- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Good for Pope Francis
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:48 am to AbuTheMonkey
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:48 am to AbuTheMonkey
I try to stay informed of the newest scholarship on this issue, including Christian and secular sources, and have heard of the Paul theory but it doesn't seem to be gaining traction. I've never heard the charge about Acts drawing from Josephus. I'll have to look into that.
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 9:49 am
1
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:50 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Well that's troubling since I believe he's a physician.
He also claims to be a big time football insider. I don't believe anything he posts.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 9:56 am to AUveritas
quote:
I try to stay informed of the newest scholarship on this issue, including Christian and secular sources, and have heard of the Paul theory but it doesn't seem to be gaining traction.
The Paul theory is due to the elevation in the sophistication of the original Greek and some more development in theology. I find it completely plausible, but it's difficult to pinpoint it exactly.
quote:
I've never heard the charge about Acts drawing from Josephus. I'll have to look into that.
The thought is that Luke or whoever took the name drew inspiration from Josephus' idea of writing a history of the Jewish people in Antiquities of the Jews and applied it to the history of Christians in the 1st century AD.
With all this (especially Acts), I do think there is the consensus is that it was heavily edited and revised well into the second century AD, so it's difficult to get down exactly when it was first put to paper.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 10:05 am to therick711
quote:
60 years isn't 2-3 generations in Ancient Rome of around this time. In fact, the threshold for old age in Ancient Rome was 60-65.
Do you understand what a generation is?
Posted on 12/20/16 at 10:11 am to bmy
Yes. Given your incredulous response, though, it is likely that we are using "generation" differently. This mixup isn't surprising given that the term "generation" is imprecise and, depending on the field of use, can mean starkly different things.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 10:23 am to therick711
quote:
Yes. Given your incredulous response, though, it is likely that we are using "generation" differently. This mixup isn't surprising given that the term "generation" is imprecise and, depending on the field of use, can mean starkly different things.
Defined as the average time between the birth of a female and the birth of her offspring
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 10:24 am
Posted on 12/20/16 at 10:24 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Many Christians most certainly believe the Genesis account verbatim, and Francis's quote clearly calls a verbatim account into question. You say that God won't just start performing miracles for no good reason...which I also believe...but that's not what he said. Go back and look at the quote again. He clearly said that God is not ABLE to do everything.
The Genesis account clearly states that at one point there was no human life on earth, and then there was suddenly an adult male. When Adam was a year old, he wasn't a toddler, he was an adult male. Francis clearly said that God is not able to do that. That would have required a "magic wand."
In fact, according to the account, the entire world was created in a full grown, adult state. Animal life, plant life. If you could stick Francis on a time machine and send him back to the seventh day in Genesis, when he got there, he wouldn't say the Earth was only a week old.
I'm about to piss you off as a Protestant, but:
1. Until after the Protestant Reformation (and I mean long after), almost no educated Christian read the Creation accounts in Genesis as literal accounts because (a) there was already a long Jewish tradition of reading the accounts metaphorically, (b) the Genesis accounts are contradictory, and (c) most importantly, Genesis 2, in the Christian Church, was always to be read through the context of Christ and Mary, as prophecy rather than history, as the problem of evil and how it would be stopped.
2. Even in Genesis 2, God uses the material at his disposal (the rules he created) to create the Garden and those things in the Garden. God is rational.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 10:26 am to TN Bhoy
quote:
(b) the Genesis accounts are contradictory
How so?
Posted on 12/20/16 at 10:30 am to KG6
quote:
You just can't accurately make that claim. I've not seen anywhere that says with certainty exact dates. Many say within 60-70 years (that would be like me writing about WWII without any other text to go off of). But most agree (admittedly on random websites I looked up really quickly before I made the original claim) the books used in the Bible are within 150 years, that's why I used that number.
I can guarantee you that Mark was written within a couple of decades of the Crucifixion. The Greek is quite clearly the Greek of a Levantine whose first language was not Greek. And any later than that you'd have it written by someone who wrote fluent Greek.
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 10:33 am
Posted on 12/20/16 at 10:31 am to therick711
quote:
How so?
Well, first off, you have man being created before animals in Genesis 2, where the creation of man is the culmination of Creation in Genesis 1.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 10:37 am to TN Bhoy
Interesting. I never read it as the animals being created after Adam, but I can see how one could ascribe that kind of chronologicalism by the way the narrative is presented. My translation left me with the impression that Animals had been created and then presented to Adam later. 
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 10:38 am
Posted on 12/20/16 at 10:38 am to TN Bhoy
They aren't contradictory, they are inconsistent, but you are correct otherwise.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 10:48 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
The thought is that Luke or whoever took the name drew inspiration from Josephus' idea of writing a history of the Jewish people in Antiquities of the Jews and applied it to the history of Christians in the 1st century AD.
The Paul theory has merit.
Luke pulling from Josephus has much less, and hasn't been taken very seriously among Patristic scholars since the early 90s.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 10:57 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared
FWIW, the Big Bang Theory strongly supports the need for a creator of the universe. In fact, when defending God as the initial cause of the universe I almost always use the Big Bang Theory to support my argument.
It goes something like this:
According to the theory all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang: there was literally nothing before it. A hundred years ago it was nearly scientific fact and all scientists believed that the universe was static and eternal. Then came Einstein and relativity and everything changed. Subsequent discoveries found that the universe was not static, but was expanding. An expanding universe meant that the universe was not eternal, but that if you were to go back far enough in time you would reach a singularity in which the universe literally came into existence. Theorems by Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking show that as long as the universe is governed by special relativity, the existence of an initial singularity – or beginning – is inevitable, and that its impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state. This had huge implications for both science and theology. The kalam cosmological argument states:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
Now, given that whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must be some sort of transcendent cause for the origin of the universe. Theists call that cause God. In a Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking says, “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Scientist Dr. Stephen Meyer says,” You can invoke neither time nor space nor matter nor energy nor the laws of nature to explain the origin of the universe. General Relativity points to the need for a cause that transcends those domains. And theism affirms the existence of such an entity – God” Modern science it seems is bent on somehow doing away with the singularity because it cannot be explained by modern physics. However, unless you’re using imaginary numbers or tense less time it cannot be done. In reality, the singularity and its implications still exist.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:00 am to bmy
quote:
Defined as the average time between the birth of a female and the birth of her offspring
Most commonly, a generation has to come to mean about 40 years.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:02 am to AUveritas
quote:
Luther wanted to the freedom to "sin bravely" without fear of judgement so He created a God in his image.
I don't believe this is what Luther meant is his letter to Melanchthon.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:12 am to Sapere
quote:
I don't believe this is what Luther meant is his letter to Melanchthon
Since, once again, this is a matter of history I think it's safe to wade in. "Be a sinner and sin boldly" were the exact words so he used. Not sure how you'd like to spin that but I bet it'll be interesting.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:15 am to amsterdam
quote:I see the logic, but it doesn't "need" an intelligent creator.
FWIW, the Big Bang Theory strongly supports the need for a creator of the universe.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:19 am to AUveritas
quote:
Most commonly, a generation has to come to mean about 40 years.
I think 30 would be more common but either way it is more than one generation later that stuff was recorded.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 11:19 am to buckeye_vol
This thread is seriously lacking in Beejon.
Page 10 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News