Glenn wrote:
<< Does anyone have any fact that is verifiable about Christianity which makes
a difference to the central issue of God invading history?
Only by an affirmative, can we totally escape the issue of faith based upon
faith.
>>
The underlying question is important; and I was trying to think of how I
would answer it. I tried to think if proving that the Flood occured would
answer the question; and concluded it would only be of tangential value
because even if the Flood were proven by say finding the ark with a tablet
inside with Noah's name on it as well as sedimentary remains of the Flood in
all the right places at the right time, that would still leave as possible
contenders as the true religion: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Bahai,
Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses.
I conclude, therefore, that appeal to the New Testament record of the words
and deeds of Jesus and especially the resurrection would go further in the
right direction. This need not include any claim that the historical record
per se is a revelation from God; but, only that it is a historical document,
like the writings of Livy or Suetonius, and just as much entitled to respect
as such as they are--- if not more because of their close proximity in time
to eye-witnesses of the life and teachings of Jesus. Such an appeal to
historical documents along with those archaeological finds such as the
inscription with Pilate's name which lend authenticity to the accounts
escapes the charge that one is basing faith in Christ on faith alone. The
historical documents of the NT are _objective_ evidences of the real
historical existence, life and teachings of Jesus; so Christianity is not
depending on subjective experiences alone. It is not a faith based on faith
alone.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 25 2001 - 02:58:20 EST