george murphy wrote:
> To keep this brief I'll just make one point - which is
>that this is a
> very odd & inconclusive argument.
> Christianity rests upon the resurrection of the crucified - check.
> At this late date we can't "verify" the resurrection.
>Well, we can't
> prove it but we can show that the evidence that we have for it
> But let that pass.
> OK - now supposedly we're going to verify some OT texts as
> accurate. Assume this done for the sake of argument. Then what?
> We now have additional reason to believe in the
>resurrection? Not in
> the slightest - witness all the Orthodox Jews who accept the historical
> character of Genesis without question but who don't believe that
> Jesus rose from
> the dead.
> Of course the argument may work for a wavering
>fundamentalist who wants
> somehow to bolster his faith that the Bible is "true" - i.e., accurate
> historical narrative. But it would do anything for the person who
> doubts (or doesn't believe at all) & is really thinking critically.
Come on, George!!
Just why is it any better to accept your interpretation that it is some
sort of fable, allegory, or what ever name you want to give it.
You and Glenn are on the same team. You both agree that it is our Faith
in Jesus Christ that mostly matters. Why should one accept The George L.
Murphy interpretation over the Glenn Morton one?
I personally prefer one that comes closer to real history than one which
> George L. Murphy
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:04:10 EDT