Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
For Tim: Welcome to Alt Views, where NOTHING is considered a given...except of course that the alternative views posted here are to be considered as absolute truth, even though they can't be scientifically proven...but that's ok because they are the opinions of the one with an alternative view...which makes their opinion truth! How convenient!
|
Now UntoHim, you will notice I didn't state that the gospels are or are not historical, factual records. And I didn't state my own opinion about it one way or the other. I simply asked why Timotheist supposes that some are. People throughout history have written all kinds of claims, some have been demonstrated true others false. Whether we agree with him or not, Timotheist made a definite case against the probability of virgin conception. But, why accept any of the stories as probable without a sound reasons for doing so? And if one considers some historically probable and others not, why?
Take the story that Jesus turned water into wine for instance. I know of nowhere in any other text that such an incident is reported, not in the other gospels and not in the epistles of Paul, or the other NT books and certainly not in any non-Christian literature of the period. So, there is no independent verification of the story. Where did the story come from? Is it intended to be a factual account? Are there other possibly more plausible explanations for its existence? How do you or Timotheist or I or anyone else here know? And, if we don't know, what then? If faith enters in, what does it require of us? Timotheist has already left the safe haven of unjustified belief in inerrancy. Does that eliminate the possibility of saving faith? Or are there other reasonable bases for faith? Inquiring minds like mine want to know.
Quote:
|
For zeek: Maybe the very same reasoning that makes him conclude that the virgin birth is an "added miracle" leads him to believe that the majority of the NT record is historically accurate? Just sayin....
|
Well it wouldn't be the same reasoning because he gave some specific arguments for deciding against the virgin conception that would not apply elsewhere. But, since many of us were indoctrinated into The Faith before we reached the age of reason, why assume that people have reasons for believing these things at all if they don't tell us what they are? Others had dramatic adult conversions after which they came highly suggestible and accepted all manner of dubious teachings about the Bible from charismatic leaders, who upon further investigation have proven to be untrustworthy. Sound familiar? Anyway because those people were instructed not to think, they may not have good reasons for believing what they do either. It would be mistake to assume that any of us have sound reasons for what we believe if we don't present them.