Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

----- Original Message -----
From: "John W Burgeson" <jwburgeson@juno.com>
To: <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

> >> 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
>

Some might say positing #3 regarding the texts setting forth Jesus' claims
about himself eviscerates the Gospels.

I have used Lewis' argument many times over the years and have yet to be
"hooted down". Then again, argument is something I always seem to do fairly
well.

Jay Willingham

>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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 19:35:36 2003