<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Crossley Responds</title>
	<link>http://www.deinde.org/2007/11/30/crossley-responds/</link>
	<description>Resources for Biblical Scholars</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:04:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Antonio Jerez</title>
		<link>http://www.deinde.org/2007/11/30/crossley-responds/#comment-4899</link>
		<author>Antonio Jerez</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:33:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.deinde.org/2007/11/30/crossley-responds/#comment-4899</guid>
		<description>Danny wrote:
"Did the water actually turn into wine? That is where we exit historical criticism and enter the philosophical realm"

I dont see at all why a historian is entering the "philosophical realm" if he is trying to decide if a historical person actually turned water into wine or actually revived a rottening corpse. I actually see it as an all too common ploy in biblical scholarship to avoid the really hard questions. If many biblical scholars are totally divorced from the discoveries the last 200 years in sciences like physics, chemistry, biology etc etc its hardly the fault of secular historians.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Danny wrote:<br />
&#8220;Did the water actually turn into wine? That is where we exit historical criticism and enter the philosophical realm&#8221;</p>
<p>I dont see at all why a historian is entering the &#8220;philosophical realm&#8221; if he is trying to decide if a historical person actually turned water into wine or actually revived a rottening corpse. I actually see it as an all too common ploy in biblical scholarship to avoid the really hard questions. If many biblical scholars are totally divorced from the discoveries the last 200 years in sciences like physics, chemistry, biology etc etc its hardly the fault of secular historians.</p>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://www.deinde.org/wp-content/plugins/tippy/dom_tooltip.css" media="screen" /><script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.deinde.org/wp-content/plugins/tippy/dom_tooltip.js"></script>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob MacDonald</title>
		<link>http://www.deinde.org/2007/11/30/crossley-responds/#comment-4862</link>
		<author>Bob MacDonald</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:29:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.deinde.org/2007/11/30/crossley-responds/#comment-4862</guid>
		<description>Surely there is another question: did the eye-witnesses form the stories to show the power of the Spirit they encountered both in Jesus and in themselves after the crucifixion? These powers testify to the resurrection - and to the opening of the covenant to all nations.  If you are a skeptic and cannot bring yourself to miracles - then you need to postulate a psychological and physical mechanism whereby the human experiences inexplicable change after an encounter with the power of another person in his life and in his death.  Then you need to explain that power.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely there is another question: did the eye-witnesses form the stories to show the power of the Spirit they encountered both in Jesus and in themselves after the crucifixion? These powers testify to the resurrection - and to the opening of the covenant to all nations.  If you are a skeptic and cannot bring yourself to miracles - then you need to postulate a psychological and physical mechanism whereby the human experiences inexplicable change after an encounter with the power of another person in his life and in his death.  Then you need to explain that power.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
