tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post1708915821233268146..comments2024-03-29T22:00:02.999+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Every picture tells a story (extended) (a bit more)Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-35318153332756832182014-05-23T16:01:29.441+12:002014-05-23T16:01:29.441+12:00Thanks Mike!Thanks Mike!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-58220570182742480942014-05-23T13:33:53.361+12:002014-05-23T13:33:53.361+12:00Hi Peter
I've just put some more graphs togeth...Hi Peter<br />I've just put some more graphs together that I believe are interesting alongside the content of this post:<br /><br />http://mikecrudge.com/2014/05/20/2014-christiannot-christian-comparison-survey/Mike Crudgehttp://mikecrudge.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-8987504603559753712013-12-22T12:52:14.175+13:002013-12-22T12:52:14.175+13:00Silence is only found in heaven, Fr Ron. The reas...Silence is only found in heaven, Fr Ron. The reason we are not silent now is so that we may warn those who are complacent in their sin. Perchance some may be saved.MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-7640587843258641442013-12-21T13:09:08.882+13:002013-12-21T13:09:08.882+13:00And the rest was SILENCE.
Deo gratias!And the rest was SILENCE.<br /><br />Deo gratias!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29862442318276583752013-12-19T17:29:38.811+13:002013-12-19T17:29:38.811+13:00Gratias tibi ago, Martinus, frater in Christo,
De...Gratias tibi ago, Martinus, frater in Christo,<br /><br />Deus te benedicas<br /><br />Fratus tuus in Christo,<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83398478530596540962013-12-19T15:20:59.785+13:002013-12-19T15:20:59.785+13:00Hi Bosco, you wrote:
"It is a fascinating ph...Hi Bosco, you wrote:<br /><br />"It is a fascinating phenomenon that people regularly see in others and accuse them of failures that they themselves are guilty of."<br /><br />I couldn't agree more. <br /><br />"Might you also do me the courtesy of retracting your fabrication."<br /><br />Since I have not fabricated anything, the answer must be No. As I make clear below, I also do not think that I have been mistaken about your position (which is quite a different matter from the serious charge of fabrication):<br /><br />"Nowhere have I “compounded the error by suggesting that the present tense of eating in John 6:56 must be read as a repeated punctiliar action”! I did not. I suggest going back and re-reading my post (or perhaps reading it *carefully*, for the first time)."<br /><br />I have, and I stand by my characterisation of your position. <br /><br />Re your last point, I am more than willing to give apologies, where I consider they are merited. MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-55780990385184149312013-12-19T12:06:02.176+13:002013-12-19T12:06:02.176+13:00Bosco -
fortasse non leges hoc, sed gratias tibi a...Bosco -<br />fortasse non leges hoc, sed gratias tibi ago propter tuum ultimum nuntium, et tibi offero pro tuo versu de legis donatione hunc pulchrum cantum a pulcherrima Hayley Westenra<br />- audi et gaude!<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tId6ePj7Zpo<br /><br />benedictiones Adventus <br /><br />Martinus frater in ChristoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60232753217952769422013-12-18T21:45:46.675+13:002013-12-18T21:45:46.675+13:00'As Adam said to Eve ...'
Ah, Peter, I tho...'As Adam said to Eve ...'<br />Ah, Peter, I thought you were going to quote to me that recently discovered work from antiquity, De Origine Generis Humanae, aka 'The World's First Palindrome':<br /><br />'Madam, I'm Adam.'<br /><br />Martin Toledoth (by everyone)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-5015084156806129302013-12-18T21:15:22.371+13:002013-12-18T21:15:22.371+13:00Hi Martin,
As Adam said to Eve when she complaine...Hi Martin,<br /><br />As Adam said to Eve when she complained about her name, "Don't worry! One day, say in 2013 on a blog somewhere Down Under, it will be seen as just a 'conventional anachronism' to help explain the origin of the species."Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-63785180458689994842013-12-18T21:04:41.378+13:002013-12-18T21:04:41.378+13:00"Was Abiathar high priest when David entered ..."Was Abiathar high priest when David entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and when David gave some to his companions?"<br /><br />Not according to I Sam. 21.1, which references his father Ahimelech, whom he succeeded in that office. But if you are enquiring about the meaning of the verbless elliptical phrase 'epi Abiathar tou archiereos', you could consult J. Wenham, JTS(1950), 156; or the footnotes of The ESV Study Bible, p. 1187, where four possibilities are quickly summarised (not all as a time reference), though of course without the textual apparatus. (Somewhere, I suppose, Bart Ehrmann will have written a book on this, taking the maximalist contrary view.) The ESV translates this verbless phrase generally as 'in the days of Abiathar the high priest' (contrast NRSV, which supplies a verb). For myself, insofar as I've given it much thought, I've taken the verse to be a generalised time reference with conventional anachronism using the name of the most distinguished high priest of David's time - just as in a thousand years time (the distance from David to Jesus) someone might write of our era, 'Queen Elizabeth served as a mechanic during WWII' when in fact it was Princess Elizabeth who did this. <br />Since you raised the question and asked my understanding, which I've given, I would be interested to know how you understand this phrase. <br /><br />Martinos ho grammateus, epi Georgiou tou basileos (me genoito!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52596892421214444672013-12-18T19:28:56.409+13:002013-12-18T19:28:56.409+13:00Thanks, Carl.
I respect the integrity, simplicity...Thanks, Carl.<br /><br />I respect the integrity, simplicity, and lack of prevarication of your response.<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-46390005865845926432013-12-18T18:46:52.104+13:002013-12-18T18:46:52.104+13:00Kia ora Peter,
Janice tells a common story, and he...Kia ora Peter,<br />Janice tells a common story, and her question is a good one. Many others will have had similar experiences and outcomes. I am not a defender of evolutionary theory - or of nonsensical biblical manipulations. But I think the answer she gave herself at aged 15 was a good start. The steps that follow are equally worth taking.mike greensladenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43396298934628274472013-12-18T18:33:52.814+13:002013-12-18T18:33:52.814+13:00Bosco
clearly there being no energy to discuss op...Bosco<br /><br /><i>clearly there being no energy to discuss openly the good challenge first put before us by Janice of the impact of the evolutionary paradigm on the decline of Christianity ... and how we might as Christians respond to this without merely retorting that evolution is false</i><br /><br />I didn't involve myself in that discussion because my answer would have been "Deny the reality of evolution." I perceived that to be the one answer that wasn't supposed to be given. So I didn't have much to contribute. If you are looking for some solution to this problem that begins with the admission "Evolution is true but..." you are out of luck. There isn't one. <br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72287113942038791842013-12-18T17:51:46.981+13:002013-12-18T17:51:46.981+13:00Dear MichaelA
It is a fascinating phenomenon that...Dear MichaelA<br /><br />It is a fascinating phenomenon that people regularly see in others and accuse them of failures that they themselves are guilty of.<br /><br />I am quite willing to acknowledge that somehow (I still cannot see how) I misunderstood your points.<br /><br />Might you also do me the courtesy of retracting your fabrication. Nowhere have I “compounded the error by suggesting that the present tense of eating in John 6:56 must be read as a repeated punctiliar action”! I did not. I suggest going back and re-reading my post (or perhaps reading it *carefully*, for the first time).<br /><br />I merely point out that the present tense is used in Greek in the New Testament for a regularly repeated action like the Lords Supper. It is obviously not solely so used, in fact I explicitly state “No suggestion, of course, that every use of the present is iterative.” Obviously the present tense is more often used not with that meaning.<br /><br />Just to keep the complexity of tenses rolling, you can understand your future apology to me here on this site as already having been accepted.<br /><br />Advent blessings<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-73808146523567029422013-12-18T17:28:00.321+13:002013-12-18T17:28:00.321+13:00Dear Martin
Let me try one last time, as this thr...Dear Martin<br /><br />Let me try one last time, as this thread sputters on, to get beyond the obfuscation, clearly there being no energy to discuss openly the good challenge first put before us by Janice of the impact of the evolutionary paradigm on the decline of Christianity (the topic of this thread) and how we might as Christians respond to this without merely retorting that evolution is false (unlike others here, I do not have every answer to every question fixed, nor a solution for every issue, so my opening points were a genuine search for a way forward):<br /><br />So – let me terminate this side street that seems to have so captured your drive by asking you once again: Was Abiathar high priest when David entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and when David gave some to his companions?<br /><br />As you would say: a simple yes or no answer will suffice.<br /><br />And then with today’s<br />O Adonai,<br />et dux domus Israël,<br />qui Moyse in igne flammae rubi apparuisti,<br />et ei in Sina legem dedisti:<br />veni ad redimendum nos in brachio extento.<br /><br />I bid you an Advent a Dieu<br /> <br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-87497801410010503802013-12-18T14:59:58.098+13:002013-12-18T14:59:58.098+13:00I can remember sitting on a swing as a child of ab...I can remember sitting on a swing as a child of about 8 or 9 and thinking about the wonderful illustrations of costumes through history that I'd found in our family set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I imagined my ancestors, going back through the generations, wearing the costume appropriate to their time, and finally got to Adam who I imagined would have worn a cave man outfit. Then, being well indoctrinated into evolutionary thought through school and my own love of reading, I thought about Adam's mother and father and presumed that because they were not human but some sort of ape-like animal they would not be wearing clothing of any sort. Then I thought about Adam going to heaven (because he was human) and about his parents not going to heaven (because they weren't human) and then I wondered how heaven could be heaven for Adam if his Mum and Dad weren't there, not for any wrong they had done but simply because, despite being so close to being human that their child was born human, they themselves weren't. I think that was the beginning of the process that ended when I was 15 and declared that I no longer believed in God.<br /><br />I'd like to know what the defenders of evolutionary theory (and those believe only humans were created to be immortal) would say to a child wondering about such things. Janicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67060748701440413442013-12-18T12:18:57.909+13:002013-12-18T12:18:57.909+13:00Bosco
I originally understood you to be making a ...Bosco<br /><br />I originally understood you to be making a much broader statement about the connection between death and sin. In terms of essential Christian soteriology:<br /><br />1. Adam was a real person.<br /><br />2. Adam would not have died if he hadn't sinned.<br /><br />3. Adam died because he did sin.<br /><br />4. Adam's sinful nature was passed on to me through Adam's offspring.<br /><br />5. I am a sinner by nature and I will die as a result because the wages of sin is death.<br /><br />This is the chain that I perceived you had denied. An argument about the fate of animals doesn't really figure into this discussion. If I had understood this to be only about whether animals died pre-fall, I probably wouldn't have posted. I would however have grouched about it privately. I do think that all of creation was cursed by Adam's sin, and that death was a general consequence of that curse. But that argument is orders of magntude less serious than them arguments about the necessity of the items I listed above.<br /><br />I will say this however. The idea that an immortal creature could be created by means of an evolutionary process dependent upon death is a logical contradiction to me. It would still require a special act of creation to change the ontological nature of the newly evolved "man" - which rather defeats the point.<br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02290618813437983875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-6628778207431773382013-12-18T10:46:35.568+13:002013-12-18T10:46:35.568+13:00"If Adam and Eve were the only people on eart..."If Adam and Eve were the only people on earth at Creation, Whom did the murderer Cain marry after his expulsion from the the home of his parents? Was it his own sister? If so, would that be accounted incest?"<br /><br />It may not have been. This was prior to the Mosaic covenant. We don't read of any condemnation of those who prior to the Mosaic covenant married their siblings. Its all speculation anyway. MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-73505855043447137332013-12-18T10:42:05.307+13:002013-12-18T10:42:05.307+13:00"If, Martin, from your most recent comment yo..."If, Martin, from your most recent comment you are asking me if I understand that Jesus could be wrong about things, my belief in his full humanity leads me to say yes."<br /><br />You are of course welcome to believe anything you like. But in terms of Christian teaching, that is a belief (and a correlation) that the historic Church rejected (until the advent of modern liberalism, of course). MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-58846192486470723002013-12-18T10:37:40.778+13:002013-12-18T10:37:40.778+13:00"The only “pouncing” I did was on MichaelA’s ..."The only “pouncing” I did was on MichaelA’s assertion that the present tense in Greek is not “appropriate for a regularly repeated action like the Lords Supper”."<br /><br />And your pouncing was entirely misdirected, for two reasons: <br /><br />(a) You posted as though I had asserted that the present tense in Greek is never used for a repeated action. I did not. I suggest going back and re-reading my post (or perhaps reading it *carefully*, for the first time). <br /><br />(b) However, you then compounded the error by suggesting that the present tense of eating in John 6:56 must be read as a repeated punctiliar action. There is no basis for such a reading. The present tense in Greek usually carries the aspect of *continuing* or *state of being*. We only read the aspect of a repeated series of discrete actions if the context demands it. In the passage of which John 6:56 forms part, the context if anything demands the opposite. <br /><br />Other parts of my post dealt with aorist subjunctive, which Martin has responded to above. <br /><br />"I neither see how I was over-hasty in pronouncing too quickly on MichaelA’s Greek grammar, when Martin agreed with me that his contention about the present not being appropriate for a regularly repeated action is incorrect."<br /><br />I don't see a difficulty with being over-hasty, so long as one gets it right. That is where the problem lies with your post. And no, the present tense should not be read as a regularly repeated action unless the context demands it - that is not its aspect. MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-11357516388625019022013-12-18T10:32:08.354+13:002013-12-18T10:32:08.354+13:00"The Council of Chalcedon (two natures joined...<br />"The Council of Chalcedon (two natures joined in one person with the communicatio idiomatum) would have rejected as an error the idea that Jesus qua a man believed and taught error in anything pertaining to revelation about God or salvation. It would not have rejected as an error the idea that I hold, and I might have upset any Docetist readers, that Jesus in his full humanity could be wrong about other things."<br /><br />That's precisely where you're wrong, Bosco. The Church Fathers NEVER made this 20th century distinction between things 'pertaining to revelation about God and salvation" and other matters (as Raymond Brown tried to do for the Bible), and the whole history of discussion of the relationship between the Logos's omniscience and Jesus' human knowledge, from Hilary of Poitier to Aquinas, onward to the kenoticisms of Thomasius and Gore, has been about resolving this enigma, according to four main theories. (Of course, if, like Bultmann, one abandons the divinity of Christ, instead of bits of it, like Gore, then the problem is 'resolved', and so is Christianity). This was exactly why Mark 13.32 was such a problem for the Church Fathers: how could God incarnate say he was ignorant about something?<br />The Church Fathers did not accept that the Incarnate Logos could believe and teach something that was factually false. Why not? Because they knew this would call into question the hypostatic union and the perfection of his manhood and lead, not into Docetism (hardly an issue in the fifth century), but 'Nestorianism' (so-called) or adoptionism.<br /><br />As for what Carl may or may not believe about animal death before Adam, this is not an issue that bothers me either way, and I don't know why you keep harping upon it. He is free to disagree with me, and I with him. I have never thought God created animals to be immortal (though C. S. Lewis does speculate about this in 'The Problem of Pain').<br /><br />Martin<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75282467629816989602013-12-18T10:16:05.351+13:002013-12-18T10:16:05.351+13:00Another question for biblical literalists:
If Ad...Another question for biblical literalists:<br /><br />If Adam and Eve were the only people on earth at Creation, Whom did the murderer Cain marry after his expulsion from the the home of his parents? Was it his own sister? If so, would that be accounted incest? <br /><br />Or were there, in fact, other human beings around at the time - unconnected with A & E.?Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18442623687113880672013-12-18T08:42:34.150+13:002013-12-18T08:42:34.150+13:00Dear Martin and Carl
Was Abiathar high priest whe...Dear Martin and Carl<br /><br />Was Abiathar high priest when David entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and when David gave some to his companions?<br /><br />The Council of Chalcedon (two natures joined in one person with the communicatio idiomatum) would have rejected as an error the idea that Jesus qua a man believed and taught error in anything pertaining to revelation about God or salvation. It would not have rejected as an error the idea that I hold, and I might have upset any Docetist readers, that Jesus in his full humanity could be wrong about other things.<br /><br />The only “pouncing” I did was on MichaelA’s assertion that the present tense in Greek is not “appropriate for a regularly repeated action like the Lords Supper”. I stand by the “pouncing” that this is incorrect.<br /><br />The silence about disagreement between Martin and Carl about questions 6 & 7 is deafening. Woe betide anybody daring to pull that string. We don’t want to be showing any foundational disagreement between people who publicly agree on you know what, do we?<br /><br />Advent Blessings<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18113669163479060122013-12-18T00:31:22.800+13:002013-12-18T00:31:22.800+13:00Peter: yes, of course it does, just as camels pass...Peter: yes, of course it does, just as camels pass through the eyes of needles, eyes have logs in them, Pharisees swallow camels and stars fall from heaven.<br /><br />Martin of MopsuestiaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-55619981039270827032013-12-17T22:39:32.255+13:002013-12-17T22:39:32.255+13:00Dear Martin,
Does the mustard seed grow into the l...Dear Martin,<br />Does the mustard seed grow into the largest of trees?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com