Christ in the Cretaceous

[robrecht]

Both are consistent, because the closest we can come is from the social anthropological perspective as in the view of Joseph Campbell. Reread my response it was clear and specific. I consider the Christian perspective to be 'Roman,' and detached from any "original" intent of ancient view of the oral myths, early cuneiform texts, and later edited, redacted and compiled early writings of the Hebrews.

Subjectivity is one of the main issues the "original?" authors intent is not feasible except from a limited extent from a less biased view of social anthropology where there is no attempt to justify a theological perspective.

The foreign 'Roman' perspective dominates both traditional and modern apologetics, because the basic beliefs grounded in the Hellenist/Roman NT.

So did Joseph Campbell or do social anthropological methodologies somehow support your belief in an historical Adam and Eve who lived approximately 6,000 years ago and played some pivotal role in bringing a new cycle of revelation to mankind? Or is your belief in the historical Adam and Eve who lived some 6,000 years ago based solely upon Baha'i revelation?

There is nothing about historico-critical methodology that requires it to be done from a Christian or Roman perspective. The methodology can be and is used by Jews, atheists, or anyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. The methodology itself is no more or less biased than those employed by social anthropologists or Joseph Campbell.

Done that a number of times.

No, you have nowhere substantiated either of these two assertions of yours. If you want to substantiate your claim that I have overstated the prevalence of the nonhistorical view of Adam among modern academic scholars, you need to cite a different characterization of the prevalent view of modern academic scholars. You have not done this. You have merely wanted to discuss the views of the majority of church fathers and expressed your dissatisfaction with historico-critical methodology.

Again, I believe Westermann presents a comparison of a number of different views of Genesis, and I believe you are being overtly selective of one view he discusses.

No, I have specifically highlighted his own views, sometimes in contrast to the views he summarizes, and also quoted explicitly from the sections of Westermann's commentary where he gives his own view. Note that for every larger section of a text, he gives his own view of the purpose, typically from the perspective of the Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, or Priestly authors, and sometimes in contrast with traditional Christian views. Please read the citations of Westermann again and respond.

[shunyadragon]

So did Joseph Campbell or do social anthropological methodologies somehow support your belief in an historical Adam and Eve who lived approximately 6,000 years ago and played some pivotal role in bringing a new cycle of revelation to mankind? Or is your belief in the historical Adam and Eve who lived some 6,000 years ago based solely upon Baha'i revelation?

No, I am not trying to justify my belief based on selective references of so called modern scholars of mythical "original" authors that are unknown. The belief in Adam and many cycles of Revelation as real historical figure is based on belief, and not trying to justify and agenda with "modern" scholars.

There is nothing about historico-critical methodology that requires it to be done from a Christian or Roman perspective. The methodology can be and is used by Jews, atheists, or anyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. The methodology itself is no more or less biased than those employed by social anthropologists or Joseph Campbell.

Yes, it is biased to justify a Christian Theist agenda. Again, such a historico-critical methodology, cannot justify an "original" intent of ancient mythical authors. Social anthropologists such as Joseph Campbell do not have a religious agenda to justify.

No, you have nowhere substantiated either of these two assertions of yours. If you want to substantiate your claim that I have overstated the prevalence of the nonhistorical view of Adam among modern academic scholars, you need to cite a different characterization of the prevalent view of modern academic scholars. You have not done this. You have merely wanted to discuss the views of the majority of church fathers and expressed your dissatisfaction with historico-critical methodology.

Already cited references.

No, I have specifically highlighted his own views, sometimes in contrast to the views he summarizes, and also quoted explicitly from the sections of Westermann's commentary where he gives his own view. Note that for every larger section of a text, he gives his own view of the purpose, typically from the perspective of the Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, or Priestly authors, and sometimes in contrast with traditional Christian views. Please read the citations of Westermann again and respond.

The problem remains Westermann drew no specific conclusions himself concern the mythical unknown intent of original authors.

[robrecht]

No, I am not trying to justify my belief based on selective references of so called modern scholars of mythical "original" authors that are unknown. The belief in Adam and many cycles of Revelation as real historical figure is based on belief, and not trying to justify and agenda with "modern" scholars.

Yes, it is biased to justify a Christian Theist agenda. Again, such a historico-critical methodology, cannot justify an "original" intent of ancient mythical authors. Social anthropologists such as Joseph Campbell do not have a religious agenda to justify.

No, the methodology itself is not specifically related to any Christian or other religious or apologetic agenda. Where did you get the idea that it is? Some religious people would actually say that it lends itself to an atheistic objective or bias. Certainly it is used by Jewish and atheist exegetes. What specific components of the historico-critical methodologies do you think make it biased to a Christian or Roman perspective? I have already shown that Westermann's conclusion on the purpose of the fall account was contrary to the traditional Christian viewpoint as is mine. You even chided me for dismissing apologist scholars!

Already cited references.

No you did not. If I recall correctly, you merely referred to one philosopher apologist and referred to the general schools of what seems to be a confessional covenant and/or federal theology. No citations or even references.

The problem remains Westermann drew no specific conclusions himself concern the mythical unknown intent of original authors.

Again, untrue, and I have already cited a few of these already. But you declined to respond.

[shunyadragon]

So you have no rational basis for this belief in the historical existence of Adam and Eve some 6,000 years ago.

There is no rational basis for or against the existence of Adam some 6,000 years ago.

It is a matter of Revelation that Baha'u'llah confirmed the existence of Adam and many prophetic cycles. I do not rationally agree nor disagree with the writings of the Baha'i Faith concerning the existence of the Adam that began the prophetic cycle, nor the many cycles of Revelation. It is not an important issue with me.

No, the methodology itself is not specifically related to any Christian or other religious or apologetic agenda.

True, but that is not the problem. The problem is drawing conclusions concerning the "original" intent of ancient authors that are unknown.

Where did you get the idea that it is?

I do not have that idea.

Some religious people would actually say that it lends itself to an atheistic objective or bias. Certainly it is used by Jewish and atheist exegetes.

[/quote]What specific components of the historico-critical methodologies do you think make it biased to a Christian or Roman perspective? [/quote]

Your goals and objectives to determine the "original" intent of unknown "original" authors.

I have read most of Joseph Campbell's books over the years from Fiinnegan's Wake to works on Creation stories,culture and mythology, and I find no specific agenda in his works except academic comparative social anthropology.

[robrecht]

There is no rational basis for or against the existence of Adam some 6,000 years ago.

It is a matter of Revelation that Baha'u'llah confirmed the existence of Adam and many prophetic cycles. I do not rationally agree nor disagree with the writings of the Baha'i Faith concerning the existence of the Adam that began the prophetic cycle, nor the many cycles of Revelation. It is not an important issue with me.

True, but that is not the problem. The problem is drawing conclusions concerning the "original" intent of ancient authors that are unknown.

I do not have that idea.

Thank you for conceding that the methodology itself is not biased toward the Christian perspective.

Your goals and objectives to determine the "original" intent of unknown "original" authors.

Please clarify. Is the methodology and its goal of trying to determine the intent of the origianl biased toward a Christian perspective or not? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I have read most of Joseph Campbell's books over the years from Fiinnegan's Wake to works on Creation stories,culture and mythology, and I find no specific agenda in his works except academic comparative social anthropology.

This does not respond to anything I have said or asked of you.

Why have you deleted part of my post and continued to avoid the issue at hand? Do you think I do not notice how evasive and nonresponsive you are being? Be open and honest and concede the points you cannot address or try to address them directly. Deleting parts of posts and trying to hide the truth does not reflect well on you.

[shunyadragon]

Thus, you have no rational basis for your belief in the existence of an historical Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago and their pivotal role in the cycle of revelation beginning at that time. Do you have other specific beliefs about the content of their revelation at this time?

No, I was specific, there is no rational evidence for the existence nor non-existence of Adam as a real nor unreal. No the existence nor non-existence of Adam is not pivital to my belief today. The Revelation and spiritual teachings of Baha'u'llah as they relate to the "modern" world is pivital to my belief system today.

Baha'u'llah did not refer to the genealogies as far as I know. I am not avoiding the question. The issue is not important to me. If it so important to you do your own research. I have clearly described my belief and referred to scripture concerning Adam and and many cycles of Revelation and many Adams in a previous thread. I do believe humans have been spiritually and physically evolving through Revelation for far more than a million years, and I believe in universal Revelation.

Thank you for conceding that the methodology itself is not biased toward the Christian perspective.

No concession whatsoever. I never said the methodology itself was biased. It is the use of the methodology that can be biased and misused like any methodology.

Please clarify. Is the methodology and its goal of trying to determine the intent of the original biased toward a Christian perspective or not? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

It is the goal and purpose of how the methodology can be misused that is the problem, and not the methodology.

[robrecht]

No, I was specific, there is no rational evidence for the existence nor non-existence of Adam as a real nor unreal. No the existence nor non-existence of Adam is not pivital to my belief today. The Revelation and spiritual teachings of Baha'u'llah as they relate to the "modern" world is pivital to my belief system today.

NBaha'u'llah did not refer to the genealogies as far as I know. I am not avoiding the question. The issue is not important to me. If it so important to you do your own research. I have clearly described my belief and referred to scripture concerning Adam and and many cycles of Revelation and many Adams in a previous thread. I do believe humans have been spiritually and physically evolving through Revelation for far more than a million years, and I believe in universal Revelation.

No concession whatsoever. I never said the methodology itself was biased. It is the use of the methodology that can be biased and misused like any methodology.

Yes, you did say that it a biased methodology. In response to my statement, "There is nothing about historico-critical methodology that requires it to be done from a Christian or Roman perspective. The methodology can be and is used by Jews, atheists, or anyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. The methodology itself is no more or less biased than those employed by social anthropologists or Joseph Campbell," you said, "Yes, it is biased to justify a Christian Theist agenda.

Perhaps you misread my statement and thought I said something like, 'It is not biased to justify a Christian theist agenda', but, of course, I said nothing of the sort. i said that the methodology itself is not biased and i am glad that you have now acknowledged that this is, in fact, so.

It is the goal and purpose of how the methodology can be misused that is the problem, and not the methodology.

effectively conceding the point. Likewise, when I have provided several citations from Westermann contrary to your contention that I have misrepresented his view or that he does not in fact give his own views, and you choose not to respond or concede the point, regardless of whether or not you want to admit it, you are effectively conceding the point. It hurts your credibility, unfortunately.

[shunyadragon]

No, you do not understand, nor are you trying to understand.

Yes, you did say that it a biased methodology. In response to my statement, "There is nothing about historico-critical methodology that requires it to be done from a Christian or Roman perspective. The methodology can be and is used by Jews, atheists, or anyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. The methodology itself is no more or less biased than those employed by social anthropologists or Joseph Campbell," you said, "Yes, it is biased to justify a Christian Theist agenda.

Let's make this clear. Selectively quoting me for justifying your own case does not work. The problem is not the methodology. It is misusing it to justify the "original" intent of unknown authors to justify a so called "modern" theological position. This is a long standing disagreement, and I stand by my objections that the use of historical methodology cannot determine the "original" intent of the authors of Genesis when the "original" authors are unknown, and Genesis is an evolved text from Ugarit, Canaanite and pre-Babylonian cuneiform texts, which came from oral myths.

Perhaps you misread my statement and thought I said something like, 'It is not biased to justify a Christian theist agenda', but, of course, I said nothing of the sort.

Of course, you said nothing of the sort. I say it is used to justify a Christian theist agenda and I believe it.

I said that the methodology itself is not biased and i am glad that you have now acknowledged that this is, in fact, so.

Again I agree the methodology is not at fault.

Yes, it can be misused, which is why I believe it is best used by those who do not merely assume the correctness of a position which they then set out to justify by the misuse of a methodology, which, in fact, they are subverting. The goal of the historico-critical method is to determine as far as possible the probable intent of the original authors, not to prove that the intent of the original authors was actually the meaning intended by an apologist. See the difference? This is why I, and most academics, place a higher value on the work of critical scholars than that of apologists.

I do not agree.

[robrecht]

No, you do not understand, nor are you trying to understand.

Untrue

Let's make this clear. Selectively quoting me for justifying your own case does not work.

And yet you are the one who keeps deleting the sections of my posts to which you cannot respond and will not admit it.

The problem is not the methodology. It is misusing it to justify the "original" intent of unknown authors to justify a so called "modern" theological position. This is a long standing disagreement, and I stand by my objections that the use of historical methodology cannot determine the "original" intent of the authors of Genesis when the "original" authors are unknown, and Genesis is an evolved text from Ugarit, Canaanite and pre-Babylonian cuneiform texts, which came from oral myths.

You are still not understanding the methodology or my views. The historico-critical methodology has as its goal and objective to try to understand the probable intentions of the original authors. Rarely do exegetes claim that they know for certain exactly what the intent was, and even if and when they do, the fact that multiple scholars typically arrive at multiple conclusions, not only about the intent, but even the authors of a given text. This is why I first referred you to Westermann's 3-volume commentary, to give you a good introduction to the scholarly discussion of the authors and their intent in putting together the accounts in Genesis. There is no long-standing disagreement about the fact that the original authors, especially prior to the Hebrew text, are unknown, but there is much scholarly discussion of the probable intent of some of these authors and what perspectives they seem to have represented. For example, Westermann and other scholars who follow some form of the documentary hypothesis discuss this in terms of the Priestly author and his sources for Genesis 1, the Yahwist author and his sources for Genesis 2-4, again the Priestly sources or author of the genealogies in Genesis 4-5. And, of course, increasingly scholars have disagreed with the documentary hypothesis, sometimes on historico-critical grounds and sometimes from the perspective of entirely different methodologies. I have extensive training in multiple methodologies and employ them. I do not abandon the historico-critical methodology because I believe it is very important to maintain the worthy goal to try and understand what might have been the intent of some of these authors, but I also use postmodern methodologies that are based on the premise that the original intent of an author cannot be known or pre-modern ancient methodologies that had no interest in historical authors. Because I enjoy and use some of these other methodologies, I also think it is important not to lose touch with the goal and objective of historico-critical methodologies that nonetheless discuss and at least try to imagine the probable intent of the original authors. We both agree, at least some of the time, that the historico-critical methodology should not or cannot be used to justify modern (or premodern) theological or faith positions by apologists.

Of course, you said nothing of the sort. I say it is used to justify a Christian theist agenda and I believe it.

Again I agree the methodology is not at fault.

I do not agree.

What exactly do you not agree with here? That the historico-critical methodology can be misused? That it should not be subverted by those who try to use it to justify a position the truth of which they assume? That the goal of the historico-critical method is to determine as far as possible the probable intent of the original authors, not to prove that the intent of the original authors was actually the meaning intended by an apologist? That I, and most academics, place a higher value on the work of critical scholars than that of apologists?

Once again, you have deleted the part of my post that pertained to your original attempt to critique my position, which you misunderstood, and your failure to substantiate your contrary view.

[shunyadragon]

What exactly do you not agree with here? That the historico-critical methodology can be misused?
That it should not be subverted by those who try to use it to justify a position the truth of which they assume?

That it is misused to justify a vague nebulous "original" intent of the original authors. that are completely unknown from a Christian perspective.

That the goal of the historico-critical method is to determine as far as possible the probable intent of the original authors, not to prove that the intent of the original authors was actually the meaning intended by an apologist?

I notice the added word 'probable' here that you did not use previously, but that does not help your case. I do not believe anyone can honestly nor probably not remotely determine the "original" intent of the unknown authors of Genesis from any theological perspective especially Christian, and that is what you are doing along with the so called "Modern" scholars.

That I, and most academics, place a higher value on the work of critical scholars than that of apologists?

I do not buy it.

[robrecht]

That it is misused to justify a vague nebulous "original" intent of the original authors. that are completely unknown from a Christian perspective.

I notice the added word 'probable' here that you did not use previously, but that does not help your case. I do not believe anyone can honestly nor probably not remotely determine the "original" intent of the unknown authors of Genesis from any theological perspective especially Christian, and that is what you are doing along with the so called "Modern" scholars.

I do not buy it.

No, my use of 'probable' is not at all new. I've been using it at least from our very first discussion of this issue, along with the very important words "scholarly discussion." Whether you or I or any scholars think they or each other arrive at probable reconstructions of the perspectives and intent of the original authors, that is indeed often the topic of scholarly discussion, which is the only 'claim' I was ever trying to 'justify' in recommending Claus Westermann's 3-volume commentary on Genesis. Thus I merely mentioned it to you as a good introduction to this scholarly discussion. I also mentioned subsequently that, if I recalled correctly, Westermann's reading of the significance of 'adam was the same as mine, and then I looked it up and showed you that it was by citing him. To date you have never responded to any of these quotations. I also tried to get you to see the prevalence of this view by quoting for you Fiorenza's summary of modern Catholic scholarship on this topic. And you have not produced any contrary view of the scholarly consensus. Everything else was your typical smoke and mirrors argumentative, polemical, strawman, and ad hominem approach to religious discussions. My exegetical views on this question are not an attempt to justify any theological position whatsoever. Even if I though that all of the authors involved in producing the present form of the stories in Genesis 1-4 believed these to be merely literal historical accounts, that would not change my own beliefs or approach to the Christian doctrines and theologies of original sin, the Incarnation, salvation, or the scientific theories of evolution. Thus, my appreciation of the Irenaean/Franciscan approach to the Original Sin, the Incarnation and salvation is not related to the exegetical question, as should be obvious from their their differing pre-modern approaches to the historictiy of Adam and Eve, and this is also why I can agree with Origen's understanding of the significance of the Hebrew word 'adam without any necessary acceptance of any of his other theological views. It is also why I can fully accept the most obvious references to 'adam as the name of an historical individual at the beginning of human history approximately 6,000 years ago without that having any effect on my belief in evolution or my view of the Christian theologies of Original Sin and the Fall.