Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[metis]

I'm much more interested in the moral teachings of religious and philosophical groups than I am in trusting the supposed authenticity of that which cannot logically be established thousands of years later.

But that's just me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry about that. Here is the site, it is an article by Craig Evans, the guy Bart Ehrman speaks of.

The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices | Houston Christian University

By Craig Evans The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, who was put to death on a Roman cross, in Jerusalem, in the early spring of either AD 30 or 33, lies a ...

hc.edu

All death penalties (the official ones and not the stonings etc that would have happened unofficially as attempts to kill Jesus show ) were carried out by the Romans even if instigated by the Hebrews, which is the case with the crucifixion of Jesus. The burial was a preoccupation with the Jews and they were the ones who did the burials before sunset, which Joseph of Arimathea did).

I am still checking this out.

Why should I try again just to satisfy your biases against Christian historians?

That was not a Christian historian. That was a Christian apologist.

 

[joelr]

I don't know what to say about the differences between Mark and John. There are a number of ways to reconcile the problem and I think one of them is correct and you think none of them are correct.

In Mark they prepare and eat Passover meal, Jesus goes to jail for the night and is killled that day, Passover.

In John there is no preparation or meal and Jesus was killed on the day of preparation:

“It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was
about noon” (John 19:14). "

Everyone at the time celebrated the same day, you are trying to make a new Gospel where for some unknown reason they had Passover a day early. Except it says in John they did not because it gives the day and time when he died. So your "simple" theory is not possible and writes another story.

Yes we know the usual practice for the Romans was to leave bodies on the cross.
We also know that the usual practice of the Jews (and the one commanded in the Law) was to not do that and that they would not allow it if possible.
That is what happened in the gospel stories.
John 19:31 Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. 35 He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe. 36 For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”
38 After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body.

And once again, it says his body was on the cross on the day of preparation. Which is not what happened in Mark.

 

[Brian2]

I'm much more interested in the moral teachings of religious and philosophical groups than I am in trusting the supposed authenticity of that which cannot logically be established thousands of years later.

But that's just me.

Logically imo the whole Bible can be established in consistency of story line and with fulfilled prophecies, and interestingly even the attacks on the authenticity of the Bible are logically what should be expected considering the father of lies, the adversary.
BUT it takes faith in God and His Word and not proving things historically.
We know human philosophies are made up in human minds and have less evidence for the truth of other religions than for the Bible imo.

 

[joelr]

The same could be concluded from all the Gospels, because all of them tell sins were forgiven by Jesus and Jesus was killed the same time Passover lambs were killed.

Yes but John also says Jesus was killed on the Day of Preparation unlike Mark where they ate the meal and Jesus was killed on Passover.

He may have been connected to sins but John was making a point he was like the sacrificial lamb, this is the first time he is called the lamb of God.
He was not killed at the same time as the lambs in Mark, he was killed on Passover. In John he was killed on the Day of Preparation, same as the lamb.

 

[Brian2]

In Mark they prepare and eat Passover meal, Jesus goes to jail for the night and is killled that day, Passover.

In John there is no preparation or meal and Jesus was killed on the day of preparation:

“It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was
about noon” (John 19:14). "

Everyone at the time celebrated the same day, you are trying to make a new Gospel where for some unknown reason they had Passover a day early. Except it says in John they did not because it gives the day and time when he died. So your "simple" theory is not possible and writes another story.

There are enough historical reasons to believe there were 2 Passover days following different traditions.
And no, even without that, John's gospel message is the same as the message of the other gospels.

And once again, it says his body was on the cross on the day of preparation. Which is not what happened in Mark.

As above.
Wanting the Jews to have worked on the first day of Passover is like wanting them to have worked on the Saturday Sabbath. That is what you are suggesting happened.

 

[1213]

Suppose I could do that and I then do it. Do you then feel that I should get to just kill it whenever I please? Do I get to torture it for my entertainment? Is there ANYTHING I could do to it that would be "immoral" in your opinion?

I think you would have right to decide how long it can live. But, I think it would not be good to torture anyone.

 

[1213]

The increased interest of christians trying to find evidential support of the biblical, greatly increased the amount of geological observations. Much data was gathered, fossils were found, stratigraphy became a thing.

And I think all the findings support the flood story.

Eventhough at first people were trying to shoehorn all this data into a biblical myth, it quickly became apparent that it didn't fit.
Not only that, find after find began to show that the earth had to be much older then people believed.
Quickly it was apparant that it had to be at least a couple million years. Then 10s of millions, then 100s of millions. Eventually it became clear it had to be billions.

Can you explain why it is clear that it must be billions of years old? I don't think there is any intelligent reason to believe so.

 

[1213]

By killing another person.

I have not said that I want someone to be killed. I only tell that some people would deserve to be killed and murderers can't really say others are not allowed to do it.

 

[1213]

Yes but John also says Jesus was killed on the Day of Preparation unlike Mark where they ate the meal and Jesus was killed on Passover.

By what I know, they are the same day, 14 th day, which is preparation day for Passsover Shabbat that is 15 th day of the month.

 

[joelr]

There are enough historical reasons to believe there were 2 Passover days following different traditions.
And no, even without that, John's gospel message is the same as the message of the other gospels.

There is no historical evidence that in 30 AD in Jerusalem there were 2 separate Passover days. What is your source and how would that happen in 30 AD?
Ii don't care about non-historian apologists because they will be trying to rescuse the Gospel accounts. What historian has peer-reviewed work that shows there was a different Passover for a different group. As if Bart Ehrman wouldn't know about this information? He has a PhD in NT history and you think he would not know about a historical finding of 2 Passovers?


Mark says the day, he call it the preparation for the Sabbath. So he is clear on which day it is.

In Mark he is nailed at 9 and in John he is nailed at noon? That is not the same?

Also, to the idea that he was with a fringe group who celebrated on the wrong day:

Some scholars have argued that we have this difference between
the Gospels because different Jews celebrated Passover on different
days of the week. This is one of those explanations that sounds plau¬
sible until you dig a bit and think a bit more. It is true that some sec¬
tarian groups not connected with the Temple in Jerusalem thought
that the Temple authorities followed an incorrect calendar. But in
both Mark and John, Jesus is not outside Jerusalem with some sec¬
tarian group of Jews: he is in Jerusalem, where the lambs are being
slaughtered. And in Jerusalem, there was only one day of Passover
a year. The Jerusalem priests did not accommodate the calendrical
oddities of a few sectarian fringe groups.


One Day. The Jerusalem priests did not use a different day?

As above.
Wanting the Jews to have worked on the first day of Passover is like wanting them to have worked on the Saturday Sabbath. That is what you are suggesting happened.

No in one Jesus was arrested and killed on the preperation day, the other he sat in jail until morning.
The Gospels give the time and day. No Jews were working.

 

[joelr]

By what I know, they are the same day, 14 th day, which is preparation day for Passsover Shabbat that is 15 th day of the month.

Uh, no that isn't what was said,


Now we can return to Mark’s account of Jesus’ death. Jesus and his
disciples have made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the Passover feast.
In Mark 14:12, the disciples ask Jesus where they are to prepare the
Passover meal for that evening. In other words, this is on the Day of
Preparation for Passover. Jesus gives them instructions. They make
the preparations, and when it is evening—the beginning of Passover
day—they have the meal. It is a special meal indeed. Jesus takes
the symbolic foods of the Passover and imbues them with yet more
symbolic meaning. He takes the unleavened bread, breaks it, and
says, “This is my body.” By implication, his body must be broken for
salvation. Then after supper he takes the cup of wine and says, “This
is my blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many” (Mark
14:22—25), meaning that his own blood must be shed.

After the disciples eat the Passover meal they go out to the Garden
of Gethsemane to pray. Judas Iscariot brings the troops and performs
his act of betrayal. Jesus is taken to stand trial before the Jewish au¬
thorities. He spends the night in jail, and the next morning he is put
on trial before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who finds him
guilty and condemns him to death by crucifixion. We are told that
he is crucified that same day, at nine o’clock in the morning (Mark
15:25). Jesus, then, dies on the day of Passover, the morning after the
Passover meal was eaten.

Now John is different:


All this is clear and straightforward in Mark’s Gospel, but despite
some basic similarities, it is at odds with the story told in the Gospel
of John, which is also clear and straightforward. Here, too, Jesus goes
to Jerusalem in the last week of his life to celebrate the Passover feast,
and here, too, there is a last meal, a betrayal, a trial before Pilate, and
the crucifixion. But it is striking that in John, at the beginning of the
account, in contrast to Mark, the disciples do not ask Jesus where they
are “to prepare the Passover.” Consequently, he gives them no in¬
structions for preparing the meal. They do eat a final supper together,
but in John, Jesus says nothing about the bread being his body or the
cup representing his blood. Instead he washes the disciples’ feet, a
story found in none of the other Gospels (John 13:1—20).

After the meal they go out. Jesus is betrayed by Judas, appears
before the Jewish authorities, spends the night in jail, and is put on
trial before Pontius Pilate, who finds him guilty and condemns him
to be crucified. And we are told exactly when Pilate pronounces the
sentence: “It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was
about noon” (John 19:14).

Noon? On the Day of Preparation for the Passover? The day the
lambs were slaughtered? How can that be? In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus
lived through that day, had his disciples prepare the Passover meal,
and ate it with them before being arrested, taken to jail for the
night, tried the next morning, and executed at nine o’clock a.m. on
the Passover day. But not in John. In John, Jesus dies a day earlier, on
the Day of Preparation for the Passover, sometime after noon.

The times are also different:

And so the contradiction stands: in Mark, Jesus eats the Passover
meal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning. In
John, Jesus does not eat the Passover meal but is crucified on the day
before the Passover meal was to be eaten. 4 Moreover, in Mark, Jesus
is nailed to the cross at nine in the morning; in John, he is not con¬
demned until noon, and then he is taken out and crucified.


And it was not a fringe sect who used the wrong day:


Some scholars have argued that we have this difference between
the Gospels because different Jews celebrated Passover on different
days of the week. This is one of those explanations that sounds plau¬
sible until you dig a bit and think a bit more. It is true that some sec¬
tarian groups not connected with the Temple in Jerusalem thought
that the Temple authorities followed an incorrect calendar. But in
both Mark and John, Jesus is not outside Jerusalem with some sec¬
tarian group of Jews: he is in Jerusalem, where the lambs are being
slaughtered. And in Jerusalem, there was only one day of Passover
a year. The Jerusalem priests did not accommodate the calendrical
oddities of a few sectarian fringe groups.

 

[Brian2]

There is no historical evidence that in 30 AD in Jerusalem there were 2 separate Passover days. What is your source and how would that happen in 30 AD?
Ii don't care about non-historian apologists because they will be trying to rescuse the Gospel accounts. What historian has peer-reviewed work that shows there was a different Passover for a different group. As if Bart Ehrman wouldn't know about this information? He has a PhD in NT history and you think he would not know about a historical finding of 2 Passovers?

I imagine Bart Ehrman also would be an apologist to you if he had not fallen away from faith. His education was at a private theological seminary after all.
The thing about 2 Passovers is not that this is known definitely to have happened in 30AD, it is that there is evidence that it did happen, has happened. IOW there is nothing wrong with the gospels saying that is what happened.

Mark says the day, he call it the preparation for the Sabbath. So he is clear on which day it is.

Yes, the Friday.

In Mark he is nailed at 9 and in John he is nailed at noon? That is not the same?

Slight variations like that don't really matter in an era when they did not have watches, and they can be harmonised more anyway if John was using the Roman time system, which began at midnight. And no John does not say he was nailed at noon, it says it was about the 6th hour when Jesus was condemned by Pilate.

Also, to the idea that he was with a fringe group who celebrated on the wrong day:

Some scholars have argued that we have this difference between
the Gospels because different Jews celebrated Passover on different
days of the week. This is one of those explanations that sounds plau¬
sible until you dig a bit and think a bit more. It is true that some sec¬
tarian groups not connected with the Temple in Jerusalem thought
that the Temple authorities followed an incorrect calendar. But in
both Mark and John, Jesus is not outside Jerusalem with some sec¬
tarian group of Jews: he is in Jerusalem, where the lambs are being
slaughtered. And in Jerusalem, there was only one day of Passover
a year. The Jerusalem priests did not accommodate the calendrical
oddities of a few sectarian fringe groups.


One Day. The Jerusalem priests did not use a different day?

There are various ways to read the gospels so that there is no problem. Option 4 in this site speaks of what is made out by you or Bart Ehrman to be a passover for sectarian fringe groups outside Jerusalem, it seems to be possible just how it was done for convenience sake and because of different interpretations of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

(Jn. 13:1) Does John contradict the Synoptics regarding the Passover meal? | Evidence Unseen

www.evidenceunseen.com

No in one Jesus was arrested and killed on the preperation day, the other he sat in jail until morning.
The Gospels give the time and day. No Jews were working.

Nevertheless you want Joseph of Arithamea and Nicodemus to take Jesus off the cross and bury Him and using 75 pounds of spices on a day of no work.
Golgotha is about 1.5 miles from Jerusalem and a day's walk on the Sabbath was only about a mile. The guy who carried Jesus cross was coming in from the country to Jerusalem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I think all the findings support the flood story.

Bu they do not. They refute it. Are you willing to learn?

Can you explain why it is clear that it must be billions of years old? I don't think there is any intelligent reason to believe so.

When it comes to geology we understand what sediments are deposited in what environments and how fast they can occur. Chalk cliffs alone refute your beliefs. Chalk is made up of tiny little skeletons of animals called coccolithophores. We can look at chalk under microscopes and see them. We understand how many can live in the a body of water at one time. Though the number is huge they do not deposit very rapidly at all:

Oozes accumulate very slowly, at a rate of only about 1 to 6 centimeters per thousand years (Garrison 2002) but the deposition of the chalk in Dorset took place 100 million years ago until the end of the cretaceous 65 million years ago (Gallois 1995) so it had a long time to build up over 410 meters of chalk (Rayner 1967).

Worse yet the a worldwide flood would not have resulted in an impossibly high number of new coccolithophores. it would kill the few that existed at the time.

Chalk is a substance that is composed of____

Young Earth Creationists cannot explain chalk, geologists can. And that is only one example. We have example after example that could not have been deposited by a flood and they all add up to billions of years of existence for the Earth. You are claiming that God had to lie by planting false evidence. If God can't lie, Genesis cannot be read literally. Every time that you say that you believe that the Noah's Ark myth is true you are also saying that you think that God is a liar.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you would have right to decide how long it can live. But, I think it would not be good to torture anyone.

I can only conclude that you are morally bankrupt, I'm sorry to say.

It's like you don't recognize that a human has an inherent value merely by being, regardless of origins.

I hope that people in the hypothetical future where we can actually generate humans in labs, have higher ethical standards...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And I think all the findings support the flood story.

The people who actually did the studies disagree.
And remember, these were people that we explicitly looking for evidential support of the biblical flood story, being certain the flood story was correct.

Even THEY, with all their a priori bias, concluded this was not the case.

It's amazing how much in denial you can be.

Can you explain why it is clear that it must be billions of years old? I don't think there is any intelligent reason to believe so.

Many many geological formations that take millions of years to form.
Radiometric dating of rocks and formations showing billions of years.

Propositions like the grand canyon being formed by a single flood, are simply so ridiculous that any simple high school level experiment will show you how wrong that is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No.

Arguably, I could say I created life since I have a boy and a girl. But likely you don't mean "that" kind of "created".

Now suppose I have the knowledge and technology to assemble a human atom by atom, and decide freely on its genetic configuration.
This would essentially be a human but with no biological parents, completely custom made in the lab.

Suppose I could do that and I then do it. Do you then feel that I should get to just kill it whenever I please? Do I get to torture it for my entertainment? Is there ANYTHING I could do to it that would be "immoral" in your opinion?


You should perhaps try to understand that just because you could do something, doesn't mean that you should.

Sounds like the plot of the movie Splice.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Logically imo the whole Bible can be established in consistency of story line and with fulfilled prophecies, and interestingly even the attacks on the authenticity of the Bible are logically what should be expected considering the father of lies, the adversary.
BUT it takes faith in God and His Word and not proving things historically.
We know human philosophies are made up in human minds and have less evidence for the truth of other religions than for the Bible imo.

Once again, you demonstrate that my definition of faith is an accurate one.

Faith is unjustified belief. Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have a good reason. Faith is not a reliable pathway to truth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Humans are God's children in the same way that Sponge Bob's drawings are his children, and he has the right to judge and destroy them.

Well, that's horrifying. What gives God this supposed right? Do you find it moral?

Sorry, I saw the sponge bob cartoon as showing Bob draw something which is not his equal. You seem to see it as Bob having procreated something equal to himself.

Why would that make a difference? Do we have the right to terminate people who are not equal to us?

In that case it might have relevance to human parents and their babies but has no relevance to God and His creation of us, since we are so much inferior to God and God has created all things and is the one responsible for evil in His creation and dealing with that evil.

So ... might makes right?
I don't find that particularly moral. Why do you?

God wants to deal with it and you say He has no right to do that. But when God does not deal with it you say He is evil for not dealing with it.
Maybe make up your mind. Do you want God to deal with the evil or not?

How do you claim to know what God wants?

What I say is that just because someone supposedly "created" us, that doesn't give them the right to take our lives whenever they feel like it.
I don't see any gods killing any evil people anywhere, do you?

Yes OK, you have already said that you disagree with abortion.

What?

If you can't see that there is no higher authority than the creator of all things, and that there is no place for God to apply for a permit to get rid of His creation and deal with evil, what can I say. You want God to get the right from somewhere but won't say where.

What I am saying is that just because someone "created" me, doesn't give them the right to kill me. My parents created me, but don't have a right to kill when if they feel like it. What gives god this right? You keep saying this right exists, but how and from where? Because God says so?
Do you think this sounds moral?

You also seem to think that humans are equal to God our creator and so God is a murderer if He kills us, even if we have shown that we don't deserve to live.
Do you see that I can show that my position is OK by showing that you position is lacking? I suppose you don't see that.

When did anyone show we "don't deserve to live," let alone a God? That sounds like something an abusive husband would say to his wife or an abusive parent would say to his/her child.

That sounds pretty twisted to me. and immoral. And authoritarian. And not at all loving.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think that is the best definition. And people don't bring anything into existence. People have not made it possible that they grow and produce living cells.

I didn't exist. My parents had sex. Sperm met egg. Embryo developed. Fetus developed. My mom gave birth to me. Now I exist.

Interesting use of the word. I think better word would be for example "made" or "promoted".

I think better word would be caused, not created.

I disagree for the reasons given.