With jpholding/tektontv on Inerrancy

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : With jpholding/tektontv on Inerrancy · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I Failed J P Holding's Test - But Let's Look at his Criteria · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Notification to Mike Licona (not answered)

Thread:

Sts Jerome and Ambrose to the rescue of Geisler?

02-02-2017, 03:26 PM #1

02-02-2017, 03:53 PM #2

_________________________

Yesterday, 01:58 PM #3

Yesterday, 02:01 PM #4

Yesterday, 02:03 PM #5

Yesterday, 02:08 PM #6

Yesterday, 02:17 PM #7

hansgeorg

Sts Jerome and Ambrose to the rescue of Geisler?

Geisler's Shootin' Gallery
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxoqKVaFM2k

At 3:34 we see a picture with St Jerome saying "It's symbolic!" [text] and St Ambrose saying "Yep, it sure is!" [text].

So far I see no problem, since all Church Father were looking for symbols or perhaps rather speaking up on already known symbols all over the Bible.

In OT the symbols can be "allegoric", like Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice allegorises Christ carrying the Cross.

In NT the symbols can be "anagogic", like this or that part of Christ's life telling us sth about the future glory.

In OT and NT the symbols may be moral, telling us how we should or should not behave.

And obviously, Christ's miracles are full of symbols for the sacraments he left to the Church.

BUT the wabbit had been saying ..."the Church Father Jerome says, it is not historical, but symbolic".

Where, exactly where (and not just a wiki, please!) does St Jerome actually say it is NOT historical?

Sites like CCEL (?) or Newadvent are trusted for patristic quotes with this guy!

And of course, if you know Latin, take a look here at how Church Fathers explained the Bethsaida miracle of the blind who was healed:

www.corpusthomisticum.org/cmc01.html#85666

I see St Jerome last, giving several hints about symbolism of the matter (notably such as give hints about why priests use spittle when administering baptism, I think right before the actual triple immersion (or triple pouring on head, a non-standard version which is used so often it is standard, but theologically it's an optional replacement for immersion).

But for my part I saw no hint whatsoever of St Jerome saying a single word to the effect "it did not happen".

Of course, perhaps the Library Science might have included Latin and your Latin could be better than mine ...

___________________________________

Three days and JP is not backing up what should have been his fact research?

3:43 saw it as a fitting symbol of washing away of sins in baptism...

Yes, but STILL no direct indication St Ambrose did not see it as historic too.

4:07 If Geisler really believed your stuff about Sts Jerome and Ambrose not taking the healing of the blind as historical, that would be gullible.

BUT the video shows your Geisler ... I'd like to see that from Geisler's own site.

I think Nick Peters was collaborating on the video, how about Apologiaphoenix stepping in, it seems jpholding is somewhat occupied ... or a bit unsure of his Latin, and less sure on where to find the relevant St Jerome passage in Newadvent or CCEL (or whatever the abbreviation might be ...)?

And since I just started hearing about Mark Licona* saying the rising saints were not literal "but apocalyptic", feel free to document that view of Matthew 27 from either St Thomas:

http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/cml26.html

in his own commentary on St Matthew, or the Church Fathers he cites in the Catena Aurea:

http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/cmt26.html

(not same link, one letter different in urls).

* Mike, my bad.

[Last edited by hansgeorg; Yesterday at 02:28 PM.]

Yesterday, 02:23 PM #8

Punkish

It's Mike, not Mark, Licona.

Yesterday, 06:20 PM #9

jpholding

Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

Three days and JP is not backing up what should have been his fact research?

I'm giving a nut the attention he deserves, which is NONE.

Today, 02:38 PM #10

Today, 03:03 PM #11

Today, 03:22 PM #12

hansgeorg

Quote Originally Posted by jpholding View Post

I'm giving a nut the attention he deserves, which is NONE.

Three things:

• 1) You might want to read all of my post which I quote this from:
  
  

  Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

  
  
  Jesus also said that if you call your brother a fool, you are in danger of hellfire, .

  
  
  
• 2) If you actually did answer, you failed to do so. Grammatical mistake at least "I was" et "and will resume that after this clarification". You were not at the moment of writing so.
  
  
• 3) A cheap copout for avoiding a debate, sth which you seem to consider Greider ridiculous for doing ....
  
  In other words, I'll have to give a little move on St Jerome's Latin, I presume ...

Aquinas in Catena Aurea for the passage (labelled chapter 8, lectio 3) cites St Jerome three times.

Hieronymus 1.

Et eduxit eum extra vicum, idest vicinitatem malorum.

And he brought him outside the village, that is outside vicinity of evil men.

Expuit autem in oculos eius, ut videat voluntatem domini per flatum spiritus sancti.

And he spit into his eyes, so he should see the will of the Lord by the blowing of the Holy Spirit.

[Here he certainly is saying the story is symbolic, but if he added it was not what happened, I have so far missed it.]

Impositis autem manibus interrogat eum si videret: quia per opera domini videtur maiestas eius.

And having imposed hands, he asks him if he sees : because by the works of the Lord His majesty is seen.

Hieronymus 2.

Vel videt homines velut arbores, quia omnes homines existimat se superiores.

And he sees men like trees, because he considers all men superior to himself.

Iterum autem manus posuit super oculos eius, ut videret clare omnia;

And again He poses the hands on his eyes, so he should clearly see all;

idest, per opera visibilia intelligeret et quae oculus non vidit,

that is, by visible works should understand also what eye hath not seen,

et clarum animae suae statum post rubiginem peccati, mundi cordis oculo contueretur.

and the clear status/state of his soul after the [rubigo, looking up ... rust] after the rust of sun, behold with the eye of a clean heart.

Misit eum in domum suam, idest in cor suum, ut videret in se quod ante non vidit.

And he sent him into his house, that is into his heart, so that he should see in himself what before he had not seen.

Non enim putat homo desperans de salute omnino posse quod illuminatus facile potest perficere.

For a man despairing of salvation does not consider he can do at all which illumined he easily can bring about.

[Again, a very close symbolic reading of the story, still not a single hint it never happened.]

Hieronymus 3.

Dicit autem ei et si in vicum introieris, nemini dixeris;

And He told him "and if you go back to the village, don't tell anyone"

idest, vicinis caecitatem tuam semper enarra, non virtutem.

that is, tell your village neighbours ever of thy blindness, not the miracle.

Here we see sth which does not make perfect sense if St Jerome had been considering the story as it is historic : or perhaps it does, Christ could have been telling the man he was risking sth if he went back to Bethsaida and witnessed on having been cured.

jpholding, Apologiaphoenix, anything to add?

Where exactly do YOU find St Jerome said "this is not historic"?

jpholding, Nick Peters / Apologiaphoenix, time for you to show you learned something too.

Here is the Latin on St Thomas own comment and on his collection of Patristic comments (previously linked to) where it is discussed of the resurrection of many saints and prophets, an event which Mike (?) Licona wanted to label as "apocalyptic, not historic":

Lectionis 2 excerptum, capitis 27

Supra positum est miraculum, quod factum est circa sacra templi; hic ponit miraculum quod factum est circa elementa. Et ista convenientia inveniuntur primo quantum ad virtutem passionis; secundo quantum ad effectum salutis; tertio quantum ad iudiciariam potestatem, quam Christus patiendo meruit. Convenit quod terra mota est etc., quia non potest praesentiam tantae maiestatis sine tremore sustinere; unde in Ps. CIII, 32: qui respicit terram et facit eam tremere. Et petrae scissae sunt, per quod signatum est quod nulla virtus potest ei resistere; III Reg. XIX, 11: transit dominus subvertens montes, et conterens petras. Et monumenta aperta sunt. Monumenta sunt claustra corporum mortuorum. Unde signatur quod vincula mortis disrumpit; Os. XIII, 14: ero mors tua, o mors, morsus tuus ero, Inferne. Item I Cor. XV, 54: absorpta est mors in victoria. Item convenit quantum ad effectum. Commovetur terra dum quidquid terrenum est abiicitur. Ps. LIX, 4: commovisti terram, et conturbasti eam, sana contritiones eius, quia commota est. Item petrae scinduntur, quando duritia cordium ad compassionem movetur; Ier. c. XXIII, 29: verba mea, scilicet passionis, quasi ignis, et quasi malleus conterens petras. Item quod monumenta aperta sunt, signat quod mortui in peccatis debent resurgere; Eph. c. V, 14: surge qui dormis, et exurge ex mortuis. Item convenit venienti ad iudicium, quia ipso veniente, terra movebitur; Agg. II, 7: adhuc unum modicum est, et ego movebo caelum et terram. Item petrae scinduntur, quia omnis altitudo virorum deprimetur. Item monumenta aperientur, quia mortui venient ad iudicium; Io. V, 28: venit hora in qua omnes, qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem filii Dei. Consequenter tangitur miraculum in hominibus. Et primo tangit resurrectionem; secundo manifestationem. Dicit ergo et multa corpora sanctorum qui dormierant surrexerunt. De illis solet esse quaestio, utrum resurrexerint iterum morituri, vel non morituri. Constat aliquos resurrexisse, ut post morerentur, ut Lazarus. Sed de istis potest dici quod surrexerunt non iterum morituri, quia surrexerunt ad manifestationem resurrectionis Christi. Certum autem est quod Christus resurgens ex mortuis, iam non moritur. Item si surrexissent, non esset eis beneficium exhibitum, sed potius detrimentum; ideo surrexerunt tamquam intraturi cum Christo in caelum. Et exeuntes de monumentis post resurrectionem eius, venerunt in sanctam civitatem. Et notandum quod licet istud dictum sit in morte Christi, tamen intelligendum est per anticipationem esse dictum, quia post resurrectionem actum est; quia Christus primogenitus mortuorum, Apoc. I, 5. Et venerunt in sanctam civitatem, non quod modo esset sancta, sed quia ante fuerat; Is. c. I, 21: quomodo facta est meretrix civitas fidelis, plena iudicii? Vel dicitur sancta, quia sancta ibi tractabantur. Vel, secundum Hieronymum in sanctam civitatem, scilicet caelestem, quia cum Christo venerunt in gloriam. Et apparuerunt multis. Sicut enim Christus potestatem habet se manifestandi quibus vult, sic intelligendum de corporibus glorificatis.

Lectionis 10 excerptum, capitis 27.

Hilarius in Matth.

Movetur terra, quia capax huius mortui esse non poterat; petrae scissae sunt, omnia enim valida et fortia penetrans Dei verbum, et potestas aeternae virtutis irruperat; et monumenta aperta sunt: erant enim mortis claustra reserata. Sequitur et multa corpora sanctorum qui dormierant surrexerunt: illuminans enim mortis tenebras, et Infernorum obscura collustrans, mortis spolia detrahebat.

Chrysostomus in Matth.

Ipso quidem in cruce manente eum irridentes dicebant alios salvos fecit; seipsum non potest salvum facere. Sed quod in se facere noluit, in servorum corporibus, cum multa superabundantia demonstravit. Si enim quatriduanum Lazarum exurgere magnum fuit, multo magis eos repente qui olim dormierant, apparere viventes; quod futurae resurrectionis erat indicium. Ut autem non putaretur esse phantasma quod factum est, Evangelista subiungit et exeuntes de monumentis post resurrectionem eius, venerunt in sanctam civitatem, et apparuerunt multis.

Hieronymus.

Quomodo autem Lazarus mortuus resurrexit, sic et multa corpora sanctorum resurrexerunt, ut dominum ostenderent resurgentem; et tamen cum monumenta aperta sunt, non ante resurrexerunt quam resurgeret dominus, ut esset primogenitus resurrectionis ex mortuis. Sanctam autem civitatem in qua visi sunt resurgentes, aut Ierusalem caelestem intelligamus, aut hanc terrenam, quae ante sancta fuerat: sancta enim appellabatur civitas Ierusalem propter templum et sancta sanctorum, et ob distinctionem aliarum urbium, in quibus idola colebantur. Quando vero dicitur apparuerunt multis, ostenditur non generalis fuisse resurrectio quae omnibus appareret, sed specialis ad plurimos, ut hi viderent qui cernere merebantur.

Remigius.

Quaeret autem aliquis quid de illis factum sit qui resurgente domino surrexerunt. Credendum quippe est quoniam ideo surrexerunt ut testes essent dominicae resurrectionis. Quidam autem dixerunt, quod iterum mortui sunt, et in cinerem conversi, sicut et Lazarus, et ceteri quos dominus resuscitavit. Sed istorum dictis nullo modo est fides accommodanda: quoniam maius illis esset tormentum qui surrexerunt, si iterum mortui essent, quam si non resurgerent. Incunctanter ergo credere debemus quia qui resurgente domino a mortuis resurrexerunt, ascendente eo ad caelos, et ipsi pariter ascenderunt.

Origenes in Matth.

Semper autem haec eadem magna quotidie fiunt: velum enim templi ad relevandum quae intus habentur scinditur sanctis. Terra etiam movetur, idest omnis caro, novo verbo et novis rebus secundum novum testamentum. Petrae autem scinduntur, quae mysterium fuerunt prophetarum, ut in profundis eorum posita spiritualia mysteria videamus. Monumenta autem dicuntur corpora peccatricum animarum, idest mortuarum Deo; cum autem per gratiam Dei animae huiusmodi fuerint suscitatae, corpora eorum, quae prius fuerunt monumenta, fiunt corpora sanctorum, et videntur a seipsis exire, et sequuntur eum qui resurrexit, et in novitate vitae ambulant cum eo: et qui digni sunt habere conversationem in caelis, ingrediuntur in sanctam civitatem per singula tempora, et apparent multis videntibus opera bona ipsorum. Sequitur centurio autem, et qui cum eo erant custodientes Iesum, viso terraemotu et his quae fiebant, timuerunt valde, dicentes: vere filius Dei erat iste.

Returning next day:

Yesterday, 07:34 PM #13

jpholding

Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

Three things:

1) You might want to read all of my post which I quote this from:

I'd rather read The Joker's autobiography. Much saner. Go somewhere and speak in tongues, Hans.

Yesterday, 08:24 PM #14

TheWall

Wait a second. The words used for fool there in the original language translates to unbeliever. The passage refers to the idea of saying that another who may be a rather in faith should not be called an unbeliever. Also important is that the passage says danger of hell fire meaning reparations can be made if the one slandered does believe.

Yesterday, 08:38 PM #15

Cerebrum123

Quote Originally Posted by TheWall View Post

Wait a second. The words used for fool there in the original language translates to unbeliever. The passage refers to the idea of saying that another who may be a rather in faith should not be called an unbeliever. Also important is that the passage says danger of hell fire meaning reparations can be made if the one slandered does believe.

I don't think it translates to unbeliever, but references a passage in Proverbs which speaks about unbelievers.

Today, 12:32 AM #16

thewriteranon

Quote Originally Posted by Count Olaf

Can you name me a language that was spoken by ancient Romans and is still spoken by very irritating people today?

In loca parentheses

Poco de la rentis

Today, 11:24 AM #17

Today, 11:28 AM #18

Today, 11:29 AM #19

Today, 11:31 AM #20

hansgeorg

Quote Originally Posted by jpholding View Post

I'd rather read The Joker's autobiography. Much saner. Go somewhere and speak in tongues, Hans.

I don't have that gift.

My Latin is study knowledge and my Gaelic is so non-extant that after a comparison of Matthew 28:16-20 I am about like saying "an t‑aon deisceabal déag" would be equal to "undecim discipuli" or "the eleven disciples". If I had the gift of tongues, I would be reading the Gaelic bible as a running water, as it is this reminds me that Gaelic has a funny way of expressing eleven with a noun : "the one disciple [and] ten", my studies in Gaelic so far having failed to achieve anything close to fluency.

Quote Originally Posted by TheWall View Post

The words used for fool there in the original language translates to unbeliever.

Matthew in original Aramaic - not extant for us to discuss.

Matthew in relatively original Greek ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ· μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός.

As far as I know, moros means fool, not unbeliever.

Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

I don't think it translates to unbeliever, but references a passage in Proverbs which speaks about unbelievers.

Which passage?

Quote Originally Posted by thewriteranon View Post

In loca parentheses

Poco de la rentis

What language is that? Or what dialect of Latin is that? Not pure Classical, not pure Hispanic ... what does rentis mean?

And why was the message by "count olaf" earlier in the thread deleted?

As far as I recall

thereupon thewriteranon answered "It. Is. A. Joke." and I asked if that guy was related to Lemony Snicket. Someone else had mentioned the reference was to "the fool hath said in his heart" in psalms. I don't recall if I answered, but I can answer here : saying "in one's heart" that "there is no god" is not absolutely the same thing as intellectual atheism, though that is included as one instance : it is living one's life as if there were no God, any case, even those who intellectually believe He does exist.

Ah, let's not rely on

my memory just, when we can have copies from the thread itself:

02-07-2017, 02:33 PM #21

Cerebrum123

Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

Which passage?

Oops, it was Psalms, not Proverbs. Here you go.

Psalm 14:1 [ Folly and Wickedness of Men. ] [ For the choir director. A Psalm of David. ] The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

02-07-2017, 02:33 PM #22

thewriteranon

Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

What language is that? Or what dialect of Latin is that? Not pure Classical, not pure Hispanic ... what does rentis mean?

And why was the message by "count olaf" earlier in the thread deleted?

It's. A. Joke.

02-08-2017, 12:01 PM #23

02-08-2017, 12:01 PM #24

hansgeorg

Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

Oops, it was Psalms, not Proverbs. Here you go.

Psalm 14:1 [ Folly and Wickedness of Men. ] [ For the choir director. A Psalm of David. ] The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

Is it sure that the application of "fool" in Matthew 5 is tied to "fool" in Psalm 13:1?

That psalm in Latin is "dixit insipiens" and the word in Matthew is "fatue".

Also, one can ask whether the psalmist means that all people who actually are fools have said some atheistic thing in their hearts, or whether he means like "he is fool who hath said in his heart" etc.

Note that King David was not saying this TO a particular person whom he considered such (except if reciting third person statement and letting that person take a guess) and therefore King David was not running afoul of Matthew 5.

Quote Originally Posted by thewriteranon View Post

It's. A. Joke.

I don't know that guy ... is he related to Lemony Snicket?

I tried

to post a link to the post, but I am still not being published "until moderated". It can be added I started the thread as "tWebber" and now have statute "Caught in the Matrix".

However, there are other sayings of Geisler (beyond affirmation of literal inerrancy, of inerrancy in literal sense) to which the Church Fathers are not coming to the rescue.

"Geisler" :

Phooey, I say that no method is legitimate if it goes behind or beyond the text to find a meaning.

"tektontv's alter ego:"

Oh good heavens, that's exactly the kind of backwards attitude which got us in this mess.

From:

Geisler 2: The Rise of the Ehrmanator
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emGf9YAsN58

I agree

that that attitude got someone in a mess.

I do not agree

that it is backwards in the sense of being overall conservative or reactionary on a Christian scale.

On the contrary, it was a very progressive attitude with men like Calvin, Bucer, probably even Martin Luther already.

If J. P. Holding really wants to go beyond the text, so be it - if he does so along with the tradition of the Church, as opposed to based on dubious hypotheses on II Corinthians coinciding with the famine predicted by Agabus, or Dinippus service as corresponding to what is now social service provider proving it really affected Corinth (not to mention precisely in time for arrival of St Paul's Epistle).

Other pearl from video

"Ancient Israel was a high context society."

You don't say so!

You'll be telling me water is wet and sea water salt too? Don't shock me by saying obvious truths like that!

The problem with J. P. Holdings general attitude is about its correponding to this scenario:

• Israel was a high context society;
• the early Christians remained so;
• the Jews remain so to this day and can be relied on to provide the original context;
• the Christians didn't remain so, and the Catholic tradition cannot be relied on to provide the original correct context.

With such an attitude on who preserved tradition correctly (and yes, preserving correct original context is precisely what is meant by "tradition"), the logical consequence would be becoming a Jew rather than a non-Catholic Christian.

And, obviously, he is not logical, but instead says "therefore we are free to invent the correct original context as new discoveries".

While Geisler is incorrect, against the Catholic tradition (which has preserved the original context, including since Christ gave a course to his disciples the four meanings of Scripture), it is at least an understandable reaction when confronted with the Modernist one.