RE: Signs of Scientism

Note that I put 'all' in quotation marks. True, there is enough
circumstantial evidence in the rapid growth of Christianity, the 'fire
within' (Holy Spirit) the apostles as they fanned out into the Roman Empire,
etc. However, one has to have a certain amount of faith that these
manifestations were a direct effect of the Resurrection. One can also
marvel at the improbably growth of the Muslim religion and of sects closer
to home.

  _____

From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:17 PM
To: Tjalle T Vandergraaf
Cc: Pim van Meurs; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Signs of Scientism

All' we have is what we have been told in the Bible and that should be
sufficient.
 

Well, no, that is not "all" we have. We have the witness of the first
century chuch in the face of intense persecution, the improbable growth of
the Church, the confirmation of the church fathers and creeds, and other
similar circumstantial evidence that lends plausibility to the Biblical
testimony. Belief in the resurrection is not mere fedeism.
 

On 1/17/06, Tjalle T Vandergraaf <ttveiv@mts.net> wrote:

<snip>
 

David: What do you make of the resurrection of Christ, Pim? Did Christ
really rise from the dead? Was it a "natural" event or was it "miraculous?"
If it was miraculous, is there any rational basis for believing it happened?

Pim: I was not there to witness it, I was not there to research it so I am
not sure if the resurrection from the dead really happened. Could it have
been a deep coma? Could it have been a near death experience? It's hard to
tell lacking the evidence. So what do I accept as a scientist and what do I
accept as a Christian? The two are very different. In the end it does not
really matter though since the meaning of Christ's resurrection is far more
important than the proven veracity of such an event.

But isn't that the beauty of the Resurrection? There was no human there to
actually witness the Resurrection! Among the 'evidence' we have is that the
tomb was empty, a large stone had been rolled away, a few cloths were left
behind, and the appearance of Jesus in a physical manifestation that was
real enough so that he could eat fish.

We have no physical evidence of the Resurrection. The shroud of Turin is
most likely not the burial cloth in which Jesus was buried, so we cannot
extract a DNA sample and check for chromosomes to get an insight in the
genetic makeup of Jesus. As far as I am aware, there is no fragment of the
Cross to be analyzed. 'All' we have is what we have been told in the Bible
and that should be sufficient. Imagine that we had found a relic like a
burial cloth! We would focus on the reliability of the analytical
techniques used to prove or disprove the Resurrection.

IMHO, the Resurrection is totally different from the created world. Here we
have material that we can analyze and geological records that give us a
pretty clear picture of how the world has 'evolved' over the years.
Therefore, I'm quite comfortable with the Resurrection event as described in
the Bible and with the comments made by Paul in 1 Cor. 15. I'm equally
comfortable with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

Chuck Vandergraaf

 
Received on Wed Jan 18 16:53:19 2006