From: PASAlist@aol.com
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 03:22:18 EST
In a message dated 10/28/2002 12:21:11 AM Pacific Standard Time, PASAlist
writes:
<< < f you do a Google search on "Origins of Christianity", you will find
many web-pages, some scholarly and some cranky, that argue that Jesus
Christ never existed at all; that he was just a mythological figure
that evolved out of other mythological stories (there are many other
mythological accounts, if I recall correctly of a man/god that
results from the union of a human and a God). Other scholars have SNIP
Therefore, instead of this continual chipping away at the bits of the
bible that contradict our scientific knowledge, I would prefer to see
some more solid debate on why we believe Jesus Christ was real. A
creationist takes it on faith that the biblical account of Creation
is historically true. I guess just about everyone on this list takes
it on faith that Jesus Christ was a historical character. What's the
difference? The difference, I suspect, is that we know that Jesus is
absolutely central to our faith, whereas the Creation is perceived by
many as not being a key issue. But to an unbelieving outsider there
would be just as much reason to question the existence of Christ as
to disbelieve the Creation account.
Therefore, let's try and have some positive debate to build up our
faith, rather than this continual chipping away.>>
Although the active atheists like to cite the myths of the first century
which are similar to the story of Jesus, they are for the most part out of
date. That whole debate really belongs to the 20's or somewhere in there. I
am often distressed by Fundamentalist scholarship, but the atheist
scholarship is just as bad and sometimes worse. If you can find a serious
journal that is currently publishing such arguments, I might be interested in
answering some of them. But, most of what I have seen is so shallow, sloppy,
speculative and uninformed by the answers given long ago, it makes creation
science look good.
As to Genesis, I don't like to divorce the creation account from the the
next 10 chapters. They are a unit, and the main reason I believe they are
divine accommodations to the science/traditions of the times is because they
reflect those traditions and taken as VCR accounts they are falsified by
various scientific disciplines---so much so that those holding to their
historical accuracy either have to take the Bible out of context and
virtually rewrite it to agree with science, or go off into the imaginary
world of creation science and deny the validity of modern science.
The Gospels and the early witness to Jesus in Paul on the other hand have
little to do with science. There is no archaeological falsification of
Christ's history. Naturalism, as a philosophy will reject the accounts
because of their supernatural elements; but the sciences per se have nothing
to say against the historical accounts of the gospels. That is the first
difference. The second difference is that the gospels are written within a
generation of the events, and such information as we have suggests that they
go back to eye-witness accounts. Gen 1-11 was written one to two millennia
after the events.
The Bible is a collection of books. They must each be treated on their own
merits; and the gospels, for my money especially Mark and Luke, are as sound
a historical foundation as for any history in the ancient world.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 28 2002 - 09:39:29 EST