> Mike Jaqua and Ken Smith have given what I believe are good reasons to
> hold that the historicity of biblical revelation is essential to a
> rational faith in personal revelation. I would have to agree that if the
> bones of Christ were found (which would include a compelling story of how
> they were hidden, why the ruse was continued, etc) I could no longer be a
> Christian. (I might continue to be a theist.) Paul seems to endorse
> this view of the essentiality of the hisotrical resurrection in 1 Co 15.
I'm not denying that the fact of the Resurrection is of key
importance, but importance towards what? And what convinces us that the
Resurrection actually occured and therefore will occur again?
> I am somewhat uncomfortable with Steve's use of "leap of faith." When
> does a step become a leap? Why would Christian faith necessarily be a
> leap? When could a leap be rational (or would its rationality make it
> then a step)? Anyone remember Francis Schaeffer's parable of the
> mountain climbers?
It doesn't matter how big the leap is. As far as I can tell one
doesn't really know what's going on until the leap/step/hop/interplanetary
mission is made.
Stephen