Dr. Schweitzer's remarkable discovery: T-Rex Blood etc

[EENGELBRECHT]

"Citation please."

St. Augustine is not Pieper and not amenable to proof texting,,,,,, start with the Confessions, then go on to City of God and then his OT commentaries on Genesis and the Creation narritives in Psalms.  I've contract typed enough papers to know this material is covered in Sem, it's not really obtuse.

Augustine was not opposed to citing other authors in order to make his points. Surely, you can't oppose the practice of quoting someone since you're doing just that in responding to others in this forum. I would be pleased to see your insights from Augustine on the doctrine of creation.

In Christ,
EE

[ptmccain]

Janielou, if you refer us to a specific point, and claim it is "covered" by Augustine, then asking you to provide a specific citation is not inappropriate. I'll be pleased to check whatever specific citation you provide, otherwise your remark is somewhat useless for this conversation.

[Steven Tibbetts]

To the poll that has just appeared in the midst of this thread, I cast "none of the above."  Though of the choices offered, I'm probably closest to the six-day option.

pax, spt+

[Mike Bennett]

To the poll that has just appeared in the midst of this thread, I cast "none of the above."  Though of the choices offered, I'm probably closest to the six-day option.

pax, spt+

Still being in business, I'm better at following exam instructions than Steven, so I picked six days as the best answer available.

Mike Bennett

[EENGELBRECHT]

To the poll that has just appeared in the midst of this thread, I cast "none of the above."  Though of the choices offered, I'm probably closest to the six-day option.

pax, spt+

Thanks for your note, Steven. I had hoped there would be a box in the poll design screen to allow comment for those who wanted to offer a variant from the list. The poll design screen does not have that as an option, so weighing in here is good. Would you like to share more about your position/thoughts?

Mike, I see you had a similar dilemma.

In Christ,
EE

[JMOtterman]

EE,

The poll is just to simple.  I find the creation issue much more complex and very complicated with too many agendas and misconstrued arguments that lack sense or tact.  Let's see if I can add to the misery.

Do I find both creation stories in Genesis to be true and that the life on this planet has evolved and continues to evolve?  Yes.

Do I find truth both with the two stories in Genesis and some of the ideas of evolution to be as a matter of fact or as a matter of faith? It is all a matter of faith for all involved even if I sound like I want it be as a matter of fact.  You can believe whatever you want to believe just don't force me to believe like you do.  Forced belief causes issues like the 30 years war.

Creation isn't for those that want facts, creation is about imagination and for that matter God's Imago Dei.

I have faith that God did indeed create everything but my faith given me by God isn't a reality by which fact is created even if I believe that it is a fact, it still is an issue of faith.

Otherwise I no longer need to believe in God or Jesus Christ.  If I have to believe as though the Genesis account is an actual 6 day creation story or a zillion years and we have to develop proof for that belief has not the creation account superceded the intent and now our God is merely proof and fact and not faith and mystery in the exsitence of Jesus the Christ.?

PJ  

 

[EENGELBRECHT]

EE,

The poll is just to simple. 

You can believe whatever you want to believe just don't force me to believe like you do.  Forced belief causes issues like the 30 years war.

Otherwise I no longer need to believe in God or Jesus Christ.  If I have to believe as though the Genesis account is an actual 6 day creation story or a zillion years and we have to develop proof for that belief has not the creation account superceded the intent and now our God is merely proof and fact and not faith and mystery in the exsitence of Jesus the Christ.?

PJ  

Dear PJ, I agree that the poll is a simplification of the issue. Any attempt to measure such an issue would certainly involve some simplification. From other posts it seems others recognized that as well.

I do not intend to force anyone's belief. I'm simply inviting people to weigh in on some of the ideas and possibilities that are proposed from "traditional" and from "progressive" views. Since the doctrine of creation occupies an entire article of the Creed, I regard it as an important issue, worthy of consideration. I believe it also has profound implications for how we think about other doctrines as well.

I'm not sure I understand your closing question. Do you mean that having firm beliefs about the doctrine of creation undermines faith in Christ?

In Christ,
EE

[JMOtterman]

EE,

The poll is just to simple. 

You can believe whatever you want to believe just don't force me to believe like you do.  Forced belief causes issues like the 30 years war.

Otherwise I no longer need to believe in God or Jesus Christ.  If I have to believe as though the Genesis account is an actual 6 day creation story or a zillion years and we have to develop proof for that belief has not the creation account superceded the intent and now our God is merely proof and fact and not faith and mystery in the exsitence of Jesus the Christ.?

PJ 

Dear PJ, I agree that the poll is a simplification of the issue. Any attempt to measure such an issue would certainly involve some simplification. From other posts it seems others recognized that as well.

I do not intend to force anyone's belief. I'm simply inviting people to weigh in on some of the ideas and possibilities that are proposed from "traditional" and from "progressive" views. Since the doctrine of creation occupies an entire article of the Creed, I regard it as an important issue, worthy of consideration. I believe it also has profound implications for how we think about other doctrines as well.

I'm not sure I understand your closing question. Do you mean that having firm beliefs about the doctrine of creation undermines faith in Christ?

In Christ,
EE

Anything, that is human formed i.e. last weeks texts, philosophy, traditions etc that impedes the Gospel Jesus Christ is sin.  You, me, our arguments, our agreements could be an impediment to the Gospel.  So yes a firm belief in Creation as a literal fact rather than faith based story or vice versa, could do damage to folks hearing the Gospel and rejecting the Gospel according to human tradition based on faith built on imperfect human traditions such as our Confessions which I tend to live with daily  gasp the horror the institution of the church and its people might be on the wrong side, probably in our deepest anxieties we dine with the devil believing the devil to be God and not knowing the difference.

The edge of the iron cuts both ways and so I need to be careful as do you about what is most important, although Luther did say to sin boldly.  I would rather we could agree to disagree and have a drink on me, now where do you live?

Does it really shake your faith to believe that God didn't create the world in 6 days and rest on the 7 day.  I believe God created the world in one millisecond not 6 twenty four hour days like we have currently and somehow we need to rest.  God created this life and I believe God created it, just not with a literal Adam or Eve.  Adamah means dirt that I do believe.

It's a dirty shame the editors of Genesis didn't do a better job with sources and such.  I tend to side with the Priestly tradition how about you?  Are you a J, D, E, or P tradition subscriber?

PJ         

[ptmccain]

PJ, you, like Charles Austin, must face the reality that our Lord Jesus Christ himself and His blessed Apostles all confessed that Adam and Eve were real historical persons, not merely "stories." If you deny the historicity of Adam and Eve you must regard Christ Himself as a liar, or a fool.

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor McCain persists in admonishing:
PJ, you, like Charles Austin, must face the reality that our Lord Jesus Christ himself and His blessed Apostles all confessed that Adam and Eve were real historical persons, not merely "stories."

I ask, again:
And where in scripture does it say that about the 12?

[EENGELBRECHT]

It's a dirty shame the editors of Genesis didn't do a better job with sources and such.  I tend to side with the Priestly tradition how about you?  Are you a J, D, E, or P tradition subscriber?  

Dear PJ, thanks for your note, which raises a number of issues. I live west of St. Louis. I'd surely have a beer with you, if possible.

I'd like to tell a story. A few years back I was at a Society of Biblical Literature conference and sat in on a session led by a fellow Lutheran. I was curious to hear what he had to say. I knew he was more "progressive" than I was but I wanted to be supportive of my colleague nonetheless. (Incidentily, for those who assume there are no liberals in the LCMS, I testify that you are dead wrong. I've met them and have even had lunch with them  ). As the brother's presentation unfolded, the room went dead silent. When he finished, a few folks hesitantly asked questions and were even more surprised by the presenter's answers.

You see, his presentation was thoroughly Bultmannian in its assumptions and goals. Fifty years ago, when this fellow went through sem, Bultmann was hot stuff. Older theologians have told me everyone was convinced that Bultmann would be regarded historically as the most important theologian of the twentieth century. Today he is completely passe among exegetes, even scorned.

A similar thing is happening with JEDP (documentary hypothesis) though it is dieing a slower death than Bultmann's ideas. In the 1800s and 1900s JEDP was cutting edge and all the rage. Then in the mid 1900s a number of discoveries came to light: The Cairo Geniza, the Damascus Document, the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars of the 1800s and 1900s had assumed that subsequent discoveries of texts would prove that biblical books were threaded together by editors at a late date. However, the mss discovered demonstrated instead the stability of the biblical texts over two thousand years. Today exegetes are looking at the JEDP theory and asking themselves, "How could we have believed that we could pick through ancient texts and sift out who wrote/edited what?" They are acknowledging that the JEDP theory said much more about its practicioners than the texts themselves.

Ardent disciples of the JEDP theory are now saying, "Yes, well, we had our dates too late. The texts as we have them are older than we thought. But if we find texts from centuries earlier, then we'll see the theory was right!" As a student of the history of interpretation, I find this all fascinating to watch. In the meantime, I'm hanging with traditional approaches to the texts, which focus on the texts. Perhaps this will help you understand me better. Though I am simple, I am perhaps not as simple as you supposed. 

In Christ,
EE

[JMOtterman]

EE,

Thanks for hangin' out with this cracker pastor in South Dakota.

It's a dirty shame the editors of Genesis didn't do a better job with sources and such.  I tend to side with the Priestly tradition how about you?  Are you a J, D, E, or P tradition subscriber? 

Dear PJ, thanks for your note, which raises a number of issues. I live west of St. Louis. I'd surely have a beer with you, if possible.

I'd like to tell a story. A few years back I was at a Society of Biblical Literature conference and sat in on a session led by a fellow Lutheran. I was curious to hear what he had to say. I knew he was more "progressive" than I was but I wanted to be supportive of my colleague nonetheless. (Incidentily, for those who assume there are no liberals in the LCMS, I testify that you are dead wrong. I've met them and have even had lunch with them  ). As the brother's presentation unfolded, the room went dead silent. When he finished, a few folks hesitantly asked questions and were even more surprised by the presenter's answers.

You see, his presentation was thoroughly Bultmannian in its assumptions and goals. Fifty years ago, when this fellow went through sem, Bultmann was hot stuff. Older theologians have told me everyone was convinced that Bultmann would be regarded historically as the most important theologian of the twentieth century. Today he is completely passe among exegetes, even scorned.

A similar thing is happening with JEDP (documentary hypothesis) though it is dieing a slower death than Bultmann's ideas. In the 1800s and 1900s JEDP was cutting edge and all the rage. Then in the mid 1900s a number of discoveries came to light: The Cairo Geniza, the Damascus Document, the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars of the 1800s and 1900s had assumed that subsequent discoveries of texts would prove that biblical books were threaded together by editors at a late date. However, the mss discovered demonstrated instead the stability of the biblical texts over two thousand years. Today exegetes are looking at the JEDP theory and asking themselves, "How could we have believed that we could pick through ancient texts and sift out who wrote/edited what?" They are acknowledging that the JEDP theory said much more about its practicioners than the texts themselves.

Ardent disciples of the JEDP theory are now saying, "Yes, well, we had our dates too late. The texts as we have them are older than we thought. But if we find texts from centuries earlier, then we'll see the theory was right!" As a student of the history of interpretation, I find this all fascinating to watch. In the meantime, I'm hanging with traditional approaches to the texts, which focus on the texts. Perhaps this will help you understand me better. Though I am simple, I am perhaps not as simple as you supposed. 

In Christ,
EE

EE are you a professor of theology?  Do you hold a Ph:D in theology it is possible that you might have the clout and alas I am not a Ph:D but just a lowly M. Div..  Though your argument about JEDP seems to be from a school of thought that is clearly in the minority opinion amongst most Ph:D's around the country and in the world dealing with scripture and text, I know that such minor opinions exist.

I cut my teeth on Bultmann and though some of his ideas were wrong, he still may be the most brilliant theologian of his time, even as I might disagree with him more than I agree with him.  It is easy to dismiss those you don't understand as a lunatic than to sit and figure out what he was trying to say.  I wrote my best theological treatise being critical of Bultmann but I appreciate him more than not.  He didn't get everything right but many of his lingustic inventions are helpful in textual studies of scripture.  You might like the Catholic Theologian Raymond Brown (I think that is right) he seemed to hold Bultmann in highest esteem mentions him in many of his books.

As I know that you know that many LCMS folks can be quite liberal on some points and conservative on others that is what being a Lutheran in America is all about.  That is why those terms should probably be banned because I am something of all of the above.  Conservative on many points, Liberal on some as well, I am a by product of the ELCA which means I am well seasoned for a Heresy Roast.

You never know the next time I will be in St. Louis, my mother lived a good chunk of her life in St. Louis.  Great city.  I would track you down to have a cold drink.

Peace,

PJ   

[EENGELBRECHT]

Pastor McCain persists in admonishing:
PJ, you, like Charles Austin, must face the reality that our Lord Jesus Christ himself and His blessed Apostles all confessed that Adam and Eve were real historical persons, not merely "stories."

I ask, again:
And where in scripture does it say that about the 12?

Charles, you raise a good point.

We do have Matthew, James, John, and Peter recording or recorded as supportive of this idea, as Early Christian texts attribute/associate the idea of Mosaic authorship with them. A similar situation holds for late comers like Stephen, Paul, Jude, and the writer to the Hebrews. Belief in Mosaic authorship continues to show up throughout the Early Church Fathers and does not seem to be questioned among early Christians generally (are you aware of any Fathers dissenting?).

Perhaps the most helpful passage is Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council, which records James speaking of Moses being read everywhere---a pretty clear reference to the Law of Moses. He is recorded as making these matter-of-fact statements in a meeting of the apostles and elders.  So, as is the case with Jesus, earliest Christian documents describe apostles, like other first century Jews, holding to Mosaic authorship of Gn through Dt.

Paul's point was perhaps too terse but, all in all, appears quite reasonable based on the early documents.

In Christ,
EE

[EENGELBRECHT]

EE are you a professor of theology?  Do you hold a Ph:D in theology it is possible that you might have the clout and alas I am not a Ph:D but just a lowly M. Div..  Though your argument about JEDP seems to be from a school of thought that is clearly in the minority opinion amongst most Ph:D's around the country and in the world dealing with scripture and text, I know that such minor opinions exist.

Dear PJ, I'm not a prof or PhD but I edit them regularly, which helps me stay up on what's happening in academic theology.

Please do not refer to yourself as a "lowly M. Div." since Christ has entrusted souls to your care. Your calling is at the heart of what the Church is and does.  That cannot always be said of the PhDs.

Gunkel sowed the seeds for the demise of JEDP early in the twenthieth century. Older scholars still hold on to the theory and teach it. The younger ones have given up trying to decide who wrote what in the books of Moses and tend to look at the texts "wholistically" (cf Narrative Criticism). This is because JEDP turned out to be thoroughly subjective, based on the scholar's criteria for who each editor/author was. The more they chopped up the text the more obvious their subjectivity became.

On Bultmann: exegetes rarely become theologians of lasting importance because modern exegetical theories/approaches tend to shift with the wind. Important dogmaticians usually get read for centuries (e.g., folks still read Thomas Aquinas; Nicholas of Lyra, not so much). Among the Germans I think Barth will go down as top-dog in the twentieth century. He has the NeoOrthodox movement on his side. Bonhoeffer has a chance at continuing importance, mostly because of his great story/example.

In Christ,
EE