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

[Doug Shaver]

Well worth the listen.

Agreed. A very interesting commentary.

[Doug Shaver]

Acts was written by St Luke, around middle of First Century.

That does not seem to be the majority opinion among New Testament scholars.

[Adrift]

That does not seem to be the majority opinion among New Testament scholars.

Since when did you care about majority opinion among scholars?

[hansgeorg]

And certain methods of modern scholarship are dedicated to explaining the most solid facts away, unless they square with atheism or deism.

[hansgeorg]

That does not seem to be the majority opinion among New Testament scholars.

In normal author attributions, a solid tradition, one which does not vary too much or at all, is sufficient proof that the book was written by purported author. The one purported by tradition, that is.

In NT and OT author attributions, the solid tradition of the Church, even when not varying at all, is to certain men sufficient proof the book was written by someone else. Even if they have no solid alternative or no named alternative at all.

[hansgeorg]

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.

Farmer being a lovely man is beside the point.

I never knew him, but I do know he argues well.

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).

Loisy's bibliography on wiki begins here:

1890, Histoire du canon de l'Ancien Testament.
1891, Histoire du canon du Nouveau Testament.

That is two decades after the time Farmer is talking about and therefore in no way any discrediting of his argument, since in Loisy's time, even Catholic scholars of Germany (but not yet Austria) were corrupted.

Have you also argued that Catholic bishops in mid 15th Century England were favourable to an English translation since Douay Rheims translated "at the time" proves so?

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

It exists in the study of how much academic autonomy was allowed Catholic faculties during the Kulturkampf.

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.

OK, most Catholics in most centuries when faced with such a distinction would have replied as I do:

* the miracles are textually post-Easter, since the writing even of the earliest Gospel, St Matthew, was at least a year, perhaps seven or ten years, after the first Easter;
* the miracles are factually pre-Easter apart from the final chapters which were precisely Easter or Easter to Ascension.

The one generation which had to face such a distinction, also had to face Catholic scholars defecting from that simple and obvious answer.

Funny too that this generation of scholars can say that the evidence of Marcan priority is fairy good or even remarcable, but cannot accept there is amply evidence Catholic scholars when loyal to Papacy were muzzled under Bismarck! Sounds a bit like Fern-Seed and Elephants ...

[hansgeorg]

Certainly there was less skepticism about the nature of religious experience, though the dividing line between a "real" and a "fake" religious experience is more of an Enlightenment idea.

I think there was such a thing as a true prophet being inspired by God and a false one by some demon?

Are you referring to things like exacting that eye-witnesses of clear miracles should doubt what they actually saw?

As a bare outline, yes. I think you're plagiarizing from Wikipedia, as your quotation looks extremely familiar. Scholars tend to believe there's more material than the bare outline, however.

It looks familiar perhaps, because it has been used and reused on Tweb?

Why Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Stick To Science - Page 10
www.theologyweb.comwww.theologyweb.comwww.theologyweb.com

[hansgeorg]

The Enlightenment is also the era where thought on miracles could be as darkened as to give "air time" to a man like Hume ...

OK, that is Brown's estimate of his colleagues and the colleagues' estimate of the miraculous, but where are the actual arguments for that position?

Apart from enlightened Humism, of course!

[hansgeorg]

any natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural one.

Yes, I know, and that makes nearly any methodology a better basis than theirs.

Hume is worthless about history.

He claims to derive the anti-miraculous prejudice and bias from history, but history only shows up as "miracle free" in the first place if expurgated by scholars like Hume. If not a circulus vitiosus in arguendo, at least fairly close.

[Doug Shaver]

Since when did you care about majority opinion among scholars?

My willingness to disagree when I think I have a good reason to disagree does not mean I'm indifferent.

[Tassman]

Yes, I know, and that makes nearly any methodology a better basis than theirs.

Hume is worthless about history.

Oh well then!

He claims to derive the anti-miraculous prejudice and bias from history, but history only shows up as "miracle free" in the first place if expurgated by scholars like Hume. If not a circulus vitiosus in arguendo, at least fairly close.

Miracles and magic belong to a pre-scientific era before rational explanations were required to explain seemingly strange occurrences. God-did-it is no longer an acceptable response.

The Enlightenment is also the era where thought on miracles could be as darkened as to give "air time" to a man like Hume ...

OK, that is Brown's estimate of his colleagues and the colleagues' estimate of the miraculous,

...and for good reason.

but where are the actual arguments for that position?
Apart from enlightened Humism, of course!

Where is the "actual"

And certain methods of modern scholarship are dedicated to explaining the most solid facts away, unless they square with atheism or deism.

Oh the irony!

[hansgeorg]

Oh well then!

Enjoy, you seem to need it!

Miracles and magic belong to a pre-scientific era before rational explanations were required to explain seemingly strange occurrences. God-did-it is no longer an acceptable response.

I think I have heard that one before (where is the "yawn" emoticon?)

...and for good reason.

He presumably knows his own ilk ...

Where is the "actual"

In other words in narratives, as much as any other historic facts.

The contrast with "anecdotic" is more like when Medics are doing blind test group double studies for a pharmaceutical product or other item when answer is either identic to a natural law or identic to a recommendation of art based on such (like "use laudanum against anxiety" or whatever).

Oh the irony!

(Where is the "nod" emoticon?)

Oh the irony, indeed!

[shunyadragon]

In other words in narratives, as much as any other historic facts.

In the objective study of history you cannot equate historical narratives as facts. Historical facts are those verified by archeological evidence. Yes the Biblical narratives in the OT and NT do contain historical facts that can be verified. but they also contain miraculous claims, and traditional myths that cannot be verified as historical facts.

[Doug Shaver]

In the objective study of history you cannot equate historical narratives as facts.

Yes, you can, if it actually is a historical narrative. The problem is when people say, without good reason, that a narrative is historical.

[Tassman]

In other words in narratives, as much as any other historic facts.