Martyrdom 2.1

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

February1O, 1998, Jason Carter wrote:



>CARTER

>Dave, I'm afraid you have misunderstood the entire point. My assertion is

>that you can be ridiculously skeptical of everything. The most common

>rebuttal to my sources, for instance, is the pathetic plea of "it's simply

>hearsay." Excuse me, is not most of our history hearsay? Did Josephus

>witness all the events he wrote about? Did Philo, did Tactitus? I'll give

>you a hint - no. Well gosh darn, I guess we must throw them out as

>witnesses! The point was that there are those in this group who are causing

>me to shake my head in amazement at their "intelligent skepticism."



JANET
Jason, inaddition to shaking my head in amazement at your logic, I feel
compelled to point out that if any historians did not witness the events
being decribed in their histories, then they can't technically be called
witnesses. So, yes, we must throw them out as *witnesses.*

And, as others have asked you, if Tacitus gave a firsthand, eyewitness
account of someone (not mentioned in the Bible) performing a miracle such as
turning water into wine (or blood), would you believe it? Why, or why not?
How would you decide? In fact, maybe you could tell us of some reported
miracle which you believe, even though it wasn't recorded in the Bible.
Inquiring minds want to know.

-Janet

• Previous message: Resurrection according to Paul (Was: Crucifixion Burials - St. Paul)
• Next message: Resurrection according to Paul (Was: Crucifixion Burials - St. Paul)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]