Quote of the Day (Arthur Peacocke)

“for Jesus to be fully human he had, for both biological and theological reasons, to have a human father as well as a human mother and the weight of the historical evidence strongly indicates that this was so – and that it was probably Joseph. Any theology for a scientific age which is concerned with the significance of Jesus of Nazareth now has to start at this point” (Arthur Peacocke, Evolution: The Disguised Friend Of Faith? (Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2004) p.228).

Peacocke earlier quoted C. J. Cadoux, who wrote: “Nor indeed is it enough for scholars to leave the issue open, on the sole ground that the evidence for the miraculous birth is insufficient. If a miracle is asserted to have occurred, and cogent evidence for its occurrence cannot be adduced, and belief in it can be readily accounted for along other lines, the duty of scholars is not to leave the reality of it open to question, but to reject it, not as inconceivable, but as in all probability not true” (C. J. Cadoux, The Life Of Jesus (West Drayton: Penguin Books, 1948) p.30; quoted Peacocke, op. cit., pp.223-224).

  • Anonymous

    What would pass as evidence today for a miracle that occurred 2000 years ago?

  • Anonymous

    The only sign given to those who accept Jesus as the Christ as the Messiah, is that of his rescurrection.Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

  • Kasey

    An assumption of any miracle anytime is fancyful. Get real and accept that it's all mythology.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X