> Are you suggesting that people in
> the first century were unaware of
> the fact that dead people are not
> routinely resurrected?
Russell Stewart replied:
> Who said anything about "routinely"?
> I'm just saying that they were more
> likely to believe in the supernatural.
This does not mean that they did not understand the normal course of
nature. It is precisely because he *did* know the normal course of
nature that Joseph, the betrothed husband of Miriam (Mary), being
unwilling "to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away
privily" (Matt. 1:19) when she turned up pregnant. Joseph knew how
women normally become pregnant and would have divorced her according to
the traditions of their culture if it had not been that an "angel of the
LORD appeared unto him in a dream" and informed him that "that which is
conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 1:20)
I am not asserting this as proof of the Virgin Birth. The point is that
it is useless to argue that they were somehow more inclined to think
something miraculous. Joseph had to be convinced by an angel before he
would believe that supernatural conception was responsible for his
wife's condition.
You might question the veractiy story on the basis of ancient authority
or textual criticism, but you cannot say that Joseph was more inclined
to believe a supernatural explanation. He knew the natural order. He
did not divorce Miriam because of the appearance of an angel to dissuade
him. The authenticity of this story is not subject to scientific
analysis because the existence and activity of angels is by definition
*outside* the domain of all sciences. It is your privilege to
disbelieve it, but your disbelief cannot be based upon scientific
evidence--it must be based upon a foregone belief in the non-existence
of the supernatural.
Russ
Russell T. Cannon
rcannon@usa.net