McDowell exposits a credible apologetic and existentialist resolve, notwithstanding his early years as an energetic skeptic and iconoclast.
In expository release: after childhood disillusionment and early-college anti-religion radicalisms, he suffered elegiac feelings for his misconduct and elevated his antithetical philosophy to a higher plane.
His religion apologetic is designed to reassure Messianic verity and to establish constancy in the redirecting of modern waywardness into purposeful living.
He questions our prowess in comparing scientific proof with legal-historical verification: science being based on repeatable demonstrations proving the same conclusion and his view of less substantive metaphysics being based on legal-historical immutability.
McDowell proposes the proposition: What Makes Jesus So Different to Mohammedan, Buddhist, and Confucian character? Jesus was divine according to his affirmation in John 5:16-18, 'My Father works here, and I work.
' (concerning healing of the lame) He equates himself with God when he said: 'I and my Father are one.
' (John 10:30) The Greek scholar, A.
T.
Robertson interprets the 'one' to be neuter and indicates not one in person, but in essence.
This definition of God essence is duplicated in McDowell's Jesus definition: omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, self-existence and eternally lived essence.
Only in Mark 14:62, did Jesus answer the question "Art thou the Christ,...
?" He said, " I am.
" Yet, McDowell's Jesus qualities in the above 'proposition,' last sentence, must be qualified to gain cognizance in intellectual or scholarly rationale; for, ancient deity and omnipotence is one thing, ancient or modern omniscience and omnipresence is another.
Jesus did not know when Parousia was to occur; this deficit eliminates omniscience.
Doubtlessly, many in the Heaven and Earth complex were not aware of his divinity, crucifixion or resurrection - much less those in upper Europe, vast Asia, Africa, South American Societies, North American Tee-pee and Igloo dwellers, Pacific Islanders, and among Australian Aborigine wanderers.
Decidedly, this deficit eliminates omnipresence.
No, it was not a worldwide spectacle but rather an isolated community affair.
Even the Roman Emperor did not know but in retrospect, and though the event happened within his own Empire.
Still yet, to be considered by responsible exegetes, any statement directed to Jesus-God quality is strictly opinion, of course; and any deity conclusions are extracted from the repertoire of individual conscience only.
Even so, in historical exposition, indirectly, as in many other incidents, Jesus established his divinity to first century enthusiasts by chronicled deed and declaration.
But it was Jesus' defiance of Sabbath work restraints causing resentment and condemnation amongst Temple authorities, in the John example.
Charged with Mosaic principles blasphemy and contrariness to Temple authority, Jesus sealed his doom and insured fulfillment to prophecy, as Messianic contender, and as one being conditioned for enthronement.
McDowell exaggerates messianic omnipresent and omniscience qualities.
Should not Messiah's debut in isolation, in a small corner of the world, create some curiosity about omnipotence and omniscience in the world's remainder? Concerning biblical verity, McDowell posits twentieth century mentality to be of a nature doubting propositions unless they can be scientifically proven.
Scholars F.
F.
Bruce and William Albright are said to testify to Bible reliability and trustworthiness.
And discovery of the John Ryland papyri manuscript (A.
D.
130), the Chester Beatty Papyri (A.
D.
155), and the Bodmer Papyri II (A.
D.
200), support later manuscript translations.
Sir Frederic Kenyon, a renowned authority, concluded: 'both the authenticity and general integrity of the New Testament books may be regarded as finally established.
' Yet, legal-historicity is defined as intelligent faith, its veracity proven only in repeated documentation.
We then, as exegetes, might conclude faith to be the qualifying vehicle embracing legal-historical precedence.
Such declaration neglects any requirement to qualify humanist extensions.
By its simplistic nature, faith is outside scientific and legal-historical dictum.
Faith is belief without qualification and exhibits indifference to semantic antipodes.
In undemanding acquiescence to traditionalist parallels, anyone can announce a personal God into ontological existence.
In this regard, Immanuel Kant made an indubitable observation when he deduced: 'No man has the intellect to deny another individual's God declaration.
' True! God declaration is entirely private and isolated in individual mental processes.
Whether two or three Homo sapiens can envision the exact same God is cause for debate.
In any event, intellectuality is absent when one tries to force a private God character upon another.
We must conclude, then, God existence and Messiah fulfillment should be relegated to legal-historical auspices and can never be elevated to scientific conclusiveness.
McDowell does lean to Preterist discipline when he acknowledges Parousia must 'come while the temple of Jerusalem is still standing.
' This is of great significance when we realize the temple was destroyed in A.
D.
70 and has not since been rebuilt.
Even had another been built (not rebuilt), it would not be THE Temple.
The real Messiah depended on the then standing temple to qualify Parousia conclusion.
If Parousia did not conclude Messianic purpose in the existing first century generation, then McDowell and other modernists are forced to admit one of two possibilities: either God was ineffective, or modern faith adherents mistake Parousia time frame! When the most convincing Christian epitome enters a Church building, he plays an existentialist role.
As Professor McDowell once answered a University student, who when asked what constituted a Christian, unthinkingly stated, 'anyone who walks into church becomes a Christian.
' McDowell replied, 'Does walking into a garage make you a car?' This, I think, is the greatest truth in McDowell's exposition.