Simple question?

Quote: Dalex64

It looks like the traditional purpose of adoption was to extend political power and family dynasties, by adopting much older people as heirs, not beloved sons an daughters.

This was exceedingly common in both the Roman Republic and the Empire. Perhaps the most famous example is a young nobody called Gaius Octavius, who was adopted as son and heir posthumously by his grand-uncle, a man named Gaius Julius Caesar.

While he was the most famous, the most important consists in a series of adoptions later on, beginning with a man named Nerva, who was emperor for a short while, but who adopted Trajan to succeed him. He in turn adopted both Antoninus Pious and Hadrian. Hadrian adopted Marcus Aurelius. These men are collectively known as "the five good emperors." And what they did was establish the most prosperous and peaceful period of Roman history. When people talk of the Pax Romana and the height of Rome, they mean this period.

Marcus Aurelius spoiled it all by having a son as a viable heir...


Anyway, I know this practice of adoption continued into the Byzantine Empire, successor in the East to the Roman Empire for several centuries. But I'm unsure how much farther it went after that.

Namely the other way of making alliances between families was marriage. This is also the main reason why by the XIX century most European royal families were related.

Quote: Nareed

While he was the most famous, the most important consists in a series of adoptions later on, beginning with a man named Nerva, who was emperor for a short while, but who adopted Trajan to succeed him. He in turn adopted both Antoninus Pious and Hadrian. Hadrian adopted Marcus Aurelius.

Actually Trajan adopted Hadrian, and Hadrian adopted Anotninus Pious and Marcus Aurelius. There were others adopted into the chain, but these were the rulers who mattered. Marcus had a co-ruler for a while, but his saving grace was that he left much of the work to Marcus.

Just don't start a "begetting" thread based on the Bible. Although it might help me doze off in the evening.

Quote: rxwine

Just don't start a "begetting" thread based on the Bible. Although it might help me doze off in the evening.

I sometimes make astonishing mistakes.

See, Trajan expanded the empire to its greatest extent, then Hadrian abandoned some gains because he considered them impossible to defend. Naturally Hadrian has to come right after Trajan.

I got confused because Hadrian was constantly travelling back and forth through the Empire, while Antoninus Pious pretty much never left Rome. And as immobility comes before mobility... well.

Not so simple question:

Evolution shows there couldn't possibly have been a single couple of h. sapiens, be they Adam and Eve or any other name.

Does this undercut the whole of Christian theology, as without an Original Couple there cannot possibly have been any original sin?

And yes, I'm aware of the idea that there were many h. sapiens specimens, but only two had souls. Even if it were true (and how could anyone possibly prove it?), that would undercut Christian theology, as then Jehovah would not be omnibenevolent (but we knew this already).

Even if you buy into the story, was there ever a chance that Adam and Eve weren't going screw up sooner or later and disobey God?

Supposedly it's all our fault because not ever screwing up was within the realm of possibility. Really?

Quote: Nareed

Not to simple question:

Evolution shows there couldn't possibly have been a single couple of h. sapiens, be they Adam and Eve or any other name.

I take it that you say this because there would be more than one homo sampien? From this group there certainly were many couples.

Quote:

Does this undercut the whole of Christian theology, as without an Original Couple there cannot possibly have been any original sin?

No, as a human being as I understand it is a person with an immortal human soul. This original couple gifted with a created human soul were the origin of original sin.

Quote:

And yes, I'm aware of the idea that there were many h. sapiens specimens, but only two had souls. Even if it were true (and how could anyone possibly prove it?), that would undercut Christian theology, as then Jehovah would not be omnibenevolent (but we knew this already).

First of all I think you can prove it by the uniqueness of the human person in the midst of all the other animals and life that exist.

Secondly God's goodness is shown precisely in giving us the freedom to chose, even to chose to hate or kill. Then His goodness is shown to be extreme in that after we fall He never leaves us but continues to strive to bring us back from our sinfulness and return us to our true destiny of original and perfect goodness. To do this He Himself became one of us and as an innocent unblemished lamb paid for us the awful price of our choices to set us free.

Quote: FrGamble

Secondly God's goodness is shown precisely in giving us the freedom to chose, even to chose to hate or kill.

If so, he should give us the free will to sin in Heaven. But from what I understand, there is no sin allowed.

Ha, your free will is not given to you to sin, but rather to love.

Quote: FrGamble

Ha, your free will is not given to you to sin, but rather to love.

Thought you were the guy who just said this:

Quote:

Secondly God's goodness is shown precisely in giving us the freedom to chose, even to chose to hate or kill.

Must have got you mixed up with someone else.