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

[hansgeorg]

Tradition alone is not reliable evidence.

Whatever credible evidence they have is either tradition or, like archaeology, depending on tradition for its interpretation.

Tradition does not necessarily reflect facts and, unlike critical-historical scholarship, 'tradition' alone cannot support its assumptions with credible evidence.

The credible evidence of historical scholarship is tradition.

No, it is part of my well considered cosmology. That being a component of another type than my historic lore.

This cosmology allows me, just as yours does not allow you, to take the miracle at Fatima as an actual and miraculous event.

Your guess, you are not giving details.

Primary sources have come down to us as such, precisely because of tradition of authorship.

For instance, the letters of Cicero are a primary source for the transition between Pompeian and Caesarian rule in Rome. But it is only such, because the letters are traditionally assigned to Cicero + no "critical scholar" had any motive for "criticism" of the traditional authorship asignment.

Archaeology can sometimes falsify tradition, but never so definitely confirm it, as to make it superfluous for a historian to depend on tradition.

You are taking one of the scholarly tradtions today and presenting ITS consensus as if consensus of all scholars there are.

See my defense of traditional accounts (there is a divergence between Sts Clement and Augustine) on authorships:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...an-Graham-Reid

Catholic dogma erroneously likes to position itself as the original and only true Christianity surrounded from the beginning by pesky heretical sects requiring elimination. In fact there were many forms of early Christianity of which the proto-orthodox (Catholic) was but one.

Precisely my point.

And saying THAT "form of early Christianity" was disunified, because there were rival forms, is a bit like saying the Catholic Church under Pius XII was disunified because it was in some particulars contradicted by Salvation Army, in others by Southern Baptists, and in some by Lutherans.

The existence of AT LEAST ONE well organised Church with its persistence to later times is sufficient to make ITS tradition as credible a record as the presidential records of the US, which is a tradition of the US.

If the Temple had not been destroyed by the Romans resulting in the Jewish diaspora, the Jewish Christianity of the Jerusalem Church under Jesus' brother James, probably would have prevailed over the Gentile Christianity of Paul, which subsequently dominated.

This is furthermore an abusive intrusion of constructs over the facts as given by the tradition.

That construct was started by people who wanted to motivate non-adherence to parts of Bible, of NT.

[Tassman]

Whatever credible evidence they have is either tradition or, like archaeology, depending on tradition for its interpretation.

The credible evidence of historical scholarship is tradition.

No! See above.

No, it is part of my well considered cosmology. That being a component of another type than my historic lore.

This cosmology allows me, just as yours does not allow you, to take the miracle at Fatima as an actual and miraculous event.

Your guess, you are not giving details.

The details lie in historical-critical methodology as applied to George Washington and to the scholarly consensus of the dating and authorship of the gospels..

Primary sources have come down to us as such, precisely because of tradition of authorship.

For instance, the letters of Cicero are a primary source for the transition between Pompeian and Caesarian rule in Rome. But it is only such, because the letters are traditionally assigned to Cicero + no "critical scholar" had any motive for "criticism" of the traditional authorship asignment.

Archaeology can sometimes falsify tradition, but never so definitely confirm it, as to make it superfluous for a historian to depend on tradition.

All of these things are taken into account with the application of historical-critical methodology.

You are taking one of the scholarly tradtions today and presenting ITS consensus as if consensus of all scholars there are.

See my defense of traditional accounts (there is a divergence between Sts Clement and Augustine) on authorships:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...an-Graham-Reid

Nevertheless, despite the above, majority scholarly opinion strongly supports Marcan priority.

Precisely my point.

And saying THAT "form of early Christianity" was disunified, because there were rival forms, is a bit like saying the Catholic Church under Pius XII was disunified because it was in some particulars contradicted by Salvation Army, in others by Southern Baptists, and in some by Lutherans.

The existence of AT LEAST ONE well organised Church with its persistence to later times is sufficient to make ITS tradition as credible a record as the presidential records of the US, which is a tradition of the US.

They were fundamental differences of belief about who and what Jesus was, not quibbles about scriptural interpretation...there was no cannon of scripture to provide authority during the earliest decades. In fact there was no delineated canon of any sort at all until Marcion compiled one in the in the mid-second century and the canon as we know it today was not finalised for centuries.

This is furthermore an abusive intrusion of constructs over the facts as given by the tradition.

That construct was started by people who wanted to motivate non-adherence to parts of Bible, of NT.

[hansgeorg]

Most of which comes to us through tradition, by the way ...

that affirms it.

Meaning that tradition affirms it.

No! See above.

You have not given credible alternatives.

You speak of "cosmogony" rather than cosmology. Cosmology is what the universe is like. It is possible that some scientists claiming in reality to do cosmogony are so bad in Greek that they think it is called cosmology, but that doesn't change the issue.

The details lie in historical-critical methodology as applied to George Washington and to the scholarly consensus of the dating and authorship of the gospels..

And again YOU refuse to give any details, which means YOU are not doing the discussion I was asking for.

Look, there is someone else who has done scholarship!

OK, let that someone else answer for you if you don't have anything susbstantial to say. Invite any historical critical scholar of both Bible and George Washington to answer for you, since you are obviously not going to do so yourself!

All of these things are taken into account with the application of historical-critical methodology.

Not into the discrepancy between your take on what it means for the Bible and what it is meaning for any other writing.

Nevertheless, despite the above, majority scholarly opinion strongly supports Marcan priority.

A majority scholarly opinion which dates from Germany's 1870's and the anti-Catholic bias.

See thereon my discussion with psstein:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...an-Graham-Reid

OK, let the historians come here, I'll deal with them.

They were fundamental differences of belief about who and what Jesus was, not quibbles about scriptural interpretation...there was no cannon of scripture to provide authority during the earliest decades. In fact there was no delineated canon of any sort at all until Marcion compiled one in the in the mid-second century and the canon as we know it today was not finalised for centuries.

These fundamental differences were BETWEEN Catholics and Gnostics, Catholics and Ebionites.

Canon was secondary to doctrinal tradition.

And it was the Catholic Church which had bishops going back to the original disciples.

You are presupposing without evidence that there was a theological contradiction between Sts James and Paul.

[Tassman]

You speak of "cosmogony" rather than cosmology. Cosmology is what the universe is like. It is possible that some scientists claiming in reality to do cosmogony are so bad in Greek that they think it is called cosmology, but that doesn't change the issue.

And again YOU refuse to give any details, which means YOU are not doing the discussion I was asking for.

Look, there is someone else who has done scholarship!

OK, let that someone else answer for you if you don't have anything susbstantial to say. Invite any historical critical scholar of both Bible and George Washington to answer for you, since you are obviously not going to do so yourself!

Scholars arrive at a consensus because it provides the best established explanation of events in history given all the available facts. This principle applies equally to George Washington as an historical figure and to the scholarly consensus of the dating and authorship of the gospels.

A majority scholarly opinion which dates from Germany's 1870's and the anti-Catholic bias.

See thereon my discussion with psstein:

OK, let the historians come here, I'll deal with them.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

These fundamental differences were BETWEEN Catholics and Gnostics, Catholics and Ebionites.

No, the difference were between Catholics, Gnostic's, the Jewish Christians and the Ebionites. And each believed they were the true Christians. The proto-Catholics were but one of several belief systems in the earliest days.

Canon was secondary to doctrinal tradition.

And it was the Catholic Church which had bishops going back to the original disciples.

This is Catholic doctrinal history after the fact. The Catholic Church was but one among several great patriarchies in the early Church all with virtually equal status. Prior to this (in the 1st century) the local Churches looked to the original church at Jerusalem as its main centre and point of reference.

You are presupposing without evidence that there was a theological contradiction between Sts James and Paul.

[hansgeorg]

My explanation is substantiated by the fact it is an explanation of a miracle which occurred.

Scholars arrive at a consensus because it provides the best established explanation of events in history given all the available facts. This principle applies equally to George Washington as an historical figure and to the scholarly consensus of the dating and authorship of the gospels.

I really don't think so.

For instance, you might appeal to Lafayette as a primary source and even independent one. But a man of the temper of your Biblical scholars, if he only were putting George Washington in doubt, would easily say that the Lafayette account of the American Revolution is part of the French Revolution mythology.

Scholars in 1870's in Prussia are reputed for subservience to the Prussian Reich.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

The scholars who are not supporting them are certain non-Christians with an agenda.

No, the difference were between Catholics, Gnostic's, the Jewish Christians and the Ebionites. And each believed they were the true Christians. The proto-Catholics were but one of several belief systems in the earliest days.

If each believed they were true Christians, each also had a hierarchy - only one of which went back to the twelve apostles.

This is Catholic doctrinal history after the fact. The Catholic Church was but one among several great patriarchies in the early Church all with virtually equal status. Prior to this (in the 1st century) the local Churches looked to the original church at Jerusalem as its main centre and point of reference.

You are confusing the Roman Church and the question of its position within the Catholic Church, with the Catholic Church.

The other patriarchates are also Petrine : Jerusalem was Petrine before being under James, then Peter went to Antioch, a Petrine patriarchate therefore, then to Rome, and from there he sent St Mark to Alexandria. Only later was Constantinople added.

But the bishops going back to the Apostles are not limited to the apostle Peter and not limited to the Petrine patriachates.

So certain people love to claim.

There is no evidence of any dispute remaining after the Jerusalem Council.

[Tassman]

My explanation is substantiated by the fact it is an explanation of a miracle which occurred.

It is a highly fanciful explanation of a miracle that is alleged

I really don't think so.

For instance, you might appeal to Lafayette as a primary source and even independent one. But a man of the temper of your Biblical scholars, if he only were putting George Washington in doubt, would easily say that the Lafayette account of the American Revolution is part of the French Revolution mythology.

Most scholars disagree with you. They have arrived at a consensus because it provides the best established explanation of events in history given all the available facts. This principle applies equally to George Washington as an historical figure and to the scholarly consensus of the dating and authorship of the gospels.

The scholars who are not supporting them are certain non-Christians with an agenda.

If each believed they were true Christians, each also had a hierarchy - only one of which went back to the twelve apostles.

So certain people love to claim.

There is no evidence of any dispute remaining after the Jerusalem Council.

But there IS evidence of a dispute though and no reason to think it was satisfactorily resolved until overtaken by events. Namely, the sack of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the Diaspora, thus leaving the Gentile Church of Paul as the dominant form of Christianity.

[hansgeorg]

It is a highly fanciful explanation of a miracle that is alleged

Give me two accounts from that time which disagree, I'll see if I can resolve disagreements.

Since Portugal was under freemasons (and remained so up to Salazar), several can have lied about being there and not seeing the miracle. It would have been surprising if that were not the case.

Most scholars disagree with you. They have arrived at a consensus because it provides the best established explanation of events in history given all the available facts. This principle applies equally to George Washington as an historical figure and to the scholarly consensus of the dating and authorship of the gospels.

Oh, the former Christian scholarly consensus actually DID answer to that description.

Nevertheless, many of the facts we are dealing with in either case are facts of the content of a tradition, and in either case, most of the facts outside that are simply the existence and persistence of same tradition.

Even when decent men have the agenda of arriving at factual truth, the fact they are a non-Christian bunch will influence their agenda on how to arrive at it.

That Babylon and Israel both have an account of the Flood neither proves non-factuality (rather the reverse), nor which of them copied which in case of plagiarism from original fake account.

With a factual account, neither need have looked two seconds at the other.

Not quite, no.

First of all, Jerusalem is under Peter in the start of Acts - James doesn't become known as leader in Jerusalem until Acts 15, well after Acts 2. Also, rather after Acts 8, which sees the second see, after Jerusalem.

Second, we have the Twelve supreme from start (see Acts 1!) and Peter is only one of them.

Third, from the first when other Churches are founded they are brought into continuity with the Twelve, whether as in Samaria (Acts 8) by a personal visit, or whether through the ordination and episcopal consecration given by them or their disciples to Paul and Barnabas.

But there IS evidence of a dispute though and no reason to think it was satisfactorily resolved until overtaken by events. Namely, the sack of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the Diaspora, thus leaving the Gentile Church of Paul as the dominant form of Christianity.

There is evidence of a dispute, and we have every reason to believe it was satisfactorily resolved as far as the Church and as far as St James are concerned.

Ebionites are a sect who diverge from the Church by dissent over that decision, precisely as Old Catholics emerged by dissent over Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility.

[Tassman]

Give me two accounts from that time which disagree, I'll see if I can resolve disagreements.

Since Portugal was under freemasons (and remained so up to Salazar), several can have lied about being there and not seeing the miracle. It would have been surprising if that were not the case.

Oh, the former Christian scholarly consensus actually DID answer to that description.

Nevertheless, many of the facts we are dealing with in either case are facts of the content of a tradition, and in either case, most of the facts outside that are simply the existence and persistence of same tradition.

The former Christian scholarly consensus may have, but then it accepted miracles as historical as well. This is not the case now regarding the scholarly consensus of the dating and authorship of the gospels employing historical-critical methodology.

Even when decent men have the agenda of arriving at factual truth, the fact they are a non-Christian bunch will influence their agenda on how to arrive at it.

That Babylon and Israel both have an account of the Flood neither proves non-factuality (rather the reverse), nor which of them copied which in case of plagiarism from original fake account.

With a factual account, neither need have looked two seconds at the other.

The only agenda of true scientists is to arrive at the truth of events in the natural world. The great flood is not considered possible on purely geological grounds.

Not quite, no.

First of all, Jerusalem is under Peter in the start of Acts - James doesn't become known as leader in Jerusalem until Acts 15, well after Acts 2. Also, rather after Acts 8, which sees the second see, after Jerusalem.

Second, we have the Twelve supreme from start (see Acts 1!) and Peter is only one of them.

Third, from the first when other Churches are founded they are brought into continuity with the Twelve, whether as in Samaria (Acts 8) by a personal visit, or whether through the ordination and episcopal consecration given by them or their disciples to Paul and Barnabas.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/lukehistory.html

There is evidence of a dispute, and we have every reason to believe it was satisfactorily resolved as far as the Church and as far as St James are concerned.

[hansgeorg]

Fact as per your cosmology, factoid as per mine.

The former Christian scholarly consensus may have, but then it accepted miracles as historical as well. This is not the case now regarding the scholarly consensus of the dating and authorship of the gospels employing historical-critical methodology.

Thank you for admitting that "the historical-cirtical consensus" you appeal to has an agenda apart from the historic evidence available : namely denial of miracles from all and any historically reliable status.

The only agenda of true scientists is to arrive at the truth of events in the natural world. The great flood is not considered possible on purely geological grounds.

Which will not explain why educated geologists like Tas Walker (your countryman and namesake, if Tasman and Tassman count as same name) or Emil Silvestru think it fits the geological evidence very well.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/lukehistory.html

The Book of Acts is the earliest record we have of the times it describes.

Contemporary Roman historians to that have only survived in fragmentary quotes and reworkings and rewordings by later Roman historians such as Tacitus and Suetonius.

You are forgetting that we have no record of James and Paul going into schism with each other. The Ebionites who did go into schism no longer had James for their chief, if ever they had had it.

You are also forgetting that St Peter - who knew the doctrine of Our Lord better than even the brother St James - was in one of his letters assenting to Paul as being right, if on occasions obscure (we can immediately single out "faith alone" as not being a good understanding of St Paul).

[shunyadragon]

Which will not explain why educated geologists like Tas Walker (your countryman and namesake, if Tasman and Tassman count as same name) or Emil Silvestru think it fits the geological evidence very well.

Naming three or four geologists that support the YEC Creationist view in opposition to ALL the remaining thousands of geologists which reject this foolishness does not present a convincing case on your part.

The actual short list is; Dr. Emil Silvestu, Dr Tasman Bruce Walker, Dr. Steven A. Austin and Dr. Kurt Patrick Wise.

John D. Morris, Ph.D. a geological engineer and son of the founder Henry M. Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research who was an ardent supporter of YEC Creationism now rejects it.
See: http://rethinkingao.com/?p=91

[rogue06]

Naming three or four geologists that support the YEC Creationist view in opposition to ALL the remaining thousands of geologists which reject this foolishness does not present a convincing case on your part.

The actual short list is; Dr. Emil Silvestu, Dr Tasman Bruce Walker, Dr. Steven A. Austin and Dr. Kurt Patrick Wise.

John D. Morris, Ph.D. a geological engineer and son of the founder Henry M. Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research who was an ardent supporter of YEC Creationism now rejects it.
See: http://rethinkingao.com/?p=91

Morris is still a YEC and is President Emeritus of the organization his father founded, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

[shunyadragon]

Morris is still a YEC and is President Emeritus of the organization his father founded, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

If that is true, which is likely, it is unfortunate.

[Tassman]

Fact as per your cosmology, factoid as per mine.

Thank you for admitting that "the historical-cirtical consensus" you appeal to has an agenda apart from the historic evidence available : namely denial of miracles from all and any historically reliable status.

Which will not explain why educated geologists like Tas Walker (your countryman and namesake, if Tasman and Tassman count as same name) or Emil Silvestru think it fits the geological evidence very well.

You jest! This is readily explained in that they are all Creationists with an agenda. The vast majority of geologists do not consider that the Flood and associated mythology are literal facts.

The Book of Acts is the earliest record we have of the times it describes.

There were numerous reputable historians available at the time of Jesus, not one mentions him or the dramatic events surrounding his life and death.

Contemporary Roman historians to that have only survived in fragmentary quotes and reworkings and rewordings by later Roman historians such as Tacitus and Suetonius.

You are forgetting that we have no record of James and Paul going into schism with each other. The Ebionites who did go into schism no longer had James for their chief, if ever they had had it.

You are also forgetting that St Peter - who knew the doctrine of Our Lord better than even the brother St James - was in one of his letters assenting to Paul as being right, if on occasions obscure (we can immediately single out "faith alone" as not being a good understanding of St Paul).

[psstein]

Naming three or four geologists that support the YEC Creationist view in opposition to ALL the remaining thousands of geologists which reject this foolishness does not present a convincing case on your part.

The actual short list is; Dr. Emil Silvestu, Dr Tasman Bruce Walker, Dr. Steven A. Austin and Dr. Kurt Patrick Wise.

John D. Morris, Ph.D. a geological engineer and son of the founder Henry M. Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research who was an ardent supporter of YEC Creationism now rejects it.
See: http://rethinkingao.com/?p=91

I think there are a few biologists/biochemists/chemists who support YEC as well (e.g. Dean Kenyon). Beyond the scientific issues, I see YEC as intensely theologically problematic.

[shunyadragon]

I think there are a few biologists/biochemists/chemists who support YEC as well (e.g. Dean Kenyon). Beyond the scientific issues, I see YEC as intensely theologically problematic.

I acknowledge there are a 'few.' My point was in the previous post is the belief of a few among thousands does not represent a coherent scientific support argument for a YEC Creationist view, nor does it help the OEC Creationist view.