Abstract: The Great Christian Jurists series comprises a library of national volumes of detailed biographies of leading jurists, judges and practitioners, assessing the impact of their Christian faith on the professional output of the individuals studied. Little has previously been written about the faith of the great judges who framed and developed the English common law over centuries, but this unique volume explores how their beliefs were reflected in their judicial functions.
This comparative study, embracing ten centuries of English law, draws some remarkable conclusions as to how Christianity shaped the views of lawyers and judges. Adopting a long historical perspective, this volume also explores the lives of judges whose practice in or conception of law helped to shape the Church, its law or the articulation of its doctrine. Great Christian Jurists in French History.
Abstract: French legal culture, from the Middle Ages to the present day, has had an impressive influence on legal norms and institutions that have emerged in Europe and the Americas, as well as in Asian and African countries. This volume examines the lives of twenty-seven key legal thinkers in French history, with a focus on how their Christian faith and ideals were a factor in framing the evolution of French jurisprudence. Euhemerus 4th century - 3rd century BCE took that idea and kicked it up to the next level suggesting that all myths had some basis in historical fact  "The work is of immense importance, for Euhemerus proposes that myth is history in disguise, that deities were originally living men and women who were elevated to divine status because of heroic feats when alive.
Apotheosism is the taking of someone clearly historical and turning them into a divine being such is what was supposedly done with the Emperor of Japan before the end of WWII. Euhemerism assumes that a deity was once an actual person. The statement "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods. This is reflected in Clement of Alexandria's triumphant cry in Cohortatio ad gentes of "Those to whom you bow were once men like yourselves". Then you have the great feats claimed for these winners who we know actually existed: The jumping pit in the ancient games allowed for foot jumps because the jumpers used weights that they swung to lengthen their jumps.
However, it's possible that the Greeks used multiple jumps. Poulydamas is said to have killed a full grown lion with his bare hands and stopped a speeding chariot by grabbing it with one hand. And once they accepted that then despite the fantastic claims regarding Jesus the go-to for him would have been that he had been a living person and the stories simply exaggerations; the very idea that Jesus might be nothing more than hallucination with no real person behind him would never occur to one with such a view.
Writing toward the end of the first century, himself an eye-witness of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D, he tells us that the region was filled with "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" Jewish War, 2. The most successful of these "tricksters" appears to be "the Egyptian" who led a flock of 30, believers around Palestine Jewish War, 2. This fellow even claimed he could topple the walls of Jerusalem with a single word Jewish Antiquities, Although it is often used by armchair Christ Myth proponents, it was arguing against the Triumphalist-Jesus of Bethlehem and not against the Reductive-Jesus of Nazareth.
Remsberg, in fact, stated "it is not against the man Jesus that I write, but against the Christ Jesus of theology" and felt there was just enough evidence to show that the Triumphalist-Jesus of Bethlehem was a historical myth on "a real event distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false" side of that definition.
This goes into one of the strangest things about Jesus: the Christians were the ones preserving the records through copying and logically would have preserved references to Jesus.
And yet we find here a total lack of material. The early years of the Roman Empire are one of the best-documented eras of ancient history; Jerusalem was a center of education; Jesus is claimed even to have had scribes following him and that the population at large was aware of him.
Numerous people who should have written about Jesus who either did not or whom the Christians did not preserve any words include: Philo ca. Philo had strong connection to both the Priesthood in Judea and the Herodian Dynasty; even if he himself didn't live in Jerusalem he had communication with those who did. Eusebius in his The History of the Church even claimed Philo not only knew the apostles but met Peter himself in Rome. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose.
Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. Einstein: The Life and Times. New York: World Publishing Company. Men who know very little of science and men who know very little of religion do indeed get to quarreling, and the onlookers imagine that there is a conflict between science and religion, whereas the conflict is only between two different species of ignorance.
Copernicus was a priest — the canon of a cathedral — and he was primarily a religious rather than a scientific man. He knew that the foundations of real religion are not laid where scientific discoveries of any kind can disturb them. He was persecuted, not because he went against the teachings of religion but because under his theory man was not the center of the universe and this was most displeasing news to a number of egoists.
The purpose of science is to develop — without prejudice or preconception of any kind — a knowledge of the facts, the laws and the processes of nature. The even more important task of religion, on the other hand, is to develop the consciences, the ideals and the aspirations of mankind.
Millikan was a devout Christian. Religion, with its theological inspiration and reflection, tries to understand the purpose or meaning of the universe. These two are cross-related. Purpose implies structure, and structure ought somehow to be interpretable in terms of purpose. I am a physicist. I also consider myself a Christian. As I try to understand the nature of our universe in these two modes of thinking, I see many commonalities and crossovers between science and religion.
It seems logical that in the long run the two will even converge. Townes was a devout Christian. In fact, I believe in a personal God who acts in and interacts with the creation. I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible.
It is also perfectly natural for the many scientists I know who are also people of deep religious faith. Phillips, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light. Is not this also the way of religion, and especially of the Christian religion? The writings of those who preach the religion have from the very beginning insisted that it is to be proved by experience. If a man is drawn towards honor and courage and endurance, justice, mercy, and charity, let him follow the way of Christ and find out for himself.
No findings in science hinder him in that way. I believe not only as a Christian, but as a scientist as well. A wireless device can deliver a message through the wilderness. In prayer the human spirit can send invisible waves to eternity, waves that achieve their goal in front of God. Marconi is the inventor of the radio; his revolutionary work made possible the electronic communications of the modern world. I believe that God has revealed Himself to us in many ways and through many men and women, and that for us here in the West the clearest revelation is through Jesus and those that have followed him.
Physics brought me closer to God. That feeling stayed with me throughout my years in science. If a man cuts a picture carefully into pieces, you solve the puzzle when you reassemble the pieces into a picture; in the success or failure, both your intelligences compete.
In the presentation of a scientific problem, the other player is the good Lord. He has not only set the problem but also has devised the rules of the game — but they are not completely known, half of them are left for you to discover or to deduce.
The uncertainty is how many of the rules God himself has permanently ordained, and how many apparently are caused by your own mental inertia, while the solution generally becomes possible only through freedom from its limitations.
This is perhaps the most exciting thing in the game. Emerging differences led some[ according to whom? When most scientists came to accept evolution by around , European theologians generally came to accept evolution as an instrument of God. For instance, Pope Leo XIII in office referred to longstanding Christian thought that scriptural interpretations could be reevaluated in the light of new knowledge,[ citation needed ] and Roman Catholics came around to acceptance of human evolution subject to direct creation of the soul.
In the United States the development of the racist Social Darwinian eugenics movement by certain[ which? In Britain this has been attributed to their minority status leading to a more tolerant, less militant theological tradition.
In his speech at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in , Pope Francis declared that he accepted the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution and that God was not "a magician with a magic wand". At first in the U. Those criticising these approaches took the name "fundamentalist"—originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and which had its roots in the Fundamentalist—Modernist Controversy of the s and s.
Around the start of the 20th century some evangelical scholars had ideas accommodating evolution, such as B. Warfield who saw it as a natural law expressing God's will.
By then most U. For faith, it seems, after Kant, can no longer be looked upon as a matter of reasoning and does not rest on rational grounds, but is an affair of the heart, and manifests itself most powerfully when it has no reason out of itself Brunetiere.
If repetition had probative force, it would long ago have been established that faith, religion, theology, lie wholly outside of the realm of reason, proof, and demonstration. It is, however, from the point of view of rationalism and mysticism that the value of apologetics is most decried. Wherever rationalistic preconceptions have penetrated, there, of course, the validity of the apologetic proofs has been in more or less of their extent questioned.
Wherever mystical sentiment has seeped in, there the validity of apologetics has been with more or less emphasis doubted. At the present moment, the rationalistic tendency is most active, perhaps, in the form given it by Albrecht Ritschl. In this form it strikes at the very roots of apologetics, by the distinction it erects between theoretical and religious knowledge. Religious knowledge is not the knowledge of fact, but a perception of utility; and therefore positive religion, while it maybe historically conditioned, has no theoretical basis, and is accordingly not the object of rational proof.
Therefore, it is intimated, we may do very well without these reasons, if indeed they are not positively noxious, because tending to substitute a barren intellectualism for a vital faith.
It seems to be forgotten that though faith be a moral act and the gift of God, it is yet formally conviction passing into confidence; and that all forms of convictions must rest on evidence as their ground, and it is not faith but reason which investigates the nature and validity of this ground.
We believe in Christ because it is rational to believe in Him, not even though it be irrational. Of course mere reasoning cannot make a Christian; but that is not because faith is not the result of evidence, but because a dead soul cannot respond to evidence.
The action of the Holy Spirit in giving faith is not apart from evidence, but along with evidence; and in the first instance consists in preparing the soul for the reception of the evidence. All that apologetics explicates in the forms of systematic proof is implicit in every act of Christian faith. Whenever a sinner accepts Jesus Christ as his Saviour, there is implicated in that act a living conviction that there is a God, knowable to man, who has made Himself known in a revelation of Himself for redemption in Jesus Christ, as is set down in the Scriptures.
It is not necessary for his act of faith that all the grounds of this conviction should be drawn into full consciousness and given the explicit assent of his understanding, though it is necessary for his faith that sufficient ground for his conviction be actively present and working in his spirit. But it is necessary for the vindication of his faith to reason in the form of scientific judgment, that the grounds on which it rests be explicated and established.
Theology as a science, though it includes in its culminating discipline, that of practical theology, an exposition of how that knowledge of God with which it deals objectively may best be made the subjective possession of man, is not itself the instrument of propaganda; what it undertakes to do is systematically to set forth this knowledge of God as the object of rational contemplation.
And as it has to set it forth as knowledge, it must of course begin by establishing its right to rank as such. Did it not do so, the whole of its work would hang in the air, and theology would present the odd spectacle among the sciences of claiming a place among a series of systems of knowledge for an elaboration of pure assumptions.
Whenever men have thought at all they have thought about God and the supernatural order; and whenever they have thought of God and the supernatural order, there has been present to their minds a variety of more or less solid reasons for believing in their reality. Thus, Thales 6th century bce and Heracleitus flourished c. Anaximander 6th century bce called the primary substance the infinite apeiron. In these various schemes of religious belief, there is a unitary something that transcends the many clashing forces in the world and in fact transcends even the gods.
Heraclitus refers to the controlling principle as logos , or reason, though the philosopher, poet, and religious reformer Xenophanes 6th—5th century bce directly assailed the traditional mythology as immoral, out of his concern to express a monotheistic religion. This theme of criticism of the myths was taken over and elaborated in the 4th century bce by Plato. More conservatively, the poet Theagenes 6th century bce allegorized the gods, treating them as standing for natural and psychological forces.
To some extent, this line was pursued in the works of the Greek tragedians and by the philosophers Parmenides and Empedocles 5th century bce.
Criticism of the ancient Greek tradition was reinforced by the reports of travelers as Greek culture penetrated widely into various other cultures. The historian Herodotus 5th century bce attempted to solve the problem of the plurality of cults by identifying foreign deities with Greek deities e.
This kind of syncretism was widely employed in the merging of Greek and Roman culture in the Roman Empire e. Courtesy of the Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Trier, Ger. The plurality of cults and gods also induced skepticism , as with the Sophist Protagoras c.
Prodicus of Ceos 5th century bce gave a rationalistic explanation of the origin of deities that foreshadowed Euhemerism see below Later attempts to study religion. Another Sophist, Critias 5th century bce , considered religion to have been invented to frighten humans into adhering to morality and justice.
Later attempts to study religion Later Greek thinkers tended to vary between the positions adumbrated in the earlier period. The Stoics philosophers of nature and morality opted for a form of naturalistic monotheism , whereas the philosopher Epicurus — bce was skeptical of religion as ordinarily understood and practiced, though he did not deny that there were gods who, however, had no transactions with human beings.
Of considerable influence was Euhemerus c. Most of the Greek concepts about religion proved to be influential in the Roman world also. The atheistic Atomism of the Roman natural historian Lucretius c. Much of the skepticism about the gods in the ancient world was concerned with the older traditional religions, whether of Greece or Rome.
But in the early empire the mystery cults, ranging from the Eleusinian mysteries of Greece to those of the Anatolian Cybele and the Persian Mithra , together with philosophically based religions such as Neoplatonism and Stoicism, had the greatest vitality.
One extreme example of this view is the Codex Gigas nicknamed Devil's Bible completed which is the world's largest medieval manuscript. The greatest apologists of the patristic age were, however, Eusebius of Caesarea and Augustine. Whittaker, winner of the Copley Medal, which is the most prestigious award in British science. Others more justly combine the two conceptions and thus obtain at least two main divisions. Thus, the Icelandic historian Snorri Sturluson — made use of this method in his handbook of Icelandic mythology—a work that was necessary to pass on the myth-laden Norse poetic lore that had survived the Christianization of the north—by adding to it Euhemeristic elements.
Joule was a devout Christian. At times this has led to scientific ideas…being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory. He is here quoted in his article entitled Science and Religion.
Thus we are delivered from what is perhaps the most distracting question which has vexed the whole history of the discipline. The greatest apologists of the patristic age were, however, Eusebius of Caesarea and Augustine. One of the interlocutors in his Convivium religiosum suggests that it would be better to lose the Scholastic theologian Duns Scotus than the ancient Roman thinkers Cicero or Plutarch , and another speaker restrains himself with difficulty from praying to the Greek philosopher Socrates c. These differ from one another in almost every conceivable way; in their conception of the nature, task, compass, and encyclopedic place of the science; in their methods of dealing with its material; in their conception of Christianity itself; and of religion and of God and of the nature of the evidence on which belief in one or the other must rest. Some point to the anthropic constraints, the remarkable fine tuning of the universe. It seems logical that in the long run the two will even converge.
At best, all the silence of the sources argument shows is that the Gospel-Acts account is more legendary than true historical, akin to the "historical" accounts that portray Lincoln as a beloved President - actual contemporary records show Lincoln was arguably the most hated President of the United States but his assassination on Good Friday resulted in Sunday sermons originally meant to deride him were used to turn retroactively into a kind of "American Moses who brought his people out of slavery but was not allowed to cross over into the Promised Land"  In addition to the silence of the sources argument pseudoscience, the majority Christ Myth ideas take any piece of "evidence" they think is relevant and run with it There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Apologetics undertakes not the defense, not even the vindication, but the establishment, not, strictly speaking, of Christianity, but rather of that knowledge of God which Christianity professes to embody and seeks to make efficient in the world, and which it is the business of theology scientifically to explicate.
It does not understand the languages in which they are written. Warfield who saw it as a natural law expressing God's will. At first in the U. Text now in the public domain. See also: History of the creation—evolution controversy and History of evolutionary thought The creation—evolution controversy began in Europe and North America in the late 18th century, when new interpretations of geological evidence led to various theories of an ancient Earth , and findings of extinctions demonstrated in the fossil geological sequence prompted early ideas of evolution , notably Lamarckism.
Anselm at its beginning, Aquinas at its culmination, are types of the whole series; types in which all its excellencies are summed up. But the question of importance here is how it does this. If apologetics is the theory of apology, and its function is to teach men how to defend Christianity, its place is, of course, alongside of homiletics, catechetics, and poimenics in practical theology. Belief or unbelief in the theory of evolution is no more a characteristic of any religious establishment or mode of worship than is belief or unbelief in the wisdom of the prohibition laws.
No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot. The answers provided by the astronomers are disconcerting and remarkable. The study of religion may thus come to have a reflexive effect on religion itself, such as the manner in which modern Christian theology has been profoundly affected by the whole question of the historicity of the New Testament. In prayer the human spirit can send invisible waves to eternity, waves that achieve their goal in front of God. And I think my belief makes me no less a scientist. Spanish legal culture, developed during the Spanish Golden Age, has had a significant influence on the legal norms and institutions that emerged in Europe and in Latin America.
It would appear that members of the same churches quite generally disagree as to these things. Recent discoveries, such as observations supporting the Big Bang and similar astronomical phenomena, are wholly compatible with this view.