Lewis’ argument is that same that any sane reader of Scripture would arrive at
1. Jesus was a madman, or worse
2. Jesus was the Son of God
If you claim that there are all sorts of possibilities, then you are indicating that Scripture is untrue and so Jesus is not the Son of God. Where would you ever get the notion of Jesus being the Son of God if it is not from Scripture?
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of John W Burgeson
Sent: Sat 12/20/2003 5:55 PM
To: wallyshoes@mindspring.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
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
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 21:06:26 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 20 2003 - 21:06:26 EST