|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"? | |||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9203 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9203 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
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: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9203 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
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:Source Whoever the author of Luke and Acts is there are also those that do not feel he was such a careful documenter.
quote:Source quote: SourceOriginal 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9203 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
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: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9203 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
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: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: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:
Correct; it was written by Luke, a careful documenter and a part-time companion of Paul. 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. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024