On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:55:11 -0600, Russell Stewart wrote:
DM>Ya know what I find to be a particularly strong arguement?
>Jesus performed many miracles and was resurrected to walk on
>the earth before many witnesses.
RS>This is where your logic breaks down. Eyewitness testimony that Jesus
>existed is not hard to accept. However, eyewitness testimony of his
>miracles and his resurrection are another matter. As the saying goes,
>"extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Eyewitness testimony
>is not "extraordinary proof". If I read a historical "testimony" that the
>Sandia Mountains here in Albuquerque once stood up and did the Foxtrot
>with the Sangre de Cristos by Santa Fe, I would be understandably quite
>skeptical. But your standard of credulity would require me to accept it as
>gospel (so to speak). That is what I am having a hard time with.
If you don't accept "eyewitness testimony", what "proof" would you accept
that Jesus rose from the dead in the first century AD?
Regards.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------