RE: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

My claim is that Scripture is the sole place where one can learn the historical prepositions that attest Jesus is the Son of God. More likely is that if you get that info, viz. the divinity of Christ, anywhere other than Scripture, then one is most likely to be insane or else divinely inspired.

Feliz Navidad to you too.

Moorad

        -----Original Message-----
        From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of John W Burgeson
        Sent: Sun 12/21/2003 12:41 PM
        To: Alexanian, Moorad
        Cc: asa@calvin.edu
        Subject: Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered
        
        

>>Lewis’ argument is that same that any sane reader of Scripture would
        arrive at>>
        
        Your claim, then, is that anyone who does not agree with you is insane?
        
        Come on, Moorad.
        
>>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. >>
        
        That may be my candidate for the worst syllogism of the year.
        
        I claim only that, from a purely logical viewpoint, there are other
        possibilities.
        To make that claim says 0 about scripture; it is a statement about an
        argument.
        Of course, from a logical viewpoint, Jesus' position as the Son of God is
        unaffected by whether scripture happens to be:
        (1) inerrant
        (2) infallible but not inerrant
        (3) fairly accurate
        (4) a fairy story
        
        Merry Christmas, Moorad.
        
        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 Sun Dec 21 22:41:41 2003