>-----Original Message-----
>From: george murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
>Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 2:30 AM
> Were your argument true, "we are of all men most to be
>pitied." "There
>is nothing we can verify today about the resurrection", which is
>at the heart of
>Christian faith. Supposedly we only have the possibility of verifying the
>flood. But even if that can be done there is no way one can move
>from that to
>even a marginal increase in plausibility of the historicity of the
>resurrection,
>as I've already pointed out. So we're out of luck.
No, it does say that there is a place of divine interaction which has a
higher likelihood and it is a product of only one religion--those based
ultimately on the revelation to Abram. Agreed that that doesn't take us to
the resurrection, but it is something rather than nothing.
> Fortunately your argument isn't true. As many writers
>have pointed out,
>mss of the NT documents relevant to the resurrection are more
>plentiful & closer
>in time to the events they claim to record than many documents
>recording events
>of classical antiquity which no one raises serious questions
>about.
That, of course, doesn't make them true. If it did, the Bahai documents I
mentioned earlier (documenting events in the 1800s) would be even more true
because everything is even closer in time to us than is the NT events. It is
fallacious to claim that having documents near to an event automatically
make them true.
Few serious
>historians today question whether Jesus really lived and (except
>for Muslims)
>that he died on a cross. We can point out with a fair degree of
>archaeological
>support the place where early Christians believed that he was crucified and
>raised, in the Church of the Resurrection.
To quote you, it doesn't result in "even a marginal increase in plausibility
of the historicity of the resurrection" anymore than the sale of pieces of
the true cross over the years proves that he died on a tree. How do we
really know, from ancient documents, where the resurrection took place? We
don't. All we have is a tradition which may or may not be truer than those
pieces of the true cross.
> Does this prove that Jesus was raised from the dead? Of
>course not?
>But these are the types of things which historians consider as putative
>evidence.
So, why can't we use scientific evidence of a flood as putative evidence? I
see nothing that rules this out.
I wrote:
>> Mere belief without evidence of this inspiration is nothing but fideism.
>> Faith based upon faith.
>
> Obviously I can't win here. I note one reason people have
>doubts about
>the Bible & you tell me I'm leaving out inspiration. When I say I think
>scripture is inspired I'm accused of fideism. I find it very hard
>to see what
>evidence of inspiration of the whole of scripture you think there
>can be if the
>flood narrative is the only significant part of it that's verifiable!
Inspiration must mean something about the veracity of the account or it is
meaningless as far as I can see. If inspiration results in a false story of
a global flood (as Seely suggests) then what use is inspiration? Where is
the evidence for inspiration? Is God so limited to what humans do that he
can make no difference in what they write? If God's inspiration makes no
difference in the message, then it is truly a meaningless form of
inspiration. How does one determine if the writer got it correct? That is
the problem I have with what I understand you to be saying about
inspiration. On the one hand you say that inspiration does nothing for the
historicity or factualness of the Biblical account, but then you say that
inspiration makes the Bible true and much to be admired. Admired for what?
Great fiction?
> I haven't read Paul's book. There's a sense in which I'd
>agree with him
>& one in which I wouldn't. But the questions about the commonality of "the
>religion Jesus taught" & "the religion of the Jewish people" isn't
>the same as
>that of the unity of scripture. If there is no such unity it's
>hard to see how
>to make sense of the pervasive NT claims that Jesus is the
>fulfillment of the
>Hebrew scriptures.
>& _inter alia_ it would mean that there is no theological
>connection between the
>flood narrative & the resurrection.
Paul's book nearly caused me to leave the faith. It was a devastating
critique of Christianity as far as I was concerned. Of course he won't
appreciate or agree with this. His book sent me into such a tailspin that I
didn't even take the normal set of notes I normally take and unfortunately,
my copy is not in storage in Houston and unavailable. However, I can
illustrate this from a quote from his article:
"The biblical approach that I believe better relates science to the Bible
is to accept the historical-grammatical meaning of Genesis 1. Admit that it
reflects the cosmology of the second millennium B.C., and that modern
science presents a more valid picture of the universe. Then, recognize the
fact that the theological message of Genesis 1 stands out in such superior
contrast to the mythological accounts of creation (both ancient and modern)
that even so radical a critic as Gunkel could see the difference. Finally,
draw what seems to me the obvious conclusion: Science and the Bible are
complementary." ~ Paul H. Seely, "The First Four Days of Genesis in
concordist Theory and in Biblical Context," Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith," 49:2 June 1997, pp 85-95, p. 93
If the Bible reflects the man-made cosmology of the 2nd millennium BC, then
inspiriation had no effect on the factual content of the Scripture. So where
is the evidence of this superiority? The claim that the Bible is superior in
the theological message to that of other cultures, can only be based upon
the presupposition that the Bible told us a true theology. That is circular
logic. One can't judge that this is the case based upon it's 'false'
cosmology, as Paul says. Thus it is pure hokum to say that it is superior to
pagan theology, because they too have a false science in their cosmology and
we have no way to really tell which theology is superior except our bias. So
now we are at the place where we claim that the false Bible is better than
the false pagan cosmologies because it agrees with my preconceptions about
Christianity. At least that is the only basis I can see for Paul's claim.
The Bible can only be theologically superior IF AND ONLY IF it presents a
true theology. One certainly can't base the concept that the Bible presents
a true theology upon the false cosmology that Paul admits to.
I feel certain that Paul will want to defend himself.
> One important factor in keeping people from leaving the
>faith (to the
>extent that it is in the church's power) is to educate them in how
>to read the
>BIble. I realize that when one comes into a situation at a point where a
>fundamentalist is on the verge of losing faith, there usually isn't the
>opportunity to go through a full course of adequate Christian education.
>Stop-gap measures may have to suffice, & if you can keep someone in that
>situation from apostasizing by convincing them that there's
>evidence for the
>flood, OK.
If they like me, were taught YEC, then maybe. I have seen this happen, so
you are not on very knowledgeable ground here. Most YECs won't go to you for
counseling about these matters.
I am not trying to be sarcastic or condescending. I think that
>you've accomplished something worthwhile - as long as the faith
>they're kept in
>is living faith in Christ
>& not simply in the Bible.
> We justified by faith, not by our theology, & a person
>with YEC theology
>can certainly be saved. But such a theology has many weaknesses which may
>return to cause trouble. & the difficulty with your approach is
>that you don't
>do anything to correct the theology. What you offer, if I can exagreate
>somewhat, is YEC theology (i.e., concordism) without the YEC chronology.
Maybe, and what I see from my liberal brothers is the destruction of any
meaningful Biblical inspiration. Somehow that seems worse to me--obviously
not to you.
>
>
> But if "about the only thing that is verifiable that makes any
>difference to the Judeo/Christian story" is the flood which
>happened, according
>to you, ~ 5 x 10^6 years ago, it's pretty hard to see how you're presenting
>anything like historical verification of the Bible.
So you are saying by this that things which happened long ago are not
historical? That seems to me to be a pretty bold claim. The Big Bang, which
happened billions of years ago, is really a verification of the Scripture
because science says the universe had a beginning. That is exactly what the
Bible said. But according to you, it really isn't worth much because it
happened long ago. Give me a break. Historical things happened long before
humanity was on earth.
> Your statements about Buddhism are correct but in an
>important sense
>Buddhism doesn't depend on the historicity of those events. What
>is crucial to
>it are the teachings of Gautama, & they would be just as true if
>they were the
>teachings of Joe Schmoe. There is some sense to a Zen master telling an
>inquirer that he must kill the Buddha.
I agree that Buddhism doesn't rest on the historicity of Gautama's life. But
in some sense, Christianity does rest on the concept that God created the
heavens and the earth and is powerful enough to create things and raise the
dead. A God who is that powerful, but who can't make Joe Schmoe write what
he wants him to write, is really an impotent boob. How on earth can we claim
that God raised the dead and created the world, but is powerless to convey a
true message? THat is truely an amazing concept of God.
"
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
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 22 2001 - 15:13:03 EST