From: John W Burgeson (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Oct 29 2002 - 09:56:05 EST
Paul wrote: "I guess just about everyone on this list takes it on faith
that Jesus Christ was a historical character."
Dick wrote, in reply, "And evidence. The personal testimony of Paul
...Testimony is evidence. Blind faith not required."
George commented: "Blind faith is not required. Faith is. The fact that
somehow Jesus was alive after he died on the cross does not force one to
believe that he is the Messiah of Israel or the Son of God. & it does
not prove that one is justified in entrusting his or her life to him.
Evidence - in the sense in which it is being used here - is
necessary but not sufficient."
The key term here is, I think, "entrusting."
Paul is right, there are few (if any) on this list that would not think
that JC was a historical character. And "faith" is necessarily a part of
Dick is right. Testimony IS evidence. In my Compuserve discussions with
my atheist friends, I can seldom, if ever, get them to see that
elementary fact. Both Civil and Criminal courts are based on testimonies,
of course. So our faith is not "blind faith."
George is right too. The evidence -- the testimonies of both scripture
and of persons we encounter in our life's walk, is necessary, but not
sufficient. Before I was a Christian, I had encountered a lot of both of
these. While I respected them, they were not persuasive.
So what else is needed? I think one thing is needed from the human side
-- a willingness to yield to the divine -- to allow him/her/it to speak
to us. When one does that, I believe, the grace of God will break
through, and faith will result. Sometimes as an epiphany (as I had), but
perhaps more often by a more gradual awakening.
More about this on page 2 of my web site.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
(an eclectic site about science/theology, quantum mechanics,
ethics, baseball, humor, cars, philosophy, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 29 2002 - 22:49:58 EST