On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:01:13 -0500, Russell T. Cannon wrote:
>KP>Are you suggesting that people in the first century were unaware
>of the fact that dead people are not routinely resurrected?
>RC>Russell Stewart replied:
>RS>Who said anything about "routinely"? I'm just saying that they
>were more likely to believe in the supernatural.
What evidence does Russell S have for this sweeping statement? The
Sadducees were *religious leaders* "in the first century", yet they
did not believe in the resurrection (Mt 22:23), and in fact they did
not believe in angels or spirits (Ac 23:8) either! The Athenians
sneered at Paul when he mentioned the resurrection of Jesus (Ac
17:32).
>RC>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.
Good point. The New Testament consistently reports that the
disciples were to varying degrees doubters, despite their seeing
Jesus perform miracles. Judas was obviously unconvinced, as was
`doubting' Thomas at first (Jn 20:25). Even after appearances of
Jesus to the inner circle of disciples, there were still some in
the wider circle who doubted: "When they saw him, they worshiped
him; but some doubted." (Mt 28:17)
>RC>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.
Even theists who accept the supernatural are sceptical of stories of
angel visiting human beings. But the difference is that we do not
rule it out apriori as impossible. Theists would mostly agree with
atheists that it is more likely that a witness was mistaken, deluded,
or lying, than that he/she had been visited by an angel. However, a
theist can at least entertain the possibility of supernatural beings
and their intervention in human affairs, but would require compelling
evidence as well as a theologically plausible context.
The account of the angel visit to Miriam (ie. Mary), is embedded in
a wider matrix of the account of Jesus incarnation and indeed the
entire Bible's story of salvation. The account of the Virgin Birth
is even more credible because there seems to be no reason for it
being invented - the NT contains no argument for Jesus' deity based
on the Virgin Birth. Indeed two of the four gospels and Paul don't
mention it (although they do contain hints that they are aware of
it).
While experimental science cannot handle unique, unrepeatable
events, these are the stock-in-trade of historical science. The
unique thing about Christianity is that many (if not most) historians
accept the gospel stories as historically reliable, although they may
reject the supernatural on philosophical grounds. Liberal Christian
historian Peter Stuhlmacher of the University of Tubingen, admits
frankly that as a Scripture scholar he would be inclined to doubt the
Gospel stories, but as a historian he is obliged to treat them as
reliable:
"As a Western Scripture scholar, I am inclined to doubt these
[Gospel] stories, but as a historian I am obliged to take them as
reliable." (Stuhlmacher P., "The Gospel and the Gospels", Eerdmans:
Grand Rapids MI, 1991, in Bloesch D.G., "Holy Scripture", 1994,
pp255,273).
Ramm ends his book "The Christian View of Science and Scripture",
with the following appeal to unbelieving scientists:
"Christianity is a religion and not a science. In science the
principle of inter-subjectivity or objectivity prevails. What is
true for one scientist must be true for all. But this is not true in
religion, for if the pure in heart see God, then the impure do not,
and what is true for the pure is not true for the impure. God draws
near to those who draw near to Him, and He is a rewarder of them who
diligently seek Him. He is not known to those who do not draw close
to Him or to those who refuse to seek Him. What is true for some is
emphatically not true for all.
In the Gospels a very wealthy young man refused to make the
motions of faith. He was intrigued by Jesus Christ, but when the issue
became sharply one of Christ or his possessions, the tug of his
possessions was the stronger, and sorrowfully he left Jesus Christ. He
wanted religion without the motions of faith. It is not a rash
presumption to believe that many scientists and educated men wish
for peace of mind, relief from a guilty conscience, hope for the life to
come, and the blessedness of faith in God. But they find themselves
caught between their science and their religious hopes, unable to
move. Being possessed of great intellectual riches which manage to
come first in their sentiments, they leave Jesus Christ. Just as Jesus
refused to pursue the rich young man and make other terms, so today
we cannot lessen or cheapen or alter the terms of the gospel for our
men of science. There is no other Saviour than Jesus Christ, and there
is no other means of having Him than by the motions of repentance
and faith. Therefore, if a scientist comes to God he must come in the
same way as any other person comes to God. He must make the
appropriate spiritual motions. He must repent; he must confess his sin
to God; he must believe in Jesus Christ with all his heart."
(Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture",
Paternoster: London, 1955, p245)
God bless.
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------