Thursday, October 19, 2017

Tolkien a Catholic : Does it Show? Yes. (quora)

Is it not strange that Tolkien didn't use any Catholic (Latin) theology/history as source material? Wasn't he a devout Catholic?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Converted to Roman Catholic Church, Novus Ordo version, then to Trad.
Answered just now
He very much did use Catholic theology as source material, for the general feeling of events : providence, free will, sin and temptation are very present all over the material.

If you get to close analysis or ask on his own opinion on things, it is very Thomistic.

However, as to Catholic history in the sense of Church history, that would be events which would have happened later than the supposed time of the legendarium (like conventional evolutionism, he provides an image with 4004 BC already having a long history before itself - but in the case of the legendarium, one in which valar, maiar, elves and men do bring back “male and female” to “the beginning of creation”.

More on Latin (quora)

Why doesn’t anybody know for sure how Latin was pronounced in Late Antiquity (Veni Vidi Vici vs, Weni Widi Wiki)? The C[h]urch of Rome and later Catholic Churches always set the Mass in Latin. No gaps for spoken Latin, isn't it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Converted to Roman Catholic Church, Novus Ordo version, then to Trad.
Answered just now
In Late Antiquity, Weni, Widi, Wiki was already past. You can guess between Veni, vidi, vichi and veni, vidi, viki.

While correct that Mass has been said in Latin since late Antiquity, minor changes of pronunciation may have escaped attention, and up to 800 adaptation between Mass Latin and spoken vernacular pronunciation of same words was not avoided. This means that up to then, you could even get Beine, Beithe, Beitse (as pronounced in liturgy). FROM then, you get Alcuin restoring pronunciation in Gaul, from a pronunciation which had in England been preserved as a foreign pronunciation, with some simplifications. So, Latin Mass in Gaul and the rest of Francia, from 800, is a restored pronunciation, which has later influenced pronunciation in both Spain and presumably also Italy.

One clear part of what is not authentic is pronouncing -um as [um] rather than as [u~]. A single pronunciation of M in all positions was more comfortable to the English foreign language learners. By the time of Alcuin’s coming to Francia, the ending was already [o], precisely as the one formerly [o:].

It is possible, but I have no clear indication, that the difference between a II declinsion sg accusative and its dative/ablative was apart from England also preserved in liturgic pronunciation, by exaggerating [u~] as [um].

The English did not have that confusion in the first place, hence their Latin was more classical by 800.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

On Reality or Not of PIE - and is it "Conspiracy" or "Peer Pressure" in English? (quora)

How do we know that a Proto-Indo-European language really existed? What is the evidence?

Oscar Tay
speaks a language
Answered Mon
Upvoted by Joe Devney, Master's in Linguistics, professional writer.
and Eric Meinhardt, PhD student in linguistics
[His answer is longer than the debate I contribute to, so read it yourself, I am not copying it here. It is excellent except for the conclusion and the kind of oversight on Sprachbund possibility I am outlining in the debate, I used to believe this, and I am not contesting the cognates, just whether they all come from one and same language.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
“The “borrowing” idea couldn't explain this – Europe hadn't had contact with India great enough or for long enough to account for all the similarities between Sanskrit and the Classical European languages.”

A French scholar - who then took it back - claimed to have found evidence Linear A on Crete involved some kind of Proto-Aryan language.

Seeing that Hittite and Mycenean Greek as well as Lykian, Lydian and Phrygian are next neighbours …

Hans-Georg Lundahl
“French and Spanish are related because they both come from Latin. Hindi and Marathi are related because they both from from Sanskrit. Maybe, just maybe, there was a similarity between Latin and Sanskrit (and Greek) that extended beyond their roles on their respective continents.”

And Modern Greek and Romanian share traits because they are both on the Balkan … maybe, just maybe … do I need to spell it out? … Aryan and some more core IE langs coexisted around Aegean, and William Jones was unaware of it.

Oscar Tay
The Balkan languages share those traits because they’re part of a sprachbund, which is definitely something to take into consideration when comparing languages.

Sanskrit and Latin had very little connection, though, so they’re very surely not members of a sprachbund.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If Sanskrit as suggested had remote origins on Crete and Latin was somewhere North Balkans or Alps previous to getting down, and Mycenean Greek and Proto-Balto-Slavic between them, a Sprachbund becomes more feasible.

[continued on my last answer]

Oscar Tay
That seems somewhat unlikely.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Which part of it?

If a French linguist first came out with Linear A Cretan decoded as proto-Aryan, then retacted without explanation, perhaps there is something to it, and an interest in keeping PIE theory on status quo interfering with his discovery.

[or perhaps this is continued on my last answer]

Oscar Tay
The undeciphered Cretan systems have about as many solutions as the Voynich manuscript. This particular one is certainly possible, but so are most of the others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Have you any example of another solution?

Online, preferrably?

Oscar Tay
What I meant was that I’m very suspicious of any decipherments of Linear A. If one person came up with a possible solution and then retracted it, it’s more likely that they realized they were wrong than anything conspiratorial.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are suspicious, OK, but if someone realised he was wrong, the normal way of marking this would be to make a retraction, rather than take away material already published.

In other words, you do not have other solutions offered on this, you made a kind of general guess.

And your suspicion is “conspiracy” if you like enough for certain sensitive souls to retract even honest and good work, if it is not flawless, or sometimes even if it is : not you as an individual, but you plus the guys you share it with.

Oscar Tay
I don’t think we’re going to reach an agreement on this, sorry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I wasn’t going for agreement, I was going for where your argument leads.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[continued from above, as said, not quite sure which one]
Or, Italic (with Latin) staying North of Appenine Peninsula for a while before going down - standard.

Or Proto-Balto-Slavic starting a bit North of Greek? Well, Macedonian (Bilippos!) is at least one of the NIE (North Indo-European) languages. The Balto-Slavic for head fits Macedonian for kephalé with a metathesis.

  • Common Greek Kephalé
  • Dorian kaphala
  • Macedonian gabala
  • Balto-Slavic, oldest form attested, Lithuanian galva.

All (as far as known) accented on last syllable.

Monday, October 16, 2017

Right about Nicea not Fabricating, Wrong about Catholic Church Not Deciding

The one who is so:

Council of Nicaea Myth Debunked
VerseByVerseBT, added 29 Dec. 2010

My comments saying he is so:


1:20 Your claim the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy did not yet exist comes from where?

1:34 Your claim Eusebius suggested a council of "all the independent Christian churches" comes from where? Eusebius' Church history? What text, if so?

1:44 And your claim the bishops derived their legitimacy solely from their OWN see, without any interdependence of sees or subjection whatsoever, comes from where, i e prior to Nicea?

From the fact that some sorting was done, so that everything done could be claimed as invention of the council, if you like, centuries after, as you are coming?


2:41 That SOME Churches prior to both Nicea and - more relevant - Rome and Carthage and Laodicea were considering any given NT book as canonic does not mean there was an agreed canon.

Rome and Carthage gave canons which involve all of NT and which involve at least verbally same OT canon as Trent.

Laodicea gave a canon which supports the Protestant OT canon, but a defective NT one, books are lacking, notably Apocalypse.

Note very well, I am not into the "Nicea made the canon" spoof, I am talking about real local councils at which Bible canons were really discussed and published.

Your appeal to Church Fathers involves an appeal to men who were supporting the Hierarchy, i e St Irenaeus who said all Churches must agree with the Apostolic succession specifically in Rome, enumerating a few Popes there.

2:53 I am fairly sure, the reference in 2 Peter 3 is to Romans : St Peter was there, and some proto-Protestants had already made some twisted Romans road. It is therefore prophetic about Martin Luther.

And obviously, the verse, while not a direct refutation of "Scripture interprets other Scripture" is at least against "the Bible interprets itself (on same locus of text)".

3:17 As you may be aware, Muratorian fragment has an NT canon deviant, for some or other reason, from the currently universal one.

Yes, you said basically - omitting that it had, erroneously, included Pastor Hermas.

3:52 You are clearly right that 4 Gospels as such could be reconstructed as being canon from ante-Nicene fathers. While the most important ones, they are 4 out of 27.


4:15 And were universally rejected by the early Church.

Arguing, in one sense, Dan Brown was right : they were rejected by the Catholic Church. That is what "universal" means, and if you will argue that Catholic Church deciding on Gospels does not equal Catholic Church as coming out from Nicea, you will also have to argue that the canons from Carthage, Laodicea and Rome are from a spurious Church - leaving you with Four Gospels and Ante-Nicene fathers and Muratorian Fragment and a conundrum where the Church really went.

4:47 I reject the Nag Hammadi spurious "gospels" on authority of the Church.

You reject them on what authority? Only on authority of human reason?

Then, while your reasons are good, you can hardly have a real issue with someone who having other reasons takes that other option - which I, obviously, do not.

5:22 Obviously, Saint Hippolytus was rejecting Gospel of Thomas.

And obviously, since he was either Pope, or more probably a redeemed Antipope, whose writings were validated by subsequent real Popes, as a Catholic I obey this Church authority.

The early Church considered "Gospel of Thomas" as obvious heresies.

Fine. So do I. So do you.

The Church in the 16th C considered Martin Luther's exegesis as obvious heresies.

So do I - but do you?

If not, are you dealing with two churches? Or are you claiming one and same Church had but later lost authority to decide what is heresy?

If the latter, why would the Church lose a promise of Christ? If the former, where do you set the limit in time, and where apart from Catholic Church was the "early Church" surviving?

Friday, October 13, 2017

Clashing Centennial Jubilees : 13.X vs 31.X

Something BIG Is About to Happen on OCTOBER 31, 2017 !!!
Bible Flock Box | added 10 oct. 2017

Today is October 13 - Fatima Day.

100 years ago, it was the last apparition of Our Lady in Fatima to three young shepherd children.

She foretold a lot of the ensuing troubles. Confer Amos 3:7.

As to Luther, Galatians 1:9 I think it was (yes, I checked) tells how Catholic authorities had to deal with him.

January 3, 1521, Pope Leo X in a bull named Decet Romanum Pontificem was obeying Paul in Galatians 1:9 - Saint Paul, of course.

1:34 Bergoglio on this October 31 is of course NOT obeying St Paul.

He's obeying the advice of his friend, an Anglican "bishop" with no valid orders, whom he buried with the ritual reserved for a Catholic actual bishop, actual successor of the Apostles (OK, in reality that rite involves no Novus Ordo Mass, but the Traditional Mass, which we are sure he didn't use).

That dead friend of his was Tony Palmer. He died in a biking accident.

I wonder if Pope Michael is going to re-excommunicate Bergoglio over this step ... (he is already excummunicated by saying Evangelicals proclaim same Gospel as Catholics : Evangelicals proclaim same things on items of it, but not on the whole of it).

1:57 If he is not interested in making a compromise, he sure makes a good job of pretending so.

The 1999 declaration, signed either by Antipope Wojtyla or by his then cardinal, later Antipope successor Ratzinger, was a compromise which a Catholic cannot accept. Simple as that.

It was not well received by SSPX.
It was not well recived by Sedevacantists.
It was not well received by Pope Michael.

It was received by Catholics who have some claim of caring about keeping the faith even by opposing modernism and people who promote it while clad in sheeps clothes, as a tell tale sign there is something rotten in the Vatican.

2:43 In fact, the Jesuits were not formed to combat Protestantism, even if that is one of their major tasks since formation.

St Ignatius of Loyola and St Francis Xaver and St Francis Borgia and St Robert Bellarmine are not considering Bergoglio a Jesuit in the full sense of the word. No way that could happen, even if Hell freezes over. Unless he converts of course, to Catholicism.

3:00 Sale of indulgences is a propagandistic canard.

You get indulgences for good deeds, some of them outlined in the Bible, like forgiving enemies (indulgence for yourself), like feeding just poor men at a burial (indulgence for the dead man).

Giving alms to St Peter's Basilica was one of those good deeds.

You were not buying anything and Tetzel was not selling anything. Luther was not even saying in so many words that Tetzel was doing that, more like what Tetzel did being tantamount to doing that. BUT some things got oversimplified in Protestant historiography, and Ellen White was not exactly a historic scholar. Cardinal Newman, by contrast, was : and he converted from a position originally Eavangelical, over Anglo Catholic, to Catholic in the full and Roman sense.

3:07 But the Church rejected his efforts.

Yes, as St Paul had told her to do in Galatians 1:9.

The Roman Catholic Church guilty of heresy, you say?

Well, if so, what exact Church was NOT guilty of heresy in 1507? Not Luther's, he hadn't founded one, not the Roman Catholic Church on your view, since it didn't change between 1507 and 1517. Not Münzer's, he hadn't founded the first Anabaptists yet. So, which one?

If you say that in 1507 NO Church on earth was free from heresy, you contradict Matthew 28:16-20.

In verse 20 it says "every day" or "all days", and for what, for Christ being with His Church. Obviously, Christ is not with heresy, not with a heretical "Church". But perhaps simple souls who were not accountable for Catholics being heretics, on the level of laymen and lower clergy? No, in verse 16 it says Christ was adressing these words to His highest clergy, the eleven disciples, not to every disciple He had. So, clearly, in 1507 at least ONE Church must have existed with teaching authority untouched by heresy. And it was NOT Luther or Münzer who founded it, since they each only started dissenting ten years later. Publically, that is.

3:28 Reformation being "God's doing" as you put it is contrary to Galatians 1:9 and to Matthew 28.

4:08 Two historic blunders.

1) The Jesuits were not founded to LEAD the Counter-Reformation but became leading proponents after it.
2) While the Counter-Reformation was interested in bringing Protestant heretics back and Pagans in (they were missionaries to Red Indians and to Africans, when Protestants were considering "missionary efforts" like "works salvation"), the main reason for them being founded was St Ignatius of Loyola had a good concept of how to live the Catholic life, and it deserved to be tried, and Counter-Reformation was mainly about Catholics living like Catholics and not, like some Renbaissance men had done, as Pagans.

4:17 Left side of photo (from our point of view) : Tony Palmer, already spoken about. Buried as "Catholic bishop" even if he wasn't, by his friend Bergoglio.

There are guys among Lutherans and - as in his case - Anglicans who do think there was something wrong about Reformation and its leading to a schism, but the coherent step to take on that light would be converting - he didn't. I did.

4:33 I don't think either Catholics (obviously) or Protestants (whom I consider rather as Leopard power) are the ones receiving the deadly wound.

Obviously, if Leopard power (or one of its four heads) is "one of the heads of the beast", Protestantism receivng a fatal head wound would qualify.

4:39 No, the Catholic papacy which existed when Luther was excommunicated is not the beast.

4:51 No, Pius VI getting captive was not the deadly wound of the beast, he was a Catholic pope. I e a true successor of Sts Peter and Paul in Rome.

1929, Lateran treaty was only half of a regain, not after Berthier took Pope Pius VI, but after "Italy" took Rome from Pius IX. In 1870.

If you go by "day year principle", which is wrong, what do you get going back 1260 years from 1870?

610. It is not when Gregory the Great became or even ceased to be Pope, he died in 604.

It is not when his successor Sabinian died either, he died in 606. Sabinian's successor Boniface III was both elected and died in 607.

Boniface IV was Pope from 608 to 615. So the date you get is neither his date of accession nor of death.

He removed idols from, exorcised and made to a Church what had been Pantheon, but that was in 609 - missing your 610 date by one year.

Here are some real events from 610:

"October 4 – Heraclius arrives with a fleet from Africa at Constantinople. Assisted by an uprising in the capital, he overthrows and personally beheads Emperor Phocas. Heraclius gains the throne with help from his father Heraclius the Elder. His first major act is to change the official language of the Eastern Roman Empire from Latin to Greek (already the language of the vast majority of the population). Because of this, after AD 610, the Empire is customarily referred to as the Byzantine Empire (the term Byzantine is a modern term invented by historians in the 18th century; the people of the Empire itself always referred to themselves as "Ρωμαῖος" — tr. Rōmaios, Roman)."

Ah .... but 1870 changed nothing for Byzantine Empire, right?

"The Avars invade the Duchy of Friuli, an important buffer between the Kingdom of the Lombards in Italy and the Slavs.[1] During the fightings Gisulf II dies and his duchy is overrun (approximate date)."

Well, 1870 was not exactly encouraging Italian particularism, and Friuli was only united to Italy after WW-I.

"King Witteric is assassinated during a banquet at Toledo, by a faction of Catholic nobles. He is succeeded by Gundemar, duke of Narbonne, who becomes king of the Visigoths in Hispania."

While this prequel to Gunpowder plot was Catholic, it accomplished nothing for Catholicism. Not directly, but Gundemar's successor was at least Chalcedonian or Catholic. However, 1870 was not exactly a change in Spain.

"King Theuderic II loses Alsace, Champagne and Thurgau to his elder brother Theudebert II of Austrasia. His Burgundian army is defeated east of the Jura Mountains against the Alemanni."

Well, Austrasia preceeds in a way Charlemagne and Holy Roman Empire ... you might get some Greek Orthodox worked up by claims that Austrasia had too much power in German speaking areas up to replacement by Prussia in 1870. I'd not agree.

"Muhammad, Islamic prophet, begins secretly at 40 years old to preach a new religion that will be called Islam. According to Islamic teachings, the angel Gabriel appears to him in a cave on Mount Hira near Mecca (Saudi Arabia) and calls him: "The Prophet of Allah". Muhammad gathers followers, reciting to them the first verses of al-Alaq (surat Iqra), thus beginning the revelation of the Qur'an"

But nothing bad happened to Islam in 1870?

"Pope Boniface IV presides over a Council of Rome for the restoration of monastic discipline. Attendees include Mellitus, first bishop of London."

I don't think you can argue Western Monasticism as such is the Beast.

"Columbanus and Gallus begin their missionary work in Bregenz, near Lake Constance (Switzerland)."

Nor that going as missionary to Arians or Pagans is the work of the Beast.

"John V (the Merciful) becomes patriarch of Alexandria (approximate date)."

This is no major change in Alexandria.

But supposing the 1260 years are by a 360 day calendar?

360 : 365.25 = 0.9856262833675565
1260 * 0.9856262833675565 = 1241.88911704312119
= 1242


"Spring – Byzantine–Sassanid War: Emperor Heraclius issues an ultimatum for peace to King Khosrow II, but he refuses his generous terms. The war-weary Persians revolt against Khosrow's regime at Ctesiphon, and install his son Kavadh II on the throne on February 25. He puts his father to death and begins negotiations with Heraclius. Kavadh is forced to return all the territories conquered during the war. The Persians must give up all of the trophies they have captured, including the relic of the True Cross. Evidently there is also a large financial indemnity. Having accepted a peace agreement on his own terms, Heraclius returns in triumph to Constantinople."

OK, but still no major change occurred in Byzantine Empire in 1870, right?

"Third Perso-Turkic War: The Western Göktürks, under their leader Tong Yabghu Qaghan, plunder Tbilisi (modern Georgia). The Persian defenders are executed or mutilated; Tong Yabghu appoints governors (tuduns) to manage various tribes under his overlordship."

Did any bad thing happen to Turkey in 1870?

"Battle of Cirencester: King Penda of Mercia defeats the West Saxons at Cirencester (south-west England), in what later will be Gloucestershire. After reaching an agreement, he takes control of the Severn Valley and the minor kingdom of the Hwicce."

I think Penda of Mercia had no successor suffering loss in 1870.

"February 25 – Khosrow II, the last great king of the Sasanian Empire, is overthrown by his son Kavadh II."
"September 6 – Ardashir III, age 7, succeeds his father Kavadh II as the twenty-fourth king of the Sasanian Empire, on the latter's death from plague."

Which hardly changed anything in Persia, very much?

"Muhammad, Islamic prophet, leads about 1,400 men on a pilgrimage to Mecca, where their passage is blocked. The Quraysh tribe and the Muslim community in Medina sign a 10-year truce (Treaty of Hudaybiyyah)."

Again, Islam hardly received a deadly head wound in 1870?

"Indian astronomer Brahmagupta writes the Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta, an early, yet very advanced, mathematics book, including rules for computing with zero."

Right, that is beastly enough, but bad mathematical philosophy also did not receive any deadly head wound in 1870.

"The Sharia enjoins women as well as men to obtain secular and religious educations. It forbids eating pork, domesticated donkey, and other flesh denied to Jews by Mosaic law (approximate date)."

Nor did school compulsion. While that too is beastly.

"Muhammad's letters to world leaders explain the principles of the new monotheistic Muslim faith, as they will be contained in his book, the Quran."

This starts making me curous : DID Islam in any sense get a deadly head wound in 1870?

No, not really. I checked.

9:16 Looking up 2 Tim 3 verses ... 15, 16 ... wait, I got 1 Tim, same chapter and verse:

[15] But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. [16] And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory.

Now, here is an indication Bible is not SOLE authority, since Church of the Living God is authorty too. Now to 2 Tim, same verses and chapter.

[15] And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

This does not say "Bible alone". It says "All scripture" or "all of the Bible". That is something different.

How long will you repeat a prooftext which does not prove what you say it proves, before discovering that?

Bible alone is not in all of the Bible!
9:43 Yes, we do rely on Apostolic Tradition.

Unlike "Bible alone", that is in the Bible:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
[2 Thessalonians 2:14]

So, St Paul continues in the Church in TWO ways : both by the 14 Epistles AND by Apostolic Tradition.

Btw, the Greek Orthodox in Thessaly, while neglecting some Apostolic Tradition, referring to Papacy (part of it also in the Bible) are at least not neglecting this principle.

9:57 You might be aware that neither Lutherans nor Anglicans have been taking a strong stance against Bible and Tradition, lately?

There are definitely Protestants who are aware Protestantism overdid certain things.

And the coherent thing for them to do would be to become Catholics. Like I did.

10:26 I see your text for Ephesians 2:8-9.

I also see nothing in it which in any way contradicts justification by Baptism or by Penance.

Works in the context means good works, and we don't get right with God again by giving someone alms or by even not repeating a mortal sin, we get right with God by a sacrament of the faith - by Baptism, if not baptised before, or by Penance, if sinning after Baptism.

The good works, while not making us children of God again are however necessary once we are so.

11:50 Since your misclassification of Sacraments of the Faith as "works" is another Gospel than the one the Catholic Church has heard, that IV (?) Session of Trent (trusting you got the reference right, I thought that was the session dealing with the Bible) or whichever Session it was (subtitles could be wrong) is simply applying Galatians 1:9.

11:57 "in the Roman Catholic Church, you can't obtain salvation without the Sacraments"

OR the desire of them!

If you are a Pagan, convert, desire Baptism but die on the road to the Catholic priest who would be baptising you, or are even martyred on that road, well, you are saved without actual Baptism but not without the desire of Baptism. Since this salvation comes before you have a chance to sin after baptism, you neither need Penance, nor desire of Penance. You do need to desire the ultimate gift of God in this life, the Eucharist.

This is certain for a sacrament like penance, it is probable, though disputed, for baptism.

One can take a word in John 3 and another definition of Trent as saying, in the case of baptism, you need the sacrament itself, it is not enough to just desire it.

11:59 Sacraments are not rules of human action.

"It's not until you observe them"

No, in the sacraments you are not doing a work, God is doing a work in you.

It is very obvious in baptism of small children : they contribute nothing of very little, except the fact of being physically present, to God's work in them.

12:14 Catholics certainly believe all believers are in a sense priests, this does not mean all believers are equal to the special priesthood.

As a believer you get one very general kind of priesthood by Baptism and Confirmation : it allows you to fruitfully RECEIVE the Eucharist. Before you can however CELEBRATE Holy Mass, you need another special kind of priesthood.

Biblical proof : Christ had his twelve apostles at the Last Supper when He instituted this Sacrament. It is to them He said "do this", and this means not what He had just said (take and eat), but what He had just done, turned bread into His body, turned wine into His blood (for this is).

1 Peter 2:[5] Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Spiritual sacrifices are offered up even in receiving sacraments. Therefore, St Peter is NOT saying all faithful can celebrate Holy Mass, he did not say "all of the spiritual sacrifices".

He does say we should in the passive "be ... built up", this means there is someone actively building us up. And, under God, that is the clergy.

12:46 You believe you need no priest to forgive your sins?

Have you read John 20:21-3?

James 5:[16] Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

St James is adressing priests.

In verse 14, when it says to bring in priests of the Church for another need - extreme unction - James is not saying this like "are you sick, then you bring in the priests of the Church". No, in third person:

"[14] Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."
[James 5:14]

Note that the continual prayer part also makes more sense if:

  • there are people who are delegated to prayer as a calling of their daily work
  • they are chosen so as to be just (meaning, a priest who is a child predator or even having a romance with a teen, outside either marriage or celibacy, is degrading what he could do for the faithful by praying).

12:50 Your quasi equal (at least in theory) priesthood of all faithful would be based on 1 Tim 2:5, if Christ had not been telling the apostles they are His own extensions in the salvific work. Not all of his faithful, but specifically His apostles, the twelve, His own highest clergy (which it is, if you actually check the Gospel story). Like, "as the Father sent me, so I send you" (quoting from memory).

13:04 Yes, the priest is a successor of the eleven (or at occasion ten, St Thomas was absent) Apostles to whom Christ very specifically gave the power to forgive and to withhold sins. John 20:21-3, again.

OK, your diabolic protest against what Christ instituted is not over.

13:25 sound doctrine you rejected:

The mediation of Mary

In Luke 1, Her mediation was involved in Incarnation.

In John 2, Her mediation is involved in the first public miracle.

and of the saints

The dead rich Pharisee is well aware the Poor Lazarus can mediate favours - but he momentarily forgot he was in Hell, therefore beyond receiving any, and he had not been aware that his brothers were heretics who, as long as not believing Moses and the Prophets could not benefit from a miracle made for themselves either.


Against Christ's very express words. Note, Lutherans and some Anglicans at least do not completely reject the Real Presence. Luther went against Zwingli on that one!

the Mass as a sacrifice

Hebrews "Habemus altare, de quo edere non habent potestatem, qui tabernaculo deserviunt."
[Hebrews 13:10]

In other words, we eat from the altar that we have. Note that since the tabernacle is a place of OT sacrifice (not yet destroyed in AD 70, when St Paul wrote this before his death in 64), the logical contrast makes Eucharist a sacrifice even if you translate the object of "we have" as other than "altar".

Hebrews again "Quemadmodum et in alio loco dicit: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum, secundum ordinem Melchisedech."
[Hebrews 5:6]

In other words, Christ is sacrificial priest in the same way as Melchisedch was - and in Genesis we find he offered bread and wine.

Malachi, OT prophecy other than Genesis and Psalms in relation to Hebrews:

1:[11] For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

But the sacrifice of Calvary was in one place only. Therefore we need sacrifice in another way, which is fulfilled if Eucharist is a Sacrifice.

Now, there is a place in Hebrews which says the Sacrifice of Calvary is UNIQUE, and this would mean one of two things:

1) either the Eucharist is not a sacrifice - this is false, a protestant heresy in light of previous
2) or the Eucharist is the same sacrifice as Calvary - this is not only true, but an actual dogma, reaffirmed at Trent with the usual anathema against those coming with another Gospel.

purgatory, prayers for the dead

We know Jews believed in praying for the dead (specifically Pharisees, if not Sadducees) since back in the times of the Maccabees.

Whether you consider II Macc canonic Scripture or not, the historic certainty remains : Jews believed this.

Then we ask, what did Jesus do about this belief? If it was wrong, where did Jesus take His distance?


You may consider prayers for the dead are condemned as useless in Rich man and Lazarus. No.

The rich man cannot be object for such prayers, not because he is dead, but because he is damned. Note very well, the gulf between him and Lazarus is not between a dead and a living person, both were dead.

It's a gulf between saved and damned.

Also, other passages, both Gospels and Epistles, clearly hint at there being a purgatory.

13:32 "and the authority of the Pope"

To your loss.

If you claim the Pope "is not successor of Peter in Rome", where and who is anyone successor to St Peter?

If you claim "Peter had no special authority", you contradict Acts 2. You also contradict Matthew 16 and John 21:15-17.

13:38 Identifying true Catholic Popes as Antichrist is seriously wrong.

An Antipope can be Antichrist or especially False Prophet. There is even Catholic prophecy more or less about that, if you trust Mélanie Calvat's account of La Salette apparition.

It could of course refer to Kingdom of Italy as precursor of Antichrist, which is certainly the case with Leo XIII Exorcism.

But Papacy has lasted too long to have power for only 1260 DAYS. Not years, DAYS. To persecute the saints.

Your day year principle is not supported by 70 weeks meaning 490 years, since there was a year week as well as a day week in the old law.

13:46 I seriously owe Martin Luther no more obedience than I owe Antichrist, none at all.

If you had quoted an actual work of Luther instead of quoting LeRoy Froom quoting him, I could have checked some of that reformers idiocies in the work itself. If it was the letter to Bohemians (one o fthe places he said such things) he would have implied he was already damned as having taken the mark of the beast, since in that letter he identifies mark of the beast with Catholic Ordination to Priesthood : and he was ordained.

14:00 I'll say one thing more.

If Lutherans and Anglicans regret the words of Luther you just quoted as "excessive", they should in consistency ask if Luther or Reformation is any good as an authority (even under the Bible) at all.

They should, some of us did, me among them, ask if they should not become Catholics.

And if the "present Pope" pretends they don't need to as long as their "protest is over", they would be wise to ask if he can really be a real Catholic Pope.

14:11 "The Protestant Reformation of the 1500's helped move Europe out of the Dark Ages"

OK, and Columbus helped prove the Earth was round to an Europe with universal Flat Earthism, too?

Is your authority for post-Biblical (OK, not post-Apocalypse, but post-Acts) history Washington Irving and similar nincompoops?

"and led to the rise of"

Tyrannic nation states, for one. Swedish and English kings were both happy to persecute Catholics, but not on the authority of a single Bible, nor any single interpretation of it. Lutherans and Anglicans are not all that similar.

But let's see what you were thinking of.


"true religious freedom and the separation of Church and State"

* seriously *

The Reformation of 1500's immediately led to a much closer alliance between clergy and crown. It came to involve measures against Catholics which reminded of some of the worst parts of defeating Albigensians.

It involved making Catholics take the place of Heretics, but unlike that other legislation, since Heretics had popped up out of the ground some times over through the middle ages, but the Catholics now persecuted were suffering for the Faith of their Fathers. Usually back to the day when the people became Christians.

14:17 First Amendment neither expresses "separation of church and state" (a war cry of Clémenceau before persecuting Catholics in 1905, retaken by some Supreme Court decisions after that date as a wild interpretation of First Amendment) nor is a direct result of the Reformation. You could as easily argue it was a result of Tetzel's "selling" indulgences or of Torquemada's burning Crypto-Jews : because between your "cause" and your "effect" you are anyway several layers of human conflict and reacting against what someone else did.

Also, the Supreme Court decisions have been used to persecute Christians in US. And to persecute Ten Commandments.

14:33 As it happens, Protestantism has persecuted, directly and indirectly (even more), quite a few times over Catholicism. And when Protestantism didn't do it, it was at least applauding those who did.

I saw Evangelicals in Mexico honour the persecutor Porfirio Diaz, on a video.

15:54 I wish we had more medieval religious practises.

How about monks flogging a king who persecuted the Church? That was done after killing of St Thomas Becket.

How about an Emperor having persecuted a Pope walk barefoot in the snow to be forgiven? That was done after Gregory VII had been obliged to flee to Canossa.

OK, these two instances presuppose a persecution first. But the kind of atmosphere in which the penances were done shows the true progress made through the Gospel being preached to Pagans, not by Luther, but by St Boniface, not by Olaus or Laurentius Petri, but by Ansgar and by Sigfrid and by a few more, not by Cranmer or Henry VIII, but by Augustine of Canterbury. All of them honoured as saints and hopefully perhaps even interceding for these countries.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Trojan War on Quora with Prescott

Did the Trojan War or the Persian War have a greater impact on civilization in the Eastern Mediterranean world?

Answer requested by Bonnie Carroll

Hans-Georg Lundahl
History buff since childhood. CSL & Eco added to Medieval lore. + Classics.
Answered Wed
Not sure.

For instance, was Trojan War part or not part of the breakup of the Hittite Empire?

Do Greece and Rome owe their culture to Hittite and Trojan expatriates?

In that case, Trojan War would have played a greater role, possible. On the other hand, what exact role it played is a bit hidden from us, since our sources (Homer first of all, and a few others) are more knowledgeable on individual exploits than on culture changes before and after it.

Justin Prescott
1 upvote from me
I personally believe that the Trojan war had the greatest impact on humanity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If we consider it resulted in small free, but still civilised states, I tend to agree.

I consider that Greek particularism, as opposed to Mycenean monolithic rule (under Hittites?) was begun when the locally mixed recruitment of Greek army was replaced by a more local regimentation, to boost the flagging morale. Iliados B.

Justin Prescott
It also resulted in the Indo-European immigration from Asia Minor into Europe. The collapse of the Bronze Age Civilization. All of human history changed with the fall of Troy. It also took Civilization centuries to recover from such a collapse. The the fall out even caused the Greeks to become illiterate.

Justin Prescott
I actually wonder how advanced civilization would have become if it had never happen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"It also resulted in the Indo-European immigration from Asia Minor into Europe."

I think that one had already occurred, whether immigration or spread of language.

"The collapse of the Bronze Age Civilization."

That yes, with Hittite Empire as closest representative of Bronze Age Civilisation, and Syro-Hittites and Egyptians as surviving the collapse. In Syro-Hittite case, like in Greek one, as city states.

"The the fall out even caused the Greeks to become illiterate."

I am not sure "even" is a good word.

Suppose that Linear B was used mainly for tax and similar purposes, you can identify why a popular feeling about it would be "semata lygra" = baleful signs.

That is what Homer considers those read by Bellerophon in one of the many look backs to before Trojan War.

This means that "writing" in this sense had nothing to do with literature and was shaken off with relief, like for instance if we imagined things like school uniforms and air port security, if school obligation and air planes were to go down.

Literature (as in epic and epyllic docu-fiction), was arguably already oral, and therefore writing was useless for more airy purposes.

Until much later another writing system - the Kadmean one, with updates, note Thebes was arguably still Phenician, not Greek in this time - showed signs of being useful in codifying laws or best attested versions of a song by Homer.

"I actually wonder how advanced civilization would have become if it had never happen."

Charn? Calormen? Mordor or Isengard?

Ten Issues with the Bible (quora)

What are your ten (10) biggest issues (e.g., inconsistencies, factually/historically inaccurate, etc.) with the Bible?

four here given, I-IV, none of which mine, and two ignored.

Paul Farr
Rule #1: The Ancient Near East was different
Answered 18h ago
OK, let’s just tackle this head on….

Inconsistencies across texts, errors of fact, historical inaccuracies, etc. are not “issues with the Bible”.

The Bible is what it is. It is an ancient collection of ancient documents produced by ancient cultures. It makes no sense to have “issues with” an ancient text. That makes as much sense as having “issues with” ancient pottery or sculpture or architecture.

Those cultures are gone, all those people are dead, and the artifacts are what they are.

So that said….

We can indeed reasonably have “issues with” modern translations of Biblical texts (there is no one single Bible, by the way — there are some 13 different canons used today). We can discuss the best way to render the words and ideas in the ancient manuscripts in modern languages, or which of the ancient manuscripts are most likely to accurately reflect the originals (all of which are now lost). That we can do.

If you see an internal contradiction or an error of fact or an anachronism in an ancient text, I guarantee you with 100% confidence that this “problem” with the text is actually an opportunity to learn more about the culture(s) which produced the text. In other words, if all you do is note the “problem”, then you’ve intentionally chosen ignorance over education. That’s nothing to be especially proud of.

And chances are, if that’s all you care about, you’re then going to use your knowledge of this “problem” to try to attack other people’s beliefs, without yourself doing any work to try to understand the background and comprehend the significance of the contradiction or error or inaccuracy. This is also nothing to be especially proud of.

And if you then go around thinking that you now know something about Biblical literature merely on the basis that you have found a contradiction or error or inaccuracy in the text, this is something very much not to be proud of.

Having “issues” with the Bible is like having “issues” with the code of Hammurabi or ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs or the Tao Te Ching or prehistoric cave paintings. The issues are entirely with you, not with the source material.

So I think what you’re really trying to ask about here are issues with how other people interpret Biblical texts. Which is perfectly fine, because the Bible is certainly among the most widely and profoundly misread and misinterpreted works of literature in the history of the world.

But please be aware, if all you care to do is get up a catalog of inconsistencies, errors, and inaccuracies in the Biblical literature in order to attack Bible literalists, then I’m going to have some issues with how you are using the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
18h ago
“If you see an internal contradiction or an error of fact or an anachronism in an ancient text, I guarantee you with 100% confidence that this “problem” with the text is actually an opportunity to learn more about the culture(s) which produced the text.”

And I can guarantee you, the exercise of admitting no error in the Bible will give you some more of this exercise, both regards non-Biblical ancient texts and regards modern thought.

Thanks for a reminder that not all non-literalists are inimical to Bible, I see a lot of these latter over on internet!

Joey Warren
Senior Software Developer
Answered 16h ago
My #1 would be Greek Transliterals being used instead the direct back translation :

1a The word Jesus. It should have been translated as Joshua.

1b The word Angel. It should have been translated as Messenger.

1c The word Scripture. It should have been translated as Document. Scripture is actually a borrowance from the latin "Scriptura" which Protestants abhor to a degree.

1d The word Faith. It should have been translated as Conviction. Faith is also a borrowance from the latin "Fide"

1e The word Peter. It should have been translated as Rock. Or at least be consistent like the French translation. The word Pierre is used in both places in Matthew 16:18

It in the English should be

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this Peter I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Imagine the Peter succession argument that would never be?

in four comments, i - iu

Allen Crandall
15h ago
It never has been to those who are not swayed by doctrine or history.

Interestingly, for many centuries RC bishops were all co-equal - the “Presiding of Rome” was only symbolic. Many Bishops still think that way, but they allow Rome to play its “public” role. There are 2 Bishops in France that have been Ordaining women & married men for decades.

The only real power Rome has is censure. If you don’t mind being excommunicated….

( Rome hasn’t been foolish enough to make this public by ex-communicating them )

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
You mean that the two bishops in France are “in good standing” with Rome?

Rob Bishop
17h ago
I would add that the word “servant” throughout the Gospels should have been translated “slave”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
Unhistoric. Slave like wealah is ethnonym in clearly post-NT situations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
10m ago
You know, in Northern countries you could have Sten / Steinn as baptismal name, they obviously have St Peter as patron saint.

And in Aramaic the words are clear “thou art Kipha and on this Kipha I will build my” (whatever Church is in Aramaic).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
As for Joshua, for Greek grammar Jesus is more handy. For one, it contains a “sh”, a sound which Greek did not have separate from s, nor did Latin have it.

Rob Bishop
has studied Gospels, Jesus, & early Christianity extensively
Answered 17h ago
Asked: What are your ten (10) biggest issues (e.g., inconsistencies, factually/historically inaccurate, etc.) with the Bible?

  • Jesus: he’s racist, cruel, and narcissistic — Matthew 15:21–28
  • Jesus: he’s unable to reflect on his own errors and shortcomings — Matthew 8:26, 14:31, 15:16, 16:8
  • Jesus: he’s disrespectful of other people’s property, and cruel to animals — Mark 5:13
  • Jesus: he’s aware of the poor only as an abstract concept, and encourages us to fatalistically accept poverty as a given — Matthew 6:1–4, John 12:8
  • Jesus: he’s perfectly ok with brutal slavery — Matthew 24:45–51
  • Jesus: he defends the rich mistreating the poor — Matthew 20:1–16
  • Jesus: he’s ok with torture; arbitrary, cruel-and-unusual punishment for imagined crimes; and lack of due process — Matthew 18:21–35
  • Jesus: he says it’s ok not to wash your hands before you eat — Matthew 15:20
  • Jesus: his head is full of nightmares and gruesome imagery — Matthew 5:27–30, numerous “weeping and gnashing of teeth” stories throughout Matthew and one in Luke
  • Jesus: his priorities are all wrong; he totally loses sight of compassion in everything he says, and he vigorously promotes a crass, bankrupt, punishment-reward morality (everywhere you look in the Gospels)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
10m ago
  • Jesus: he’s racist, cruel, and narcissistic — Matthew 15:21–28

    Narcissistic first : He knows He is able to heal, knowing one's worth is not narcissism.

    Cruel, no, not really, since after very little delay He did heal.

    Racist, that "racism" was a compulsory one in OT. He removed it Himself in Matthew 28, after Resurrection (OT was in force up to Crucifixion).

    If you wonder why racism of a sort was necessary in the OT, it was better for Israelites to be racist and remain pure than to be too tolerant and be corrupted (even if that too happened).

  • Jesus: he’s unable to reflect on his own errors and shortcomings — Matthew 8:26, 14:31, 15:16, 16:8

    As God in the Flesh, He had no errors or shortcomings to reflect on.

    Now, to the passages.

    In 8:26, I wondered what you were talking about. Then it struck me that you were thinking of insufficient security measures. Now, that is missing what kind of training they were under. They were being trained so that later on they could be martyrs without apostasy, and before that many times face martyrdom without flinching. Being afraid of a storm was hardly the best start of such a carreer.

    14:31, similar situation.

    15:16, it happens that a professor overrates his students and is then impatient over a poor result.

    16:8, similar situation, and continuation of passage shows there were two different multiplications of bread and fish.

  • Jesus: he’s disrespectful of other people’s property, and cruel to animals — Mark 5:13

    Cruel to animals is a rich one : the animals sold in there were going to sacrifice, arguably a bit less gentle than being shoved out of the area of immediate danger, even with a whip.

    Property rights over animals and money does not trump God's property rights over the then temple, which He was defending.

    [after looking up what the reference actually was:]

    Oh, you mean the pigs on Gadara?

    Well, in the Holy Land people were not supposed to have pigs under OT rules. Owning them while OT was also externally being fully enforced would have got the proprietor arguably stoned or something.

  • Jesus: he’s aware of the poor only as an abstract concept, and encourages us to fatalistically accept poverty as a given — Matthew 6:1–4, John 12:8

    Matthew 6:1-4 is an excellent measure so that public almsgiving to known and registered poor doesn't become a slave hunt in the name of "taking responsibility" for concrete poor persons.

    John 12:8 says that the cult we owe Christ as God is a higher priority than alms to the poor. He is arguing against Judas "the first Commie" who wants to take glory away from God, pretending this would allow more alms to the poor, and really not caring for the poor himself, but in reality acting as a thief.

  • Jesus: he’s perfectly ok with brutal slavery — Matthew 24:45–51

    Jesus is taking a cue from a servant master situation to examplify THE great servant master situation, the one in which He is the master.

  • Jesus: he defends the rich mistreating the poor — Matthew 20:1–16

    The wage earners certainly are entitled to their wages, and get them. They are not entitled to criticise their paymaster because he gives more than expected to some people they considered as slackers.

  • Jesus: he’s ok with torture; arbitrary, cruel-and-unusual punishment for imagined crimes; and lack of due process — Matthew 18:21–35

    Have you heard about "Hausrecht"? Both in Ancient Rome and in very much more recent Germany, up to Prussian Enlightenment, a master was judge, he was himself the due process, for crimes and offenses by his underlings.

    Christ is not saying this must go on among men doing the biddings of other men, He is telling us what He, as Our Divine Master, intends to do with us, if we don't serve Him by forgiving offenses.

    He is promising either an Indulgence from Purgatory for the act of forgiving an offense received.

  • Jesus: he says it’s ok not to wash your hands before you eat — Matthew 15:20

    Oh definitely! If you want to wash your hands even at picknick, go ahead, but you are not expecting everyone else to be doing so even if they have had a long walk. Carrying water is heavy and water on the resting place is not always available.

    If you find a problem with that, how do you not have a problem yourself?

  • Jesus: his head is full of nightmares and gruesome imagery — Matthew 5:27–30, numerous “weeping and gnashing of teeth” stories throughout Matthew and one in Luke

    Hell is gruesome, and Our Lord is telling us what it is like. No unnecessary embroidery, not 33 cantos with 33 rima terza dedicated to Inferno, to describe that gnashing of teeth in detail, but no cuddling about what awaits unrepentant sinners either.

  • Jesus: his priorities are all wrong; he totally loses sight of compassion in everything he says, and he vigorously promotes a crass, bankrupt, punishment-reward morality (everywhere you look in the Gospels)

    It's the one morality which is not bankrupt. It's the one morality which will give even bad men a motive to become better ones.

Therion Tiberius Ware,
VOD engineer in broadcast TV. (2003-present)
Answered 18h ago
Q:What are you ten (10) biggest issues (i.e. inconsistencies, factually/historically inaccurate, etc.) with the Bible?

There is zero evidence for the exodus, which if as told should have left plenty, not least in the form of coprolites. One might also observe the order of creation, which is just flat wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
18h ago
“which if as told should have left plenty, not least in the form of coprolites”

Preserved to our time?

“One might also observe the order of creation, which is just flat wrong.”

According to another creation story?

“There is zero evidence for the exodus,”

Except in Exodus and Chronicles, by different authors, and in these being taken by Israelites as history, you mean?

Therion Tiberius Ware
18h ago
So show the physical evidence. Which should be trivial to evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
18h ago
No, the physical evidence for most things of the past is gone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
18h ago
The parallel I’ll give is perhaps not totally comparable, but where is the physical evidence for the battle of Trafalgar?

Does it prove Nelson won? Or do we have that from narrative?

Therion Tiberius Ware
18h ago
At least a load of shit. Which is apparent;y the current metier!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
A load of shit in Trafalgar is clearly not proving which side won.

Before you ask a load of shit from walk through desert, reflect on how much of it could have been recycled as fertiliser. And also reflect on caves (including in Britain) where people are supposed to have been living for 10 000s of years and ridiculously little shit to prove that kind of extended occupation.

Charles Jack
16h ago
Stories are not evidence, they are claims. The Bible claimed the Exodus occurred. This would be the largest camping trip in history. 2 million people, 10s of millions of livestock. Consuming 100 million pounds of food and 100 million gallons of water a day, for forty years (to travel less then 400 miles…). And not a trace of evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
Stories taken as factual about one community by that community itself are evidence, not just claims.

Claims are evidence, in situations where making a ridiculous claim going against what is already known is not likely to be believed.

Sure, there are claims which are wrong which a community can believe about itself. But they do not involve shifting known memories to a totally different story.

As to traces, well, most events in history do not lave such. And most traces left are not specific enough without the story. We know history through stories, not through physical evidence, mainly.