> The teaching on scientific validation is totally
> independent from the
> veracity of the account. The veracity of the account
> rests on the
> resurrection of Christ which is a historical event.
Not quite! The veracity of the account rests on the
resurrection of Christ which is *claimed by many people to
be* a historical event. This is quite different from
actually *being* an historical event, since there are just
as many (or more) people who deny the historicity of the
resurrection.
> See for example
> "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by J. McDowel (?).
> There are other
> passages that can be estudied from the same perspective,
> for example
> check the following webpage out
>
> http://www.webcom.com/~ctt/everythg.html
>
I haven't read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", but I did
check out the above web site. It says "critically examine
everything" but implies that the Christian Bible is the
standard against which everything should be examined. There
is nothing on that web page recommending that the Bible
should be critically examined against other secular or
religious writings.
For alternative coherently argued and well-documented
viewpoints, see:
"Belief and Make-Believe - Critical Reflections on the
Sources of Credulity", George A. Wells, 1991, Open Court
Publishing Company
"Resurrection - Myth or Reality", John Shelby Spong, 1994,
Harper Collins
"After God - The Future of Religion", Don Cupitt, 1997,
Weidenfeld & Nicolson
--RegardsDerek
-----------------------------------------------------| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au || Melba ACT | derek.mclarnen@telstra.com.au || Australia | | -----------------------------------------------------