A question about dinosaurs

[ebia]

Could you give me an example of each?

Jesus, healings

 

[Resha Caner]

Jesus, healings

Why those?

 

[ebia]

Why those?

You asked for an example of each.

 

[Resha Caner]

You asked for an example of each.

Yes. I'm asking why it is that you believe Jesus was real and that he actually healed people.

 

[ebia]

Yes. I'm asking why it is that you believe Jesus was real and that he actually healed people.

Why wouldn't I?

 

[Resha Caner]

Why wouldn't I?

If you don't want to answer me, please be up front about it. Answering evasively is no answer at all.

 

[ebia]

If you don't want to answer me, please be up front about it. Answering evasively is no answer at all.

I'm serious. Why wouldn't I? Jesus is an established historical figure being written about within a generation or so of the events. The gospels read like events that have happened. Broadly the point of the healings is events that have happened, not stories to teach a point (with the stories like Mark 8:22f being the exceptions that prove the rule).... The gospels are theological tellings, but their theology is grounded in this being something that happened in broadly the way it is told. There is some irony but it's subtle and in keeping of a "this is what happened" telling. There aren't lots of unexplained problems left hanging. They have the character of testimony not fiction/myth/parable where characters can be cartoonish, difficult details ignored, and suspension of disbelief invited.
Etc....

And there is no evidence it didn't happen.

 

[Resha Caner]

Jesus is an established historical figure being written about within a generation or so of the events.

There are those who say Jesus is a myth. Since we have just met, I didn't know what your opinion was. After all, our first introduction was your claim that Noah is a myth. So, I appreciate you elaborating a bit more.

The gospels read like events that have happened.

Ahab's Wife reads like events that have happened. So?

... stories like Mark 8:22f ...

Since Mark is the only gospel you mentioned, I just want to be clear. Do you accept the healings mentioned in Matthew and Luke as well?

 

[ebia]

There are those who say Jesus is a myth.

not any serious historians.

Ahab's Wife reads like events that have happened. So?

eh?

Since Mark is the only gospel you mentioned, I just want to be clear. Do you accept the healings mentioned in Matthew and Luke as well?

broadly, yes. I just mention one healing that has some parabolic character to illustrate that the majority do not.

 

[Resha Caner]

not any serious historians.

Agreed. But again, you gave me nothing to discern which side you stand on. And believe that the assault on Jesus' historicity is well under way. In fact, a recent popular trend is now to also attack Paul. FYI, I have a history degree.

eh?

Your position that Mark reads like it really happened is completely worthless. I can pick any number of fictional books off the shelf and they also read like they really happened. If you're trying to claim some documentary approach (assuming you are familiar with those), you should realize that in the eyes of "serious historians" they are highly suspect.

broadly, yes. I just mention one healing that has some parabolic character to illustrate that the majority do not.

Broadly yes? That sounds like more equivocating.

But I won't drag this out. The reason I asked is because Luke is the "man of science" amongst the gospel narrators. That title is posthumous, but there is good reason for it. As a doctor, one can assume Luke was trained to pay attemtion to detail (Matthew and Paul have similarly laudatory credentials). Further, he himself made comments about the care he took in assembling his narrative.

And Luke puts Noah in Jesus' lineage.

 

[ebia]

Your position that Mark reads like it really happened is completely worthless.

it's one clue among many as to the author's intent in telling the account. And if the author isn't trying to make it look like something that happened it probably didn't

Broadly yes? That sounds like more equivocating.

I wouldn't dogmatically say that every single healing happened, exactly as described.

But I won't drag this out. The reason I asked is because Luke is the "man of science" amongst the gospel narrators. That title is posthumous, but there is good reason for it. As a doctor, one can assume Luke was trained to pay attemtion to detail (Matthew and Paul have similarly laudatory credentials). Further, he himself made comments about the care he took in assembling his narrative.

And Luke puts Noah in Jesus' lineage.

Luke is also a theological storyteller par-excellence. It's a huge unsupportable supposition to jump from "Luke was a doctor" (if indeed he was") to "every aspect of Luke's account is trying to be history as a post-enlightenment historian would write it".

 

[Resha Caner]

it's one clue among many as to the author's intent in telling the account.

I repeat, that is a highly subjective judgement of almost no value. With the example of Ahab's Wife one could claim the author intended it as fiction since she allowed it to be classified as fiction. But there is nothing in the text to indicate it was meant to be fiction.

Take another example: Pooh Perplex: A Freshman Casebook.

This book was published as literary criticism. In this case the author gave not a clue that his intentions were anything but serious - and indeed there is a sense in which this satire is serious, but it is meant to lampoon literary criticism, not support it. And, BTW, it is that same literary criticism you are claiming as your support.

I wouldn't dogmatically say that every single healing happened, exactly as described.

Too bad.

Luke is also a theological storyteller par-excellence. It's a huge unsupportable supposition to jump from "Luke was a doctor" (if indeed he was") to "every aspect of Luke's account is trying to be history as a post-enlightenment historian would write it".

Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.
- Colossians 4:14

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
- Luke 1:1-4

The burden is on you to prove Paul mistaken and that Luke ever meant anything other than what he says in his gospel. What evidence do you have?

 

[ebia]

I repeat, that is a highly subjective judgement of almost no value. With the example of Ahab's Wife one could claim the author intended it as fiction since she allowed it to be classified as fiction. But there is nothing in the text to indicate it was meant to be fiction.

look up "necessary but not sufficient"

Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.
- Colossians 4:14

we don't know for sure whether that's the same person as the author of Luke-Acts. And even if he is it's still a big unsupported jump...

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
- Luke 1:1-4

Luke definitely wants to establish his work as reliable testimony under some of the literary expectations of his time. That's very different from expecting everything there to meet modernist expectations.

The burden is on you to prove Paul mistaken and that Luke ever meant anything other than what he says in his gospel. What evidence do you have?

the burden isn't on me to do anything - I'm just answering some questions in a discussion

 

[Resha Caner]

the burden isn't on me to do anything - I'm just answering some questions in a discussion

If the things you have said are only your opinion, and you have nothing to support them, then please say so. If you do have something to support them (other than the simple, unsupported statements you have made so far), I would appreciate you sharing that.

look up "necessary but not sufficient"

I am well aware of the term. Should I ask you to look up "subjective"?

we don't know for sure whether that's the same person as the author of Luke-Acts

Another unsupported statement. We know that Luke traveled with Paul. One of the most basic rules of historical analysis is to start with the simple, direct deduction. Any other conclusion must have evidence.

That applies to more than history. It is the same reason we assume electricity turns on a light bulb instead of gremlins.

Luke definitely wants to establish his work as reliable testimony under some of the literary expectations of his time. That's very different from expecting everything there to meet modernist expectations.

Yes, the study of history has changed over time. But show me evidence that Luke's understanding of the word "certainty" (or the Greek asphaleia, for which one connotation is "undoubted truth") allows him to insert mythical Noah into Jesus' lineage in one case and claim a man has risen from the dead in another case (Luke 24:34) without an implication that it was only an allegorical raising.

So far all I have is your opinion.

 

[ebia]

If the things you have said are only your opinion, and you have nothing to support them, then please say so. If you do have something to support them (other than the simple, unsupported statements you have made so far), I would appreciate you sharing that.

I'm having a conversation, not writing a paper. There is no particular burden of proof.

I am well aware of the term. Should I ask you to look up "subjective"?

so is taste, but if it tastes like cabbage I'll assume it's not chocolate.

We all use a heap of clues to help us decide (and refine/rethink) what a text is. Many of those have a degree of subjectivty to them. That's okay - unless you've bought into the modernist (and naive) notion that only the completely public-object has any merit at all.

Another unsupported statement.
We know that Luke traveled with Paul.

we know the text talks in the 1st person plural a few times. That's a million miles from "the author is the Luke mentioned in Colossians". It may be, but we have no way of being sure about that.

So far all I have is your opinion.

and?

You act as though you position is established and I have some supposed duty to mathematically prove it wrong.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm having a conversation, not writing a paper.

That's no excuse for evasiveness. I asked you for a common courtesy - to tell me if this is merely your opinion or if there is more to it.

When this first started, your phrasing implied authority. If that was merely my impression, and you didn't mean to convey that, I would appreciate some clarification. Just because you consider this to be a conversation doesn't mean those courtesies have no place.

We all use a heap of clues to help us decide (and refine/rethink) what a text is. Many of those have a degree of subjectivty to them. That's okay - unless you've bought into the modernist (and naive) notion that only the completely public-object has any merit at all.

Put whatever label on it that you wish. Our views differ. Your "clues" aren't convincing to me. So, do you feel the earlier statements you made about Noah are definite or were they something where it doesn't matter whether people believe it or not?

we know the text talks in the 1st person plural a few times. That's a million miles from "the author is the Luke mentioned in Colossians". It may be, but we have no way of being sure about that.

So Paul had multiple friends named Luke, yet made no attempt to distinguish them? Again, that premise goes against other scriptural precedents. You're asking me to accept the far-fetched when nothing suggests that I should accept anything other than a simple explanation.

and?

So it is just your opinion. Well, Richard Dawkins also has an opinion about the Bible, but I'm not inclined to listen to him.

You act as though you position is established and I have some supposed duty to mathematically prove it wrong.

The methods are established. You spoke of "credible historians." Was I or was I not supposed to infer from that that you have some familiarity with the historicity of Jesus? Are you saying you can refer to that work whenever it suits you but you're not bound by it if it speaks against your position? How convenient.

 

[ebia]

That's no excuse for evasiveness. I asked you for a common courtesy - to tell me if this is merely your opinion or if there is more to it.

I'm sure you're aware that it's not just my opinion but roughly the opinion of a section of scholarship.

Put whatever label on it that you wish. Our views differ. Your "clues" aren't convincing to me.

does it matter? We both agree the gospel story is something that actually happened.

So, do you feel the earlier statements you made about Noah are definite or were they something where it doesn't matter whether people believe it or not?

I'm not sure what your question is?

So Paul had multiple friends named Luke, yet made no attempt to distinguish them?

if that were the case he would only need to distinguish if the church at Collosae would need that distinction made; for them it might be blatantly obvious which luke he is referring to. But we don't even know if the author if the second gospel was called Luke. Nor can we be certain he travelled with Paul. "We" might just be a carry over from the source. There is more than enough uncertainty that we cannot categorically say that the Luke of Collosians is the author of Luke-Acts b

Again, that premise goes against other scriptural precedents. You're asking me to accept the far-fetched when nothing suggests that I should accept anything other than a simple explanation.

you've no way of telling what precedents it goes against.

The methods are established. You spoke of "credible historians." Was I or was I not supposed to infer from that that you have some familiarity with the historicity of Jesus? Are you saying you can refer to that work whenever it suits you but you're not bound by it if it speaks against your position? How convenient.

Eh?

There's a world of difference between the historical certainty that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person - something agreed to by every recognized historian studying that period - and claiming either that we can be sure who the third evangelist is or that his genealogy is literally factual - something a broad swaith of good Christian historians and biblical scholars would not say.

 

[miamited]

hi piratelady,

I've been meaning to get back to you about your OP and I admit that I have not read all of the posts to this point and so what I am about to say may have already been covered.

About dinosaurs: Those of us who believe and support the 'young earth' model generally believe that dinosaurs did exist and that they lived with early man. The book of Job, which is believed to be the book of the Scriptures written about the oldest days of history except for the first chapters of Genesis mentions a creature that we can only match up with what is seen as the dinosaur in our museums today. God speaks of a huge creature which no man can tame that has a tail that sweeps like a cedar. All of the large creatures that might fit the first part of the description that are alive today or that we know of have small tails, certainly nothing that would be compared as a cedar. In the Scriptures the cedar is a tree with great strength and was often used as a wood for building strong columns and beams.

God speaks to Job of this creature in a manner that certainly indicates that He expected Job to know of the creature. However, what happened to them is not completely clear. After the flood we know that many things changed upon the earth. One of the great changes mentioned in the Scriptures is that human life spans were shortened and many believers also accept that all life spans may well have been shortened.

One curiousity regarding our natural world is that reptiles never stop growing so long as they are alive. A theory that the life spans of reptiles in the days before the flood were possibly hundreds of years would explain their enormous size. Today most reptiles live a few years. The largest snakes, among their own kind, are those who have lived the longest. Each time they shed it is because they have outgrown their old skin and each time they shed they are a bit larger than they were in their old skin. So, if a snake were to live 100 years, imagine how large it might grow to be.
Similarly, other reptiles would grow very large under the conditions of longer life spans.

Of course, there is no proof of this since we cannot 'make' a reptile live for 100 years and test the theory, but it is also not unproven. So, most young earth creationists believe that yes, the reptiles that are found buried in the earth's surface did live, that's an inescapable fact, but that they lived several million years ago is arguable.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm sure you're aware that it's not just my opinion but roughly the opinion of a section of scholarship.

No, I'm not familiar with every detail of Biblical scholarship. I don't find it surprising that people are continually looking for ways to undermine scripture, but I don't track every new objection that pops up. So, I did a little checking. I found:

Luke: The Elite Evangelist
Karl Allen Kuhn (Associate Professor of Religion, Lakeland College)
Liturgical Press
2010

I will quote various passages from pages 2-6:

"We must grant the possibility that more than one 'Luke' might be in view in these passages. However, that the epistles each have in mind the same figure is strongly suggested by the fact that they each name a certain Demas in connection with the Luke they reference."

He ends this section by concluding:

"... it seems much more likely that a single Luke is here in view."

He then goes on to note that the earliest extant copy of Luke ascribes the writing to Luke and further quotes The Muratorian Canon from 190 A.D., Irenaeus, and Tertullian. His conclusion from these sources is:

"These multiple witnesses clearly show the tradition identifying Luke the physician and companion of Paul as the writer of Luke-Acts was firmly established by the end of the second century."

He later says that although "some scholars point to several discrepancies" the arguments are not "compelling." In fact, he only bothers to give one of these opposing scholars by name, Vernon K. Robbins, and states that very few scholars find his argument convincing. His opinion is that the other arguments beg the question.

See how this works? I'm not trying to hide that some have questioned Luke's identity, but Kuhn is claiming that the majority of historians don't. If we were to open the Pandora's Box on Jesus' historicity you would find historians using similar wording that leaves the door open. But were you to talk to them "off the record", they would say they are certain he existed.

IOW, lay critics try to make hay from the way historians use phrases like "strongly suggests" and "much more likely" rather than claiming absolute certainty. What they fail to understand is that there is no absolute certainty in historical scholarship. The 19th century documentary movement in Germany made absolutist statements about how the Hittites didn't exist (as well as Belshazzar, David, Pontius Pilate, and the list goes on). They ended up with egg on their face when later evidence confirmed their existence. So, historians are trained to remain open to the possibility that new evidence will be uncovered that changes the landscape. To date, however, the continuing accumulation of evidence has only served to support the Bible, not contradict it. For example, a recent discovery now validates the existence of Caiaphas. Kuhn wants to say he is certain there is only one Luke, but convention forces him to say it with guarded language.

does it matter? We both agree the gospel story is something that actually happened.

Absolutely it matters. You've told me you don't believe all of the gospel story. Luke is claiming his gospel to be true and to be based on eyewitness testimony. Therefore, he is claiming that Noah is a historical person.

I'm not saying this establishes Noah as a historical person. I'm saying Luke believed he was historical ... and based on his claim, that the apostolic circle he interviewed also believed it. Put in that context, the quotes attributed to Jesus would be meant to support the idea that Jesus also believed it. From there it is my faith (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) that leads me to say I believe it as well.

I'm not sure what your question is?

You claim Noah is a myth. Are you a relativist who says its OK for me to believe it when you don't, or are you more of an absolutist who will say you are right and I am wrong?

you've no way of telling what precedents it goes against.

I do my research to make sure my statements are supported. And I think I demonstrated above that they are. You have yet to do that.

There's a world of difference between the historical certainty that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person - something agreed to by every recognized historian studying that period - and claiming either that we can be sure who the third evangelist is or that his genealogy is literally factual - something a broad swaith of good Christian historians and biblical scholars would not say.

Again, I've done more than just say it. I've referenced the work of a Biblical scholar that flatly contradicts your statement about a "broad swath" of historians. It seems rather, that the broad swath is on my side. Further, your qualifier about "recognized" historians is just laughable. How is this recognition established? It is an attempt to do what I said above - to take methods well known among historians and misrepresent them so that you can use history to support Jesus and ignore it when its inconvenient.

Now, if you want to present some evidence that refutes what I've said, I'm willing to listen. Until then, my position stands: Luke believed Noah was real, my church believes he was real, and I believe he is real - not of my own opinion but upon their testimony.

 

[ebia]

No, I'm not familiar with every detail of Biblical scholarship. I don't find it surprising that people are continually looking for ways to undermine scripture,

I'm not talking about people undermining scripture but good quality committed Christian scholars.



but I don't track every new objection that pops up. So, I did a little checking. I found:

"... it seems much more likely that a single Luke is here in view."

He then goes on to note that the earliest extant copy of Luke ascribes the writing to Luke and further quotes The Muratorian Canon from 190 A.D., Irenaeus, and Tertullian. His conclusion from these sources is:

"These multiple witnesses clearly show the tradition identifying Luke the physician and companion of Paul as the writer of Luke-Acts was firmly established by the end of the second century."

He later says that although "some scholars point to several discrepancies" the arguments are not "compelling."

sure you can find scholars who think they are the same person along with one's who don't and one's in between. What you can't then do is treat it as something we know.


In fact, he only bothers to give one of these opposing scholars by name, Vernon K. Robbins, and states that very few scholars find his argument convincing. His opinion is that the other arguments beg the question.

See how this works? I'm not trying to hide that some have questioned Luke's identity, but Kuhn is claiming that the majority of historians don't. If we were to open the Pandora's Box on Jesus' historicity you would find historians using similar wording that leaves the door open. But were you to talk to them "off the record", they would say they are certain he existed.

the two situations are not compatible. You'll find plenty of scholars who don't think the Luke of Colossians is the 3rd evangelist. Even Richard Dawkins couldn't find one prepared to be cited as saying even "Jesus may not have existed".

Absolutely it matters. You've told me you don't believe all of the gospel story.

no I didn't.
Taking something as other than factual- literal is not disbelief

Luke is claiming his gospel to be true and to be based on eyewitness testimony. Therefore, he is claiming that Noah is a historical person.

no he's not. That simply does not follow. At the most trivial level it should be obvious that Luke's claim to eyewitness testimony does not extend to the genealogy!

I'm not saying this establishes Noah as a historical person. I'm saying Luke believed he was historical ...

you're trying to force the text to answer a question the author isn't interested in and probably hasn't even considered. You are, on fact, assuming that Luke has the same attitude to genealogies as you (that they are "truthful" only if they are entirely factual) in order to prove that. That's circular reasoning.

You claim Noah is a myth. Are you a relativist who says its OK for me to believe it when you don't, or are you more of an absolutist who will say you are right and I am wrong?

what matters is the theology we learn from the story. Being wrong about how literally to take the story matters only in so far as it influences thinking or praxis that matters.

Again, I've done more than just say it. I've referenced the work of a Biblical scholar that flatly contradicts your statement about a "broad swath" of historians. It seems rather, that the broad swath is on my side.

one scholar is too little data to make that conclusion from.

Further, your qualifier about "recognized" historians is just laughable. How is this recognition established?

by working at a university history faculty in the relevant field.

I'm going to take the Noah story on it's own terms, not try to conclude what it is backwards from a lot of hypothetical assumptions and speculations about the author of the third Gospel. Just as I'll take his gospel on it's own terms.