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

[Doug Shaver]

Mark Goodacre of Duke University goes into this, and deals with these questions quite well in a very short podcast here: http://podacre.blogspot.com/2009/09/...ntroversy.html

Well worth the listen.

I like Goodacre. Thank you for the link. At the moment, my Internet access is through a network that won't let me access that site. I'll check it out when I get back home.

[Tassman]

No, that isn't about it, and you know that it isn't about it because we went over this back in June (and probably a half dozen other times over the years before then).

I realise that, but the point being made by Raymond E Brown is that what historians can confidently affirm about the Jesus story does not include the "magic" stuff...including the resurrection.

[Adrift]

Your sources don't actually claim that he didn't say it. What they claim is that he didn't mean it.

Uh, no. What they claim is that he was speaking within a particular context, and that he meant what he said within that context. The specific "gospel" or "good news" that Paul refers to in Galatians 1 concerns his ministry to the Gentiles. He wasn't referring to the more general gospel handed down to him and to others that offered insight into the historical Jesus of Nazareth. Come on Doug. Weren't you a journalist? Start using those critical thinking skills bro.

[robrecht]

http://vridar.org/whos-who-among-myt...ics/#Annotated ...

[Tassman]

[psstein]

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.

Ludemann holds to a historical Jesus. Price and Carrier are the two with relevant credentials. Whenever Doherty opens his mouth, he shows that he doesn't know much about history or the matters he pontificates on.

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.

[Tassman]

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.

Ludemann holds to a historical Jesus. Price and Carrier are the two with relevant credentials. Whenever Doherty opens his mouth, he shows that he doesn't know much about history or the matters he pontificates on.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/r...suspuzzle.html

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.

[Doug Shaver]

Uh, no. What they claim is that he was speaking within a particular context, and that he meant what he said within that context.

What do we know about that context from sources contemporary with Paul?

[Adrift]

What do we know about that context from sources contemporary with Paul?

I don't understand your question or how it's relevant to the point.

[Doug Shaver]

What do we know about that context from sources contemporary with Paul?

I don't understand your question or how it's relevant to the point.

You said that according to your sources, "he [Paul] meant what he said within that context." Is there something specific that the word "context" is supposed to be referring to? If so, then what is it referring to, and how do we know that?

[Adrift]

You said that according to your sources, "he [Paul] meant what he said within that context." Is there something specific that the word "context" is supposed to be referring to? If so, then what is it referring to, and how do we know that?

I still don't understand the question. Do you not know what the word "context" means? Or did you not read the sources I cited for you that provided the context for you?

[psstein]

Potentially, much of the Enlightenment project can be seen as an attempt to categorize "reason" as something that is completely divorced from religious belief. I wouldn't agree that the Enlightenment thinkers actually made their case, but that's neither here nor there. I see reason as opposed to fideism, not an informed faith.

Carrier basically took Doherty's idea, was convinced by it, and read it into late first/early second century sources. Then he came up with a mythicist theory.

I've read the book, but Raymond Brown has been dead for nearly 17 years now. Scholarship has changed a lot in the last 20 or so years. The seemingly miraculous elements have been increasingly recognized even by atheist and agnostic scholars (e.g. Maurice Casey).

[Doug Shaver]

I still don't understand the question. Do you not know what the word "context" means? Or did you not read the sources I cited for you that provided the context for you?

[Tassman]

Potentially, much of the Enlightenment project can be seen as an attempt to categorize "reason" as something that is completely divorced from religious belief. I wouldn't agree that the Enlightenment thinkers actually made their case, but that's neither here nor there. I see reason as opposed to fideism, not an informed faith.

Carrier basically took Doherty's idea, was convinced by it, and read it into late first/early second century sources. Then he came up with a mythicist theory.

I've read the book, but Raymond Brown has been dead for nearly 17 years now. Scholarship has changed a lot in the last 20 or so years. The seemingly miraculous elements have been increasingly recognized even by atheist and agnostic scholars (e.g. Maurice Casey).

any natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural one.

[Adrift]

Eh, I figured replying to you would be pointless, and looks like I was justified for thinking so. I don't know why I bother. I can't imagine what sort of journalist you were, doesn't appear it was the investigative kind. If it was, not sure how you got anywhere. When I mentioned context after citing two scholars offering contexts for Paul's statements in Galatians and 1 Corinthians, the meaning couldn't have been plainer. The context they provided was plenty sufficient for reasonable individuals, but your personal biases have again proved impenetrable. Neither Witherington nor de Boer are inerrantists, nor are they defending some sort of "orthodox evangelical interpretation". Their defense plainly rests on decades of academic training, and a thorough understanding of Greek, and Paul's textual and social context.

Stop with this ridiculous level of skepticism, and grow up Doug. You're better than this.