Ewen must have an odd idea about what "reason requires." In my view, reason requires that you at least consider the arguments for the other side before issuing such pronouncements.
Let’s look at some of the “scholarship” Parsons relies on:
Crossan, J.D. (1998), The Birth of Christianity. San Francisco: Harper.
_____. (1995). Who Killed Jesus? San Francisco: Harper.
Huxley, T.H.. (1893), "The Value of Witness to the Miraculous," in Selected Works of T. H. Huxley: Science and the Christian Tradition. New York: D. Appleton.
Lüdemann, G. (1995), What Really Happened to Jesus? Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Mack, B.L. (1993), The Lost Gospel. San Francisco: Harper.
_____. (1995), Who Wrote the New Testament? San Francisco: Harper.
Martin, M. (1991), The Case Against Christianity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Paine, T. (1974), The Age of Reason. P. S. Foner, ed. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press.
Ranke-Heinemann, U. (1988), Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women, Sexuality, and the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday.
Spong, J.S. (1994), Resurrection: Myth or Reality? San Francisco: Harper.
Wells, G.A. (1996), The Jesus Legend. Chicago: Open Court.
_____. (1989), Who Was Jesus? La Salle, IL: Open Court.
In fact, his bibliography doesn’t contain any major evangelical scholars. By his own yardstick, Parsons is irrational, for he’s failed to consider the arguments for the other side.
In fact, it’s amusing to see a philosopher with so little independent judgment. He reads the liberal side of the argument, and that’s it. Childlike faith in whatever liberal scholars say.
No comments:
Post a Comment