Glenn Morton wrote:
> >-----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.
No, it would say nothing at all about "divine interaction". It only would
only say that the Bible has a few pieces of correct information about a flood that
happened long ago. & even if one does believe (going well beyond the geological &c
evidence) that the flood showed divine interaction, it still proves nothing about the
resurrection, as any Orthodox Jew will tell you.
I could respond in detail to the errors and distortions of my position in
your statements. (E.g., I of course never suggested that the dates of the NT
documents "automatically makes them true.") But that seems superfluous. The more I
learn of your arguments, the less sense they make. If it were a matter of arguing
that there has to be historical evidence for the resurrection, OK, I understand that
& am in basic agreement. If it's a matter of arguing that the biblical flood
narrative must be historically accurate if we're to have confidence in the biblical
accounts of the resurrection, OK, I understand that too, though I don't agree. But
to brush away all historical and literary evidence supportive of (N.B. not probative
of) the resurrection, to say that it cannot be "verified" even though it's important
to believe that it was a real historical event and to refuse to give any
consideration to what the resurrection would mean if were true, and then to claim
that supposed verification of the flood somehow supplies the evidence needed to
enable people to believe that Christianity is true, is absurd.
Shalom,
George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 22 2001 - 23:58:41 EST