My good friend George, writing to my good friend Glenn, said, in part:
"OK - now supposedly we're going to verify some OT texts as historically
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 ... 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 has serious doubts (or doesn't believe at all) & is really
I think George left out a "not" in the last sentence. With that suggested
change, I am quite in agreement.
However (you knew that was coming <G> --
My own belief (trust) is NOT in the resurrection, but in Jesus the Christ.
Yes, I believe (NOT trust) the resurrection "happened," but not in any
particular "model" of it as seen by various theologians. Some models seem
more likely than others. If Borg's model (which seems unlikely) proves to be
closest -- that's fine.
And for Glenn -- You keep coming back to Ugaboobah. Do you really think that
saying the right sylables gets you into heaven? Maybe, for some primitive
tribes in another time and place, "Ugaboobah" was the best word they could
come up with for what they worshipped. Does that disqualify them? What if
they had come up with the sylables "Je-sus?" Would that have made a
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 11:14:39 EDT