I agree. Accepting the message of the gospels about Jesus is a matter
of faith. The core historicity of gospels, even if one rejects their
message, is not.
> Sources alone would not be the basis for believing the gospel.
> Consider the book of Mormon.
> However, even at the _most_ skeptical level, it is still
> reasonable to accept that there could have been a man
> who was crucified because he said things that people didn't
> want the hear. As it is today, throughout history, everyone
> has had the desire to get rid of this guy at one time or another.
> Indeed, any excuse will do, just give me one. ;-) At some
> level, that is the whole point of the gospel, even without
> the theology. Denying the historicity of Jeshua ben Joseph
> is surely wreckless and is not likely to lead the human
> race in a productive direction regardless of whatever else
> is true (or false) about the gospel and its witness.
> by Grace alone do we proceed,
> The only thing we learn from history
> is that we don't learn anything. Hegel.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 12 2001 - 05:33:20 EDT