Isn’t it really true that most serious scholars have given up on trying to “harmonize” or reconcile – or systematize – all the parts of the Bible; especially Old and New Testaments?

Given that, is there a reason that “Promise” is put in quotes here? To signify an ambiguity between a) firmly promising something soon; vs. b) having “promise” as something that might firm up some day?

To be sure, the effort to try to deliver a justification of Christianity to “rational” people, seems useful. Though perhaps athetists will not be impressed by the empty promises, as they might see them, of miracles. Nor even John Paul’s “hope” of things, either.

Can we go beyond “empty promises”? The “East Wind”?

To see, “relativize” classic theology – and Christianity? – as a mere flesh- and-blood, fallible activity, no doubt helps. But as for for the promise of access thereby, to a divine certainty?

It is much easer to promise things, than actually deliver them.

Still, to be sure, we can hope. And dream. But as to how firm those dreams may be?