From: Dick Fischer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Oct 29 2002 - 17:36:57 EST
Hi George you wrote:
>Dick Fischer wrote:
> > Paul wrote:
> > >I guess just about everyone on this list takes
> > > it on faith that Jesus Christ was a historical character.
> > And evidence. The personal testimony of Paul is that he was confronted on
> > the road to Damascus by the risen Christ. Then his life did an abrupt
> > about face.
> > Matthew, John and Peter were in the group of disciples when Christ appeared
> > and showed them the proof of His resurrection. Each wrote of the
> > resurrection. And all but John were martyred for their belief.
> > Testimony is evidence. Blind faith not required.
>Blind faith is not required. Faith is.
I take Christ's existence to be established on evidence. On faith, I cling
to the hope of salvation through His sacrifice.
> The fact that somehow Jesus was alive
>after he died on the cross does not force one to believe that he is the
>Israel or the Son of God.
Well, since it was foretold by prophets, and He predicted His own
resurrection, and it came to pass, I'm convinced. But if the operative
word is "force," then I agree, we don't have to believe it, or even believe
in God if we prefer not to.
> & it does not prove that one is justified in entrusting his or her life
> to him.
Absolute proof doesn't exist for most things. You and I can't prove we are
connected to the phyletic tree of life, yet we both believe it.
>Evidence - in the sense in which it is being used here - is necessary but
Without evidence, I probably would not be a Christian at all. I could
chose between lots of contending religious beliefs that likewise would have
nothing to substantiate them. Who knows what I would pick? Something that
offered rewards with no sacrifice probably.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 29 2002 - 23:21:37 EST