From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 10:15:25 EST
Dick Fischer wrote:
>
> Hi George you wrote:
>
> >Dick Fischer wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul wrote:
> > >
> > > >I guess just about everyone on this list takes
> > > > it on faith that Jesus Christ was a historical character.
> > >
> > > And evidence. The personal testimony of Paul is that he was
>confronted on
> > > the road to Damascus by the risen Christ. Then his life did an abrupt
> > > about face.
> > >
> > > Matthew, John and Peter were in the group of disciples when
>Christ appeared
> > > and showed them the proof of His resurrection. Each wrote of the
> > > resurrection. And all but John were martyred for their belief.
> > >
> > > Testimony is evidence. Blind faith not required.
> >
> >Blind faith is not required. Faith is.
>
> I take Christ's existence to be established on evidence. On faith, I cling
> to the hope of salvation through His sacrifice.
>
> > The fact that somehow Jesus was alive
> >after he died on the cross does not force one to believe that he is the
> >Messiah of
> >Israel or the Son of God.
>
> Well, since it was foretold by prophets, and He predicted His own
> resurrection, and it came to pass, I'm convinced. But if the operative
> word is "force," then I agree, we don't have to believe it, or even believe
> in God if we prefer not to.
>
> > & it does not prove that one is justified in entrusting his or her life
> > to him.
>
> Absolute proof doesn't exist for most things. You and I can't prove we are
> connected to the phyletic tree of life, yet we both believe it.
>
> >Evidence - in the sense in which it is being used here - is necessary but
> >not sufficient.
>
> Without evidence, I probably would not be a Christian at all. I could
> chose between lots of contending religious beliefs that likewise would have
> nothing to substantiate them. Who knows what I would pick? Something that
> offered rewards with no sacrifice probably.
I agree that I should have made the distinction between what's involved
in accepting the existence of Jesus and his significance as Lord &
Savior. It's the
difference between saying that he is an historical figure and that he
is an historic
figure. Every Joe Schmoe or Sally Straw who's ever lived & for whom
there is some
evidence in census records, chronicles &c, along with Plato, Lincoln,
&c is historical.
But Lincoln is an historic figure & Joe Schmoe isn't. The Christian
claim is that Jesus
is the historic figure _par excellence_ - indeed, that he is the
purpose of history.
This distinction is made in the 1896 work by Martin Kaehler
that deserves to be
better known (it was reprinted in translation by Fortress in 1988 by
Fortress), _The
So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ_. (The
difference between
_historische_ & _geschichtliche_ is more obvious in the original.)
Having said that - we cannot evaluate the evidence for the
existence and Jesus
and the events of his life from an entirely neutral standpoint.
First, the documents
which constitute almost all our evidence were written by people who
believed that Jesus
was Lord and Savior & who were arguing for that belief in various
ways. (This was
Kaehler's main point.) & secondly, we evaluate the evidence within a
larger context
including how the putative existence of Jesus, his death &
resurrection &c help us to
understand our lives and the world. These points are true of any evaluation of
historical evidence for enything but they should be borne in mind
especially by those
who want to engage in Christian apologetics.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 10:15:26 EST