George, it clearly says what I said it did (at least in English) It said
they went to look. And they believed when they saw. I didn't say they
demanded evidence. I said they didn't believe until they saw some. And
that, seems clear to me, at least. And I fail to see the difference between
Mary M. who didn't believe until she was told, in spite of having seen the
empty clothing, and Thomas, who believed when he was told. No account is
given that he actually inserted his fingers.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of george murphy
>Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 11:24 AM
>To: Glenn Morton
>Cc: Shuan Rose; asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: sciDocument.rtf
>
>
>Glenn Morton wrote:
>
>> Shuan wrote Friday, July 05, 2002 3:44 PM
>> >
>> >Glen wrote:
>> >ay I point you to an earlier instance, where Jesus offered to
>Thomas the
>> >chance to OBSERVE (i.e. use scientific observation) to verify that
>> >Jesus had
>> >been dead, that the events had been real. That DOES have a
>basis in the
>> >scientific method. If one can't use science/observation to
>verify claims,
>> >why was it considered worthwhile to stick fingers into the
>wound???? What
>> >difference would that have made had science/observation been
>irrelevant to
>> >theological claims?
>> >
>> >Shuan observed:
>> >The next verse puts rather a different spin on things:
>> >
>> >Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen
>> >me? Blessed are the people who have not seen and yet have believed.
>>
>> YOu had better read more of your Bible than just that. What Jesus said,
>> doesn't change the fact that Jesus himself offered Thomas the evidence.
>> Jesus offered observational support for his resurrection(unless
>of course
>> this story is myth). And I would submit that none of the
>apostles believed
>> without some evidence. Peter and John ran to the tomb to see
>if the body
>> was there? If that wasn't looking for evidence, what was it?
>Mary Magdalene
>> didn't believe when she saw the stone rolled away--she told the
>disciples
>> NOT that Jesus had arisen, but that they had taken him away.
>(John 20:2) And
>> it wasn't until John SAW the empty grave clothes that he believed (John
>> 20:8) Mary Magdalene still didn't beleive at that point. She
>didn't beleive
>> until two angels told her and she SAW him. In Luke 24:11 the
>disciples are
>> reported to have rejected the first reports that Jesus had
>arisen. Indeed
>> it says they thought their words were nonsense. They, it is
>clear, wanted
>> EVIDENCE--OBSERVATION--which is what science is based upon.
>>
>> Our religion is not one of mere belief without any evidence. If
>it is, we
>> are in trouble. So don't give me this stuff about believing without
>> evidence. Even the early Christians are not reported to have believed
>> without any evidence! If Thomas wasn't 'blessed,' then neither were the
>> entire crowd of them. They all wanted evidence.
>
> Sticking for now to John:
> 1) Mary Magdalene, Peter, & those on the first Easter
>evening were not
>initially looking for evidence: All the indications are that they
>thought Jesus
>was dead for good. They were given evidence convinced them in
>spite of this.
> 2) There is no case in the NT in which a person demands
>evidence, in
>the sense of an actual sighting, for the resurrection & gets it.
> 3) Thomas was indeed offered evidence of the
>resurrection - along with
>an implied criticism for not believing the witnesses to the
>evidence which had
>been given earlier.
> 4) Jn.20:29 is directed to those like us who have the
>apostolic witness
>to the resurrection but who are not going to see Jesus as the
>disciples in the
>upper room did. We can study & to a considerable extent assure
>ourselves of the
>basic trustworthiness of this witness, but we are not going to get
>behind it and
>obtain significant first hand evidence.
> 5) I put in the qualification "significant" there because
>there is some
>minimal evidence that we can get. A good case can be made for the
>authenticity
>of the tomb of Christ in the Church of the Resurrection, & we can
>confirm that
>the corpse of Jesus isn't there now. But that doesn't take us very far!
> 6) This is not to say that we can't get any scientific
>evidence about
>the past, as the YECs imagine. All the fossils that we discover
>are signals
>from the past. But we have little choice about what evidence
>we're given. If
>you want fossil evidence for a specific 10^th-great grandfather of a
>particular
>animal, your chances of success are slim.
> 7) Hume's argument against the resurrection, & miracles
>in general, is
>correct to the extent that we don't believe every report of a
>strange happening
>that we hear. The witness to the resurrection has to be
>evaluated, not as a
>report of an isolated incident but as part of a total claim about who
>Jesus was,
>what he did & taught, & his death, all within the context of the
>history & faith
>of Israel.
>
>
>Shalom,
>
>George
>
>George L. Murphy
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 06 2002 - 17:42:37 EDT