faith,
work, repentance, Law and grace (my key interest, indeed the key of my very
survival both as a person and a Christian) I am able to not be as dogmatic
about the issue as about some.
BTW, I am a futurist but I am no dispensationalist if by
dispensationalism you mean that neat scheme of seven separate dispensations
peddled by the Schofield Bible and other sources. To me, that and futurism are
separate things.
BUT as I am fairly a convinced futurist, I may venture to offer
a futurist view of Matt 26:64.
It seems to me that the point of this verse was not *when* these
things would be seen but *what* was to be seen.
Jesus baldly asserted his divinity by saying he would be seen in the
clouds of glory at the right hand of the father.
It could be argued that the "you" was an address to
the people of
After all, even in English the term "you will do such and
such" is used when the meaning is "one will do such".
Thus "you will see me" could easily mean "one
will see me "or even "I will be seen". I do not think this does
violence to the text as I think the context of the passage in his trial before
the Council was his assertion of the "blasphemy" they crucified him
for: his claim of divinity
Thus the issue was more Jesus' assertion of his divinity than an
eschatological time table, and to extract a time frame for his coming from this
passage when he said elsewhere that no one knew, not even he, is to both deny
these verses (Acts 1:6-8 and others) and to miss the point of the Matthew
26:64. IOW, Math 26:64 is not about the timing of his second coming and no
doctrine can be extracted from this passage concerning it.
The fact is that Jesus was *not* seen in the clouds in glory in
any sense at or near AD 70. When he ascended he said he would return the same
way, and it was that which he was referring to. It really seems to me that the
skeptics have seen it clearly here - if he said he would return near AD 70 then
he did not do so and was in fact a false prophet with a failed prophecy. I am
loosening up on the meaning of "you will see" but IMO the preterist
view loosens up much more, indeed even FAR too much, on the "return in
glory" clause in order to make it shoehorn the facts of history.
Thus I cannot be a preterist. I do not deny multiple
fulfillments but to claim that Jesus returned in glory in any sense in or
before AD 70 is plainly impossible for me
I myself have never seen any apologetic difficulty in this
passage, even though the question remains:
when does taking words loosely (as is sometimes required because naive
literalism is a misunderstanding of what language actually is) become word
twisting. This question perplexes me deeply
Patrick, let us agree to differ, this issue is not as important
as others, and let
From: "James Patrick Holding" jphold@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Matt 26:64
Date:
Howdy,
> >> How do you explain Matthew 26:64, it seems that
Jesus is saying to the high priest that he [they] shall see the second coming.
I solve this one with the eschatological thesis of preterism. See http://www.tektonics.org/olivet01.html
-- essentially the "Second Coming" was fulfilled in 70 AD. And "Left Behind" is a fantasy. :-)
From: " G. Zeineldé Jordan, Se."
Date: Thu,
To: Kris Key
<krkey2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: would like to debate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have deleted your mail. We can start from the top.
First, don't tell me that you agree on scholarly consensus and
scholar definition then present arguments against such. You either agree or you
don't.
If you harbor concerns about scholarly authority, SAY SO. Do not
present me with "scholarly" discord while presenting Jesus Seminar
"authorities" who lack scholar definition. Very few of them are
"scholar" authorities by our agreed operational definition.
Further, read my other debates then present arguments my
opponents have not already debated.
Further, further, I reasonably ask that you proof your grammar,
punctuation, etc. I don't have time to edit your work.
Before your fingers hit the keyboard in response, please
consider if they are employing thought, integrity, expertise, etc., for you can
be ignored. Meet my Web pages guidelines or go away.
My focus is Christ's rez. If you desire other debate matter,
debate others. My Rez. debating will beat you hands down.
J.
From: Kris Key <krkey2000@yahoo.com>
Date:
Subject: Re: would like to debate
To: jordan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
absolute bunk
I do not agree with your definition that all scholars agree with
the view that you laid out on your website for the simple fact a sizable number
don’t. Please explain to me why members of the Jesus Seminar shouldn’t be
considered scholars as many of them are New Testament Professors and one of
them was Gerd Ludemann, who you referenced.
I know this game your trying to play. Force me down your road for
the preordained result. Sorry, won’t play it.
Why are you so afraid to debate other aspects of Christ's life?
Surely they should hold up. I have no fear in debating the resurrection with
you. I just want to do a bit more.
You’re not going to impress freethinkers with your method of
debate. I want a real debate, not your dog and pony show for Christ.
Jordan Reply
I have already argued scholarship with Locks and Holtz in the debate
pages. What new do you offer? So far, you have offered nothing. Perhaps you
consider that by affixing your name to old arguments they may be viewed as some
new genius.
Don’t want to “play” my “game”? Find another playground. On this
ground, you debate the resurrection and you present something previous
opponents lacked.
As I presented in earlier correspondence, your arguments have
already been debated elsewhere. You join a list of others who are confident in
defeating Christ’s resurrection yet desire to argue different matters.
You are not going to favorably impress “fence-sitters” by not
being able to get a clue or grasp the obvious. You want a real debate? Visit my
Locks interaction.
Further, I was serious when I instructed that you watch your
grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. I am NOT your schoolteacher. If you want
anything else printed, use your spell-check and enlist the aid of a competent
authority. You write carelessly and sloppily. I do not appreciate that.
J.
Kris and I have since conversed by telephone. That resulted in
my having a more positive view of his aims. He understands that I have numerous
opponents attempting to engage me regarding items outside my current items of
debate. Seemingly, he understands that my current item (followers’ visions)
warrants immediate attention. All current opponents are welcome to address
followers’ visions.
Dear
I meant to write you extremely earlier, however, I simply became extremely
busy. This part below will be my contribution to the dialog we had.
I am glad to say, Mr.
That being said, we do not agree there is a scholarly consensus with his views;
however, I am
willing to research (and am researching) his claim. I would say that I do not
feel legend has been adequately removed from the list of possibilities or the
idea of Midrashic history.
However... if the documents are legitimate and the possibility of legend or
midrashic history is removed, the best explanation is that Jesus rose from the
dead.
Sincerely,
Kris
From: Kris Key
Date: Thu,
Dear
I am so tired. I just
finished five hours worth of homework. Things are going well here. You wont
believe it when I say it, but I have finally admitted I sincerely believe in
the resurrection. I probably never would have admitted to that had not Dr. Paul
Copan (Christian Theologian) completely agreed with me that NDE's (Near Death
Experiences) affect a conservative view of Christianity. He completely agreed
with me that it is a legitimate experience and he no more buys, "The Devil
did it" than I do.
So, to sum up, I accept the resurrection for four major reasons:
a.) It is reasonable to believe the authorship of the books of the NT is
correct.
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html
b.) It is unreasonable to assume it was a legend.
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_01_01.html
and
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html
c.) Argument from history
http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html
d.) NDE encounters
http://www.near-death.com/storm.html
e.) The overall inability of naturalistic
explanations to explain the NDE
http://www.nderf.org/Skeptics_Corner.htm and http://www.nderf.org/NDE%20Med%20Explicable.htm
So, in all fairness it would seem to be a
legitimate belief from those four threads of evidence. So, all evidence
considered, it is more probable that he rose from the dead than he didn’t.
Sincerely,
Kris
From: G. Zeineldé Jordan, Se. wrote:
Kris,
You are wrong. I, indeed, do believe what and why you are saying. You sound as
I felt when I, too, was a member of the AFS. It has been over five years for me
since I conceded to the veracity of the Resurrection. I did not like conceding,
but gratefully, I have had years now of being able to defend my position in
great confidence.
I urge you to test Christianity on Christ's New Testament before judging the
faith on human (particularly denominational) directives, interpreters, etc.
You'll find, when put to the test, it shall prevail.
>snip (private)<
God bless!
From: Kris Key
Date:
Dear
I have studied the issue for years and from both sides. I am testing my
new-founded faith and I am already seeing results. I am a kinder, more
forgiving person. Once you concede the Resurrection and sincerely believe it,
the rest becomes easy, as you told me. I have much to learn. But now I have a
solid foundation.
Kris
From
I tried to reach you by your cell#--no answer. I take it
you, at least of sorts, prayed the Sinners' Prayer of repentance, not
necessarily in words but in heart and spirit? My daily prayers shall remain
with you. Again, don't ever hesitate to contact me. Keep in mind (of course) I
am no spiritual leader. I believe God's Holy Spirit will lead you to the right
Body. Nonetheless, I remain available to you for shared prayer, shared
experiences, whatever.
In Him,
Jordan
From Kris:
Dear Jordan
Sometimes I am away from my cell, in this case I was simply talking with my
family some, it has been a while. I was discussing the Resurrection with my mother
and telling her why I believe it, etc.
The Sinners’ Prayer is so extremely difficult. It is so hard to admit that one
is a sinner, at least so I feel it is. But once one does the prayer and
reflects upon their life, they certainly will realize they are sinners.
You are right that Christianity is not about denomination, etc. Judaism wasn’t
about that, that’s what Jesus tried to say two thousand years ago. I remember a
quotation from Star Wars (in the books):
Vader- I am the master now.
Kenobi- Only a master of Evil. You understand the force as much as a spoon
understands the taste of food.
That’s how I am beginning to feel about so many atheists, armed with their
contradictions, errors, etc., (most of which are not). They understand
Christianity as much as a spoon understands the taste of food.
Sincerely,
Kris
From
That spoon thing is rather heavy but I get your point.
e-mail:
jordantheistDELETETHIS@bellsouth.net
Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster