Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9203
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 186 of 240 (593066)
11-23-2010 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by kbertsche
11-23-2010 10:52 PM


What is the evidence for this?
Paul was trained by the leading rabbis

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by kbertsche, posted 11-23-2010 10:52 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by kbertsche, posted 11-24-2010 10:41 AM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9203
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 196 of 240 (593117)
11-24-2010 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by kbertsche
11-24-2010 10:41 AM


kinda circular
Your evidence that Paul was 'trained by leading rabbis" is solely based upon his say so?
He mentions one leading rabbi and you embellish on this to be many leading rabbis.
There seems to be some scholarship that his studying under Gamaliel is doubtful.
quote:
Helmut Koester, Professor of Divinity and of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard University, is doubtful that Paul studied under this famous rabbi, arguing that there is a marked contrast in the tolerance that Gamaliel is said to have expressed about Christianity with the "murderous rage" against Christians that Paul is described as having prior to his conversion.
Source
So your evidence for stating this
Paul was trained by the leading rabbis
is based upon his say so that he studied under a certain well known rabbi.
Seems to be pretty thin gruel to me.
I guess that I come from a historical research tradition makes me expect and demand corroborating evidence and multiple sources, before I accept something as having some factual basis.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by kbertsche, posted 11-24-2010 10:41 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9203
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 217 of 240 (593187)
11-24-2010 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by kbertsche
11-24-2010 6:59 PM


Amazing the things you assert
Correct; it was written by Luke, a careful documenter and a part-time companion of Paul.
Again I have to ask for evidence for your assertions. There is a considerable lack of consensus that Luke is the author of Acts.
quote:
However, it must be stated that there is no consensus, and according to Raymond E. Brown, the current opinion concerning Lukan authorship is ‘about evenly divided’.
Source
Whoever the author of Luke and Acts is there are also those that do not feel he was such a careful documenter.
quote:
Until recently, Luke's Gospel was read, together with the book of Acts, as a history of Christian origins. The two-volume work was considered a vast storehouse of information for reconstructing what happened in the lives of Jesus and his earliest followers. Modern times, however have brought a new historical consciousness and a refinement of critical methodologies for conducting historical research. Luke the historian has fallen on hard times.
There is, of course, a problem with the nature of the work itself. Can any narrative that reports, in so cavalier a fashion, the workings of fantastic miracles and the adventures of angels and demons be read today as history? But even aside from this predilection for the supernatural, Luke's competence as a historian is called into question. For example, there are several discrepancies between his account of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 and the account given by one who was actually there in Galatians 2. Or, again, Lukes Knowledge of Palestinian geography seems so inadequate at times that one prominent scholar was led to remark. "Jesus' route cannot be reconstructed on any map and, in any case, Luke did not possess one."
Furthermore, it is doubtful whether the writing of history was ever Lukes's intent. Luke wrote to proclaim, to persuade, to interpret: he did not write to preserve records for posterity. An awareness of this has been, for many, the final nail in Luke the historians coffin. If Luke intended to write history, he did so poorly, but he did not so intend. Luke is a theologian, not a historian.
Source
quote:
Robert M. Grant has noted that although Luke saw himself within the historical tradition, his work contains a number of statistical improbabilities such as the sizable crowd addressed by Peter in Acts 4:4. He has also noted chronological difficulties whereby Luke "has Gamaliel refer to Theudas and Judas in the wrong order, and Theudas actually rebelled about a decade after Gamaliel spoke(5:36-7)
Source
Original Source
It seems there are a few scholars that would disagree with your assessment of Luke's capabilities.
You are very good at presenting opinions as fact. There is little fact known in biblical authorship.
So unless you can provide evidence of Luke as the author and back up your assertion that he was a "careful documenter" then all you have is a bunch of hooey.
I have yet to see evidence for this assertion by you.
kbertsche writes:
Paul was trained by the leading rabbis

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by kbertsche, posted 11-24-2010 6:59 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by kbertsche, posted 11-26-2010 4:33 PM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9203
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 224 of 240 (593380)
11-26-2010 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by kbertsche
11-26-2010 4:33 PM


Re: Amazing the things you assert
The scholarly view in the nineteenth century was that "Luke" was a poor historian and geographer who had no first-hand knowledge of the region he wrote about. But this view came from armchair archaeologists who themselves had no first-hand knowledge of the region. Their claims were effectively challenged by Sir William Ramsay, who spent his career in first-hand studies of Asia Minor.
Your authority on history and archaeology died in 1939? Do you not think the fields of history and archaeology have come some way since 1939? The one link you provided is a book published in 1908!
This link is worthless
Short article re Luke and Ramsay
Looking at his website shows he is clueless about a vast array of subjects.
The only place I can find any of the cites are on fundie and apologist websites.
The last lines are a fine example of the quality of the information posted.
quote:
When reviewing the research and writings of Saint Luke, Famous historian A.N. Sherwin-White declares:
In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error. 8
For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. 9
This is written to make it seem Sherwin-White wrote both lines. He did not. The first is by Norman Geisler in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Baker Books, 1999, 47. The cite is correct but there is no mention of Geisler in the article. The writer of the article seems to want to camouflage that it was said by Geisler. I can see why.
Sherwin-White's specialty was Rome and roman law. He was not a biblical specialist. His prime issue was with form-criticism. I think he may not have understood it.
Geisler is an evangelical scholar, and the author or coauthor of over fifty Christian books defending the Christian faith through logic, evidence, and philosophy. He has also authored many articles and theses on other Christian topics. Dr. Geisler has taught at the university and graduate level for over forty years. Geisler's work Baker Encyclopedia of Christan Apologetics has been well received and is considered a systematic and comprehensive work of Christian apologetics.
Source
Geisler has no training in history or archaeology. To present him as an expert in the field is laughable. He is an apologist, nothing more.
The majority of cites are to this.
Pat Zukeran, Archaeology and the New Testament, 2000, 4, Archaeology and the New Testament
This is an article on a fundie website. I think if someone wants to be taken seriously they should use serious scholarship.
Probe Doctrinal Statement
quote:
We explicitly affirm our belief in these basic Bible teachings:
1. There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons-- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--each of whom possesses equally all the attributes of Deity and the characteristics of personality (Matt 28:19; John 10:30; Acts 5:3,4; 2 Cor 13:14).
2. God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth, is the functional head of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). He sent the Son to obtain satisfaction for divine justice and to proclaim reconciliation. The Spirit He sent to teach truth. He is spoken of as the Father of all creation, of angels, of Israel, of believers, and of Christ (John 14-17, 20:17; Job 1:16; Psalm 103:13).
3. Jesus is God, the living Word, who became flesh through His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit and His virgin birth. Hence, He is perfect Deity and true humanity united in one person forever. He lived a sinless life, and voluntarily atoned for the sins of men by dying on the cross as their substitute, thus satisfying divine justice and accomplishing salvation for all who trust in Him alone. He rose from the dead in the same body, though glorified, in which He lived and died. He ascended bodily into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God the Father, and there He, the only mediator between God and man, continually makes intercession for His own (Matt 1:16,20,23; Luke 1:34; Heb 4:15; 2 Cor 5:21; 1 Cor 15; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Peter 2:5-9; 1 John 2:1).
4. The Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, has come into the world to reveal and glorify Christ and to apply the saving work of Christ to men. He convicts and draws sinners to Christ, imparts new life to them, continually indwells them from the moment of spiritual birth, baptizes them into the body of Christ, and seals them until the day of Redemption (John 16:8-11; Titus 3:5; 1 Cor 6:19; Rom 8:9b; 1 Cor 12:13; Eph 5:18; Gal 5:22-23).
5. Man was originally created in the image of God. He sinned by disobeying God; thus, he was alienated from his Creator. The historic fall brought all mankind under divine condemnation. Man's nature is corrupted, and he is thus totally unable to please God. Every man is in need of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit (Gen 1:26-27; Eph 2:1; Rom 1:18, 3:20, 7:21-25, 5:12).
6. The salvation of man is wholly a work of God's free grace, and is not the result, in whole or in part, of human works or goodness or religious ceremony. God imputes His righteousness to those who put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation, and thereby justifies them in His sight (Rom 6:23; Eph 2:8,9; John 3:16; Titus 3:5-8).
It is the privilege of all who are born again of the Spirit to be assured of their salvation from the very moment in which they trust Christ as their Savior. This assurance is not based upon any kind of human merit, but is produced by the witness of the Holy Spirit, who confirms in the believer the testimony of God in His written Word. The Holy Spirit's fullness, power, and guidance are appropriated in the believer's life by faith (Rom 5:9-10, 8:1, 29- 30, 38-39; John 5:24, 10:27-30, 14:16; 1 Tim 1:12; Phil 1:6; Heb 7:25; Jude 24).
Every believer is called to live so in the power of the indwelling Spirit that he will not fulfill the lust of the flesh, but will bear fruit to the glory of God. The Scriptures set out the principles and rules of the Christian life (Rom 12:1,2; Gal 5:16- 26; 2 Cor 6:14).
7. Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, His Body, which is composed of all men, living and dead, who have been joined to Him through saving faith. God admonishes His people to assemble together regularly for worship, for participation in ordinances, for edification through the Scriptures, and for mutual encouragement (1 Cor 12:12-13; Col 1:18; Eph 2:15-16).
8. At physical death, the believer enters immediately into eternal, conscious fellowship with the Lord and awaits the resurrection of the body to everlasting glory and blessing (1 Cor 15:12ff; 2 Cor 5:1-10; Phil 1:23; John 12:26).
At physical death, the unbeliever enters immediately into eternal, conscious separation from the Lord and awaits the resurrection of the body to everlasting judgment and condemnation (Eph 2:12; Rom 3:23, 5:12; Matt 25:31-46; Rev 20:11-15).
Jesus Christ will come again to the earth--personally, visibly, and bodily--to consummate history and fulfill the plan of God (Rev 19:11-16; Zech 14:4-11; 1 Thess 1:9-10).
9. The Lord Jesus Christ commanded all believers to proclaim the gospel throughout the world and to disciple men of every nation. The fulfillment of that Great Commission requires that all worldly and personal ambitions be subordinated to a total commitment to "Him who loved us and gave Himself for us" (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47-48).
Yeah I can see real objectivity from them.
There is also a cite to Apologetics Press
Here is the belief statement for Apologetics Press.
quote:
What We Believe
The following principles of truth are accepted by those who actively participate in this work:
1. God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of His manifold revelations, both in nature and through the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.
2. The entire material Universe was specially created by this almighty God in 6 days of approximately 24- hours each, as revealed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11.
3. Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth.
4. Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate that many of the Earth’s features must be viewed in light of a universal, catastrophic flood (i.e., the Noahic Flood as described in Genesis 6-8).
5. All compromising theories such as theistic evolution, progressive creationism, threshold evolution, the gap theory, the modified gap theory, the day-age theory, the non-world view, etc., are denied and opposed as patently false.
6. Christianity is the one true religion; Jesus Christ is the only divine Son of God, resurrected Lord, and Savior of all who lovingly obey Him.
7. The 66 books of the Bible are fully and verbally inspired of God; hence, they are inerrant and authoritative, and a complete guide for moral and religious conduct.
8. Salvation is by means of obedience to the Gospel system, involving faith in God and Christ, repentance from sin, confession of faith, and immersion in water for remission of past sins, coupled with a life of growing consecration and dedication.
9. Those enjoying salvation are members of the one true church, which is the body of Christ.
Yeah they are going to be objective.
The final cite is also to a fundie website.
If you are going to post something and expect me to take it seriously maybe you should not post things from fundie/apologist sites that just use other fundie/apologist sites as their source.
oh could you provide evidence for this statement?
The scholarly view in the nineteenth century was that "Luke" was a poor historian and geographer who had no first-hand knowledge of the region he wrote about.
I find it mentioned on many fundie/apologist websites but have never seen any backing for the argument. It may very well be true, but I would like to see some evidence that backs the statement.
Now back to my original problem with your post. You admit that there is
As you say, current scholarship is not unanimous on this point.
But in your original post you state such things as facts. Also, it seems quite obvious that stating.
Correct; it was written by Luke, a careful documenter and a part-time companion of Paul.
is very much not universally accepted. You speak in absolutes. You make statements expecting that since they a bible based others will just accept them as is. What you accept as fact is in fact not universally accepted and there is a lot of dissent on the subject.
Edited by Theodoric, : Link to doctrinal statement, spelling

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by kbertsche, posted 11-26-2010 4:33 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by kbertsche, posted 11-27-2010 7:22 PM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9203
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 233 of 240 (593581)
11-27-2010 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by kbertsche
11-27-2010 7:22 PM


Re: Amazing the things you assert
Yes. And I also still use and rely on Einstein's Special theory of Relativity (1905) and Maxwell's equations (1860s).
If you think these are the same as historical research and archaeology, then I am not sure where to begin to explain the difference to you. I think you are trying to sound impressive, but in actuality that argument makes you look very foolish.
His second cite is a text which you will need to look for at a library.
WRONG!!!
This is a lame fundie webarticle. When imported to Word it is six pages long and a total of 2661 words long. Do not pawn this drivel off as some sort of scholarly book or article. The only places it can be found is on the probe.com website and other fundie sites. The author has no credentials in history. He is a minister. He has Th.M. and a D.Min.
quote:
The Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) degree is, according to The Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (ATS), a doctoral level degree oriented toward ministerial leadership often in an area of applied theology, such as missions, evangelism, church leadership, pastoral psychology or the psychology of religion, church growth, church administration, homiletics, or spiritual formation.
Gee, nothing even about church history there. This is one of your experts?
Geisler is a philosopher, not an archaeologist or New Testament scholar. But the fact that he does apologetics does not negate his expertise in philosophy.
Then why was he used as an expert on history and archaeology? Why was his quote pawned off as a quote from someone else?
quote:
In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error.
Is not a philosophical statement. It is a historical statement.
I believe the evidence is overwhelming for the age of the earth, for global warming, and for Luke.
Evidently you have a misunderstanding of what the word evidence means, or maybe you are just equivocating. There is overwhelming scientific evidence for the age of the earth being approx 4.54 billion years . There is overwhelming scientific evidence that we are in the middle of human induced climate change. There is no historical evidence for Luke. All you have is anecdote and tradition.
Remember the start of this digression.
kbertsche writes:
ramoss writes:
There are problems with the claims in Acts. 1) Acts was not written by Paul, so, it isn't Paul who is making the claims.
Correct; it was written by Luke, a careful documenter and a part-time companion of Paul.
You have no evidence to back that assertion. Therefore, there ARE problems with the claims made in Acts.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by kbertsche, posted 11-27-2010 7:22 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by kbertsche, posted 11-30-2010 10:38 PM Theodoric has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024