If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

[Adrift]

On what did he base his defense? In the Christian community of his time, exactly what was required for someone to validly claim to be an apostle? And how do we know that? What document do we have, produced during the middle of the first century, in which someone says, "In order to be an apostle, a person must ______"?

Mark Goodacre of Duke University goes into this, and deals with these questions quite well in a very short podcast here: http://podacre.blogspot.com/2009/09/...ntroversy.html

Well worth the listen.

[hansgeorg]

in a very short podcast here:

Alas, podcast, not text blog.

I have no headphones in this library. *sigh*

I was wondering whether he agreed with the kind of scenario I had given in defense, not of St Paul, but of Petrine authorship of Petrine canonic writings, here:

F2Andy
So how do you think these guys did check the authorship? Letters were frequency written by scribes and carried by couriers. If the courier said the letter came from Peter, exactly how would that be confirmed?

HGL II
If you were a Roman Emperor, like Trajan or Hadrian, and sent a letter to Pliny the Younger when he was a magistrate on how he was to conduct the persecution of Christians (no ratting out of hidden ones, except by denunciation, but no tolerance of those admitting to be so), how did Pliny the Younger know the letter was from Trajan?

It was also delivered by courier.

The point is, post office with services for everyone was not invented.

And couriers implied a routine of verifying how genuine the correspondence was.

See the rest here:

http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogsp...criticism.html

[psstein]

X-QZ me, are you Catholic? You know what the Biblical Commission of Pope St Pius X would have said ...?

I really don't care. The church said that it was fine for Catholic exegetes to hold to Marcan priority in the 1940s.

[psstein]

Whether they wanted to attack Catholicism is less material. Dr. Wollmann,, an excommunicated Catholic, did want to attack Papacy - therein coinciding with interest of Bismarck during Kulturkampf. Oh, Bismarck of course was not attacking Catholics, he was attacking Ultramontanismus ...

Here is anyway what Farmer says, and it does not sound like a conspiracy theory to me:

It may be argued that no German scholar would have allowed himself to be influenced by non-scientific considerations, like the fear of being regarded as one who wishes to limit "free enquiry". But is such an argument sociologically tenable? And in any case would these German scholars also be free from all national sentiment?

For example, would Catholic professors during the Second Reich be immune from societal pressure emanating from a majority prejudice that a Catholic "cannot love his Fatherland"? It is within this historical and sociological context that we are most likely to find the answer to the question: "How did Mark displace Matthew as the foundational gospel for Christian faith and find itself as the chief theological model for liberal Protestant, and eventually liberal Catholic theology?" We conjecture that once the Marcan hypothesis had become a popular alternative to the more radical Tubingen hypothesis this transformation happened imperceptibly and unconsciously in response to the ideological need of the German state for a theological defense against a perceived "Catholic" threat.

The Griesbach Hypothesis was held to by most Tubingen theologians, most notably Baur. Again, I don't see the evidence for Farmer's point. Anti-Catholic rhetoric in German scholarship never focused upon Matthean or Marcan priority!

[Tassman]

Oh, the "extraordinary claims" canard.

An alleged resurrecting body is an extraordinary occurrence by any standards; it requires reasonable evidence in order to take the claim seriously. But all we have is hearsay arising from within a gullible, superstitious age.

psstein may acknowledge it, I don't really.

Especially I don't acknowledge amplification by adding miracles which didn't happen.

[psstein]

An alleged resurrecting body is an extraordinary occurrence by any standards; it requires reasonable evidence in order to take the claim seriously. But all we have is hearsay arising from within a gullible, superstitious age.

Yes, first century Jews didn't know that dead men stayed dead. They were so ignorant of science and the real world that they didn't grasp that basic fact.

The scholars who argue for a mythical Jesus are two in number. In terms of Jesus and the historicity of miracles, there are essentially two camps. One, which is currently dominant, contends that Jesus did perform some seemingly miraculous healings/exorcisms/whatever, which were then incorporated into the New Testament. Another one, which was dominant up until the 1970s/1980s, contends that all the miracle stories are post-Easter additions.

I'm in between the two, as are most scholars. I think the historical Jesus did perform seemingly miraculous deeds, though some of the miracle stories (the nature miracles, for example) represent post-Easter material.

[Tassman]

Yes, first century Jews didn't know that dead men stayed dead. They were so ignorant of science and the real world that they didn't grasp that basic fact.

Compared to modern society the ancients were extremely superstitious and prone to belief in omens and miracles, whereas our scientific, technological world allows little room for such beliefs.

The scholars who argue for a mythical Jesus are two in number.

Actually there are quite a few scholars that argue for a mythical Jesus including some eminent one such as Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier and Michael Martin.

http://vridar.org/whos-who-among-myt...ics/#Annotated

In terms of Jesus and the historicity of miracles, there are essentially two camps. One, which is currently dominant, contends that Jesus did perform some seemingly miraculous healings/exorcisms/whatever, which were then incorporated into the New Testament. Another one, which was dominant up until the 1970s/1980s, contends that all the miracle stories are post-Easter additions.

I'm in between the two, as are most scholars. I think the historical Jesus did perform seemingly miraculous deeds, though some of the miracle stories (the nature miracles, for example) represent post-Easter material.

seemingly miraculous deeds.

[hansgeorg]

The church said that it was fine for Catholic exegetes to hold to Marcan priority in the 1940s.

What document by what authority?

[hansgeorg]

The Griesbach Hypothesis was held to by most Tubingen theologians, most notably Baur.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eberha..._T%C3%BCbingen

Obviously the extra Roman Catholic Theological faculty was not accepting Marcan priority as long as Kulturkampf wasn't divorcing Catholic Academia from Papacy.

Again, I don't see the evidence for Farmer's point. Anti-Catholic rhetoric in German scholarship never focused upon Matthean or Marcan priority!

An alleged resurrecting body is an extraordinary occurrence by any standards; it requires reasonable evidence in order to take the claim seriously. But all we have is hearsay arising from within a gullible, superstitious age.

I give you psstein on this one:

Yes, first century Jews didn't know that dead men stayed dead. They were so ignorant of science and the real world that they didn't grasp that basic fact.

Good sense and most scholars are two authorities which don't always agree.

The scholars who argue for a mythical Jesus are two in number. In terms of Jesus and the historicity of miracles, there are essentially two camps. One, which is currently dominant, contends that Jesus did perform some seemingly miraculous healings/exorcisms/whatever, which were then incorporated into the New Testament. Another one, which was dominant up until the 1970s/1980s, contends that all the miracle stories are post-Easter additions.

I'm in between the two, as are most scholars. I think the historical Jesus did perform seemingly miraculous deeds, though some of the miracle stories (the nature miracles, for example) represent post-Easter material.

But you are not acknowledging all Gospel miracles as actually having happened, as a Catholic should?

Is your warrant for that also a document from the 1940's or is it later? Apart of course from the glaring inconsistency, on the one hand in accepting the Resurrection as a true miracle, and on the other hand to downplay Gospel miracles before it to either "seemingly miraculous" or "post-Easter material".

[Adrift]

The scholars who argue for a mythical Jesus are two in number. In terms of Jesus and the historicity of miracles, there are essentially two camps. One, which is currently dominant, contends that Jesus did perform some seemingly miraculous healings/exorcisms/whatever, which were then incorporated into the New Testament. Another one, which was dominant up until the 1970s/1980s, contends that all the miracle stories are post-Easter additions.

I'm in between the two, as are most scholars. I think the historical Jesus did perform seemingly miraculous deeds, though some of the miracle stories (the nature miracles, for example) represent post-Easter material.

He already knows this. I went over it with him back in May (and in the decade or so he's been here, I'm certain he's been made aware of it a number of times before then).

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post316817

[psstein]

Compared to modern society the ancients were extremely superstitious and prone to belief in omens and miracles, whereas our scientific, technological world allows little room for such beliefs.

That doesn't mean they didn't know that the dead stayed dead.

Actually there are quite a few scholars that argue for a mythical Jesus including some eminent one such as Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier and Michael Martin.

http://vridar.org/whos-who-among-myt...ics/#Annotated

Michael Martin is a philosopher. There are two mythicists with relevant credentials (PhD in either NT, History of Christianity, or Classics). As someone who has spent a ton of time in academic study of the NT, you need to be able to read the Greek before you can make comments about historical events in the NT.

seemingly miraculous deeds.

As a scholar, I have to express agnosticism about Jesus' miracles. As a Catholic, I think there are good arguments for miracles.

[psstein]

I'm aware. I never knew Bill Farmer (he's two generations before my own), but he was apparently a lovely man in many ways. As to your question, I know the difference between Griesbach and Marcan priority. Tubingen theologians largely held to Griesbach.

Obviously the extra Roman Catholic Theological faculty was not accepting Marcan priority as long as Kulturkampf wasn't divorcing Catholic Academia from Papacy.

Not necessarily. Loisy and a number of scholars in secular academia at the time accepted Marcan priority. On some level, it doesn't matter for faith. I like to think that the first gospel was tied to Peter and his testimony, rather than to Matthew (a rather insignificant disciple).

Again, Farmer has to actually show the evidence. It doesn't exist.

But you are not acknowledging all Gospel miracles as actually having happened, as a Catholic should?

Is your warrant for that also a document from the 1940's or is it later? Apart of course from the glaring inconsistency, on the one hand in accepting the Resurrection as a true miracle, and on the other hand to downplay Gospel miracles before it to either "seemingly miraculous" or "post-Easter material".

As a scholar, I can't accept that all Gospel miracles occurred without providing some argument as to pre-Easter and post-Easter material. As a Catholic, I see no issue with accepting items primarily on faith or the authority of the Church. As for "seemingly miraculous," I mean that his followers thought them miraculous. If one argues for the existence of miracles, then you can say that they truly are miracles, as I think they were.

[Tassman]

That doesn't mean they didn't know that the dead stayed dead.

Michael Martin is a philosopher. There are two mythicists with relevant credentials (PhD in either NT, History of Christianity, or Classics). As someone who has spent a ton of time in academic study of the NT, you need to be able to read the Greek before you can make comments about historical events in the NT.

http://vridar.org/whos-who-among-myt...ics/#Annotated

As a scholar, I have to express agnosticism about Jesus' miracles. As a Catholic, I think there are good arguments for miracles.

OK, but beware of cognitive dissonance.

[Adrift]

No, that isn't about it, and you know that it isn't about it because we went over this back in June (and probably a half dozen other times over the years before then).

E.P. Sanders gives a larger list and points out that even his brief list is the tip of the iceberg,

[Doug Shaver]

But he says he did.

No he doesn't.

Your sources don't actually claim that he didn't say it. What they claim is that he didn't mean it.