glenn morton wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
> To: "glenn morton" <mortongr@flash.net>
> Cc: <PHSEELY@aol.com>; <adam@crowl.webcentral.com.au>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 12:42 PM
> > 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.
>
> We absolutely agree that Christianity is not ONLY a collection of correct
> historical facts. Even if all the facts in the Bible are 100% true and
> verified, one still needs faith. But in that case, one would have a BASIS
> for that faith. As it is what I see being offered is a baseless faith based
> on faith alone--no evidence please, just believe!
I have said many times - including the sentence immediately following the
statement you just caricatured - things such as
"History is important - we can't claim that Christianity would be true even
Jesus never lived or if he died in bed at a ripe old age."
You keep misrepresenting my view as a rejection of all historical evidence. I wish
you'd stop it.
> > 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.
>
> THat can only be debated if one thinks that Jehovah's revelation from the
> beginning to the end is true.
You have it backwards. How we decide whether Yahweh's revelation is true is by
evaluating the understanding (by which of course I mean more than just intellectual
correlation of facts & theories) it provides of life & 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 - 21:22:57 EDT