Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site garfield.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!garfield!david14
From: david14@garfield.UUCP (David Janes)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Paul's words not only his alone? Partial-Retraction!
Message-ID: <734@garfield.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Dec-83 13:07:58 EST
Article-I.D.: garfield.734
Posted: Thu Dec  1 13:07:58 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Dec-83 14:30:27 EST
References: <301@ihuxj.UUCP>
Organization: Memorial Univ. of Nfld., St. John's, Canada
Lines: 55

Addressing the subject of inspired writings of Paul ...

> 	Instead of assuming the Bible is the Word of God, we can begin by
> demonstrating that the Scriptures are basically reliable and trustworthy
> historical documents. This is confirmed by applying the ordinary test of
> historical critism to the Scriptures.

What are these tests of 'historical critism.' There seems to be very little
'second sourcing' for any particular part of the old or new testament. The
Romans, who kept fairly accurate records had none (that we have 
found) on a Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps the test of historical critism
applied to the Bible are 'well the Bible was God inspired, so it must be
historically accurate...' That just brings us back to circular reasoning.

> 	Once it is established that the Bible is a valid historical
> record, the next point is realizing that Jesus Christ claims to be the
> unique Son of God and that He bases this claim on His forthcoming
> resurrection from the dead.

Well, at this rate it is going to be a while before it is established ...

> 	Next, we examine the evidence for the resurrection contained 
> in this historic document and find that the arguments overwhelmingly 
> support the contention that Christ has risen from the dead. If this
> is true, then He is the unique Son of God as He claimed to be. If He
> is indeed God, then He speaks with authority on all matters.

I don't find the evidence (what little is presented) overwhelming. The body
disappeared from his tomb. Big deal. Even documents considered historically 
accurate are not taken for truth verbatim, but are considered in light 
of the what the authors intention were. Certainly, the gospel writers in 
this case were trying to make plug for christianity (or the early Jewish 
version of it.) If they thought it was convenient for say, that Jesus's
body should disappear from his tomb, and then a few days later pop up
somewhere along way, why not write it in. It sure sounds convincing.

> 	Since Jesus considered the Old Testament to be the Word
> of God (Matthew 15:1-4; 5:17,18) and promised His disciples, who
> either wrote or had control over the writings of the New Testament
> books, that the Holy Spirit would bring all things back to their
> remembrance (John 14:26), we can insist, with sound and accurate
> logic, that the Bible is God's word. This is not circular reasoning.
> It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the
> sound logical outcome of these facts. The case for Christianity
> can be established by ordinary means of historical investigation.

If you're going to talk about 'sound and accurate logic' please include all
assumptions and refences that you're making, otherwise, all arguments
based on the initial assumptions (that there is evidence that Bible is a
trustworthy and reliable document based on tests of historical criticism) are
meaningless. 

-------
	- David Janes (Memorial University of Newfoundland)
		...!{allegra, inhp4, utcsrgv}!garfield!david14