Human and Divine : Hagiographers and Popes

First part of this video:

The Bible: Word of God or word of man? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-21)
CMIcreationstation | 10.VII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRQN97WpodE

I

1:59 Fortunately the Catholic Church already made a judgement at Trent that all of the 73 books in the Vulgate are canonic, god-breathed and to be taken as the Church Fathers read them.

Otherwise, she would perhaps have had the authority to make that kind of judgement, as she had to decide what books are in the Bible.

Now, as St Matthew's Gospel cannot any longer be deleted from the canon, the divine authorship of all 73 books can no longer be deleted from dogma.

II

4:10 Actually, the ten commandments have Moses at least for copyist.

For any given part of Genesis except chapter 1, I'd say triple authorship : the man who wrote or dictated the account when it happened, Moses, and above the two God, excluding errors from the original account and from that transmission version Moses chose from. (Chapter 1 was given as a vision to Moses, according to tradition, and 1:28 was displaced from Adam's or Eve's chapter 2 account to Moses' own six days account, own under God, that is).

III

5:47 Each biblical author certainly erred about some fact some time in his life.

If you had asked Moses "what did you eat for breakfast yesterday" excluding the period when the one uniform answer was mannah, on one occasion he would have erred in the answer.

However, God could clearly fix it so that his errors did not coincide with his writing of any book of Moses.

Precisely as Popes are men prone to error and sin like the rest of us, but God can fix it so this never coincides with when they make an infallible decree on dogma (like 1854 Pope Pius IX).

Note, while this ability of God is identical, the use is different in so far as new doctrines could be revealed up to Christ, while, after the last apostle died, no new doctrine can be revealed, only interpretations of already existing doctrine be infallibly expressed in the manner of solemn judgement.

6:07 God has no need to be roughshod to actually effectively protect a Biblical author or a Pope on task expressing error as to what he is supposed to write, in a Bible book, or in a Bull.

6:28 Piano analogy is fairly useful for Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich - God talked to her in her solitude, and not directly for our edification, but for hers, and when she was asked by someone to tell what she had been given, she may have confused some. I particularly suppose this of her view of pre-Babel language. She can have overheard a priest or a doctor (she lay in bed) speaking about Bopp's theories of Indo-European unity.

Now, in Catholic doctrine, not just a papal bull or a bible book, but even a prophetess (charged to speak with others, like St. Bridget of Vadstena) must be, for that purpose "a perfect instrument".

IV

7:46 I'm very allergic to "Divine Accomodation" which Swedish Church clergy (Lutherans) back in the 19th C. pushed on the exorcisms of Our Lord.

They did not blaspheme on Our Lord being wrong due to kenosis pushed that far, one reason why I don't think even Joshua was wrong on what is usually moving each day (cfr his words 10:12), but they did blaspheme His truthfulness, claiming He accomodated by a kind of "white lie".

David Wolf Censored

Cette vidéo a été supprimée, car elle ne respectait pas le règlement de YouTube concernant les contenus incitant à la haine. Découvrez comment lutter contre l'incitation à la haine dans votre pays.
En savoir plus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjI_ZQOv4H4

The title was "Jews Hate the Bible".

I don't think he was asking anyone to bash Jewish noses, I think he was making observations on typical traits of Jewish theology, i e criticising a religion (which is not the true one, and when the true one is criticised, youtube seldom does anything after what I've seen)./HGL

David Wolf on "Paedophilia" (Whatever That Means) - with my Comments

Conservatives Have A Pedophilia Problem
David Wolf | 11.VII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE-LF38RmfI

I

8:19 You might be right about his reading Talmud rather than Bible.

I look up a search in drbo and came up with no verse for both "men" and "boys" nor any relevant with "man" and "boy".

Note very well, he is totally un-Catholic in considering a man who wants a 15 year old boy the equivalent of one who wants a 15 year old girl.

The parents of St Francis of Sales were married when she was 14 and they had been engaged for six years. He was c. 40 or c. 40 years older.

Obviously, since both were above minimal ages 14 for bridgrooms and 12 for brides, the Church had no problem with that.

If he had wanted a boy instead .... oh boy would he have been in trouble with the Church unless protected, and obviously, if he had been a priest he wouldn't have been, he would have been very promptly defrocked.

Epstein sounds like a polygamist. [Edited his name after looking up Jeffrey Epstein]

If Bill Clinton hadn't raised the minimal age of marriage, maybe Epstein would have had a shot gun wedding with one of the girls and left the other ones alone.

As to Prager, if some of the boys he was talking about had been married, they would have been out of harm's way.

Takes two things:

1) applying older Church discipline, saying a 14 year old man can marry
2) having works for 14 year olds who want to marry and not all family wage works needing college degrees first.

Obviously, the men Prager was talking about were hardly all that interested in having those boys out of harm's way.

One reason - if Prager was supposed to be Conservative - why I prefer Fascist or Reactionary to "Conservative". Precisely as I prefer Jacobite over Tory.

Wait .... Prager may have had a real point "you can be just as happy with a 15 year old girl as with a 15 year old boy" ... the Talmudic principle, in essence often enough correct, if there is an illicit pleasure (like a man "being happy" with a 15 year old boy), then there is also a licit pleasure (like a man being happily married to a 15 year old girl).

If ham tastes good, so does beef pastrami or smoked turkey - but applied to sex.

Actually a fairly nice move of him to try to reform the NAMBLA predators ...

I was watching it before somewhat in haste.

Or maybe he wasn't .... after rewatching the clip.

II

9:52 According to Roman Catholic Church law previous to 1917 Code of Canon Law, 15 year olds are OK - provided we talk heterosexual marriage.

It was 14 / 12 and was raised to 16 / 14.

According to Swedish civil law, 15 is a limit under which a person who consents to an older person counts as a special type of crime victim.

A Moroccan immigrant of 24 was married to a girl of 14 (halal marriage without Swedish authorities involved).

She gave birth to their child a few months after fifteen, so the hospital knew she had had sex with her husband before she was 15. Result : he goes to gaol, she to a CPS facility. When she is 18, they leave for Morocco, together.

I was in Sweden when this happened, and as I am pushing for young marriages I obviously made a little tract and copied it over a few times and distributed against this parody of justice.

Sil Vangilbergen

She still needed parental consent. The father could avoid marriage if he didn, t like it. Until the late 20th century the minimum age for marriage in the most if europe was about 15 and 16 years old with parental consent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sil Vangilbergen Parental consent was not in fact a requirement for validity on part of the Church.

Nor in all jurisdictions, like not in Spain.

In Austria (due to Josephinism, no doubt), she could marry at 14 with and at 21 without parental consent.

That said, parental consent is not a bad thing of itself, usually it is mortally sinful to marry without it.

However, on the part of Church and Spain, it was not a requirement for validity.

Italy had 18/18 - imported into Church States from Savoyan dynasty.

It can be added, the Muslim marriage in Sweden definitely had parental consent for the 14 year old bride.

III

10:09 I am somewhat sick of hearing of Peterson.

He's a shrink. OK, not a clinical psychiatrist who keeps people locked up and medicated, but a psychologist, who gives "counselling" ... and he's supposed to be a thing for Conservatives?

I looked up his "12 points" and found 5 of them correct.

He's for forcing people's children out of homeschooling and into schools with many pupils, essentially public schools.

He's for "Christian values" and, like Putin, he's evasive (though more explicitly so) about whether he believes Christian dogma to be truth. Jordan Peterson, not my cup of tea.

12:48 In this clip, Jordan Peterson is giving advice on not publically discussing delicate subjects.

I'm fine with your saying "what the hell 'delicate subject' - that is sick!"

Which with same sex relations it is. Insofar as mortal sin is a disease mortal for your eternal soul.

The point that sticks out to me is, he is for hushing topics up in deference to public opinion. F*k truth and honesty, basically, here I am predicting what happens to you if you are honest.

Or kind of not, since he is into discussing things publically on a video with this .... shall we say NAMBLA poster boy?

Let's give Milo the credit for being honest, and admitting pederasty is a function of gay life.

In other words, Sodom stinks.

IV

13:59 "[Peterson changed my life, now I] get up early and my my room or whatever ..."

Chesterton is the opposite.

He definitely glorifies staying in bed (there is an essay in German translation called "Über das im Bett Liegenbleiben" - read in a collection "Ballspiel mit Ideen").

And he does NOT try to normalise either Sodom or Carthage.

15:35 He probably was - Peterson, not Chesterton - talking about lab experiments on rats and only making the point it would work the same way with human groups.

V

16:12 You have a problem with them saying 16 is a correct age for consent?

One could have a problem with agreeing any age correct for consenting to sodomy, one could have a principle consent for sodomy is way higher than consent for natural sex - but you seem to think 16 is a bit too low for any consent? Including matrimonial such?

Well, then you are going with modern legislation in UK and Israel ... not with traditional Catholic Christendom.

So, my point is, if there is a problem, rather 16 is too high, when it comes to heterosexual relations (especially matrimonial).

VI

17:14 Hey, wait, do you share Jordan Peterson's aversion to homeschooling?

Are you a Commie or a Jew? Meaning, not Jewish heritage Christian, but Talmudist, or sth?

School compulsion was introduced by Joshua Ben Gamla (Ben Gamaliel?) who was a successor of the God killers Hannas and Kaiaphas!

Our Lord was, in Egypt and in Nazareth, at least part time, a homeschooler, due to being on the move!

17:26 OK, 34 women claim to have been sexually harrassed by Bill Gothard - how does that make homeschooling bad or Duggars bad? Not in any way, shape or form, obviously!

You are engaging in guilt by association, or was I overconnecting your ramble?

18:20 It so happens, the Josh Duggar situation came when he was 14 - 15. Old enough to marry according to older Church law.

Not in practise old enough to marry in present day US.

Need I repeat the ban on young marriages is putting young people in harm's way?

At least Josh Duggar was not getting to the kind of party Milo was talking about!

VII

19:42 Sympathise with unborn and migrants.

Sounds fine with me. But you might for BOTH reasons want to revise your views on these things.

Unborns are killed because their ma's and pa's are supposed to be too young to marry.

Migrants used to be ill viewed because of some Anglo Saxon Protestants, often White, saying "those Hispanics/Arabs/etc marry off their daughters way too early."

Mainly Linguistics, on Quora

I

Given that Indo-European languages and the Asiatic languages are so distinctively different, could modern humanity have split up while they were still preverbal?
https://www.quora.com/Given-that-Indo-European-languages-and-the-Asiatic-languages-are-so-distinctively-different-could-modern-humanity-have-split-up-while-they-were-still-preverbal/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist Answered Fri

Other possibility : Tower of Babel.

II

What are the linguistic differences between Old Norse and Proto-Norse, and how is a word from one of the languages converted to its equivalent?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-linguistic-differences-between-Old-Norse-and-Proto-Norse-and-how-is-a-word-from-one-of-the-languages-converted-to-its-equivalent/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist Answered Fri

Old Norse is to Proto Norse about as Old French is to Latin : c. 1000 years younger.

Proto-Norse
Ek hlewagastiz holtingaz horna tawido

Old Norse / Old Icelandic
ég Hlégest Hölting horn-it gérthi

Change of word choice from tawido to gérthi, adding a final article to horn-it (modern Icelandic horn-ith) all other words (and basic word of horn) are the same, so you can study what 1000 years of language change did.

III

Given that the rate of language change varies greatly over time, is it possible that we have grossly under- or over-estimated the age of commonly accepted proto-languages?
https://www.quora.com/Given-that-the-rate-of-language-change-varies-greatly-over-time-is-it-possible-that-we-have-grossly-under-or-over-estimated-the-age-of-commonly-accepted-proto-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist Answered Fri

Answer requested by Tim McCravy and Lamar Werner

This is indeed possible, but another possibility is, some proto-languages never existed and some groups are Sprachbund groups, like Balkanic (common features being areal).

This is what I think about Indo-European.

IV

Do any non-Indo-European languages have words for "crazy, insane" that trace to the Moon, like the Latin and French words that led to English words like "lunatic, lunacy"?
https://www.quora.com/Do-any-non-Indo-European-languages-have-words-for-crazy-insane-that-trace-to-the-Moon-like-the-Latin-and-French-words-that-led-to-English-words-like-lunatic-lunacy/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist Answered Fri

Answer requested by David Minger

I do not know, but for cultures involving classical astrology such a development of sense is not improbable.

So, Sumerian, Akkadian, and even now Tamil arguably could, but I do not know if they did or do.

V

Since the Indo-European chief god was Dyeus Pater, then how come by the time of the Mycenaeans his Greek counterpart was replaced by Poseidon only for him to return by the classical era? Is it just a coincidence?
https://www.quora.com/Since-the-Indo-European-chief-god-was-Dyeus-Pater-then-how-come-by-the-time-of-the-Mycenaeans-his-Greek-counterpart-was-replaced-by-Poseidon-only-for-him-to-return-by-the-classical-era-Is-it-just-a-coincidence/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl Answered 16h ago

As far as I know, for one thing, Proto-Indo-European unity is a tenuous hypothesis in linguistics and a much less tenable than that one in comparative mythology.

For another, Greeks had contacts with Crete (before Crete became Greek) and with Philistines who came from Greek.

The chief god of the Philistines was Dagon.

The Mycenaean form of “Poseidon” was “Potei Daon” - so the Mycenaeans were worshipping the Philistine chief god.

VI

When the Franks first started their migration into Roman territory, they spoke a Germanic language. At what point did they adopt Latin as their main language? At what point in Latin turn into French?
https://www.quora.com/When-the-Franks-first-started-their-migration-into-Roman-territory-they-spoke-a-Germanic-language-At-what-point-did-they-adopt-Latin-as-their-main-language-At-what-point-in-Latin-turn-into-French/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl, knows Latin Answered 16h ago

Answer requested by Tony Puckett

Franks still speak Germanic languages in Trier, which was Roman Empire, and in BeNeLux which was so too.

The guys who had Latin as their main language were the conquered Gallo-Romans.

In areas with many conquerors and few conquered, they stuck to Germanic, and in areas with many conquered and few conquerors they stuck to Latin.

EDIT : forgot what point sub question, thing is, Provençal and French started out as Latin with changed pronunciation, and with a higher register full of Latin words and forms no longer found in Provençal and French, then Latin changed pronunciation for international ecclesiastic comprehension (Alcuin of York came to Tours in 800 or 799) and just after, as the people did not understand the new pronunciation, a sermon was added after gospel in 813 which needed to explain the gospel in the local vernacular. As a result, priests had to think of how to express things without Latinisms (or too many) and also came to prepare sermons in new spelling rules applied to old pronunciation = > new written language.

VII

What are some good resources for understanding morphology in Linguistics?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-resources-for-understanding-morphology-in-Linguistics/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl, amateur linguist Answered 16h ago

Answer requested by Alexandria Wasgatt

Shall I assume you are a native English speaker?

In that case, the best resource for understanding morphology as a general concept is a morphology of English.

You know English has 16 tenses, right?

Any finite verb can be present or past (2* …) which qualification is removed to the main auxiliary, and these further add potentials for distinguishing between non-future and future (2*2* …), non-perfect and perfect (2*2*2* …) and simple and progressive (2*2*2*2=16).

Furthermore the finite verb in present or past (auxiliary or main verb without auxiliaries) has persons (this is where “finite” as in “definite” or “defined” comes in : they are defined as to who is “doer” or “undergoer” etc). 1, 2, 3 sg, 1+2+3 pl.

In the case of 3 person, it is congruent with the singular or plural of the subject.

This a good start for understanding some linguistic concepts of morphology, like morphology is sometimes assymetric (3 different forms in singular, a single form for them in plural), a form depends on another form in congruence, and certain forms answer more questions than just one.

“When you come home, I shall have been writing for 2 or 3 hours and I shall have written 3 to 4 chapters.”

I shall have been writing = 1 sg present future perfect progressive
I shall have written = 1 sg present future perfect (simple).

The difference is, for English these questions about “write” are answered each by itself, in some languages they would narrow down to 2 or 3 morphemes.

European Royalty, Not Too Inbred (Quora)

Why did European royal houses intermarry?
Hans-Georg Lundahl Answered just now
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-European-royal-houses-intermarry/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Depending on century, but the main principle was:

• chosing a spouse on par in dignity (a royal could marry a total non-royal, but in that case the marriage was usually morganatic, at least in later centuries, that is, a juridical arrangement was made that the offspring could not inherit public functions like being in line to the throne);
• which one was often a question of diplomacy.

Next, the actual outcome was not very inbred as long as both Germany and Italy had very many different principalities, so that there were still very many royal or princely houses to chose from.

Holy Roman Empire was c. 400 states up to Napoleonic wars (1806) and Italy comprised several states as well up to Risorgimento (1870). The Gonzagas of Mantua are ancestry both to Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI. And let's not forget other small princely places which got centralised, the latter also descends from the Polish szlachta, in the Rzeczpospolica kingship was elective and in principle any person in the szlachta could be elected, and Louis XVI was Polish on two different lines, the paternal grandmother being daughter of Stanislas Leszczynski and the maternal grandfather being August III, son of the Frederick August II whom Charles XII replaced with Stanislas Leszczynski. But the Rzeczpospolica ended in 1795.

Lotharingia, Burgundy, Brittany were once more independent of France than later and the line from Mantua goes over Lotharingia.

With the ending of lots of independent states in 1795, 1806, 1870, as well as when Richelieu and Louis XIV centralised France, the situation changed and one would eventually have had inbreeding if it had continued for centuries. It didn't.

David Wolf gives Ben Shapiro an Excellent Lesson

Response To Ben Shapiro: Jesus Was A Revolutionary Against The Jewish Elites
David Wolf | 1.VII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vivarQNCIM

Great video, some quibbles and addenda:

I

Roman Emperors were psychopaths? You can say that again, for some, but especially the guys between beginning of Tiberius' reign and end of Domitians.

Roman records of contemporary events peter out with Velleius Paterculus in 16th year of Tiberius saying things like "Tiberius was great, Tiberius' chosing Seianus was great, Tiberius had challenges but dealt with them in a great way, and, by the way, did I mention, Tiberius was great?" Last paragraph of the work illustrates what Our Lord meant in Matthew 6:7. Velleius was making a speech to the gods.

Then they begin again (apart from Gospellers and Josephus) when Tacitus says "back under Domitian and those guys, we didn't dare speak well of anyone except the Caesars, and now it's time to catch up, starting with my pa in law Agricola." The guy who really - under Claudius, perhaps the one Emperor that interval who wasn't what moderns like to call psychopaths - conquered Britain.

II

Speaking of entering the temple - He did so twice, first just at beginning of His public ministry, then once again in Holy Week.

III

"to the evening" - in Mark He leaves the city in the evening

In Matthew, also referring to the second cleansing, between driving out and leaving, he also healed people and had cries of Hosanna from the poor.

IV

"the Protestants don't burn incence"

High Church Anglicans and Lutherans do (that was my immediate background before converting by the way).

I was already converting when I stressed "pure offering" to a High Church Lutheran, and he admitted Malachi 1:11 is a hard one for Lutherans to explain.

Bc, while burning incence, they deny the Holy Mass is a sacrifice.

Some Prefer Taking on Flat Earth over Geocentrism

Who Started the Flat Earth Conspiracy Theory, How Many Believe This, and What Do They Believe?
Today I Found Out | 30.VI.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4l9Y5OHqpk

I

4:33 The Islamic world also concurred?

Where is the reference?

4:37 Jeffrey Burton Russell speaks of "Western Civilisation" and while Islam stretched into Westernmost Sahara, it's based in Middle East.

Arguably, Russell could have thought of Islamic Civilisation as "Oriental" as opposed to Western.

Other Oriental civilisation, which might also not be covered by Russell : Judaism as it was back then.

II

19:57 "to disprove pretty much everything on their website"

What modicum of effort disproves their Geocentrism?

Btw, what is the thing after The Principle (film feat. Lawrence Krauss et aL supposedly without their approval, which Rick DeLano disproved) mentioning Geocentric arguments chiefly in connection to Flat Earth Society or even to ask anyone who admits to Geocentrism "so you are a Flat Earther"?

Is there, for instance, some kind of conspiracy among psychologists about "monkey brain"?

III, Update

Forgot to comment on this one:

While his ideas were absurd for an incredible number of reasons, even given the technology and scientific knowledge of his era, what Rowbatham had going for him was he was reportedly incredibly quick on his feet in debates and an extremely charismatic speaker, able to twist the words of even the best academics. It didn’t matter if he was actually right or not, only that he was better at convincing laypeople than the academics he regularly debated, or at least good at creating reasonable doubt. As noted by a contemporary article published in the Leeds Times,

One thing he did demonstrate was that scientific dabblers unused to platform advocacy are unable to cope with a man, a charlatan if you will (but clever and thoroughly up in his theory), thoroughly alive to the weakness of his opponents.

Could it be, that Rowbatham actually got some points for free while discovering that opponents in academia had no good reasons for Heliocentrism? Plus were as willing as he, at least, to conflate geo vs helio with flat vs round?

And could it be, Daven Hiskey by "twist the words" of someone (especially someone as august as "the best academics") could be referring to turning the ideas around and looking at them from another angle they hadn't foreseen?