From: Alexanian, Moorad (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 08:51:49 EST
I am not sure I understand this line of reasoning. It seems to me
that the main issue with the Gospels is its possible historicity.
Imagine you witness some events today, would you testify to what you
witnessed with some particular philosophical worldview in mind or
just state the facts as you experienced them? It seems to me that
what is being really questioned is whether the Gospel represent
historical facts or fiction. Moorad
From: RFaussette@aol.com [mailto:RFaussette@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: spong's bad assumptions and virgin births - for jim
In a message dated 1/5/03 7:23:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org
> . I don't believe that argument is compelling, in part because it's
> far from clear that such traditions did influence Mt & Lk. In any case,
> the presence of
> this theme in other religions & cultures is a sword that can cut both ways.
Would you entertain the possibility that some of the structure and nature of
judeo-christianity may be from the rg veda via zoroaster with a smatter of
Babylonian religion? I'm trying to understand your metaphor. Are you saying
religions evolve in isolation and are best not examined for cross influences?
"sword cuts both ways" - please clarify... what analyses are appropriate?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 06 2003 - 11:21:06 EST