Re: ASA, ID, Blogs and my observations

You have not "explained" this many times but have simply made this assertion which bears little resemblance to reality. 1st, I again point out that you ignore the cross: I know you don't think that's important in this connection but I do & it's misleading for you to continue to imply that I emphasize the resurrection independently of the cross. This isn't the 1st time I've corrected you on that.

Then the claim of the resurrection of Jesus is one for which there is significant literary & historical support, as the work of critical scholars such as Pannenberg, O'Collins & Wright have shown. Of course this doesn't amount to scientific proof but it's simply false to suggest that there is no more reason to believe the resurrection of Jesus than there is for Adonis et al. (There is also little doubt that Jesus actually lived & a lot that Adonis did.) & it's at least equally misleading to say that the resurrection is not more "tangibly verifiable" than your might-have-been Genesis reconstructions.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: glennmorton@entouch.net
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 9:17 AM
  Subject: Re: ASA, ID, Blogs and my observations

  ......................

>2d, precisely the problem is that your starting point (& that of many others in such discussions) is wrong. While creation &
>Genesis are important, we have to start with the cross & resurrection if we expect to get any Christian insight into them. I am not
>"changing the subject" when I insist upon that but arguing for the proper way of approaching the subject.

  No, as I have explained many times there are lots of religions with resurrected Gods. Will the REAL resurrected God PLEASE stand up? You can't start at the resurrection because it is not tangibly verifiable.
Received on Tue May 24 11:51:19 2005