tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post2794765859183101739..comments2024-03-19T16:52:19.962+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Was the real Adam historical or a convenient fiction in a Mosaic fantasy?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger154125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-35820612383703486432014-01-11T10:43:36.377+13:002014-01-11T10:43:36.377+13:00Is it possible to restart this discussion, even wi...Is it possible to restart this discussion, even with Peter moving (all the best, Peter!)?<br /><br />Position 1) The Bible is accurate history. Luke’s genealogy is a real genealogy. Adam is the historical ancestor of all. Jesus is correct in presenting Adam and Eve as historical persons. Death etc. is the result of the real Adam and Eve’s sin. Christ redeemed us from sin and death just as the Bible teaches.<br /><br />Position 2) The Big Bang and evolution are correct. Luke’s genealogy cannot be taken literally. Jesus was incorrect if he thought Adam and Eve are historical persons. Death was there before humans evolved. <br /><br />Position 3) You can find connections between any primitive creation myth and contemporary science: look darkness… look energy… look land before plants… This seems to be Peter’s approach (is it Bryden’s - I find navigating Bryden’s approach even more difficult than understanding Peter’s)? A relatively-recent historical Adam “standing for” humans who evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago. Death is a metaphor. Jesus is correct in holding to Adam and Eve as real people – but not as the ancestor of all (as per Genesis, or even Jesus), but “two people beginning the line which leads to Abraham to Israel and to Jesus” (December 20, 2013 at 4:53 PM). <br /><br />AlisonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38539844474559406462014-01-07T22:24:32.847+13:002014-01-07T22:24:32.847+13:00Thoughts and prayers re the moving Peter - always ...Thoughts and prayers re the moving Peter - always frustrating!MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-48222960173330952472014-01-07T14:38:30.283+13:002014-01-07T14:38:30.283+13:00Re your reply January 5, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Ron.
I...Re your reply January 5, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Ron.<br /><br />I am a little surprised to see you dismiss the significance of my remark the way you do, given your avowed and often mentioned membership of such an esteemed Order as the Franciscans.<br /><br />Religious Orders, and any involved in intentional Christian formation, surely know that it’s not just a case of learning, but learning how to learn. For optimal catechesis cannot afford hit-&-miss learning. Rather, there’s the need of constant evaluation of understanding of experience, to ever purify the ongoing process of learning, of formation, of discipleship. That’s the import of the very notion of an Order!<br /><br />Perhaps we might hazard the diagnosis that western Christianity is so luke-warm on account of not enough scrutiny of the very processes of formation. I know Bosco has often bewailed this lack in even the so-called formation of Christian leaders. And if in the leaders, then what hope is there in the lives of ordinary Christian folk?!<br /><br />A more insightful appreciation of the FG, and its style and scope (σκοπός), notably its multilayered approach with oft used double entendres, would help to address this serious catechumenal lack, I venture.Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-73580298240677695732014-01-07T07:53:30.316+13:002014-01-07T07:53:30.316+13:00Thanks, Martin!Thanks, Martin!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26324789339298751252014-01-07T07:43:28.726+13:002014-01-07T07:43:28.726+13:00A stressful time, Peter - prayers for you and your...A stressful time, Peter - prayers for you and your family!<br /><br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36706981178939625072014-01-06T23:06:32.633+13:002014-01-06T23:06:32.633+13:00Hi Janice and Martin
Thanks for recent comments wh...Hi Janice and Martin<br />Thanks for recent comments which I take 'on board' - excellent thoughts.<br /><br />I am now in the midst of a house shift and am too tired to respond properly (if that means 'arguing the toss'!) ...Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-48667751108620974782014-01-06T20:59:16.923+13:002014-01-06T20:59:16.923+13:00And I think I've tried to be clear and honest....And I think I've tried to be clear and honest. Bauckham already hinted at the relationship between Mark and John in his essay in 'The Gospels for All Christians'. Now what do *you think Mark 14.57-58 is about? A complete fabrication or a distortion?<br />On this Epiphany let us pray for three (or more) wise men (or women) to bring us illumination.<br /><br />Martinus Magus (not)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-16156912581734157132014-01-06T20:42:54.808+13:002014-01-06T20:42:54.808+13:00Are you guys saying that Scripture cannot be taken...Are you guys saying that Scripture cannot be taken as literally true?Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60754733300887740952014-01-06T18:23:02.328+13:002014-01-06T18:23:02.328+13:00Hi Peter,
The death Jesus saves us from is not ph...Hi Peter,<br /><br /><i>The death Jesus saves us from is not physical death (after all, Christians still die) but death as separation from God and the 'second death' which is the end of life.</i><br /><br />No. I don't think that will do. Yes, Christians still die, but that's because of the now-but-not-yet character of the salvation story. 1 Co 15: 51-52 "Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed - in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." So not all Christians will die.<br /><br />If it is not physical death that was the punishment for sin why did God tell Adam in Ge 3:19 "you are dust, and to dust you shall return"? If it is not physical death that was the punishment for sin why was blood sacrifice necessary to atone for sin? If it is only "spiritual" death that we are saved from why do we (and why did the ancient Israelites) look forward to the resurrection of our (changed) physical bodies? In any case isn't it true that we don't have souls/spirits but are souls/spirits? So when we die our death is of us - our body complete with its life and its breath, not just our bodies.<br /><br /><i>the reality is that Adam and Eve, two individuals, sinned, not one, at the beginning of the history of sin according to Genesis.</i><br /><br />Yes. Adam and Eve were two individuals, but those two were one flesh. Janicenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-79342397492899810742014-01-06T18:13:54.534+13:002014-01-06T18:13:54.534+13:00This is feustratung as I think it is clear that th...This is feustratung as I think it is clear that there is no error by gospel writers, just defective analysis by moderns, however not in a position to respond from 10 degrees north of arctic circle. Eventually... :)MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-56583107680637895682014-01-06T12:30:46.179+13:002014-01-06T12:30:46.179+13:00Interesting indeed Martin. But the sorts of answer...Interesting indeed Martin. But the sorts of answers that emerge are governed by the kinds of questions posed. And it's at that point that each and all of us need Hermeneutical clarity and honesty. And it's at this point that so far I remain a wee bit apart from yourself. Previous comment will Illustrate this ...Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53102796406753738612014-01-06T10:41:33.589+13:002014-01-06T10:41:33.589+13:00That's a different question and I wouldn't...That's a different question and I wouldn't conflate the issues. If there was only one 'temple cleansing', then presumably either Mark or John gives the actual chronological order of envents:<br />1. Passover, c. AD 27/28 (thus Raymond Brown) or<br />2. Passover AD 30 or 33 (most commentators).<br />If (1) is correct, then Mk 11.15 can't be correct, nor the statement in v. 18 that the temple cleansing was the catalyst for the plot against him.<br />I never thought about this much until I considered the internal details in John 2 seem to point to an earlier date. However ....<br />in Mark 3.6 we read that after healing in 'a synagogue' (not located), the Pharisees began to plot with 'the Herodians'. Who are these 'Herodians' and what are they doing in Galilee - if 3.1-6 is indeed set in Galilee? This is something I have to investigate further. Looking at the intertextuality of Mark and John raises lots of interesting questions.<br /><br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-35097151018423722272014-01-06T08:35:58.715+13:002014-01-06T08:35:58.715+13:00Hi Martin
Yes, your response stands if we are focu...Hi Martin<br />Yes, your response stands if we are focusing on reporting what others may have (falsely, mistakenly, lyingly) said.<br /><br />I guess - but, agreed, confusedly - I am thinking about worrying about Jesus being mistake-free and not worrying about the gospels being accurate: if there was only one temple cleansing then there is a playing around with chronology between Mark and John which, arguably, is no more or less a problem than Jesus, being a man of his time believing Genesis 1-3 in a fairly literal manner, even though (arguably) creation-and-the-fall was more complicated.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-34109595102105907092014-01-06T08:21:42.329+13:002014-01-06T08:21:42.329+13:00I still don't get what you are saying, Peter, ...I still don't get what you are saying, Peter, or what Alison may have been saying - but I will allow her to clarify what she means.<br />I cannot think of any reason at all why *the ENEMIES of Jesus being quoted in Mark 14.57-58* should remember accurately what Jesus had said 2-3 years previously - not least when Mark himself calls it 'false testimony' (v. 57). Are you confusing what the false witnesses said and what Mark reported? If so, you are making the same mistake as Alison.<br />Your first two paragraphs are logical no sequiturs.<br />Your third paragraph misses my point as well: that the gospel writers report accurately the words of false witness (and label them as false).<br /><br />Martinos en aporiaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-41740197357200336112014-01-06T06:50:15.111+13:002014-01-06T06:50:15.111+13:00Hi Martin
I understand Alison's point to be th...Hi Martin<br />I understand Alison's point to be that if Jesus never made mistakes then we should have gospel records which are accurate records of Jesus' mistake-free speech (if not of his deeds).<br /><br />If, alternatively, we have gospel records which are inaccurate records of Jesus' speech (and deeds) then it is irrelevant to claim Jesus' spoke 100% truthfully because what we have is the equivalent to Jesus not being 100% truthful.<br /><br />I do not think your drawing attention to the biblical records containing speech by Satan etc at all engages with the point Alison is making (if I am understanding that point correctly).Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-47974929463681977292014-01-05T23:01:48.298+13:002014-01-05T23:01:48.298+13:00"No worries; most of the parties in the Johan..."No worries; most of the parties in the Johannine dialogues took ages to get it. That's also much of the point of the way FG is written: to force us to Learn how to learn the discipleship of becoming the Father's children" <br /><br />Such certainty is quite amazing.<br />Learning how to learn. Now that's something. Or should we insist on learning how to learn how to learn? No wonder modern education is so expensive.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-63909451327362058982014-01-05T22:46:27.451+13:002014-01-05T22:46:27.451+13:00"Hmm, Martin, it seems to me that you are exh..."Hmm, Martin, it seems to me that you are exhibiting a larger side-step than even I am capable of as you swerve past the true import of the point Alison is making ..."<br /><br />Which is what? I'm rather slow- explain, please<br /><br />Martin HansonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-47651560817054695802014-01-05T14:49:29.567+13:002014-01-05T14:49:29.567+13:00Until That Day Michael: I do meanwhile think there...Until That Day Michael: I do meanwhile think there are more pieces of the jigsaw, more dots available to be joined than when Jn 6 first emerged as an item of comment. But like my PS above, some get it more easily than others, who still need to have those pieces and dots set before them with flashing neon colours. No worries; most of the parties in the Johannine dialogues took ages to get it. That's also much of the point of the way FG is written: to force us to Learn how to learn the discipleship of becoming the Father's children ...Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-49766493198496058102014-01-05T12:20:36.417+13:002014-01-05T12:20:36.417+13:00Hmm, Martin, it seems to me that you are exhibitin...Hmm, Martin, it seems to me that you are exhibiting a larger side-step than even I am capable of as you swerve past the true import of the point Alison is making ...<br /><br />- Dan CarterPeter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-30632734338226042422014-01-04T22:14:32.625+13:002014-01-04T22:14:32.625+13:00Hi Alison, I have no more idea what you mean by &#...Hi Alison, I have no more idea what you mean by 'straitjacketing' than I know what Bryden's actual opinion is about John 6! No doubt all will become clear some day when we are each back home and with full resources. Regards MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-48958562258368660872014-01-04T21:57:43.926+13:002014-01-04T21:57:43.926+13:00 Alison comments: “Martin previously castigated an... Alison comments: “Martin previously castigated anyone who even so much as suggested that Jesus was like us in all things except sin and hence able to make a mistake. Now he would have the inspired and inerrant Word of God contain “slightly mistaken memory of words spoken 2-3 years earlier”. Does he change his position as regularly as his name?”<br />What a schoolgirl howler to make! The Word of God “contains” all kinds of things – like Noah’s ark – or the church. The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture doesn’t mean that *every statement recorded there (including those by liars and demons) – severed from its context and commentary – is correct. Otherwise the atheist could quote Psalm 14.1 in his or her defence.<br />Which reminds of an apocryphal but brilliant story about the atheist who sued the State of Florida for not providing a public recognised day for atheists. The judge threw out the suit, saying they already had their day, April 1st, as referenced in Psalm 14.1.<br />Martin Lloyd-Jones<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-76395789701784250802014-01-04T21:20:58.789+13:002014-01-04T21:20:58.789+13:00" It suits his soteriology to match the singl..." It suits his soteriology to match the single saviour Jesus with the single sinner Adam, but the reality is that Adam and Eve, two individuals, sinned, not one, at the beginning of the history of sin according to Genesis."<br /> - Peter Carrell -<br /><br />It also suits, Peter, the current soteriology of those who think that women are not equal to men in the matter of redemption - or capability of presiding at the Eucharist. <br /><br />Jesus was representatively human - not merely male. This might help us all to better understand the complementarity of human sexualityFather Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-37421503481441170352014-01-04T21:02:14.723+13:002014-01-04T21:02:14.723+13:00Interesting, isn't it, in the light of problem...Interesting, isn't it, in the light of problems about women in the present-day Church, that Eve was considered - even early on in salvation history - to have been important enough to have changed the course of God's treatment of God's human children. I suppose some male patriarchalists still think that Eve was more culpable than Adam!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-5545186205003833622014-01-04T17:14:12.875+13:002014-01-04T17:14:12.875+13:00Hi Janice
You raise important questions. Nothing i...Hi Janice<br />You raise important questions. Nothing is quite as straightforward as we might like, whatever approach we are taking.<br /><br />Two thoughts:<br />1. The death Jesus saves us from is not physical death (after all, Christians still die) but death as separation from God and the 'second death' which is the end of life.<br />2. Paul refers to Adam as an individual and likely thinks of Adam as an individual human being. But does that rule out Adam being a kind of 'corporate individual', a human figure who stands for humanity at its beginning (however that beginning is determined)? After all, even Paul is being economical with the truth here in the sense that 'Adam' is actually 'Adam and Eve' (who corporately are responsible for the fall, as 1 Tim 2:13-14 makes clear). It suits his soteriology to match the single saviour Jesus with the single sinner Adam, but the reality is that Adam and Eve, two individuals, sinned, not one, at the beginning of the history of sin according to Genesis.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-44248541716010030402014-01-04T13:48:18.606+13:002014-01-04T13:48:18.606+13:00This is becoming one of the more interesting discu...This is becoming one of the more interesting discussions on ADU [congratulations, Peter, at 128 comments!]. Like Michael, I hope it doesn’t deteriorate to merely name-and-title dropping at ten paces. Nor become so obscure in expression that no one can understand if a person is actually for or against a simple proposition.<br /><br />I value Bryden’s more careful revisit to Michael’s straightjacketing of Jn 6 from which he would not resile. <br /><br />I do hope the core of the evolution debate will be picked up again – including Bryden’s “of course (sic) we all derive from Biological Eve (sic) approx 200,000 years from the heart of Africa” tied to Peter’s much more recent Eve. <br /><br />Martin previously castigated anyone who even so much as suggested that Jesus was like us in all things except sin and hence able to make a mistake. Now he would have the inspired and inerrant Word of God contain “slightly mistaken memory of words spoken 2-3 years earlier”. Does he change his position as regularly as his name depending on whom he is attacking?<br /><br />Happy New Year<br /><br />AlisonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com