glenn morton wrote:
........................................
> > The Bhagavad Gita isn't a witness to Jesus Christ (which doesn't mean it's
> > of no value at all). The Old & New Testaments are (which doesn't require
> that they
> > all be accurate science by A.D. 2000 standards). Glenn may reply, "How do
> we know that
> > what it says about Jesus is correct if we can't trust its statements about
> the Flood
> > &c?" - & then anyone who is interested can replay the tapes of our
> previous debates
>
> Don't you see that what you have is a great tautology. The Bible is the true
> witness of God's activities as long as the Bible is the true witness of
> God's activites. To me that is what you and Paul's position asks one to
> accept. And I always want to scream that the Hindu can say that The
> Bhagavad-Gita is the true record of God's activities because the
> Bhagavad-Gita is the true record of God's acitivities, as well! So we all
> stand there saying that our religion is true because our religion is true.
> Big deal. Meaningless statement.
Christianity is an historical faith but that doesn't mean that it's only
a collection of correct historical statements. Its central claim is that the answer
to the fundamental questions of meaning, guilt, and death are given in the life, death,
& resurrection of an historical person Jesus who is part of the history of Israel.
Certainly historical questions (was there a Jesus of Nazareth, was he crucified &c)
are important for the truth claims of this faith. But whether or not Christianity is
accepted as one's personal commitment - & not simply accurate history - depends on
whether or not it provides one a compelling understanding of one's own life & experience
of the world.
History is important - we can't claim that Christianity would be true even if
Jesus never lived or if he died in bed at a ripe old age. But that doesn't mean that
all material in Scripture must be understood as accurate history. Far less does the
truth of Christianity depend upon speculative mighta'been of ancient history to bring
Genesis into superficial accord with it.
In discussion with people of other faiths which make claims about history, of
course their (& our) claims will be debated. With Muslims, e.g., did Jesus really die
on the cross? But what happens in discussion with those of _non_-historic faiths, such
as Buddhism? As far as I know there's no reason for Christians to debate any of the
known history of Gautama - as distinguished from his or later interpretations of it.
What needs to be debated is the relative value of the understandings which Buddhism and
Christianity provide of life and the world.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 06 2000 - 08:49:08 EDT