Quora Consulted on Matthew 6:7 Early Translations of βαττο-λογέω

Own Q

In Matthew 6:7, the Greek word is battologein, a hapax, and the Latin word is "multum loqui". What is the Syriac translation, and what does it mean in English?
https://www.quora.com/In-Matthew-6-7-the-Greek-word-is-battologein-a-hapax-and-the-Latin-word-is-multum-loqui-What-is-the-Syriac-translation-and-what-does-it-mean-in-English

Answer 1

the one answer now directly shown, since "answer 2" had already been collapsed ...

Chad Turner

PhD in Latin and Greek

Answered 18h ago

According to this

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon : βαττο-λογέω
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dbattologe%2Fw

it means to stammer or say the same thing over and over again. I’m not sure how one goes from that to multum loqui (“speak a lot” vel sim.) in Latin.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10m ago

It is a hapax, or a duax.

I’d love to check the context in the one other ancient context // Simp. in Epict.p.91D. // - do you know what work it is?

Someone “in Epictetum”?

Battein, we know from many places it means simply stammer. And someone who stammers does not say the same thing over and over again, but pronounce the same syllable or specifically consonant over and over again. Which has more to do with nervousness than with repetitive insistance.

The translation offered by Liddell / Scott alternative to stammer is perhaps conditioned by their view of Matthew 6:7 which did not take other ancient translations but more like King James into account.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4m ago

Trying to check, I find Salmasius in Epictetum et Simplicium … but I do not find the actual word “battologein” (given as reference by Liddell / Scott) on page 91.

Cl. Salmasii Notae et animadversiones in Epictetum et simplicium
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1518954s/f197.image

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Ah, it would be page 91 of an edition of Simplicius: On Epictetus by

Simplicius of Cilicia - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplicius_of_Cilicia

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

This makes Vulgate and Syriac translations older and better references to the Greek usage in Matthew 6:7 than Simplicius is, c. 490 – c. 560.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

I would like to add sth which clinches the correctness of “speak a lot”

And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.

Douay Rheims, from Vulgate. The point is, “as the heathens”.

We know from St. Luke that Christ started preaching in the 16th year of Tiberius and we do have a heathen prayer at the very end of Velleius Paterculus, which Roman History earlier on mentions Tiberius as having ruled for 16 years.

The Greek would mean sth like “speak as nervously as someone stammering” and one way of doing that is speaking a lot - trying to express the exact same sentiment in different words, hoping one of the gods at least shall be able to relate to one of the wordings at least. That’s the hope of a nervous person who in a comic book might be lampooned as stammering.

Answer 2

hidden, while it is in fact a more informative one:

Michael Abernathy

former Minister (1974-2005)

Answered 20h ago

The word in Syriac is mppqyn. It means stammer.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19h ago

Thank you - like Greek battein, then?

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19h ago

Just a curiosity - your answer seems to have been collapsed as “needing improvement” while to me it seems perfectly adequate.

Do you think there is an autmatic thing because it was short, or do you think some Protestant of a certain type would have wanted it to mean “repeat”?

Michael Abernathy

Original Author

16h ago

I have no clue.

[1 upvote from Hans-Georg Lundahl/from me]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

52m ago

That said, I forgot to ask Coptic, do you know that one too?

Updated:

Michael Abernathy

Original Author

20h ago

Sorry, I never got around to learning Coptic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

OK, thank you anyway!

On Harry Potter, Commenting under the Video of a Fan of Rowling

Can I Read/Watch Harry Potter as a Christian? - My Catholic Perspective
Ali-Marie Ingram | 13.II.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtxTfU9MqMo

I

1:40 Well, you have not made a compact with any demon.

Now, look at the Biblical and Patristic fact that sorcery actually is (in some places and times more than others) for real, as I found out while reading or skimming the book I of Life of Moses by St. Gregory of Nyssa.

I just made a post about it:

Creation vs. Evolution : Does Magic Work (Sometimes), and Was Gregory of Nyssa Uninterested in Factual Accounts?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/02/does-magic-work-sometimes-and-was.html

II

2:19 JKR has now gone over to Calvinist, Kirk of Scotland.

219 propositions condemned by Bishop Tempier in Paris and England (that is all English bishops retroactively agreed with bishop Tempier) arguably condemns the denial of freewill as conclusion of God's omnipotence, would have to check (certainly condemns the denial of freewill overall).

III

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7:33 Actually, "expelliarmus" is very much not real Latin.

Ali-Marie Ingram

Expelliarmus – Rowling herself took a liberty with this one, by combining the Latin words of expello meaning “I drive away, banish” with arma meaning “weapons”. This disarming charm makes the victim's wand fly out of reach.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ali-Marie Ingram I think that is not the only one where she took a liberty.

Btw, I found one real Latin : tergeo.

Ali-Marie Ingram

Hans-Georg Lundahl Just because it’s a real Latin word doesn’t make it a spell. That was the entire point of me bringing it up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ali-Marie Ingram If you recall my op, it is, the point you made presupposed she was usually or often using real Latin.

Expelliarmus, accio vs tergeo, excrucio ... 2:2

And as a Latinist, I am both very aware that Latin is not a language automatically spelling (!) out spells, and the difference between fake and real Latin.

Now I am going to bring up the behaviour of the good guys in a new comment, I skimmed through parts of Half Blood prince yesterday, and can comment on some things on a scene by scene level.

IV

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I haven't read them, but I wonder if I should, and wonder a bit if the stories of Ron, Harry and Hermione aren't a very mistreated triangle story, unfortunately very realistic in modern school settings ...

Shurland James

If you’re unsure, I’d suggest reading the first book and see how you like it 🙂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shurland James In the first book, they are all three pretty much pre-teens?

So the problem doesn't really arise.

Shurland James

Hans-Georg Lundahl nor does it ever arise really...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shurland James Come on, Ron and Harry both in love with Hermione, all three stay friends for years without her really deciding finally (for Ron) until very late on.

As said, this kind of situation is tragically realistic, but it is still bad.

That's why I'd like to know a bit more of how it is portrayed.

Confer Aragorn with Eowyn and Arwen, Eowyn very rapidly tells Aragorn she loves him, Aragorn very rapidly tells her, he's engaged to Arwen. End of story.

V

8:11 Space travel in sci fi is very much fantasy, thank you.

Voyager 1 and 2 are about 40 years in space and are not yet one light day up.

VI

I read parts of the Half Blood prince yesterday. NOT a question of reading the book or of getting a good grip on the action. Simply skimming though and looking at single scenes. I didn't take Prisoner of Azkaban or Chamber of Secrets, also in the library, since at least one of them Harry, Ron and Hermione are still children. I also didn't get any scene featuring all three of them in this second to last, but at least they are all adolescents or young adults. I'll add comments under this one for each specific.

a)

Fudge and the Prime Minister.

• 1) I don't like the idea of a world of secrecy "appearing" only to a PM or a President ... a bit like the idea of Illuminati secretly running the world, and being very discrete. "My predecessor" (back-translating and from memory, not quoting from original) "didn't tell me" - "Well, would you tell anyone, including your successor?"
  
  Ministry of Magic is supposed to be the "good guys" ...?
  
  
• 2) This could be meant as satire, but the idea that steel and concrete were just fine and didn't really rust or crack, it just happened because of magic, is a bit cynical. A bridge collapsed in Italy last year or the year before, and it was because the concrete and steel were meant to be replaced after a few decades, but everyone had forgotten. We should face the fact that much modern infrastructure is indeed fragile and if neglected a safety hazard.
  
  
• 3) And, someone pointed this out about the social ethics in Tolkien, but it is heavier here : such and such a threat to lives of Mugglers is roaming around, only Ministry of Magic can really help. In Tolkien, Dúnedain do a lot of helping decent folks by killing orcs and such outside their sight, but at least this secrecy is not the only weapon against them, see the Scouring of the Shire.

b)

In the home of Dursley's : Dumbledore makes a scene calling them cruel against Dudley.

Sure, dysfunctional relations exist, but here we have Dumbledore making a point of prolonging it in order to provide magically for Harry's safety.

And making a scene to make a point in psychology strikes me as heavily bad manners, obviously the cruelty they had done to Dudley would have been unconscious or subconscious and they would not have normal conscious responsibility for it, so why the blame?

Because shrinks like to blame people for their subconscious.

c)

Dumbledore, Slughorn and Harry : Slughorn mentions he "n'aime pas" such and such a female teacher, which may be understandable, but thereon Harry starts giggling or laughing, and has to explain he doesn't like or love her either.

[Was it Dolores Umbridge in English original?]

I mean, how repressive can that school have been if he didn't feel he could express it before "an adult" had done so? Remember, he is about one year from "of age".

d)

Just checked, yes, Ginny is both Ron's sister and eventually Harry's bride.

Fair enough as a solution to a very overloaded triangle, two young men are rivals about a young lady, man A has a sister and that sister draws man B away from the common love interest.

B U T ... we have her speaking about the time when she was annoyed at one ... Zachary Smith ... and she put a spell on him, and was afraid she would be punished for it, but the teacher approved of her tactics (and comradeship to the "crétin") and invited her for tea instead.

AND we have Ginny and Ron quarrelling over, well, Ron is kind of slut shaming her, without daring to be explicit, a magical event confirms Ginny's mindreading, and Ginny responds by virgin-shaming Ron.

Overall, part of what I had already suspected in advance is, there is a lot of virgin shaming against Ron.

Let's take Ginny's response to the "crétin" ... compare Sam Gamgee's to Bill Ferney. A very openly thrown unripe apple.

Some guys think manipulative low key and indirect violence is preferrable over open physical violence. Such guys get confirmation from this kind of thing.

Let's recall a Father Brown story by Chesterton, in which Fr Brown SJ points out that stealing golden fish is just as much stealing if done by spiritual means as it is if done by physical means. Or Aslan's words to Lucy, eavesdropping by magic is the same as any other eavesdropping.

Could one generalise : being mean by magic or supernatural or otherwise spiritual means is still being mean? I think so.

Here that teacher was telling Ginny it was OK to be mean, if she did it that skilfully.

conclusion

So, I think even apart from magic, one may have reasons to not read these books.

Social Credit Canada Does NOT Mean Social Credit Score Red China

The weird "Social Credit" movement
15.II.2020 | J.J. McCullough
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKQdpKDrHRE

I

debate

mr ms paint

Real SoCred hasn't been tried yet.

Dracopol

LOL! Rather than "experiment" with society, let's see what individuals can do with the hands of their government off them...yeah, great!

Matthew Furlani

"Weird"
More like terrifying and dystopian jj.... lmao

James Watson

Yeah, yeah, just like every political idea.

William Scott

James Watson r/whooosh

Call Me Jahta

One word China

Korewa Krusader

Yes, literally correct.

Adam Smith

LOL Douglasism sounds alot like many socialist nations: banks are evil, let's have the government set up price controls, and let's give everyone free money for doing nothing

Hans-Georg Lundahl

​@Adam Smith "many socialist nations: banks are evil,"

Some other nations came to that conclusion as well.

"let's have the government set up price controls,"

Diocletian's Maximum Decree was appreciated after he was gone by CHristians who didn't like other aspects of his reign.

"and let's give everyone free money for doing nothing"

Exactly WHAT socialist country ever did that?

Henry C

This whole thing reminds of Technocracy Inc. which existed around the same time in the US. It advocated the establishment of a board of scientific and industrial leaders to guide the country out of the depression. It wanted to establish a 4-hour work day as well and a system that used energy as money.

Needless to say, they had even less success then Social Credit and it died an unceremonious death.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Henry C "It advocated the establishment of a board of scientific and industrial leaders"

What I know of the Social Credit movement so far is very different from that, so, I'd really like to see the video with headphones (as yet no subtitles and have no headphones here) and see what J. J. McCullough has to add to the picture, if anything.

I may add, what I knew previous to seeing the video was basically its journalism, Louis Even and Michael Journal.

Joakim von Anka

I had only an admittedly cursory look at SoC, but I came under the distinct impression it was mostly a lack of understanding the logic behind Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

// let's see what individuals can do with the hands of their government off them...yeah, great!//

I do not think that Clever Plan should be tried again. Better to shoot anyone who even thinks about that too loud.

The last person who suggested that to me IRL turned out to have several convictions for DUI.

Letting such persons do as they please - as opposed to making damn sure they do nothing they are not ORDERED to do - does not sound as very sensible.

agustin20091

It is applied right know in Argentina. The fixed prices are called "precios cuidados" and they get controlled in supermarkets. The government has to authorize any increase of prices in utilities or fuel also

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@agustin20091 Viva Perón!

@Joakim von Anka "The last person who suggested that to me IRL turned out to have several convictions for DUI."

Driving Under Influence?

You suggest people who have that should "do nothing they are not ORDERED to do" - did I get that correct?

Lifelong slavery for offenses that should just imply loss of drivers' licence?

I don't think letting people like you do as you please with other people is a very sensible plan.

Also, taking "the last person who suggested that to" you "IRL" as opposed to all others who did so beore in real life or before or after on the web would imply some heavy pushing of the anecdotic in a very biassed way.

You did the check-up about his DUI convictions how precisely?

Joakim von Anka

@Hans-Georg Lundahl It rather soiunds like you have some kind of problem with the concept of unconditional compliance with Rules and Regulations. Which leads us to the inferment that you canot be relied upon to follow rules PERFECTLY, does it not? Which leads us to the supposition that you are a clear and present danger to the health and safety, does it not?

By DUI, one wilfully and knowingly endangers others. Explain to me how a POS who does so even deserve to continue living.

Do you duty, demand your right.

Obviously, that means ZERO rights for those who do not do their duty.

//Lifelong slavery for offenses t//
Slavery implies the ownership of one human by another. Where precisely did I argue for that?

//You suggest people who have that should "do nothing they are not ORDERED to do" - did I get that correct?//

That seems like a rather sensible precaution since they have been proven to be incapable of following rules of their own volition.

Do you actually think Rulebreakers even deserve to continue draw oxygen? I don't.

//lso, taking "the last person who suggested that to" you "IRL" as opposed to all others who did so beore in real life or before or after on the web would imply some heavy pushing of the anecdotic in a very biassed way.//

Seriously, what is the last time you found anyone who raised ojections to unconditional obedience to Authority who turned out to be study of Perfect Compliance in his personal life?

This is especially so with anglosaxons: you know that if one of those brings up freedom or liberty, he is up to no good. They usually back up this claim to freedom or liberty by referring to a document we all know to be based on a contemptible and evil LIE.

Another curious buzzword here is ''bias'. ( i do not hear Macron or Dumbrovskis using that term a lot, you know )

That smells of having right wing extremist views. Do you actually think that cam be permitted to exst after Hanau? They who hold those views are terrorists and/or terrorist-supporters.

The world will be a better place ater the last libertarian and the last republican and similar ilk has been sent to burn in Hell.

//Social Credit System in the PRC.//

Which would have been a great idea - if only the leaders of that country were upstanding people...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Joakim von Anka "It rather soiunds like you have some kind of problem with the concept of unconditional compliance with Rules and Regulations."

For one, a condition is, it is a valid rule. Not driving while under influence is.

For another, a condition is, it is applicable. In an empty road with only a drunk driver and no obstacles where he would endanger people, but on the other hand an emergency of starvation, it would definitely be not be applicable.

I take it, your acquaintance did not have this kind of excuse.

I very definitely think, he should not have a driver's licence. This said, he should not be your slave either. You just expressed the opinion he should do only what ordered, for the rest of his life. That's slavery.

As far as I know, he has killed or wounded no one while driving while under influence. He has just broken a law which should not have been broken, and for which a reasonable punishment is:

• a) losing the driver's licence (if as much);
• b) + a fine or a few months of prison.

There is a vast disproportion between a few months and a lifetime.

"Which leads us to the inferment that you canot be relied upon to follow rules PERFECTLY, does it not?"

Cannot. Or can't. Canot* is the type of boat of which a kayak is an example.

I don't know exactly what group you are considering as "us" I do not consider it has any legal standing to take any decisions about me.

"Which leads us to the supposition that you are a clear and present danger to the health and safety, does it not?"

• a) every rule in the world is not about safety;
• b) and I don't have a driver's licence, plus I am not often even tipsy.

Why did you infer I was kind of a parallel case to your acquaintance?

"By DUI, one wilfully and knowingly endangers others. Explain to me how a POS who does so even deserve to continue living."

Because the legal punishment is not death penalty. Nulla poena sine lege.

You were the one asking for unconditional compliance with rules, why don't you show some around the penal code?

There are other things to be said why he doesn't deserve either death penalty or lifelong submission to slavery. But this one should at least suffice to YOU.

"Do you duty, demand your right."

One sometimes has to demand one's rights (including residual rights after a penalty incurred) to be able to do one's duty. Some rights are not conditioned on the duties you are thinking of in this case.

"Obviously, that means ZERO rights for those who do not do their duty."

Your hideous ideology may mean that, but you could not live by that. You don't do your duty of respecting other people's (in the case of the DUI offender and some others : residual) liberties.

"Slavery implies the ownership of one human by another. Where precisely did I argue for that?"

I cite your previous words:

"making damn sure they do nothing they are not ORDERED to do"
= someone or something else, as opposed to they themselves would then be owning them.

"That seems like a rather sensible precaution since they have been proven to be incapable of following rules of their own volition."

Penal slavery is the idea behind prison. Now, prison is limited.** If a DUI offender has served his term, he may not have a right to get a driver's licence again, but he certainly has a right to otherwise be a free man again.

"Do you actually think Rulebreakers even deserve to continue draw oxygen? I don't."

That very much depends on what rule they have broken. Wilful killing of an innocent life? If a doctor aborts or a drug addict shoots during a hold up and kills, either of them can hang, as far as I am concerned.

Just taking a remotely somewhat stupid risk? Gimmie a break!

"Seriously, what is the last time you found anyone who raised ojections to unconditional obedience to Authority who turned out to be study of Perfect Compliance in his personal life?"

I'll suppose "ojections" are "objections".

Perfect compliance - unconditionally - is not a reasonable requirement of anyone. It's what evil Empires like Hittites and Assyrians were asking for. It's the essence of totalitarianism.

"They usually back up this claim to freedom or liberty by referring to a document we all know to be based on a contemptible and evil LIE."

If you mean Magna Charta, it so happens personal liberties in Christendom have a far deeper and older root : Christ.

"That smells of having right wing extremist views. Do you actually think that cam be permitted to exst after Hanau? They who hold those views are terrorists and/or terrorist-supporters."

You cannot conflate Dollfuss and Schuschnigg with Hitler, and you cannot conflate me with the Hanau shooter. I do not support him.

The first line of defense against getting a replacement of populations is getting back to a Catholic family morality, not complaining that Muslims have such a thing too.

"Which would have been a great idea - if only the leaders of that country were upstanding people..."

I kind of got it that you preferred People's Republic of China over Major Douglas.

Which kind of argues why someone was - your screen name screams "banker" or "bank sympathiser" to anyone knowing Swedish, it's Uncle Scrooge - compared bankers to the minions of Antichrist. Or considered them his forerunners.

II

Actually, Bernie Sanders had a point : "if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist".

In other words a bank should not be able to survive on bail outs from government each time it screws up.

You know a song which was popular in the eighties or nineties in Sweden?

Jag vet vad jag gör
Jag är inte bankdirektör

A man enhancing his declaration of love or his proposal with the reassuring "I know what I do, I'm not a bank director" - and there is a history behind it, after the yuppies had failed.

III

6:12 Would you consider there is a parallel between Manning turning away from Douglasism and Franco turning away from Corporativism and Autonomism to what is known as Tecnocracía?

In a way there is a difference, since, it partly depended on what guys got elected for parliament in Spain, Cortes as they are called, and who he could form government with, there were two legal parties, "his own" Falange and the Carlists, and the Falange was always in majority, but from say 1960 to 1975 when he died Spain was fairly Capitalist, with some Gaullist style "Dirigisme" - government investments in infra structure (I dislike dams for electricity which flooded villages that had to be evacuated) ...

By the way - what you say about Bill Bennett of BC is largely true of Franco in Spain : introducing lots of modernisation and infra-structure.

Could Franco have had an English side? Well, for one he was from Galicia which sees lots of sailors, but for another, his military carreer started under Alfonso XIII - whose Queen was of the English royal house. Looking up : Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg.

IIII

10:21 When are you coming to my favourite, Louis Even!

He is actually somewhat unknown in English, to judge from the much shorter and actually not quite correct wikipedian article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Even

"was a lay Christian leader"

Not quite what the French article says ...

"il entre chez les Frères de l'instruction chrétienne en 1896. Dévoué à l'étude, ses parents lui avaient appris la spiritualité de Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort. Il se démarque comme l'un des meilleurs sujets des frères.

"En 1907, deux années après le passage de la loi Combes, les communautés religieuses françaises sont obligées de cesser leurs activités : plusieurs choisissent de s'exiler au Canada. Even fait partie de ceux qui partent vers l'Amérique. D'abord professeur dans le Montana, près des montagnes Rocheuses, il arrive au Canada le 24 juin 1906."

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Even

So, he was at least as much a religious as the guys who enter the Missionaries of Charity of Mother Theresa, and he was exiled from France for that particular reason.

As to the economic theories, and these discrediting Douglasism (I got the pun now, ten minutes later if not more!) I wonder if they would stand up to scrutiny on Even's "Island of the Shipwrecked".

L'Île des naufragés
Par Louis Even le mardi, 15 septembre 1936. Dans Crédit Social
http://www.versdemain.org/articles/credit-social/item/l-ile-des-naufrages

Ah, the English title is "The Money Myth Exploded"

The Money Myth Exploded
Written by Louis Even on Sunday, 01 January 1939. Posted in Social Credit
https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/item/the-money-myth-exploded

Here is Alain Pilote exposing same theory in more sober*** terms:

Banks create money as a debt
Written by Alain Pilote on Tuesday, 01 November 2016. Posted in Economic Democracy (book)
https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/item/banks-create-money-as-a-debt

* Actually, the word is canoe in English.

** Not for all offenses, but most.

*** I was tired when writing this, otherwise I would not have used "more sober" about "more literal". Fantasy and fable, taken as such, are not drunkenness!

Population control isn't the answer - agreed so far

Where I don't agree with the video is when it blames agrarianism, ecologism and Greta Thunberg for being naturally or necessarily complicit with Malthusianism.

Population Control Isn't the Answer to Climate Change. Capitalism Is.
23.I.2020 | ReasonTV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xkXjj6dalM

I

12:53 Bad maths.

The people who go back to the land do not need more land, they need the need for more arms.

Remember, humanity's numbers will not increase beyond what the soil at each moment (yes, I heard of creative solutions, I agree there can be a lot of them) can carry, but tractors have in parts of Africa destroyed the soil and they add nothing to the productivity per acre, they only add productivity per farming population, meaning that they contribute to drive farmers out of their land.

I am sure they have legitimate uses in some climates, low population density, somewhat far between arable fields, but over lots of the lands, what they do is make farmers superfluous, not save soil.

I am not sure forbidding tractors straight off is the right thing, but I am sure it would not mean a need for more land, it would mean a need for more people on the land.

And your idea of a majority on the land leading to cutting down of all forests, well, that's just saying "businessmen can take responsibility, farmers can't". On top of it, I am not sure how bad it would be. On top of that, farmers would still need some degree of forestation.

II

13:11 The guy even gets wrong where Greta Thunberg lives. She is Swedish, not from Copenhagen.

But there is a perfidy in basically blaming her for complicity with Malthusians when so far that word has not come out of her mouth.

"And I would like to have future for everyone else on the planet"

Apart from Earth not being a planet, but the immobile centre of the universe, so would I and so would for all we know Greta Thunberg.

I appreciate any degree of zeal against Paul Ehrlich, as long as it is directed against Paul Ehrlich, but how about not laying his words in her mouth?

Mehrgarh - After Babel (quora)

Q

Why did Neolithic people choose Mehgrah to settle?
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Neolithic-people-choose-Mehgrah-to-settle/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 41m ago

FRom wiki:

Mehrgarh (Balochi: Mehrgaŕh; Urdu: مہرگڑھ‎) is a Neolithic site (dated c. 7000 BCE to c. 2500/2000 BCE), which lies on the Kacchi Plain of Balochistan, Pakistan.

Mehrgarh - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh

Now, let’s look at the dates in my carbon tables, these dates are mainly carbon dates, and so this should translate to some other dates when we go this far back:

2.1 Mehrgarh Period I (7000 BCE-5500 BCE)
2.2 Mehrgarh Period II (5500 BCE–4800 BCE) and Period III (4800 BCE–3500 BCE)
2.3 Mehrgarh Periods IV, V and VI (3500 BCE-3000 BCE)
2.4 Mehrgarh Period VII (2600 BCE-2000 BCE)

7000 BC = close to 2405 BC

carbon level 57.849 pmc, hence carbon date 6955 BC

5500 BC = 2249 BC

carbon level 67.347 pmc, hence carbon date 5499 BC

4800 BC = little after 2170 BC

carbon level 72.031 pmc, hence carbon date 4870 BC

3500 BC = Genesis 14, 1935 BC (high estimate)

carbon level "85.811 pmc", "hence carbon date" 3200 BC

My table has 3200 BC for that what should be 3500, so carbon level should be somewhat lower.

2600 corresponds pretty well to Joseph in Egypt, 1700 ("1745") BC, and 2000 would be before Moses was born in a 1590 BC dated to 1713 BC or sth.

Table for St Jerome as per Preliminary Conclusion
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/table-for-st-jerome-as-per-preliminary.html

Now, why is this relevant?

Babel ends in 2562 BC and Mehrgarh gets inhabitants in 2405 BC.

2562 BC
2405 BC
=157

So, the reason would be, men are expanding from Babel and looking for new land to cultivate in the process.

Hope this helps!

Time to Give Charles S a Separate Post

Ghosts · Bible and Fantasy (quora) · CMI is Bad on Church History · Responding to Keith Nester's Mars / Venus Video, First Half with Time to Give Charles S a Separate Post

Continuing the debate from Responding to Keith Nester's Mars / Venus Video, First Half under point VIII.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ** No, I didn't. Puritans started out as a more Edwardian than Jacobean branch of Anglicans, so, they too had it from the Catholic Church.

They start in Netherlandish towns with many denominations, i e Catholics and several Protestant ones. At 1600 at the earliest.

This means they too had it from the Catholic Church. **

Always taking undeserved credit. Catholicism wasn't around until the 4th century, and they weren't a bunch of Catholics regardless of what you try to claim. I guess we'll just forget all about the Waldensian's, and Albigenses around the 1100's.. Since the Catholics had pretty much wiped them out because they were "Heretics".. Because that's how you love your enemies, by slaughtering millions and torturing them in the most horrible ways with those who don't conform under your self proclaimed authority such as the Inquisitions.. Love they neighbor right?

** He could have chosen another means, possibly, but didn't. And my point is, the means He chose was up to Anglicans and Puritans the Catholic Church.**

God can use the wicked for his purpose. He used Pharaoh in such a way.. God's running the show. Not us.

(Rom 9:17) For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
(Rom 9:18) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
(Rom 9:19) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
(Rom 9:20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
(Rom 9:21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(Rom 9:22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
(Rom 9:23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

** When it comes to initial justification, I am saved without works done, but when it comes to my final salvation at death (if at all salvation) according to works done by grace from justification on. **

So in other words.. It's YOU who control your salvation. Not Jesus. There's only one salvation, you are either saved or not, or are there more?

** Except it doesn't. **

I know it doesn't for you, because you don't believe the Bible. You believe your church.

** I agree a newly baptised child who dies within a year is not obliged to works in the usual sense.

Apart from that, you do not have the phrase from the Bible, you have it from men who had the Bible from the Catholic Church. **

You keeps saying no works. I just quoted Romans 4:5, but then you contradict yourself saying it requires works? That's because your church is works based.

** The passive voice is used to avoid speaking of who actually did it. Who debunked them and how?

Criterium not bad if proven, but some have also "debunked" the historic accuracy of the the Gospels. So, not everyone "debunking" is worth listening to.**

Search for the truth. You'll find it, if you are indeed searching for it. Seek and ye shall find.

** Meaning He, God in the flesh, actually was in a temple.

St. Stephen is speaking of the Old Temple, which had fulfilled its role as a symbol.

St. Paul is speaking of pagan imaginations of statues working as sth like a portal. **

In the Old Testament yes to fulfill the Law. Last one was destroyed. How else would you be able to know who the Messiah was? No more temples made with hands (Apparently that's not clear enough for you). Man made temples, are not sufficient to the Lord. Only our faith is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S I'll be brief this time and bring things to my essential point.

"Catholicism wasn't around until the 4th century, and they weren't a bunch of Catholics regardless of what you try to claim."

That's still quite earlier than 15th 16th C.

"I guess we'll just forget all about the Waldensian's, and Albigenses around the 1100's"

They didn't do much Bible transmitting. Especially not Albigenses who denied the OT (except psalms) and added a Book of Two Principles.

They were not around for Luther, not around for Calvin, not around for Cranmer (and it is doubtful he was very fond of Lollards).

Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, all of them had Bibles from the Catholic Church (those handwritten in the 4th C were not available to them) and knew it to be the word of God through the Catholic Church.

Credit or not, if you scrap Catholicism, you don't give them a credible line over which to know this of the Bible. That's not undeserved, that's the fact.

And justification by "faith alone" was probably a very welcome distraction from this, to you.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ** That's still quite earlier than 15th 16th C **

Still not earlier than the earlier church... Where do you think the Catholics got the original text from? Not to mention I'm sure early Catholics weren't the only ones making copies.

** They didn't do much Bible transmitting. Especially not Albigenses who denied the OT (except psalms) and added a Book of Two Principles.

They were not around for Luther, not around for Calvin, not around for Cranmer (and it is doubtful he was very fond of Lollards).

Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, all of them had Bibles from the Catholic Church (those handwritten in the 4th C were not available to them) and knew it to be the word of God through the Catholic Church. **

What does that have to do with murdering and torturing millions? Don't your popes claim infallibility on all things spiritual?

From your church: Catechism

To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

Just a couple of many examples of the arrogance of these proclamations.

So let me ask you... Was it Biblical to murder the other groups who believed different than the Catholic Church? Was it moral according to the NT? If not, then I guess the Papacy is fallible, and these decree's are just another lie you've been taught.

** Credit or not, if you scrap Catholicism, you don't give them a credible line over which to know this of the Bible. That's not undeserved, that's the fact. **

That's not a fact, as it wasn't just early Catholics making copies of the NT...

** And justification by "faith alone" was probably a very welcome distraction from this, to you.**

That's in the Bible.. It's just hard for you to accept. You've been taught something for so long, it HAS to be true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S "Still not earlier than the earlier church..."

Admitted as factual, but irrelevant.

Luther did not pick up a papyrus Gospel from Egypt or Holy Land. If he had, how would he have known that he should not also take Gospel of Thomas from Nag Hammadi, or where it was?

He had the Bible from the Catholic Church exactly as you have it from America.

"Where do you think the Catholics got the original text from? Not to mention I'm sure early Catholics weren't the only ones making copies."

How many Bible manuscripts do you find attributed to Albigensians or Waldensians? Oh, btw, one NT with a very bad extra book (perhaps psalms too, but also Book of Two Principles) is attributed to Albigensians. But that is not what you meant.

"What does that have to do with murdering and torturing millions? Don't your popes claim infallibility on all things spiritual?"

• 1) Murdering millions you get from where? Nag Hammadi scrolls?
• 2) On all definite judgements, not on all personal actions.
• 3) Even so, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer had the Bible from the Church of these Popes. If they could not trust these Popes, why should they trust the Bible?

"To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals."

You could have stated which Catechism, but it is correct. This means I can trust 73 books as not just historically accurate, but inerrant word of God, as stated by Trent.

Now, where did LUTHER hear the Bible was inerrant? Not from Hussites. Not from Waldensians. Not from Lollards. From Catholics. If he trusted them on that, why not on the rest? If he made reservations on the rest, why not on that too?

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421"

Even if it is from a wrong Catechism by the Vatican II sect, it is not divergent from previous to 1950 verifiable Catholic doctrine. Now, your turn :

• 1) show that any Pope ever said "it is right for the Church to kill millions"
• 2) if so, ask how Luther, Calvin and Cranmer could ever know from such Popes that the Bible is inerrant.

"Just a couple of many examples of the arrogance of these proclamations."

An "arrogance" which exactly matches Christ's promises to His Church.

"So let me ask you... Was it Biblical to murder the other groups who believed different than the Catholic Church?"

• 1) What group was killed as in "murdered"?
• 2) Show where Christ tells men, judges, to not oppose heresy by punishments?
• 3) If you can show this immoral (like "millions claim" from your historic novel Trail of Blood or theological claim heretics cannot Biblically be punished), how could Luther, Calvin, Cranmer have been right to trust the Church that told them the Bible was the word of God? Because that is exacly what they trusted, like you trust the Bible lore floating around in "America".

"Was it moral according to the NT?"

• 1) As we limit ourselves to executing heretics, St. Thomas argues it was moral and foreseen : "who falls on the stone shall be crushed, whom the stone falls on, he shall be shattered" meaning Christ foresees two way persecution, and Church / Himself being victorious on both games.
• 2) Supposing you take the opposite view, that it was not moral, how could Luther have been right in trusting the Church that made such a blunder, when he trusted it on Bible being word of God?

"If not, then I guess the Papacy is fallible, and these decree's are just another lie you've been taught."

At least, I have not been taught any decree to murder millions. But with a fallible papacy, and getting the Bible from it, what was infallible about Luther's rationale to believe the Bible infallible?

"That's not a fact, as it wasn't just early Catholics making copies of the NT..."

Making precisely Catholics THE line by which Reformers got the Bible.

"That's in the Bible.. It's just hard for you to accept. You've been taught something for so long, it HAS to be true."

Justification by grace, not from works, but unto works is in your own quote from Ephesians 2, and final salvation at hour of death from fidelity to the works we were given grace for is in Matthew 25, since the judgement of the soul at death and the judgement of soul and body at Resurrection do not differ.

And no, you do not know my biography like I historically know those of Luther and Calvin. You are guessing about me, I don't have to guess about them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[added]

@Charles S One more:

"In the Old Testament yes to fulfill the Law. Last one was destroyed. How else would you be able to know who the Messiah was? No more temples made with hands (Apparently that's not clear enough for you). Man made temples, are not sufficient to the Lord. Only our faith is."

In fact, the last temple was destroyed and built up agains on the third day. It's still around in the Eucharist.

That is in our Faith.

And yet one more:

"God can use the wicked for his purpose. He used Pharaoh in such a way.. God's running the show. Not us."

It was NOT Pharao who spoke to Moses i[n] the burning bush!

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ** Luther did not pick up a papyrus Gospel from Egypt or Holy Land. If he had, how would he have known that he should not also take Gospel of Thomas from Nag Hammadi, or where it was? **

Because if you know Gods Word, you'll know if it's from God. Is one of the Books of Enoch from God? Of course not. They aren't hard to spot.

** He had the Bible from the Catholic Church exactly as you have it from America. **

Not quite, the KJV uses the Majority Text. You use the Latin Vulgate. There are some differences in the text. Some minor, some not so minor.

** How many Bible manuscripts do you find attributed to Albigensians or Waldensians? Oh, btw, one NT with a very bad extra book (perhaps psalms too, but also Book of Two Principles) is attributed to Albigensians. But that is not what you meant. **

I didn't say anything about their teachings. Apostate or not. My point was they weren't on board with the Catholic Church, so they "Had to pay" for it.

** 1) Murdering millions you get from where? Nag Hammadi scrolls?
2) On all definite judgments, not on all personal actions.
3) Even so, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer had the Bible from the Church of these Popes. If they could not trust these Popes, why should they trust the Bible? **

No.. That's from History including the Inquisitions, etc..

** 1) What group was killed as in "murdered"?
2) Show where Christ tells men, judges, to not oppose heresy by punishments?
3) If you can show this immoral (like "millions claim" from your historic novel Trail of Blood or theological claim heretics cannot Biblically be punished), how could Luther, Calvin, Cranmer have been right to trust the Church that told them the Bible was the word of God? Because that is exacly what they trusted, like you trust the Bible lore floating around in "America". **

If I didn't know better. I would say you are trying to justify murder? I hope not...
On question 2.. You CAN'T be serious?

(Luk 6:27) “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
(Luk 6:28) bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
(Luk 6:29) To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.

(Gal 1:8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
(Gal 1:9) As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

(Mat 13:30) Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

(Mat 5:45) That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Please tell me WHERE in the NT it says to kill people for unbelief or even bad doctrine?

** Luther, Calvin, Cranmer have been right to trust the Church that told them the Bible was the word of God? Because that is exacly what they trusted, like you trust the Bible lore floating around in "America". **

You guys and Luther. Ha.... My goodness.. That must be your boogeyman.

** 1) As we limit ourselves to executing heretics, St. Thomas argues it was moral and foreseen : "who falls on the stone shall be crushed, whom the stone falls on, he shall be shattered" meaning Christ foresees two way persecution, and Church / Himself being victorious on both games.
2) Supposing you take the opposite view, that it was not moral, how could Luther have been right in trusting the Church that made such a blunder, when he trusted it on Bible being word of God? **

Amazing, you don't even see your own heresy..... That's why this church is still dangerous. What's changed? Why aren't you still murdering people like the old days?

** At least, I have not been taught any decree to murder millions. But with a fallible papacy, and getting the Bible from it, what was infallible about Luther's rationale to believe the Bible infallible? **

Again.. Luther the boogeyman..... It wasn't Luther bro, it was God calling his people out of the Apostate churches. I know you don't believe God can preserve his Word. I can assure you it's not a problem for him.

** At least, I have not been taught any decree to murder millions. But with a fallible papacy, and getting the Bible from it, what was infallible about Luther's rationale to believe the Bible infallible? **

That's called "Double speak".. You just all but justified it in a previous question, then wrote you weren't taught that...

** Making precisely Catholics THE line by which Reformers got the Bible. **

They did make many copies.. But they were making copies 200 years prior to that..

** Justification by grace, not from works, but unto works is in your own quote from Ephesians 2, and final salvation at hour of death from fidelity to the works we were given grace for is in Matthew 25, since the judgement of the soul at death and the judgement of soul and body at Resurrection do not differ. **

Sooooo.. God will save you then un-save you? You are either saved or not... The "Catch" for lack of a better term is, you won't know it till you die...

(2Ti 4:7) I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
(2Ti 4:8) Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

(Mat 22:14) For many are called, but few are chosen.

Jesus isn't interested in your works.. He searches the heart.. Intent if you will... Some, many think they can pull the wool over Gods eyes.. Which is crazy.. If we aren't genuine about our love for Jesus, he WILL know and we're on the road to destruction.

(Jer 17:9) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
(Jer 17:10) I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

Some will be saved that none would think would be, and some will not be saved because we always thought they were "Super" Christians as it were.

** Justification by grace, not from works, but unto works is in your own quote from Ephesians 2, and final salvation at hour of death from fidelity to the works we were given grace for is in Matthew 25, since the judgement of the soul at death and the judgement of soul and body at Resurrection do not differ. **

Your salvation isn't by works at all.. You're reward in heaven has something to do with your works.. But not your salvation.. Hence Romans 4:5... Again.. Intent bro... I didn't claim to know you. But I know the church you follow is NOT God's church... Doesn't mean there aren't people who won't be saved in your church. I'm sure there are some in your church that love God and will be saved. But it's going down fast. Your current Pope is "OK" with homosexuality, and anyone can get into heaven by "Doing Good".. No man is good. No not one.. Those are lies from the pit of hell.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl We who have faith are ALL temples of the Living God.

(1Co 3:16) Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
(1Co 3:17) If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Because if you know Gods Word, you'll know if it's from God. Is one of the Books of Enoch from God? Of course not. They aren't hard to spot."

I am sorry, but you shilly shally around the fact Luther would NOT have known even ABOUT the word of God, much less known it (while Catholic) in any degree, if he hadn't had it from Catholicism.

"Not quite, the KJV uses the Majority Text. You use the Latin Vulgate. There are some differences in the text. Some minor, some not so minor."

Luther never had _any_ KJV. He had both Vulgate and the texts in Greek for New Testament from Catholics (Erasmus, who _remained_ a Catholic, had made an edition of the Greek NT).

But the point is, Luther believed the words "the Bible is the word of God" or "die Bibel ist das Wort Gottes" before he started out with his own translation (which is not the KJV!). Where did he have this from? Catholics. And before you bring up Pharao, it was not Pharao who told Moses what God to trust!

"I didn't say anything about their teachings. Apostate or not. My point was they weren't on board with the Catholic Church, so they "Had to pay" for it."

You first brought them up as a potential of having transmitted the Bible. My point is, they weren't.

"No.. That's from History including the Inquisitions, etc.."

Murdering millions is not History. It's Fake History.

You didn't answer my point three, here it is again : 3) Even so, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer had the Bible from the Church of these Popes. If they could not trust these Popes, why should they trust the Bible? **

"If I didn't know better. I would say you are trying to justify murder? I hope not..."

I do not consider righteous execution for severe crimes as murder.

"On question 2.. You CAN'T be serious?"

I am.

Luke 6 speaks about the personal behaviour of individual Christians, not about the behaviour of Christian magistrates, see Romans 13.

Your point about Galatians is irrelevant unless you first answer my question.

(Mat 13:30) - is about the behaviour of angels in relation to good and evil men, not about the behaviour of Christian magistrates.

(Mat 5:45) - is about Christians in positions out of power, so, again not about Christian magistrates.

"Please tell me WHERE in the NT it says to kill people for unbelief or even bad doctrine?"

It also doesn't say one should kill people for murder or stealing. Unless you take the admission of the good thief on the cross as an endorsement, but he might instead have meant he and the other thief deserved death and suffering as God's punishment, rather than meaning they deserved death penalty from human justice, if one takes your view.

Romans 13 however says: *For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.* [4] *For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.* [5] *Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.*

This is only perfectly true with Christian magistrates.

"You guys and Luther. Ha.... My goodness.. That must be your boogeyman."

I enumerated a few others as also behind the Reformation. The problem still stands, since Non-Denominational is a byproduct of the Reformation. One group of Denominations is Apostolic (with five subgroups, Catholic to Nestorian with three shades in between), one group of Denominations is Protestant. You don't need to belong to a Denomination like Lutherans in order to belong to this second group. It is sufficient that you do believe as the things Protestant Denominations have in common - and if you are non-Denominational believing that, you are in fact one micro-Denomination of one man, but of _that_ group. NOW, it so happens, you actually mentioned America and its knowledge of the Bible, that is partly from Catholics, but in 13 Colonies even more from Anglicans with Puritans as a subgroup of Anglicans. That is why Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, where they got the Bible from, is where America got the Bible from.

"Amazing, you don't even see your own heresy..... That's why this church is still dangerous. What's changed? Why aren't you still murdering people like the old days?

I don't agree it is a heresy. I don't agree it is about murder. I don't support lynching of criminals the civil law will not punish.

As to your question, I answered part of it in the last sentence. I don't support killing heretics in a country where heresy is legal anymore than I support stoning sodomites in a country where sodomy is legal.

The other question is, should death penalty for heresy be brought back, and I have already answered, for the present situation, NO.

I answered that back in 2013:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : I do not agree with religious liberty in all cases for all religions
https://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/07/i-do-not-agree-with-religious-liberty.html

"Again.. Luther the boogeyman..... It wasn't Luther bro, it was God calling his people out of the Apostate churches."

How? A voice from Heaven, like in Apocalypse 11? No.

Again, the question is not if Luther was right or wrong, good or evil. Since you are US American, and since the 13 colonies got their Bible knowledge from Anglicans, including Puritans, as well as Catholics, the question is where did the Anglican Reformers (both the actual Anglican and the two honorary ones) get their Bible from? Not where the Bible originated, where THEY actually got it? Catholic CHurch.

"I know you don't believe God can preserve his Word. I can assure you it's not a problem for him."

The question is not WHETHER God CAN, but rather HOW God DID, in a credible way.

"That's called "Double speak".. You just all but justified it in a previous question, then wrote you weren't taught that..."

I never ever justified murdering millions, as that was NOT what the Inquisition was doing, and here, as that was NOT how the Inquisition had been decided doctrinally either.

"They did make many copies.. But they were making copies 200 years prior to that.."

If you mean 200 years prior to the Reformation, those making these copies then were Catholics too. If you mean 200 years prior to when you imagine the Catholic Church started, that is NOT anything the Reformers could access.

"Sooooo.. God will save you then un-save you? You are either saved or not... The "Catch" for lack of a better term is, you won't know it till you die..."

Yes, God will justify someone and then allow them to dis-justify and un-save themselves.

Your quote of St. Paul confirms that St. Paul (writing this close to death, no doubt) knew (a little in advance) he would be one of those who hadn't un-saved themselves.

"Jesus isn't interested in your works.. He searches the heart.. Intent if you will..."

I already said "works" is understood about how one does them. In a state of grace. Which informs the will and its intentions.

"Some, many think they can pull the wool over Gods eyes.. Which is crazy.. If we aren't genuine about our love for Jesus, he WILL know and we're on the road to destruction."

Oh definitely. We believe that too.

The quote from Jeremiah actually says that God is finally judging us based on works - namely works as God sees them when watching our heart.

No Catholic believes he can fool God as he could fool men.

"Some will be saved that none would think would be, and some will not be saved because we always thought they were "Super" Christians as it were."

We agree on this one. In fact, we have a Bible text for it. Stabunt iusti, read at the Commune martyrum (masses said at martyr's feasts that do not have a very specific other Epistle text for just that martyr or for someone who was sth other more important beside). It is Wisdom 5:1-5

Douay Rheims : Wisdom, Chapter 5
http://drbo.org/chapter/25005.htm

You can study the confuted people (either damned or in Purgatory) stating how surprised they were at the final salvation (judgement) of those actually saved and going directly to Heaven.

"Your salvation isn't by works at all.. You're reward in heaven has something to do with your works.. But not your salvation.. Hence Romans 4:5..."

As I look again at this challenge.

*But to him that worketh not,*

That is, to the Christian who has fallen into sin.

*yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly,*

Meaning, hopes to get absolution.

*his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God.*

He gets absolution on condition of his faith.

"Again.. Intent bro... I didn't claim to know you. But I know the church you follow is NOT God's church... Doesn't mean there aren't people who won't be saved in your church. I'm sure there are some in your church that love God and will be saved. But it's going down fast."

When we Catholics speak of works, we do always include intent. We never mean external work only.

"Your current Pope is "OK" with homosexuality, and anyone can get into heaven by "Doing Good".."

Bergoglio is not my current Pope, Pope Michael is.

"No man is good. No not one.. Those are lies from the pit of hell."

Have I said I believed Bergoglio? A Pope is infallible. Logic.

Option A: Bergoglio is Pope, therefore we must believe what he says.

Option B: we cannot believe Bergoglio, therefore he cannot be Pope.

I take option B.

"We who have faith are ALL temples of the Living God."

Christ's Body is God's third temple in and of itself, we who partake of it in Communion are it by participation - as Christ is Rock in and of Himself, Peter by participation.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm going to re-word that for you...

** I am sorry, but you shilly shally around the fact Luther would NOT have known even ABOUT the word of God, much less known it (while Catholic) in any degree, if it hadn't been for God. **

** Luther never had any KJV. He had both Vulgate and the texts in Greek for New Testament from Catholics (Erasmus, who remained a Catholic, had made an edition of the Greek NT).

** But the point is, Luther believed the words "the Bible is the word of God" or "die Bibel ist das Wort Gottes" before he started out with his own translation (which is not the KJV!). Where did he have this from? Catholics. And before you bring up Pharao, it was not Pharao who told Moses what God to trust! **

Bro. Let me explain something to you... I would have come to the same conclusion in the Bible whether Luther or Calvin existed. I know you keep taking credit for the Bible. I'm not saying Catholics didn't have a part in it.... God can use anyone to spread his Word.. Catholic or non...

** You first brought them up as a potential of having transmitted the Bible. My point is, they weren't. **

No that wasn't my point at all. My point was your Church slaughtered them for being heretics. Maybe they were. Don't care. You don't kill and torture people for it.

** I don't agree it is a heresy. I don't agree it is about murder. I don't support lynching of criminals the civil law will not punish.

As to your question, I answered part of it in the last sentence. I don't support killing heretics in a country where heresy is legal anymore than I support stoning sodomites in a country where sodomy is legal.

The other question is, should death penalty for heresy be brought back, and I have already answered, for the present situation, NO.

I answered that back in 2013:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : I do not agree with religious liberty in all cases for all religions
https://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/07/i-do-not-agree-with-religious-liberty.html

Don't know how you'd ever come to that conclusion that it was ever stated in the NT.. Which of course it isn't. That was your church taking matters into their own hands. You still haven't learned. Men will ultimately fail you. God will not.

** The question is not WHETHER God CAN, but rather HOW God DID, in a credible way. **

Who cares how he did it. I know it was the RIGHT way...

** We agree on this one. In fact, we have a Bible text for it. Stabunt iusti, read at the Commune martyrum (masses said at martyr's feasts that do not have a very specific other Epistle text for just that martyr or for someone who was sth other more important beside). It is Wisdom 5:1-5

Douay Rheims : Wisdom, Chapter 5
http://drbo.org/chapter/25005.htm

You can study the confuted people (either damned or in Purgatory) stating how surprised they were at the final salvation (judgement) of those actually saved and going directly to Heaven. ***

How about that.. I figured that out without the extra text you used.... There is no seconds chances. We have one shot at it.. It's now or never, heaven or hell... Nothing in the Bible indicates anything even remotely close to a purgatory, or second chances. It says just the opposite..

(Heb 9:27) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

** I already said "works" is understood about how one does them. In a state of grace. Which informs the will and its intentions. **

If you don't do your traditions such as Eucharist, confession, etc.. Will you make it to heaven?

** Oh definitely. We believe that too. **

You mean YOU believe that. I'm glad you understand that. Many don't. You shouldn't speak for others however. Plenty don't believe that way, Catholic or otherwise.

** As I look again at this challenge.

But to him that worketh not,

That is, to the Christian who has fallen into sin.

yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly,

Meaning, hopes to get absolution.

his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God.

He gets absolution on condition of his faith. **

Read it again bro...

** But to him that worketh not,

Says nothing about sin here. You know as well as I do that no practicing sinner is going to make it to heaven..

** yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly,

Not sure how you came to this. I think you're reading into it, or maybe just "Over thinking" it. Who can justify the ungodly? Only Jesus...

** his faith is counted for righteousness.

His faith alone is counted as righteousness. No works.

[my emphasis]

Just off the top of my head I can think of a situation where someone is Paraplegic. Can't move. In pain, can't walk, but they could read a Bible.. Is the Lord going to tell him no you aren't allowed into my kingdom, even though I know you couldn't really do anything? Of course not. There are situations that you really couldn't do much. Maybe you are sickly? You get the idea. :)

** When we Catholics speak of works, we do always include intent. We never mean external work only. **

That's spiritually wise as no one is going to fool the Lord. Though believe it or not some will attempt it..

** Bergoglio is not my current Pope, Pope Michael is. **

** Have I said I believed Bergoglio? A Pope is infallible. Logic.

Option A: Bergoglio is Pope, therefore we must believe what he says.

Option B: we cannot believe Bergoglio, therefore he cannot be Pope.

I take option B.

Didn't know... Glad you stayed away from him. He's lost his mind.

** "We who have faith are ALL temples of the Living God." **

Jesus is the Corner stone, the head of the corner. We are the other stones that makes up the temple. Peter is another stone. He's not a rock as pertaining to Jesus. You build a foundation on Bedrock which is Jesus Christ, that holds up the rest of us.

So much for making it short.. ha ha.. ;)

I appreciate the civil dialog though. Some people can get real nasty (Which is not sharing the truth in Love as the Lord commanded). I'm speaking of all denominations when I say that. Keeps me sharp...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S "Bro. Let me explain something to you... I would have come to the same conclusion in the Bible whether Luther or Calvin existed."

Same conclusion from digging the texts up in Nag Hammadi?

You have it from America. Many parts had it from Catholics only (French and Spanish colonies). Thirteen colonies had it from Catholics (Maryland and Pennsylvania), Anglicans, Puritans (who started out as a party among Anglicans) and, to some degree, Quakers and non-Conformists (including Catholics) in Pennsylvania.

All of these can be traced back to ... Catholics.

"I know you keep taking credit for the Bible. I'm not saying Catholics didn't have a part in it.... God can use anyone to spread his Word.. Catholic or non..."

In some ways yes, but there is a snag to this.

Matthew 28:20. Or verses 16-20. Now, the point I am here trying to make is not Apostolic succession, it is, the real NT Church has to have a continuous presence on Earth ("every day" in verse 20) and be visible and universal ("teach ye all nations"), sacramental ("baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"), orthodox ("teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you").

Sure, I could receive the Bible like you, from a culture that spanned several denominations and also non-denominational individuals or micro-denominations. But in order to trace it back from this culture to the Apostles, I have to go through the Catholic Church.

You can claim, you just go one further, through the supposedly "pre-Catholic" Church. The problem with this is, the Catholic Church does (excepting modern apostasies which aren't Catholic) match up with the criteria outlined by Matthew 28:16-20, since it was not just around in 1517, but also in 1988 (at least apparently so to a somewhat modernist Protestant, and also really, outside that modernism).

Your supposed "pre-Catholic" Church (we claim the Church in 250 was as Catholic as the Church in 350!) doesn't match this.

Also, while I was not yet Catholic, my position was in fact illogical, since I did not credibly trace my access to the Bible back to the Apostles. You could say, who cares if the culture you got the access from is right or wrong on other subjects, Bible alone would be sufficient authority for accepting the Bible.

No, A cannot prove A.

Again, the NT nowhere shows us a Church consisting of individualistic Bible readers being self sufficient. The Eunuch from Ethiopia shows the clear opposite of that.

"No that wasn't my point at all. My point was your Church slaughtered them for being heretics. Maybe they were. Don't care. You don't kill and torture people for it."

Not under the First Amendment, but you cannot trace back to the Bible a universal duty on behalf of all states present and past to adopt it.

"Don't know how you'd ever come to that conclusion that it was ever stated in the NT.. Which of course it isn't."

In fact, the NT leaves the issue open. Because Christ knew His disciples would have to deal with it.

"That was your church taking matters into their own hands. You still haven't learned. Men will ultimately fail you. God will not."

God will not fail His Church.

You have not Biblically proven that Catholics were wrong to execute heretics, any more than you could prove Biblically they were wrong to execute sodomites and murderers.

And if you try to pretend the NT presents a case of Christians never having any civil authority, you are contradicted by Matthew 28:16-20. Nations typically have governments and teaching a nation typically means teaching its government.

Also, while Antichrist will have either civil authority or a power somwhat resembling it (it may not be constitutional or legal), he will also have to do battle at Harmageddon, meaning there is an army of Christians opposing him. Could it be just a prayer meeting? But as likely, they will prepare for battle, and then be set aside by the reinforcement from Heaven.

"Who cares how he did it. I know it was the RIGHT way... "

I know it was the right way, because it was the APOSTOLIC, the CATHOLIC way. There is something illogical about "God did it the right way" pronounced together with "I don't care how God did it". If you should care about God, care about what is right, you should also care about HOW God did it the RIGHT way.

"How about that.. I figured that out without the extra text you used.... There is no seconds chances. We have one shot at it.. It's now or never, heaven or hell... Nothing in the Bible indicates anything even remotely close to a purgatory, or second chances. It says just the opposite.."

Purgatory in Catholic doctrine is NOT about second chances. There are second chances on Earth, you dis-justify yourself by sin, God can justify you again. All who are in Purgatory will be in Heaven at the latest from Doomsday. None of them is damned or risking damnation.

It is still painful, as is the Christian walk on earth, and on earth we have distractions.

"If you don't do your traditions such as Eucharist, confession, etc.. Will you make it to heaven?"

If it's not my own fault, as if in I didn't know or as if in I haven't access, yes.

By the way what you call our traditions are Christ's ordinances and contained in the Bible.

"You mean YOU believe that. I'm glad you understand that. Many don't. You shouldn't speak for others however. Plenty don't believe that way, Catholic or otherwise."

If a Catholic doesn't believe that, he is not believing as a Catholic. The Catholic Church back in Luther's time was no different. Luther argued (not in 95 theses, but later) one could not have the right intention in this life, that's why works cannot be even a secondary condition for salvation. He would have objected to your salvation by works with intent as much as he did to ours.

"Says nothing about sin here. You know as well as I do that no practicing sinner is going to make it to heaven.."

It does if you read next verses, 6 - 8:

As David also termeth the blessedness of a man, to whom God reputeth justice without works: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin.

The Christian who right now is not working is the Christian who between now and death needs to be forgiven for a sin.

"Not sure how you came to this. I think you're reading into it, or maybe just "Over thinking" it. Who can justify the ungodly? Only Jesus..."

The guy we do get absolution from - including in confession.

"His faith alone is counted as righteousness. No works."

No works prior to absolution. However, "faith alone" is not in the text.

Absolution is a new justification and it means as the one at baptism, it is not from one's works, it is through grace, and it is unto works of rigteousness, as per Ephesians 2, which I thank your for citing.

"Just off the top of my head I can think of a situation where someone is Paraplegic. Can't move. In pain, can't walk, but they could read a Bible.. Is the Lord going to tell him no you aren't allowed into my kingdom, even though I know you couldn't really do anything? Of course not. There are situations that you really couldn't do much. Maybe you are sickly? You get the idea. :)"

Can a paraplegic breathe? Can he pray? Those are works.

"That's spiritually wise as no one is going to fool the Lord. Though believe it or not some will attempt it.."

Sure those guys aren't more like just trying to have a nice time in Church?

I know of Ananias and Sapphira, but it seems St. Peter had to tell them it was to God they had tried lying. They probably thought they were buying a nice honour in Church while keeping the comforts of private property (which they could licitly keep with somewhat less honour). The nearest case I could imagine is someone knows the absolution in confession absolves from sin, but thinks he can get it by lying to the priest, now, that is a very exact parallel, one would be lying to God, not men, but one would not deceive Him.

"Didn't know... Glad you stayed away from him. He's lost his mind."

He's a typical modernist Anglican, plus some extra Catholic doctrines.

"Jesus is the Corner stone, the head of the corner. We are the other stones that makes up the temple. Peter is another stone. He's not a rock as pertaining to Jesus. You build a foundation on Bedrock which is Jesus Christ, that holds up the rest of us."

Well, there is another text where while Jesus is corner stone, Apostles and Patriarchs are still part of the Foundation. So, Jesus is Rock as corner stone, Peter as other part of foundation.

"I appreciate the civil dialog though."

Thank you very much!

Medieval literacy

Medieval Misconceptions: EDUCATION and LITERACY
Shadiversity | 13.II.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-abyQLl8mPI

I

1:52 Nice to see two channels I like together!

[To clarify, Shadiversity as providing this video above, and the Modern History TV with its video on Did they have soap in medieval times?]

II

7:07 Guilds - Germany and France differred.

In Germany, the overall guilds for a certain number of trades were involved in the administration, hence everyone was in a guild, as he was burgher of his city.

In France, trades were going in and out of the guilds. There were from St. Louis IX to Louis XVI diversity of trades between unrelgulated, semi-regulated and guild regulated. In these last, you needed to be a master approved by the guild to open a shop.

III

10:48 You are omitting, in the Anglo-Saxon period there were Anglo-Saxon translations of Gospel texts.

Here is a fairly late example:
Wessex Gospels c.1175 Textus Receptus Bibles
http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Wessex/40/24

Up to 800, Latin was the written form of the vernacular in France.

Alcuin of York was imported to Tours in order to teach pronouncing Latin as a foreign language, that year, and 813 in that same city, a council decided after the Gospel people would be needing a paraphrase in vernacular.

This was the start of the divorce between French and Latin.

IV

10:20 "It was even heresy to translate it into other languages"

That's not generally true for the Middle Ages as a whole.

11:25 Unauthorised version of the Bible banned in 1199 - this implies there were authorised translations.

11:33 "and those who translated them punished"

Well, that is really very different from country to country. If you thought of Tyndale, he would have been punished in England for translating the Bible, he fled to Flanders, and there he was punished for something else. As we have his inquisitor's refutations of his arguments, we know that James Latomus was more interested in his Protestant understanding of Romans 3.

11:44 I think the idea of non-Latin versions of the Bible having been uncommon in the Middle Ages depends a bit on who was looking.

In the Konvertiten-Katechismus by Jesuits in Paderborn, 1950, it says Luther's unauthorised translation came only after 14 High German and 4 Low German authorised ones.

Authorised by the Catholic Church.

There was also a brief of Biblical History, the Historia Scholastica, which was translated to Flemish at least as the Rijmbijbel.

And, both the Historia Scholastica and the Rijmbijbel were authorised. Obviously.

He Told Me to Repent

What are the 5 Great Sins against Mary? Fatima and First Saturdays Reparation
Dr Taylor Marshall | 14.II.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-XwPXjLoyQ

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6:18 "mother of all mankind"

Specifically, would it be such a blasphemy to deny She has a motherly heart for heretics and other infidels and also for those not yet damned but going to be damned?

The Lesser Confessor

Hans-Georg Lundahl What is a heretic except a Christian without the truth. Mary is the advocate of all sinners and desires and works for the salvation of all her children even the lost ones.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The Lesser Confessor "What is a heretic except a Christian without the truth."

Without the truth, when we speak of personal guilt of heresy, without the full truth when we speak of someone just caught up in a heresy.

"Mary is the advocate of all sinners and desires and works for the salvation of all her children even the lost ones."

Precisely my point.

This being so, one thing on which SSPX denounced Medjogurje could be interpreted simply as Her desiring the salvation and therefore safety equally of Catholics, Muslims and Orthodox.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9:02 Would you agree that as fiancée and indeed wife except it was totally chaste, of a man who had his ancestry in Bethlehem, She had a right to the title Mrs. Halakhmi or Mrs. Breadman, and that therefore Her putting Her Son in a place where beings inferior to Him usually eat is an indication of the Real Presence of the Eucharist?

The Lesser Confessor

You are under the influence of the prince of lies. Repent before it is too late.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The Lesser Confessor Why is it under the influence of the prince of lies to revindicate not just the Real Presence, but also Mary as Mediatrix of the Eucharist and therefore at least indirectly in this respect of all graces?

If I hadn't seen your other comment first, I could have asked you if you were a Protestant.

@The Lesser Confessor Speaking of repentance, you are on your channel announcing some videos, one of which includes the Our Father with a screenshot at "et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris".

People who have lied about me have made it impossible to fully live a Catholic life, and if clergy would want me to repent instead of writing, they are the exact kind of debtors I cannot find in my heart to forgive.

By the way, "being under the influence of the prince of lies" comes in many ways, and does not always involve being in a state of mortal sin. It can involve, for instance, listening to a clergyman who has with human respect listened to a liar, and if that liar is in mortal sin, it doesn't mean you are.

But telling anyone I intend to blaspheme or spread error against the faith IS a lie, and telling ME to repent instead of arguing any possible involuntary errors on my part is bullying and not pastoral.

Responding to Keith Nester's Mars / Venus Video, First Half

Ghosts · Bible and Fantasy (quora) · CMI is Bad on Church History · Responding to Keith Nester's Mars / Venus Video, First Half with Time to Give Charles S a Separate Post

Catholics are from Mars, Protestants are from Venus
Keith Nester | 9.II.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzCFchnW_EI

I

2:14 Did you immediately bring up Matthew 28:20?

Here is John Calvin's own comment on it:

Verse 20
Matthew 28:20.Teaching them to observe all things. By these words, as I have formerly suggested, Christ shows that, in sending the apostles, he does not entirely resign his office, as if he ceased to be the Teacher of his Church; for he sends away the apostles with this reservation, that they shall not bring forward their own inventions, but shall purely and faithfully deliver from hand to hand (as we say) what he has entrusted to them. Would to God that the Pope would subject to this rule the power which he claims for himself; for we would easily permit him to be the successor of Peter or of Paul, provided that he did not usurp a tyrannical dominion over our souls. But as he has set aside the authority of Christ, and infects the Church with his childish fooleries, this shows plainly enough how widely he has departed from the apostolic office. In short, let us hold that by these words teachers are appointed over the Church, not to put forward whatever they may think proper, but that they, as well as others, may depend on the mouth of the Master alone, so as to gain disciples for him, and not for themselves.

And, lo, I am with you always. As Christ gave to the apostles a commission which they were unable to discharge by reliance on merely human power, he encourages them by the assurance of his heavenly protection. For before promising that he would be with them, he began with declaring that he is the, King of heaven and earth, who governs all things by his power and authority.

The pronoun I must be viewed as emphatic; as if he had said that the apostles, if they wished zealously to perform their duty, must not consider what they are able to do, but must rely on the invincible power of those under whose banner they fight. The nature of that presence which the Lord promises to his followers ought to be understood spiritually; for it is not necessary that he should descend from heaven in order to assist us, since he can assist us by the grace of his Spirit, as if he stretched out his hand from heaven. For he who, in respect of his body, is at a great distance from us, not only diffuses the efficacy of his Spirit through the whole world, but even actually dwells in us.

Even to the end of the world. It ought likewise to be remarked, that this was not spoken to the apostles alone; for the Lord promises his assistance not for a single age only, but even to the end of the world. It is as if he had said, that though the ministers of the gospel be weak and suffer the want of all things: he will be their guardian, so that they will rise victorious over all the opposition of the world. In like manner, experience clearly shows in the present day, that the operations of Christ are carried on wonderfully in a secret manner, so that the gospel surmounts innumerable obstacles.

So much the more intolerable is the wickedness of the Popish clergy, when they take this as a pretext for their sacrilege and tyranny. They affirm that the Church cannot err, because it is governed by Christ; as if Christ, like some private soldier, hired himself for wages to other captains, and as if he had not, on the contrary, reserved the entire authority for himself, and declared that he would defend his doctrine, so that his ministers may confidently expect to be victorious over the whole world.

Studylight : Comments : Calvin on Matthew 28
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cal/matthew-28.html

Obviously we get it, a sham church can fraudulently claim to be in succession of the Apostles.

But he kind of forgets to tell where the real Church that Christ really founded was 100 years before "he reformed Geneva."

This is why Pope Michael cannot be likened to Reformers. If you ask him where his Vatican in Exile was 100 years earlier, he'll answer that it was in the Vatican, it wasn't exiled yet, he will go to pains to show his doctrinal continuity with Popes Pius X, Benedict XV (who actually didn't legalise Heliocentrism in his encyclical on Dante!), Pius XI (up to when Pius XII starts making concessions to evolutionism).

He will go to pains to show the sedevacancy wasn't too prolonged (lately he has given some, if not total credence at least hypothetical validity to the "Pope Siri" thesis).

But Calvin, if you had asked him where his Church was 100 years before he wrote this, he would ... as here ... have typically changed the subject "you Papists can't be the Church, you have changed Christ's doctrine" in wildly accusing tones, and pretending the question is an attempt to stay clear of the question of our presumed guilt.

If you had asked me to give astrological interpretations of where Catholics and Calvinists are from, I'd have given the Mars to Calvin and the Venus to us Catholics.

II

3:13 Tip one : challenge him to prove "Bible alone" from Bible ... alone.

Tip two : show from Bible ... alone ... that Tradition, Magisterium, Indefectibility of the Church are all Biblical.

Tip three : challenge him to prove from Bible ... alone ... which books are in the Bible. Remind him that a Protestant Bible with 66 books and a Catholic Bible with "72 books or 73 if you count Baruch separately from Jeremiah" contradict each other on the number of books and each has chosen according to his confession. So, if any real and meaningful interconfessional conflict (as opposed to detail which might be adiaphoron) can be proven from Bible alone, this one too. But in Genesis you will not find a complete list of books from Genesis to Apocalypse, nor in Apocalypse, nor in any of the 66 books in between.

He might then try to prove from I Maccabees, which on his view is not in the Bible, that Maccabees are not Bible Books. First, that destroys his attempt to prove it by your challenge, second, this would exclude St. Luke and actually very many historic books of the Bible from being in the Bible - since the mode of knowledge used by hagioagraphers was not the mode of prophecy, especially not charismatic prophecy as in the terms of ... I actually cannot find the quote, but it was given more than once in debates earlier on.

Ah, here I found it: 1 Maccabees 9:27.

Now, your Protestants may tell you "the author of Maccabees says he is not a prophet" - but St. Luke in the prologue doesn't claim to be a prophet, he claims to be an investigating historian.

Therefore, the argument would deny the inspiration of St. Luke's Gospel.

While I found it, I also found a more thorough refutation than mine own here:

Shameless Popery : Does I Maccabees deny its own inspiration?
http://shamelesspopery.com/does-1-maccabees-deny-its-own-inspiration/

Presuming he will sooner or later go to Church history for OT canon, the one synod that explicitly shares his OT canon, namely Laodicaea, also has a defective NT canon, lacking the Apocalypse.

Rome and Carthage, first attested complete NT canons without additions would also have at least all of the RC books in the OT canon.

III

6:30 "really any differentiation from the Catholic position"

Erm, no. Greek Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Nestorians may be heretics, but they are not Protestant heretics.

Parallel Catholicisms may and in some cases are heretical, but they cannot be nailed down to Protestantism.

A Protestant position is one which denies the Mass is a sacrifice, identic to the sacrifice on Calvary. It goes against Hebrews 13:10, Malachi 1:11, and obviously Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec.

Even if Armenians deny the real presence (which they have not always done, this they took over from Tondrakians, who were further away from Catholicism than Protestants are, but not as far as Albigensians), they are not protestants, because they do not deny the Mass is a sacrifice.

IV

7:11 "Invisible Church" - as all there is to the Church - can be refuted from the Bible, because:

• the Church is given authority - if the group of people is invisible, it cannot exercise actual authority over me;
• the Church is to teach the nations - but a teacher can't be invisible;
• God specifically said He was not putting the lamp under a bushel.

8:05 Actually, Anglicans / Episcopalians, the largest body of Protestants, and Lutherans, and to some degree Methodists do have a sense of the Church as a visible teaching body.

CSL was an Anglican and when it came to changes in liturgy as compared to Book of Common Prayer he asked specifically that the bishops should not simply let changes of doctrine seep in with changed liturgy, but, if Anglicanism had been wrong on particulars, they should make appropriate public acts of repentance and of correction in doctrine.

Obviously, this is a bit naive about a body having English monarchy in lieu of papacy, as Gavin Ashenden recently found out. When English court is Politically Correct, Anglicanism has to play along with that. One of the reasons he converted.

But point remains, the bodies in the Porvoo Communion (or Borgå Communion) signatories having met in Finland, Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists, do have more sense of the Church as a visible entity than mainstream U. S. American Protestantism. If, also, less than Catholics.

8:38 Actually, as he was Reformed, he cannot quite be pinpointed to the U. S. Congregationalist type of "churches" since Calvinism actually does recognise the local church as a visible symbol of the invisible church, but not only that, its synods between local churches as visible symbols of unity in faith.

The infamous TULIP was for instance invented by the Doordrecht synod in Netherlands.

T - Total Corruption (I have mentioned a few times, I don't drink TULIP Tea).
ULI - don't quite remember
P - Perseverance of the Saints = OSAS.

Either U was Unconditional or I was Inconditional Predestination, though. Meaning, when God predestines the elect He no wise takes into account good deeds either done or to be done by them. Refuted by Molina.

V

10:06 Liturgic detail : the deacon is not holding up a complete Bible, but a book containing the four Gospels in large print.

The lector then has another book with epistle texts.

VI

13:18 Yes, Bible alone autodestructs " 'sola scriptura' non in scriptura" as I like to say.

But more than that, Magisterium and Tradition are in the Bible.

Magisterium : qui vos audit me audit, quodcumque solveris in terra solutum erit in coelis, and a few more. Oh, I Tim 3:15 belongs here.
Tradition : II Thess 2:15, Christ's OT exegesis as per Luke 24:45 is not simply the OT, since Jews use most of its texts, but deny this exegesis, and it is not given except in few scraps in NT (which is shorter than OT and contains lots of other things), therefore it is available in Tradition, 2 Timothy 3:8 features Jewish tradition about identity of Magicians resisting Moses before the Pharao.

Any body teaching sola scriptura as it is properly understood (and Keith Nester gave the correct understanding so far) or denying Magisterium and Tradition auto-destroys.

Lutherans have a way around it saying "the magisterium and tradition of 1:st C. Church" is obligatory, but we only have remains of it in the words of NT canonic books, we can no longer access the whole body of that teaching. Catholicism adulterated it. Well, this cop out falls afoul of Matthew 28:20.

VII

13:46 It seems some "Catholic" Evolutionists (you know, people like at least possibly Garrigou Lagrange, definitely Cardinal Bea, Lubac, Teilhard de Chardin, Wojtyla, alias John Paul II, Ratzinger, alias Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, alias Francis) have this idea Genesis 3 fell down from heaven to Moses.

This is not the case with Catholic tradition. Here is Fr. George Leo Haydock on this issue. Last comment on Genesis 3, attached to his comment collection (he's often leaving the word to others) on last verse he comments on.

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.

Haydock Commentary : Genesis 3
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-05.shtml#navPoint_6

You can see why there is a real problem if you say man has existed 40 000 years? Or 200 000 years? Or since the earliest potassium argon dates for homo erectus, 500 000 years or even more?

If you still admit Adam and Eve as first men, period, nothing about "real" vs "just anatomically", but as first men, you definitely get a garbled tradition in Genesis 5 and in Genesis 11 or at least one of them, which, along with the much longer timespan, destroys the natural hope of a correct transmission of the Genesis 3 events.

If you take the men created in Genesis 1 as different from Adam and Eve, and the latter living only less than 10 000 years ago, but Neanderthals having lived or Homo sapiens sapiens having reached Australia well before that, then you have a problem on how to guarantee all men are descended from Adam and Eve and eligible for the redemption by Christ.

So, it's not just Protestants who have a problem here, it's also Evolution believing "Catholics".

On the note of Matthew 28:20, it can be mentioned the Roman curia and Cardinal Ottaviani were at the beginning of Vatican II so called "council" arguably strictly Young Earth Creationist, and it is also reflected in § 3 of Dei Verbum. The rest of the document doesn't contradict this, but offers only indirect cop outs.

VIII

16:05 I actually owe to some more or less hardcore atheists, some of them, and for others at least hardcore evolutionists, the idea that believing the Reformation and believing a Bible the Reformers had from a Church they described in the Reformation as a corrupt one didn't match up.

Catholic Church: the Gospel of St. Matthew is canonic
Luther: yes
Catholic Church: it contains the authorisation of papacy
Luther: no way, that's corrupt, that's so obviously not true, there is no way I can accept that authority

Would make a somewhat fun comic cartoon.

Charles S

Scripture isn't the problem.. It's your interpretation and understanding of the Scripture which you lack.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S First, you know I am Catholic, right? So, I'll suppose you are Lutheran or otherwise Protestant.

The guys of the Reformation, the "pre-cursors" not quite Protestant, namely Hussites, Waldensians and Lollards, where did they have the Bible from?

From the Catholic Church.

If the Catholic Church is corrupt, where does the trust in its Bible fit in with the distrust in everything else, like understanding of the Bible? It doesn't.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I would assume you were Catholic.. No, I'm of no denomination. Never have been. Good for the reformation. Don't care. It's incredible how much credit the Catholics take for the Bible, even though the Bible was well know before the Sun Worshiping Constantine formed it.. Can you get get bread from grapes? Of course not. (Gal 5:9) A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. It almost like you actually wrote it. Newsflash! God wrote it.... It would be better to just say. I don't believe God's Word is sufficient than to mask it with "Where is "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible... You trust in Men... I'll stick to trusting my Lord Jesus was able to keep his Word intact, DESPITE the Catholic Church..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S "It's incredible how much credit the Catholics take for the Bible, even though the Bible was well know before the Sun Worshiping Constantine formed it.."

Bible in 313. On your view transmitted by non-Catholics.

Bible in 1313 or beyond : definitely transmitted by Catholics. Even you would have to admit it as a historic fact.

I wasn't making the point that the Bible comes from the Catholic Church to its existence, I was making the point it came from the Catholic Church to them.
µ
And non-denominational is historically a byproduct of denominations arisen from Reformation.

@Charles S As to this:

"I'll stick to trusting my Lord Jesus was able to keep his Word intact, DESPITE the Catholic Church.."

According to His words in Matthew 28:20, He actually should be trusted to keep His word intact THROUGH a Church.

But the point is, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and therefore ultimately you, though that indirectly, would not have known the Gospel of Matthew is the word of God except for the Catholic Church teaching them that.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl *** But the point is, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and therefore ultimately you, though that indirectly, would not have known the Gospel of Matthew is the word of God except for the Catholic Church teaching them that. **

Hmmmm.. Whatever did the second century Christians do? They must have waited for the Catholic Church to teach them then eh??? Ha.. ha... Please. What's funny is, that institution has been around for a very long time, AND STILL doesn't understand the Gospel.....The only "Interpreter" you need for Scripture is the Holy Spirit.

(Joh 14:26) But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

I don't recall the Catholic Church being there when Jesus said this, do you? You rely on your man made traditions. You guys are the Pharisee with a Christian Veneer.. You've done the same things they did. They made up their own "Laws", and so did the Catholic Church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S "Whatever did the second century Christians do?"

They are not the point.

LUTHER waited for the Catholic Church to teach them.

And yes, second century Christians, unless themselves Catholic popes and bishops, like good Catholics, waited for Catholic popes and bishops to teach them.

A Gideon's Bible in cheap paperback was not available.

" don't recall the Catholic Church being there when Jesus said this, do you?"

Yes, I do. Peter, Andrew, James and John, and a few more and the beloved disciple were among the first Catholic clergy and they were the exact audience of these words.

@Charles S "The only "Interpreter" you need for Scripture is the Holy Spirit."

Too bad Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and a few more didn't get that.

In Lutheran and Anglican countries, Catholics were persecuted, as in the latter also Baptists, for hearing the Holy Ghost say sth else than professor so and so had got approved from synod then and there to spread in the "Church".

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl As far as Luther, Calvin, etc. I'm not sure how that relates to me. I hadn't heard about them until after reading the Bible. I don't follow man's doctrine, and I don't read commentaries. Some will have many works and not be saved and some will have no works and be saved... I do know Catholicism is works based, and therefore a false doctrine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S "I hadn't heard about them until after reading the Bible. I don't follow man's doctrine,"

You were around when Matthew wrote? Or someone else told you about the Bible - right?

Then you follow some men's doctrine simply in accepting the Bible. Non-denominationals live at the edges of Protestant denominations, and all track back to Catholicism.

So, it was basically, though indirectly, Catholicism that taught you to take the Bible as God's word.

"Some will have many works and not be saved and some will have no works and be saved"

Depends on how the works are done and on persistence.

"I do know Catholicism is works based, and therefore a false doctrine."

Not works based as in what you argued against.

The point was made between Tyndale and his Inquisitor Latomus. About Romans 3.

Tyndale argued, when Abraham was justified, it neither needed works other than faith prior to justification, nor preparedness to works after justification.

James Latomus argued, right it didn't need other than faith works prior to justification, but it did need a preparedness for good works from then on.

Somewhat later, the Council of Trent made another point : "works of the law" in Romans 3 means keeping the kashrut and things of the ritual law. Obviously Abraham did not need that, since he was not yet circumcised, and still already justified.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ** You were around when Matthew wrote? Or someone else told you about the Bible - right? **

Can't live in America, and not know the Bible exist.

** Then you follow some men's doctrine simply in accepting the Bible. Non-denominationals live at the edges of Protestant denominations, and all track back to Catholicism. **

Only if you believe the Bible isn't the infallible Word of God...

** Depends on how the works are done and on persistence. **

So in other words, your salvation has something to do with what YOU'VE done.. That's works based salvation, and proves my point.

** Not works based as in what you argued against.

The point was made between Tyndale and his Inquisitor Latomus. About Romans 3.

Tyndale argued, when Abraham was justified, it neither needed works other than faith prior to justification, nor preparedness to works after justification.

James Latomus argued, right it didn't need other than faith works prior to justification, but it did need a preparedness for good works from then on. Somewhat later, the Council of Trent made another point : "works of the law" in Romans 3 means keeping the kashrut and things of the ritual law. Obviously Abraham did not need that, since he was not yet circumcised, and still already justified. **

I wasn't referring to Romans 3...

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ** Yes, I do. Peter, Andrew, James and John, and a few more and the beloved disciple were among the first Catholic clergy and they were the exact audience of these words. **

None of the Apostles were "Catholic"... You guys don't even know who the Rock is... Here's a hint: It's wasn't Peter...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

​@Charles S Whether the Rock is Peter, Jesus, or Both in Different Ways ...

Christ said very clearly in Matthew 28:20 that He would be with His Church every day, with the apostles and with the clergy succeeding them (you do get, that 72, 12 and Peter are three tiers of a clergy Jesus chose, I hope?).

This leaves you with the option:

• The Catholic Church is the Church of the Apostles as well as the Church in 313 and in 1313
• Another Church is (you haven't said which one)
• or Jesus has not kept His promise.

Obviously, even if your knowledge the Bible is God's word were tainted from Luther who was tainted from the Catholic Church, it could still be valid, if there was some other Church around all this time. Can you point to one?

The Orthodox could say it was they who remained the Church in 1053, not us. What was your Church back in 1053? Matthew 28:20 says you need one which was around then.

"Can't live in America, and not know the Bible exist."

Thirteen colonies had it from Anglicans and Catholics. Catholics are the guys you don't want, so Anglicans - who had it from Catholics.

"Only if you believe the Bible isn't the infallible Word of God..."

Not the least. I am only saying you receive this doctrine from men.

You don't have it because you lived on a desert island, God spoke to you and a Gideons' Bible was floating ashore from a sinking ship. You have it because you were told by some men, and America as in US indirectly brings you back to having it from the Catholic Church.

"So in other words, your salvation has something to do with what YOU'VE done.. That's works based salvation, and proves my point."

That's not how you argued first time over. Yes, when I die I'll be saved or damned according to what I have done. Says so in Matthew 25.

"I wasn't referring to Romans 3..."

OK, what exact Bible quote do you have to pretend works based salvation is a heresy?

Besides, that exact idea is a heritage from Reformation, so you are a hypocrite to pretend yourself independent of it, when you believe the Bible has 66 books and salvation has nothing to do with your works.

Which brings us back to : Reformers didn't receive the Bible from an already existing "Reformed Church", but from the Catholic Church.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The Church is a body of believers in God's Word.. I'm not sure why you keep trying to put the Lord's church into a box, or building. He doesn't exist in temples made with hands. Believers are the temple. There is no centralized church in which God dwells. He dwells in the faithful believers in Jesus Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S "There is no centralized church in which God dwells."

Centralised or not is not the point. I said nothing about any building, you brought that up.

The point is, one needs to be able to point to the Church one hears the Gospel from and one needs to be able to point to the Church which is the pillar and ground of truth (yes, that is in the Bible) and one needs to be able to point to a CHurch that fulfilled what you usually call "the great commission". Because God's invisible presence just within your own heart is not how you knew of the Bible, not how you make yourself subject to the prelates of the Church (yes, that is in the Bible too) and not how nations are taught as Christ mentioned in Matthew 28:20.

@Charles S "I'm not sure why you keep trying to put the Lord's church into a box, or building."

Our Lord Himself likens His Church to a building. Whoever of Him or St. Peter is the Rock, the Church is what is going to be BUILT on the Rock.

@Charles S "He doesn't exist in temples made with hands."

Actually He was in one more than once. Like perhaps His circumcision, certainly Purification, once at age 12, twice cleansing it from merchants.

He is still with His Church, and so still abides in buildings built by hands, through the Eucharist.

Charles S

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ** Thirteen colonies had it from Anglicans and Catholics. Catholics are the guys you don't want, so Anglicans - who had it from Catholics **

I guess you forgot about the Puritans who were trying to convince the Anglican's to repent of their sinful ways. I'm sure there were plenty of Bible believing Christians that had no particular denomination

** Not the least. I am only saying you receive this doctrine from men. **

How else would God spread the Gospel?

** You don't have it because you lived on a desert island, God spoke to you and a Gideons' Bible was floating ashore from a sinking ship. You have it because you were told by some men, and America as in US indirectly brings you back to having it from the Catholic Church. **

We are back to the first answer I gave.

** That's not how you argued first time over. Yes, when I die I'll be saved or damned according to what I have done. Says so in Matthew 25 **

So you saved according to your works then, is that what you are stating?

** OK, what exact Bible quote do you have to pretend works based salvation is a heresy? **

Since the only man to ever fulfill the Law of Moses was Jesus Christ himself and since under the Old Law you break one, you break them all how were men saved in the Old Testament? Couldn't have been by Works of the Law. No man is justified by Works lest any man should boast. No need to pretend.. It stated numerous times Works doesn't save you.

(Mat 7:21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(Mat 7:22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(Mat 7:23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

(Eph 2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
(Eph 2:9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(Eph 2:10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Works are a manifestation of Faith in most, but not all... Different believers have different roles in the Body of Christ. Our salvation is justified by faith alone in Jesus Christ.

(Rom 4:4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
(Rom 4:5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
(Rom 4:6) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
(Rom 4:7) Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
(Rom 4:8) Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

** Besides, that exact idea is a heritage from Reformation, so you are a hypocrite to pretend yourself independent of it, when you believe the Bible has 66 books and salvation has nothing to do with your works. **

No... That comes directly from the Bible itself. That's just not what you've been taught. The extra books you have in your Bibles have already been debunked. They contain historical inaccuracies. Therefore not from God.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

** Actually He was in one more than once. Like perhaps His circumcision, certainly Purification, once at age 12, twice cleansing it from merchants. **

Yes he was to fulfill the Law he wrote to show us who the Messiah was..

** He is still with His Church, and so still abides in buildings built by hands, through the Eucharist. **

(Act 7:47) But Solomon built him an house.
(Act 7:48) Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
(Act 7:49) Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

(Act 17:24) God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
(Act 17:25) Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Charles S "I guess you forgot about the Puritans who were trying to convince the Anglican's to repent of their sinful ways."

No, I didn't. Puritans started out as a more Edwardian than Jacobean branch of Anglicans, so, they too had it from the Catholic Church.

"I'm sure there were plenty of Bible believing Christians that had no particular denomination"

They start in Netherlandish towns with many denominations, i e Catholics and several Protestant ones. At 1600 at the earliest.

This means they too had it from the Catholic Church.

"How else would God spread the Gospel?"

He could have chosen another means, possibly, but didn't. And my point is, the means He chose was up to Anglicans and Puritans the Catholic Church.

"We are back to the first answer I gave."

Where you admitted having it from America, that is US, which brings me back to America's 13 Colonies having it from Anglicans, Catholics, Puritans, while some other parts Louisiana or Florida or Texas to California had it from the Catholic CHurch exclusively.

"So you saved according to your works then, is that what you are stating?"

When it comes to initial justification, I am saved without works done, but when it comes to my final salvation at death (if at all salvation) according to works done by grace from justification on.

"Since the only man to ever fulfill the Law of Moses was Jesus Christ himself and since under the Old Law you break one, you break them all how were men saved in the Old Testament? Couldn't have been by Works of the Law. No man is justified by Works lest any man should boast. No need to pretend.. It stated numerous times Works doesn't save you. "

The thing is, we can arrive from justification to a death in Christ without breaking God's Ten Commandments. As to the law of Moses, I agree we are not saved by it and that is exactly how Trentine Council understands Romans 3.

Matthew 7 actually states we need to work justice in order to have final salvation at death.

Ephesians 2:8 speaks of how we are initially justified, by grace and faith, 2:9 of how we aren't, by previous works and 2:10 on what condition, namely as to good works done from justification. From God's gift.

Romans 4, fresh challenge to me, but it seems forgiveness of sins is involved in it.

"Works are a manifestation of Faith in most, but not all..."

I agree a newly baptised child who dies within a year is not obliged to works in the usual sense.

Apart from that, you do not have the phrase from the Bible, you have it from men who had the Bible from the Catholic Church.

"That comes directly from the Bible itself."

Except it doesn't.

"That's just not what you've been taught."

It's what you have been taught and cannot prove to have from the Bible.

"The extra books you have in your Bibles have already been debunked."

The passive voice is used to avoid speaking of who atually did it. Who debunked them and how?

"They contain historical inaccuracies. Therefore not from God."

Criterium not bad if proven, but some have also "debunked" the historic accuracy of the the Gospels. So, not everyone "debunking" is worth listening to.

"Yes he was to fulfill the Law he wrote to show us who the Messiah was.."

Meaning He, God in the flesh, actually was in a temple.

"[cites Acts 7 and Acts 17 in refutation]"

St. Stephen is speaking of the Old Temple, which had fulfilled its role as a symbol.

St. Paul is speaking of pagan imaginations of statues working as sth like a portal.

The debate under VIII is now continued here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Time to Give Charles S a Separate Post
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2020/02/time-to-give-charles-s-separate-post.html