tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1030619185142678096..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: This is Parsons' critique of Kreeft and Tacelli on hallucinationsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83444600891851581972011-12-05T15:36:54.392-07:002011-12-05T15:36:54.392-07:00"Nowhere have I talked about "progress o..."Nowhere have I talked about "progress of religion"."<br /><br />Lies. You know what Bob meant, and you certainly have. You shift between claiming that religion never, ever changes because everything is dogma, and that religion always changes because it lacks any commitments at all and is unfalsifiable. You're inconsistent, and dull-witted to boot.<br /><br />And there is no such thing as "secular morality". You should know. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59294062607197447382011-12-03T16:28:57.642-07:002011-12-03T16:28:57.642-07:00Bob
"Half the time you're complaining bec...Bob<br />"Half the time you're complaining because there is allegedly no "progress" in religious thought over time, and the other half you're accusing religions of changing over time."<br /><br />Nowhere have I talked about "progress of religion". Progress of religion is anathema to institutionalized conservatism and tradition. The fresh and new approach to biblical study is pretty much demonstrating that much of that tradition does not have a grounding in the 1stC CE. What the article is stating that the character of the institutional church is solely a man-made product, quite distinct from the original progenitors of the original church, James Peter and John.<br /><br />No accusations or complaints here, Bob, just new and corroborated investigative information.<br /><br />Within institutionalized tradition, ...."there’s neither a method nor an inherent trend in theology to reassess and alter its moral stands in view of changing conditions. Religious morality appears to change under only two conditions: either secular morality moves ahead of religious morality, causing it to change (e.g., treatment of women and gays or, in this case, condom use and birth control), or scientific advances show that the scriptural basis of religious morality is simply wrong (e.g., there’s no Adam and Eve and hence no Original Sin).<br />If a religion’s moral dictates remain fixed in stone for centuries, even under the press of secular advances, then that religion loses adherents. This, of course, is what is happening to Catholicism in so many places."<br />[http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/case-study-religion-pushed-to-change-its-morality-by-secular-considerations/ ]<br /><br />This BBC News video about southern US is well worth watching:<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15978933Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80040018367702632322011-12-03T16:14:12.745-07:002011-12-03T16:14:12.745-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16547985709944027242011-12-03T15:06:58.190-07:002011-12-03T15:06:58.190-07:00"So the best interpretations came when it was..."So the best interpretations came when it was literally forbidden to question orthodoxy?"<br /><br />How could that possibly be the case? Where do you think orthodoxy comes from? The Big Bang?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30724145226736267772011-12-03T14:15:30.604-07:002011-12-03T14:15:30.604-07:00"This new information coupled with what is in..."This new information coupled with what is in the pages of your Bible clearly shows that there is a great difference between the church led by the original apostles and modern Christianity!"<br /><br />I've dealt with this before, Papalinton, but once again you are engaging in blatant "Heads I win; tails you lose" posting. Half the time you're complaining because there is allegedly no "progress" in religious thought over time, and the other half you're accusing religions of changing over time.<br /><br />Gimme a break!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35826088337653200702011-12-02T22:39:41.796-07:002011-12-02T22:39:41.796-07:00Chris asks: ""Do we understand the origi...Chris asks: ""Do we understand the origin and meaning of these texts better than we did a couple centuries ago?"<br /><br />Anon replies: "Not really, at least in no way strikingly better or dissimilar from what was already understood for centuries."<br /><br />On the contrary, there is a watershed of difference between that which was traditionally accepted and conventionally acknowledged as inviolable fact or proofs within biblical exegesis, and the outcomes of modern higher criticism that have thrown many if not most of those saggy benchmarks onto the pyre of historical residuum. True, Apologetics has reached its use-by date and from that perspective, Anon is correct; nothing about the origin and meaning of the texts is strikingly better or dissimilar from what was already understood for centuries. Indeed, Apologetics had been in homeostasis, a hiatus, for a millennium or more. A static state is the essential attribute of theological conservatism through which the moribund activities of interpretation and re-interpretation can be performed around the conceptual monobloc that is christianity, that can lead to some element of discernible differences. But in the main, " no way strikingly better or dissimilar from what was already understood for centuries."<br /><br />Modern textual criticism, however, has revitalized academic interest in old ground, and has resulted in significantly fresh and new ways to review the old texts. Much of this review, of course, has triggered fierce debate within the theological/literary community. Much of it contra to 'conventional' institutional church teachings. Anon is just as plain wrong on this score as other commentary he has offered, as the following excerpt from a christian site, one of so many, demonstrates:<br /><br />"Is there NEW information about the early Christian church?<br /><br />"How has Christian doctrine changed DRAMATICALLY since its roots in the first century A.D.? Unfortunately, for centuries the world had little access to historical information on the early church. Most Christian churches had to rely on the teachings of men who lived at least a century after Christ's death. These men became known as the "church fathers," whose writings wielded an enormous influence on Christian belief. They undermined the influence and authority of the true founders of Christianity such as James, Peter, and John. The character of the church from the second century down to modern times was set by Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, and many other uninspired men.<br />Fortunately, the past four decades have seen a plethora of NEW information on what the primitive church was really like. It is amazing what scholars and historians have found!<br />This new information coupled with what is in the pages of your Bible clearly shows that there is a great difference between the church led by the original apostles and modern Christianity!"<br />http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/what-did-early-church-believe-preach-after-death-of-jesus.html<br /><br />One would do well to consider comments from Anon with a healthy dose of justifiable skepticism.<br /><br />:o)Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58628590083517103742011-12-02T22:37:55.245-07:002011-12-02T22:37:55.245-07:00So the best interpretations came when it was liter...So the best interpretations came when it was literally forbidden to question orthodoxy? That sounds like it has to be wrong.parboujhttp://parb.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11381169235066877362011-12-02T22:36:48.906-07:002011-12-02T22:36:48.906-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84615011692514447512011-12-02T20:20:43.163-07:002011-12-02T20:20:43.163-07:00"Do we understand the origin and meaning of t..."Do we understand the origin and meaning of these texts better than we did a couple centuries ago?"<br /><br />Not really, at least in no way strikingly better or dissimilar from what was already understood for centuries. That more theories have been proposed, and still more of those recent theories discarded in a historical eyeblink despite being recent "consensus", is not much progress.<br /><br />"If you don't accept the results, fine. But refusing check out anything new because you think you've heard it all before? That's too bad. There's still good work being done."<br /><br />Who said I refuse to check it out? I'm more than happy to do so. I just don't bother putting much stock in it, or accepting it as (wait for it) Gospel truth. They really are falling all over themselves, and consensus there no more establishes truth than the fact that the green is this year's black establishes that green's the most attractive color around.<br /><br />Also, Craig and Habermas make use of the "minimal facts" to intentionally operate on the turf of these scholars. It's not meant as an endorsement of the scholar's views or that of the supposed consensus, any more than accepting some claim for the sake of argument is an endorsement of the claim in question.<br /><br />The best work done by scholars comes from finding new data. Discovering dead sea scrolls, finding physical evidence bearing Pilate's name, and so on. But that's different from their theories, which are, like it or not, in a state of disarray and flux. Saying "well, many scholars doubt apostolic authorship" will get you a soda, assuming you have a buck to go with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69014857278747114392011-12-02T18:08:01.593-07:002011-12-02T18:08:01.593-07:00There are a great deal of Christians and Jews who ...There are a great deal of Christians and Jews who think think biblical scholars matter, Anon & Bob Not to mention Christian apologists like Habermas and Craig who appeal to the concensous of scholarship when arguing from the so-called "minimal facts" to the Resurrection. <br /><br />As for you not accepting my view of progress, well, that's the humanities for you. There is broad concensous about some things and debate and disagreement about others. I'd hardly call debating scholars "falling over themselves." <br /><br />Do we understand the origin and meaning of these texts better than we did a couple centuries ago? Sure. What more do you want? <br /><br />If you don't accept the results, fine. But refusing check out anything new because you think you've heard it all before? That's too bad. There's still good work being done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68265254328482817502011-12-02T16:50:01.387-07:002011-12-02T16:50:01.387-07:00"A further case of whining and a swipe at mod..."A further case of whining and a swipe at modern biblical criticism because it does not align with his apologetical perspective."<br /><br />Newsflash Paps: Modern biblical criticism does not align even with itself. It's fad-laden, and filled with examples of very recent examples of scholarly consensus that have since been dethroned, and will continue to be. The very next fad may be a renewed commitment to apostolic authorship. Or Q again. And it still won't vindicate the field.<br /><br />But I understand why it gets you so psychologically wound up. You have an emotional need to espouse atheism, and therefore any dismissal of evidence you value gets you all upset. But don't worry, you'll get over it. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49984344411591357922011-12-02T16:26:48.649-07:002011-12-02T16:26:48.649-07:00From Anonymous: "I said the modern state of ...From Anonymous: "I said the modern state of biblical criticism is a joke, and in shambles. They're falling all over themselves, and that's likely never to change. So why should I care what today's supposed biblical criticism consensus is, whether or not I agree with the conclusions."<br /><br />A further case of whining and a swipe at modern biblical criticism because it does not align with his apologetical perspective.<br /><br />What else would we have expected?<br /><br />:o(Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58722922570685929182011-12-02T15:40:31.670-07:002011-12-02T15:40:31.670-07:00"Modern critical scholarship is not in shambl..."Modern critical scholarship is not in shambles, Anon. Take the synoptic scholarship that is abandoning the Q document. That's a good thing. It's progress."<br /><br />Chris, the way you define progress would make it impossible for there to be anything but progress so long as time continues to flow. The fields of homeopathy and parapsychology have been making great strides, because experiments debunking some claims are just more progress! The rapid shifting of explanations from this or that phenomena is progress! The fields are better than ever! Of course they are, if any change at all, any existence of the field at all, any agreement, means progress.<br /><br />And I didn't say pre-critical scholarship is making a comeback among critical scholars. I said the modern state of biblical criticism is a joke, and in shambles. They're falling all over themselves, and that's likely never to change. So why should I care what today's supposed biblical criticism consensus is, whether or not I agree with the conclusions?<br /><br />And that's the real point. Bob knows what many critical scholars think. So do I. It simply doesn't matter what they think, because there's little reason to place much stock in them. This will be the case even if modern critical scholarship suddenly endorses apostolic authorship in the majority, and frankly that can't be ruled out. They just don't matter much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28670000339269266512011-12-02T15:15:17.095-07:002011-12-02T15:15:17.095-07:00[Cont.]
In response to Bob's view, they may n...[Cont.]<br /><br />In response to Bob's view, they may not dispute his scholarly acumen but they do refute both his theology and history in this book. One such scholar is Robert A. Sungenis Ph. D, a theologian and Christian apologist, and the president of Catholic Apologetics International(CAI). In his article at:<br /><br /><br />http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/latest-news/247 he notes:<br /><br />"The job of each Catholic is to protect the papacy and Joseph Ratzinger is no exception to that mandate. He cannot put the papacy in precarious positions and exploit it for future book sales. The Church has had enough opinions from the prelature. It is time for hard and fast decisions about what the Church is and what it meant by what it officially stated, especially what it “officially” stated at Vatican II. Wouldn’t it be nice if the pope, after 50 years of turmoil created in the wake of Vatican II, actually wrote an official document with the express purpose of clearing up the inordinate amount of ambiguities in the major documents of Vatican II? THAT would be something to get excited about! But another book, like Jesus of Nazareth, which spends 300 pages delving into the finer points of historical criticism and arguing about which of the four Gospel writers got his facts right, we need like we need vinegar on our teeth.<br />Now, in reviewing Jesus of Nazareth it became apparent to me why Joseph Ratzinger, regardless of his apparent love of Scripture, must cease taking center stage under the name Pope Benedict XVI. The basic reason is, Jesus of Nazareth, although very uplifting and insightful in several places, contains a disturbing amount of dubious theological propositions; lack of scholarly exegesis; misuse of biblical criticism; and a general ignoring of Catholic tradition. The problem is exacerbated in that I wouldn’t expect most college professors to be able to sort out the problems in Jesus of Nazareth, much less would I expect the Catholic masses to do so. The latter, as I noted above, will take Jesus of Nazareth as Gospel, and that is precisely what frightens me the most.<br />In light of the dichotomy the book makes between Joseph Ratzinger and Pope Benedict XVI, I simply do not know which one to refer to when I address him. There are enough theological problems in the book that I hesitate to attribute them to Pope Benedict, but then again, Joseph Ratzinger no longer exists, ecclesiastically speaking. So I have decided to refer to the book only by its title, which I will form into a handy acronym called JON, and I will refer to JON as a he instead of an it."<br /><br /><br />Chris, you may wish to read the rest of this comprehensive article at the above web address.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />:o)Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32157573781836067572011-12-02T15:14:50.339-07:002011-12-02T15:14:50.339-07:00Chris W
"The pope is respected for his theolo...Chris W<br />"The pope is respected for his theological works, not his history. "<br /><br />Insightful comment and one that encapsulates the fuzzy boundary between history and theology. The pope is foremost a theologian and his foray into history is prescribed within the catholic perspective. <br /><br />No doubt he is brilliant. No doubt he is intelligent. No doubt his words will resonate with those who have a similar perspective. But the catholic perspective is not the be-all and end-all of what happens in the world. <br /><br />And it must remembered that he is the leader that protected the organised and systematized transfer of pedophile priests that their god-given right to freely abuse children. It must remembered that the various national and international and most telling investigations into catholic child abuse are as recent as 2011. It must also be remembered that Ratzinger is only protected from being served a writ by countries such as Ireland, Britain and the US and the international court of justice because of diplomatic immunity. These are simply reminders of the recent historical context from which the pope operates his infallibility.<br /><br />As Bob notes: "Pope Benedict's recently-published two-volume Jesus of Nazareth is definitely on the side of Apostolic authorship. And even non-Catholics and persons hostile to Catholicism do not dispute Benedict's (Ratzinger's) scholarly acumen."<br /><br /><br />Cont.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88366440037607874712011-12-02T13:17:52.581-07:002011-12-02T13:17:52.581-07:00So a biblical scholar is defined as one who reject...So a <i>biblical scholar</i> is defined as one who rejects the idea that John wrote John?<br /><br />No true Scotsmen fallacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89625727018129551952011-12-02T10:28:12.668-07:002011-12-02T10:28:12.668-07:00Bob, I'll have to take a look at those books f...Bob, I'll have to take a look at those books for myself, but the reviews of them <i>by biblical scholars</i> have not been altogether favorable. The pope is respected for his theological works, not his history. I have read a little of his theology (<i>Introduction to Christianity</i> and bits of other things) and that is where he excels.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37691795483637479102011-12-02T10:22:31.839-07:002011-12-02T10:22:31.839-07:00He also comes down strong on the issues of "e...He also comes down strong on the issues of "eyewitness testimony, independence, the historical value of the Gospel of John". <br /><br />And if you doubt the "scholarly" nature of his work, just try reading some of it. Quite a bit of it is way over <i>my</i> head. (And I'm not at all afraid or embarrassed to admit that. I freely acknowledge that there are tons of people out there way smarter than I am. Pope Benedict is one of them.)B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81190396672811822822011-12-02T10:18:16.119-07:002011-12-02T10:18:16.119-07:00"You will find that pre-critical ideas like a..."You will find that pre-critical ideas like apostolic authorship are not making a comeback."<br /><br />Uhh... Pope Benedict's recently-published two-volume <i>Jesus of Nazareth</i> is definitely on the side of Apostolic authorship. And even non-Catholics and persons hostile to Catholicism do not dispute Benedict's (Ratzinger's) scholarly acumen.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30802009580142570862011-12-02T10:08:51.944-07:002011-12-02T10:08:51.944-07:00I should add that modern critical scholarship has ...I should add that modern critical scholarship has not, if I may evoke a popular blog that makes questionable use of the results of this scholarship, "debunked" the Resurrection or anything else in the Nicene Creed. It has, however, undercut certain tools of apologists and conservative theologians: apostolic authorship, eyewitness testimony, independence, the historical value of the Gospel of John, inerrancy, and so on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6854288130837693092011-12-02T09:56:07.121-07:002011-12-02T09:56:07.121-07:00Modern critical scholarship is not in shambles, An...Modern critical scholarship is <i>not</i> in shambles, Anon. Take the synoptic scholarship that is abandoning the Q document. That's a good thing. It's progress. The new dominant theory emerging is that Mark was written first, Matthew used Mark, and Luke used both Mark and Matthew. In other words, the gospels are even less independent of each other than we thought. <br /><br />So too with the demise of the Jesus Seminar. The Seminar's scholarship was revisionist and sensationalist, so a backlash against it is progress. But this backlash is not a return to a pre-critical age. For examples of the fruit of this turn, see Dale Allison's latest, <i>Constructing Jesus</i>, Maurice Casey's <i>Jesus of Nazareth</i>, and John Meier's continuing <i>A Marginal Jew</i> series. You will find that pre-critical ideas like apostolic authorship are not making a comeback.<br /><br />Looking back a century shows even more progress. For example, many if the first books on the historical Jesus tried to discredit Christianity or make Jesus out to be a liberal Protestant. Today we have much less bias, much less anti-Christian agenda (again, especially with the demise of the Jesus Seminar).<br /><br />I think there is confusion stemming from phrases like "modern critical scholarship" that Walter and I are using on this thread. It does not mean "scholarship trying to discredit the Bible", it just means good history and textual analysis. The latter is thriving, and the former is withering (except for when the media wants a juicy article or documentary about the Bible, of course. Then the kooks get to shine).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9461785061175592822011-12-02T09:09:29.057-07:002011-12-02T09:09:29.057-07:00Walter, I mostly agree with everything in your las...Walter, I mostly agree with everything in your last posting except the final sentence. (Naturally, being a Christian), I believe that it is Jesus who finds <i>us</i>.<br /><br /><i>Selah.</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41356262070748542172011-12-02T08:07:20.897-07:002011-12-02T08:07:20.897-07:00As you would say, Bob, we don't have a "s...As you would say, Bob, we don't have a "slam dunk" either way, whether it comes to the dating or actual authorship of these texts. Since I don't base my life off of the opinions of these ancient writers, it is merely an intellectual curiosity to me. The previous anonymous poster commented on the state of NT scholarship being in shambles and to some extent I agree. What actual evidence we have from first-century Palestine is so thin we can connect the dots in all manner of creative ways; that's why everyone seems to find exactly the Jesus that they are looking for.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53273811588795990372011-12-02T06:45:48.958-07:002011-12-02T06:45:48.958-07:00If you consider the case for Apostolic authorship ...If you consider the case for Apostolic authorship to be "flimsy", you'll have to admit (if you're honest) that the opposite case is no less so. Mostly the arguments boil down to (often unspoken) unprovable premises that begin "is it not reasonable to assume...?", or else they're uber-reliant on the "absence of evidence", which as we all know, is not evidence of absence.<br /><br />For instance, much is often made of the fact that "the disciple Jesus loved" is never identified by name in John. But this is easily explained by an understandable desire by the writer to keep the focus of his narrative on Jesus and away from himself; a way of showing humility.<br /><br />Or, one argument for late dating that always causes me to smile is the one that says "since the Destruction of the Temple is alluded to in all four Gospels, then they have to have been written subsequent to that event (i.e., post-70 AD). But surely that is begging the question, by assuming beforehand that Jesus could not have foreknowledge of an event. (After all, the Gospels do not describe the actual destruction, but merely record Jesus's <i>prediction</i> of such.) My own (admittedly equally intuitive) counter to that argument is that, were the Gospels indeed written post-70 AD, the destruction would have been <i>central</i> to the narrative, rather than merely obliquely referenced in passing. After all, Titus's siege of Jerusalem was the most traumatic, catastrophic event in Jewish history since the Babylonian captivity. It would be like writing a history of the Western Hemisphere and confining its European colonization to a footnote.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28446818563100766112011-12-02T06:10:04.562-07:002011-12-02T06:10:04.562-07:00Darn it!
Previous comment was meant to say "...Darn it!<br /><br />Previous comment was meant to say "pretty flimsy evidence at best."Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.com