Actually, how can we verify that any event is historical. How do we know,
except by the account of fallible men, that Julius Caesar ever lived, that
Napoleon conquered. In fact, there are movements now that deny the
historicity of the holocaust. One must depend on others that were there
for information. That is the reason the resurrection is probably the most
verifiable event, because its based on eyewitness accounts and avowed
opponents of the time (Pharisees, Jews, etc.) never claimed it did not
happen. They tried to cover it up, yes, but could not produce a body which
would have nipped Christianity in the bud.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Derek McLarnen <dmclarne@pcug.org.au>
> To: E G M <e_g_m@yahoo.com>
> Cc: evo <evolution@calvin.edu>
> Subject: Re: Debate
> Date: Saturday, February 28, 1998 12:13 AM
>
> E G M wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Derek
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> | Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
> | Melba ACT | derek.mclarnen@telstra.com.au |
> | Australia | |
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>