Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

From: John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com>
Date: Sat Dec 20 2003 - 17:55:31 EST

>> It is clear that
Howard (and Burgy as well) disagree with Lewis. I happen to agree with
Lewis and
disagree with them. >>

Burgy does NOT disagree with Lewis. He merely has pointed out that Lewis
made several assumptions in posing the two possibilities that are not
accepted by everyone.

The issue is the argument. Lewis gives only two possibilities:

1. Jesus was a madman, or worse
2. Jesus was the Son of God

But there are all sorts of other possibilities, at least one of which
is:

3. The scriptures are in error.
4. etc
5. etc

Howard's point is simple. If you use Lewis's argument in discussions, you
are very likely to be hooted down. At the very least recognize its
assumptions. Lewis should have stated them; in not doing so he erred.
IMHO.

Burgy

www.burgy.50megs.com/shadows.htm (Into the Shadows)

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Received on Sat Dec 20 17:58:00 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 20 2003 - 17:58:00 EST