Seven hills are seven kings ...

Q

Do the Seven Hills of Revelations refer to Rome? Would this point to the revived Roman Empire?
https://www.quora.com/Do-the-Seven-Hills-of-Revelations-refer-to-Rome-Would-this-point-to-the-revived-Roman-Empire/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered Wed

The question has two parts:

Do the Seven Hills of Revelations refer to Rome?

Arguably, yes.

Would this point to the revived Roman Empire?

The seven hills are there irrespectively of what constitution or wideness of direct and official political power Rome has.

In my view of end times, a revived Roman Empire could very well be an interruption in the progress of Antichrist’s power.

Also, the fourth beast was the Imperium of a Senatorial Republic, whether you consider it arriving in the Holy Land already as Antiochus IV Epiphanes (who was a vassal to the Senate!) or only in Pompey (who was later going to defend the Senatorial Republic against Caesar’s populistic monarchy revival).

During the fourth beast, Rome was ruled by double monarchs elected for one year, called consuls, and [in the same period] one Sextus Calvinus founed Aix-en-Provence, recalling modern Republics and recalling John Calvin. As well as a condominium between a pretended “Pope Emeritus” and a pretended “Pope” neither of whom are Catholics.

Crusader Pub took on Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind Reinvents Baptist History
14 Aug. 2021 | The Crusader Pub
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8EhJYS14AI

I actually, while appreciating Kent Hovind on the YEC, have done response essays related to his imagination on "Catholics started Islam, because Alberto Rivera heard that in a private briefing from Augustin Bea" or on the Mass wine used by Our Lord on the First Mass.

0:35 Real, Norwegian, pronunciation (I'm Swede) is in fact: hoo-vin. I think the nd is decorative spelling for nn, where English at the end of a word would have n. Otherwise, add a d too.

6:05 I'd say Church history is the least good area of theologically relevant subjects for people like Hovind (or CMI and AiG, who at least have heard of St. Thomas Aquinas) ...

9:41 He believes, and so do some other guys, "Protestants" came from the 16th C. Reformation, but "Baptists" were always around, previously known as Lollards, Waldensians, even Albigensians according to some, Manichaeans, possibly, definitely Donatists and Novatians ... if this makes you want to feel like doing a facepalm, you feel free to do so.

So, the real Church, according to them, played leapfrog between widely different localities, never near universal, names, even doctrines, unless non-Baptist doctrines of some (like Albigensians on creation of material world, K H would not agree with these!) are put down to slanders by Inquisitors ....

If you feel like refreshing you by reading sth that has a somewhat closer resemblance to history, take a dose of Hal Foster (I mean, if Baptists can be Albigensians, why can't Vikings be King Arthur's allies against the Saxons?)

13:05 Actually, no.

When EO held synods in Iasi and Jerusalem in reference to Reformation and Counterreformation, there were some condemnations of RC (basically copied from Photius, Caerularius, Mark of Ephesus) repeated, but much more condemnations afresh, basically parallel to Trent, condemning Protestantism.

Seven Sacraments, Mass is a real Sacrifice, Mary is sinless and raised to Heaven, body and soul, and so on ...

14:25 Catholicism traditionally actually does say the Orthodox do have valid (though illicit) Eucharist, while Protestants do not.

15:42 Actually, I think the First Council of Toledo may have prefuted some Orthodox theology on "uncreated energies" ... it also directly stated (in an explanatory, not a liturgic creed, not identic to Nicene creed as said at Mass) they believed (in AD 400) that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son - it may be noted that less than 100 years earlier, a Spanish ecclesiastic had been close to St. Athanasius, whose creed (probably also explanatory, or even an explanatory essay, handed down to the Pope) also states the Holy Ghost proceeds from both.

The Spanish ecclesiastic, was it not someone like Hosius?

16:09 Orthodox use, obligatorily, leavened bread.
Catholics use unleavened in the Latin rite, but clearly leavened too in Eastern rites.

Caerularius considered unleavened bread as "Judaising heresy" (rubbed me the wrong way back when as a teen I was deciding between RC or EO, while definitely heading away from Lutheran), but more seriously, St. John says Christ was crucified when it was the Parascheve of the Jews, so Caerularius concluded, He can't have made a real Seder the eve before that, it would have been 24 h before the Jews were having their Seder.

I think, as "of the Jews" is narrator voice, as St. John as narrator (but not when the word is in Christ's mouth) uses "Jews" as non-Christians or even anti-Christians, and as the Lunisolar calendar back then was Empiric, the solution could be, Our Lord started Nisan 24 hours earlier than the Temple did. The other alternative, if Christ made a real Seder and Caerularius was wrong, Kaiaphas, as head of the Jewish Church (which was still the Church of God up to his implication in the Deicide), had given Christ a special permission to celebrate the Seder 24 h early. And He did so, with His disciples.

20:25 While six days could have as alternative one moment, the ideas of day age and gap theory are not viable with the dug up evidence (palaeontological or archaeological, whatever you prefer to call parts of it) and the idea of theistic evolution is when analysed on how Adam grew up either totally frivolous (if Adam had parents who taught him to speak, they were human, he was not the first human, his sin should not have had consequences, his marriage should not have been the model) or horrid (if Adam had progenitors with human anatomy and without human souls, these could not have spoken, could not have taught him to speak, and he would have been a feral child before he sinned).

25:14 Kent Hovind is in fact a pastor. He does represent the local congregation of a certain Baptist church in Pensacola. Or did, not sure it lasts after prison.

30:34 Please to note, the Flood, as historical event, is the symbol.

A human author like Guillaume de Lorris or Jean de Meun may tell a story through symbols chosen by them, but which did not happen.

God, as author of all history, can make sure the symbols He intends to put to important use are first of all real history. See thereon Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q I, and I think it was A 10.

41:30 You missed an important part.

Christ actually forbade us, not the pagan objects of worship, that went without saying, but the pagan mode of worship. And He did not say "do not use vain repetitions" - He said "do not stutterspeak" = as I read that, and as one can see if going to an actual pagan prayer in the Greco-Roman world, end of Velleius Paterculus, = do not start over and over again, to explain and make sure God really understands you.

Repeating a phrase to let it sink into your heart is sth very different and was not a part of the Greco-Roman prayer style.

You may object, it was and still is, part of the Hindu and Buddhist prayer style - but ...

• Hindus and Buddhists, when very rarely referenced by Romans, as well as Jews and Christians, were considered as Dionysus-worshippers (earliest imperial bans on Christianity were quoting the text "sei quis uelitod bacchanal habuisse") and stood out as fairly odd to the mainstream of pragmatic and official Romen worship;
• Hindus and Buddhists do not quite as much have the sense of getting their prayers heard when thus repeating them, so it still wouldn't fit the bill (Hindus also have prayers more Greco-Roman style, at marriages or wars and so on).

What does fit the bill is Velleius Paterculus taking precautions so the gods really hear him, by not omitting any title of any god that might be relevant to the request, which a Christian would have asked in the words "God bless Rome!"

46:58 Do we speak about marriage or about sex slaves?

Bc in St. Thomas' time, 12 was considered a marriageable age for a girl, by us Catholics. This was only changed after the times of St. Pius X.

If you mean the marriages are forced, well, that is bad, and it does make some of these marriages (when no consent was made after the force) invalid and the actual relation one which could be called sex slavery.

But I think Islam did start out with an even lower age of marriage for girls and at least some times girls were ordered to marry, given no choice. And I mean in the family of their prophet. Zayneb. First she was ordered to marry a freed slave Muhammed had adopted as son, then he was ordered to divorce her, then she married Muhammed herself. The adoptive father of her former husband.

48:01 Welcome to the world of Alberto Rivera.

He was a Jesuit, and he had a conversation with Cardinal Bea who in a confidential briefing told Alberto that the Vatican had started Islam. Alberto Rivera then eventually found Christ and became Evangelical. And he broke the seal of confidentiality. First, it seems the background for Rivera as a Catholic priest has failed to solidly materialise, but when I wrote a reply to Kent Hovind on that one, I did not know it, so, supposing the confidential briefing had really taken place, why would anyone take a confidential briefing as solid proof?

It seems, if this was the case, Alberto was not on par with St. Albert when it came to reasoning skills ... a confidential briefing about things about to happen the next few weeks, fine, they may materialise and you find out the confidential briefing was not bogus, this military really was involved in planning this operation and it works according to his plans and so on. But a confidential briefing about things centuries in the past? It's like believing Jesus was married because Teabing argued so to Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu. In a private and confidential briefing ... no guarantees that Bea's briefing hasn't been similarily made up, albeit not for a work of fiction, but for a fraud.

In fact, when hearing this, I was not fond of Bea, since I thought he had been father confessor to Pius XII during the Humani Generis year 1950 - not so, there was another one - so I am less inclined to have bad feelings about Bea.

I can't find the statement right now on Introibo's blog, so I don't know if it was Guérard de Lauriers or, as I suspect, someone else, who was both confessor to Pius XII in 1950 and involved in sedeprivationist arguments (whether hypothetical or, as with de Lauriers, pointed at people like "John Paul II").

_______________

49:07 - a real look, by a real indulgence issued by Pope Leo X:

INDVLGENCIA PLENARIA (mss 445)
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/pittsarchives/mss445/pdf/mss445.pdf

Citing the translation:

Pope Leo X, our most holy father and lord in Christ, grants by divineprovidence to each and everyone one of both sexes of the faithful inChrist who visit the church, From the evening of the first Sunday immediately proceeding the feast ofAscension up to the sunset of the Sunday itself, and from the first vespers of the vigil of the Ascension, that is the vespers of the Wednesday before the feast of the Ascension, up to the evening of the festivities, for those lending helping hands to the builders of the church and convent of Saint Mary of the sacred Carmelite order in Gorgona . The plenary indulgence removes punishment and guilt : both on behalf of the dead and on behalf of the living:
It is valid for those who are contrite and for those who have not made a confession and yet have the intention of confessing, and also for those absent
For absolution and for the exchange of all vows , if given in writing. And for absolution from all crimes and excesses. And also for failings and for which the apostolic seat has withheld the observance of the Lord’s Supper with the appointment of confessions, at the pleasure of the commissary and the delegation, if given in writing . With the power of substitution regarding all things most compresensively that can be seen in the copy of the apostolic brief, which are are left in the power of the Lord’s reverent vicar or prelate.
Translation by Armin Siedlecki, PhD and Sarah Bogue, PhD

So, actual "price list" : visiting a specific Church.

_______________

49:23 Wouldn't you also love to know the real price lists Pope Leo X made?

Like visiting a specific Church (situated in Rome) and confessing, communicating, praying for the Holy Father's intentions - plenary.

It actually states "for all crimes and excesses" presumably meaning that if you confess in conjunction with this indulgence, you can be absolved for things otherwise needing up to the Pope to deliberate on.

Abraham was Justified before God by Works (Not Previous, but Subsequent)

Documentary: Protestantism's Big Justification Lie
4th March 2015 | vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8

2:55 "forensic justification" in the sense of forensic only justification is contrary to any description that describes someone as gratia either plena or plenus (the Blessed Virgin from the start, St. Stephen at a moment close to his martyrdom, Our Lord), since the grace in that case would overshadow but not indwell and gratia adumbrata or adumbratus would be more correct.

4:51 Exactly. What Sproul just said would be correct if for "account" he had said "life" - our sins transferred to Christ's life nailed Him to the Cross, were annihilated in the process (in the case of those for which He died effectively, not just potentially) and His reighteousness brought into our life by Sacraments or at least their reception in voto transforms us (in the case of those of us who are in a state of grace).

5:20 It can be added, to the honour of McArthur, while he distinguishes justification from sanctification, he thinks the latter actually does change the one being sanctified, Luther didn't.

To us, obviously, justification is the first moment of sanctification beginning, or beginning again after the disaster of mortal sin.

"It describes what God declares about the believer, not what He does to change the believer. In fact, justification effects no actual change whatsoever in the sinner's nature or character. Justification is a divine judicial edict. It changes our status only, but it carries ramifications that guarantee other changes will follow."

The latter was not Luther's position.

Catholics : to be justified, the adult must intend to do good works, and as long as in the state of grace will do good and meritorious works.
McArthur : to be justified, you get a declaration from God, who intends to make you do good works
Luther : to be justified, you get a declaration from God, without imagining you can start doing good works.

The fact that he compares the "legal" (only) act of justification to the "legal" (only) act of marriage (on his view), shows he does believe a sanctification follows, a real walk with God, just as in marriage, the legal act is followed by living together.

His problem with both can be resumed in his considering the marriage to be a legal only act, and not one of the seven sacraments - when vows are exchanged, God changes the disposition of the spouses to each other by a grace enabling fidelity to their duties (to each other and to children).

However, after looking at Luther's larger, it is apparent even he believed in sanctification of sorts, but in this life never complete.

He would disagree with White, he doesn't believe OSAS, he actually stated one could get outside the Church, and outside the forgiveness worked by the Holy Spirit, if one tried to base one's salvation on works lose their salvation:

"But outside of this Christian Church, where the Gospel is not, there is no forgiveness, as also there can be no holiness [sanctification]. Therefore all who seek and wish to merit holiness [sanctification], not through the Gospel and forgiveness of sin, but by their works, have expelled and severed themselves [from this Church]."

If they have severed themselves, it means they were in it before, and they were both justified and being sanctified before. Ergo, he does not believe in OSAS.

If one liked, one could parody his position that to him, believing justification without works, is the work necessary for salvation.

23:18 The non-Feeneyite would consider what Piper just said as a fairly hopeful sign of his perhaps not being outside the soul of the Church, to take a word used in the Larger Catechism of St. PIus X.

25:33 And with McArthur, one can ask, given what he just said, whether his verbal statements of believing in forensic (only) justification are in him a deliberate mortal sin, or an oversight, like (I had kicks on my head a few weeks ago) "reighteousness" instead of "righteousness" ... obviously unintentional.

34:34 Are these the guys Pope Gregory XVI was talking about?

Perhaps this pope was talking of what you call "historic protestantism" or perhaps he was considering the fact that Anglicans and Calvinists galore were abandoning all pretense of actually believing the Bible (liberal protestantism) or perhaps both.

That's why a certain passage in Mirari Vos might not apply to "Protestants" like these, as long as it's on this issue.

Obviously, there is also the refusal, very widespread (as in Ray Comfort, a recent video) to believe the Real Presence, and obviously being deliberately wrong on that one is sufficient to damn them, even if they would be Catholics on the justification issue.

37:57 "That is why every Protestant in the world who believes in justification by faith alone"
(believes in verbal confession, or having actually fully internalised?)
"operates under the core principle of forensic justification ... even if he doesn't know it"

If he doesn't know it, how is he guilty of it? Sounds like "alien unrighteousness" to me?

I thought I had been believing in "justification by faith alone" and it took me one major mortal sin, a bit out of the ordinary, to make me realise, I actually did believe sacraments and doing penance was necessary, and starting to take steps to convert (by the way, I had not been involved in believing Protestant anti-Catholicism, and when learning how it was really implied in the reformation, I had already taken the intention to sooner or later convert, ideally along with other High Church Lutherans, some of whom I knew. And some of them (notably some back then Lutheran Benedictines and Bridgettines) have since then also converted (I'm not sure Stephan Borgehammar, Church Historian, is one of them, from back before his conversion, he probably to too certainly appreciates them).

40:31 Note also how a Protestant is adding, not Sts Eustace or Emerentiana, but Dr Martin of Wittenberg to the "hall of fame of faith" in Hebrews 11.

He not only refutes (I am tired, I trust you on this one) the forensic justification, by his account of Luther's acts, but also the aversion against reverence for the saints, by his tone. V e r y visibly.

41:40 Back from when I was a Lutheran (though very superficially instructed), I do not recall these words of Luther.

I do know some Protestants believe in highly novelised versions of his life, like Ellen Gould White (to whom my father has owed allegiance, not I, I did not grow up with him) depending much on Merle d'Aubigné who was not always historically accurate. I'd like to know if the man from Ligonier ministries is citing Tischreden or Merle d'Aubigné for Luther's experience.

But perhaps I misspoke, it sounds at least like Luther's exuberant prose. Rhetoric : Logic = 7 : 3 or sth ...

52:05 But the words "they have been kept for you" do not preclude them One Who kept them from having transferred them to your inside, rather than only a paper in a courtroom (by the way, names on papers are somewhat important, there is such a thing as the book of life).

I refuse to indict Piper on account of that word.

53:09 Indeed. If I am unable to pray the Our Father due to impossibility of forgiving some, my next move to try to save my soul is speaking up about it.

Hence my words to the blogger Introibo. And my remark, if Bishop Dolan had prayed for me to remain celibate, that might have been the reason God gave him opportunities to see my situation better or at least (if he wasn't saved) took away opportunities to affect how more innocent laymen pray the rosary for me, while I am not doing it.

And the kick on the head was before my words to Introibo, it was not God punishing me for the words, but possibly for feeling that way and not speaking up.

Hence my words to Introibo blogger (found on my blog - New blog on the kid - url distinctive part "nov9blogg9") after the kicks I received, lest God should punish me more for my silence.

53:46 If Tyndale had heard James White, he might have come to agree with Latomus and stand in a yellow short shirt rather than on a bonfire in Wilvoorde.

Thank you for documenting, to me, at least some hope, the Protestant leopard head seems to have a leopard wing, which will perhaps not be part of the final, wingless, beast.

55:57 Happy that St. Jerome has ablue and abluti estis - same cognate for same verb - on both texts.

Really tired, when writing Latin, would you use for "I took a photo" the more Latinised "photograpsi" or the more purely Greek "photegrapse {?]

58:38 Lutherans and Anglicans have, however, tended to keep Baptismal Regeneration.

I say "tended to" because one of the conflicts entered on by Puseyites was against their contemporaries denying this (the group being larger by far than Puseyites, therefore more likely what Pope Gregory XVI had in mind for Mirari Vos).

1:00:03 Apart from hatred of the Bible, they also hate Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer, and even Tyndale whom they (usually, unhistorically) consider as "martyr for the Bible translation"

1:05:58 Do you have the author of an apologetic commentary I read decades ago, with that title?

A former Anglican, I think, gone Catholic priest.

1:11:57 It can be stated, part of the reasons why Luther went to his error you are talking about is another one you are not talking about, one examplified by Ray Comfort "what do you call someone who tells a lie" - "a liar" - as if venial sins and lies of jocularity (followed by "April Fools") didn't exist in their moral theology.

Luther explicitly denied the distinction between venial and mortal, that is how his experience of sometimes venial sins (while he was still a more or less Catholic) came to drive him to a false conclusion and the world one lion head and one leopard head closer to the final beast.

1:13:38 I think you were alluding the Johannine Epistles? [confirmed - he cited I John 5:6]

1:14:07 As some of the sins you mentioned as mortal are of a certain type, it reminds me ...

But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

... in other words, the fact, those who have been praying for my ongoing celibacy may have been praying for either my damnation or my getting saved only at a very high price to myself, as if I were principally to blame for the people who deliberately "[forbade] to fast and to marry" (not reading this as of Gnostics, but of people who pretend such and such guy is neither mature enough to marry, nor should he be allowed to use ascesis to get chaste. If I had taken up monastic ascesis at 20, perhaps 30, I might have been saved, with little difficulty, then. I do not think that is the case any more. The exact thing I consider some were praying wrong about.

It is also very possible, if I had made a more serious try back then, I would have had a firm but kindly indication from a Novice Master to get a job and a wife instead, back when having an employer was lots less irksome to me, than it became after two of them were involved, so far, in pushing me out of opportunities to even talk to girls I was hoping to marry.

If I got a male employer, old and wise, and he were putting an arm around my shoulder to encourage me to confide, or even to simply keep going, I'd feel that as a homosexual agression, even if I would be careful not to judge him guilty of such an intention. At 9000 + blog posts and the existance of technology able to transfer text from computers to paper, I should be living off my writing, and not from getting an employer anyway.

1:19:32 If I had believed that, "a man can commit suicide and if he is a true Christian he will go straight to glory" (end of quote) there are times when I might on that belief have acted as if that was advise.

I am glad I had C. S. Lewis rather than that pastor giving me advise, through books where the horror of Hell is made very clear, and through The Great Divorce in which one suicide is a prime example of one chosing to remain damned.

I do not think it is excessive hatred of old malefactors to hate the systems that gave them such power to destroy my life back then, since the systems remain in existence and remain destroying other people's lives. School compulsion, psychiatry and a few more.

1:20:52 I think the correct term is "unnecessary occasions for sin" - if I am courting someone I hope to marry, seeing her may be an occasion, but necessary relative to my hope to marry, like if someone is a policeman and needs to step in with blows and gunshots, that is an occasion for sins of hatred or of unjust manslaughter or maiming, but relative to the duty of the policeman to eliminate threats to others, if correctly assessed, a necessary one.

I am afraid some will have prayed for me to avoid all occasions of unchastity, including such as are necessary to get me into a state where chastity is less irksome, since allowing for more satisfactions. I consider encouraging to such prayers is being guilty of Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. If themselves accepting marriage as a good, they would be collaborators with such (for instance left wing shrinks) who do no so consider it.

Göbekli Tepe mentioned by Answers in Genesis, I promote my take

Right at the start at the video:

Evolutionists Have a Bold New Claim
9th of May 2022 | Answers in Genesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQyB-n6ViwA

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As indicated in the chat, I disagree on "post-Babel".

Interesting Tim Chaffey and at least most on CMI consider Babel lost and some time in the palaeolithic, probably, some other guy, an archaeologist ... Douglas Petrovich considers it was in Eridu, both miss the option Göbekli Tepe was itself the city of Babel.

So, Graham Hancock, a fairly New Agey guy who takes carbon dates at face value, noted Göbekli Tepe starts at a carbon date coinciding with Plato's or Solon's date for Atlantis, but on top of that, he believes ancient alien astronauts (along with Atlanteans) came to help previous palaeolithic population built it. His argument for aliens is among others, some things look like rocket launches. Now that would also fit with Nimrod being an ancient aspiring astronaut - which would figure if "a tower the top of which might reach into heaven" were meant as much as a three step rocket as it sounds to my modern ears.

Lubosh Camber

What on earth you just compiled here 😳

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lubosh Camber A theory that we have found, physically, the city of Babel and that we have identified, in type of artefact, the tower of Babel AND solved a theological problem (if God freaked out over a clumsy skyscraper, why is He allowing rockets) AND got a good both geography and carbon date for Babel : West, not South, of Landing Place, between Flood and Genesis 14, which also can be identified as to carbon dates.

I hope that answers your question?

No, I am NOT a JW, Whatever Some May Think

Found the channel of an ex-JW.

Video I

Someone at the door learns about call books!
7th Febr 2022 | JW Science!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2cih5AFlg4

By the way, if you answer my comments, I do not ask your consent before I republish the argument.

This is a bit different from the call book, though, because YOU have consented to be on youtube known as "JW Science!" and that's the handle your words appear under on my blogs, should this happen. And you cannot pretend that this comment of yours was private data when youtube used to present on comboxes "leave a public comment" (it's now "leave a comment" but their older policy was more transparent). I suppose you realise, while some others don't there is a vast difference between a JW call book and my blog Assorted retorts.

I left a few comments on two other of your videos, if you like the debate and don't mind having your answers to my arguments shown with my rebuttals on that blog, you have an extra opportunity.

Unlike the JW's (which I suppose you know) I am strictly YEC, not Day-Age. This means, the Flood in 2957 BC (according to Roman martyrology, I'm a Catholic), it was sufficiently close to the very first created atmosphere on earth for it to have contained a very low level of carbon 14.

So, after this, if you answer, I suppose your consent is given ...

Video II

What was happening, 6,000 years ago in Iraq?
15th April 2022 | JW Science!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD9DmbauzJE

I

0:58 No, it doesn't say Eden was "in between Tigris and Euphrates".

It says it had a river that split into four, two of these being Tigris and Euphrates. As today, post-Flood, Tigris and Euphrates converge, and as this means they diverged, one can presume, before the Flood, they were running the other direction.

One option is, the one river was actually flowing in the river bed of what in post-Flood times is Jordan. I am willing to take that, but the indication in Genesis 2 (taken this way) would fit several different places between Holy Land and Persian Gulf.

It would seem Jerusalem was West of Eden, since Adam was both created and buried there (buried under Calvary) according to Church Fathers. But Eve was created in Eden, and I think that could well have been 32 km (160 stades) east of Jerusalem, namely Emmaus Nikopolis.

II

1:42 "all dating back before then"

By what dating method?

We certainly have evidence of civilisations and thousands or millions of people being alive in Iraq at the founding of Woolley's Ur.

What you are NOT providing, but confide in "science" as you earlier confided in Witnesses, is, proof positive that this founding of Woolley's Ur was 6000 years ago.

I do not use the Vulgate Masoretic timeline, but a LXX timeline, so, to me, the world was created 7200 years ago. You find the details in the Traditional Roman Martyrology for Christmas day. Abraham being according to that text born 2015 BC.

Now, Genesis 14 must have happened when Abraham was c. 80 (between 75, when his vocation was, and 86, I think, when he got Ishmael by Hagar). This means the Biblical date for Genesis 14 is c. 1935 BC.

Now one place is evacuated as mentioned there, namely Asason Tamar. Thanks to Osgood, I know the clarifying text from II Chronicles that says this is En-Geddi.

Now, the Chalcolithic of En-Geddi features temple treasures evacuated on reed mats and their carbon date is 3500 BC.

This means, the real date 1935 BC is carbon dated to 3500 BC. With 1565 extra years, presumably the carbon 14 level was at 82.7 pmC, like you find in samples from AD 385 or thereabout (and as then the level was 100 pmC, the 82.7 reflect actual decay, not an initial low level).

If you cannot be sure carbon dated "3500 BC" reflects an actual 3500 BC, why presume a carbon dated "4000 BC" reflects an actual 4000 BC?

Or if you think you can be sure, where is your evidence?

Video III

Why I Left, 3 Questions Jehovahs Witnesses Can't Answer
27th Jan. 2022 | JW Science!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykFPl5K7YSc

I

1:56 It is actually on the one making the claim "homo sapiens originated 400 000 years in Ethiopia" to provide the proof positive, rather than on Christians to provide a disproof.

I can in fact disprove the idea that man speaking with human language (whether the point is reached at sapiens or "already" at erectus is beside the point) cannot develop from beasts not speaking human language.

I can also provide a historical proof against there being a date like 400 000 years ago, namely, the Bible seems pretty legitimate as chronicle of world history from very early after Adam's creation, and Adam (with descendants) doesn't seem to have bumped into earlier men, or he or his descendants would have discovered they were not the first around.

I can also provide some arguments, reasonable to my view, that the methods (non-historical) by which dates like 400 000 years ago are not reliable and certainly not proof.

But none of these things meet the requirement of proving (presumably scientifically, not historically) that homo sapiens was not around since 400 000 years ago in Ethiopia. I can only state, how about making some kind of proof why this would matter, like that "science" and "archaeology" together "saying" something is always prima facie proof what they say is true?

2:06 I think Adam was created on the coordinates of Jerusalem. Outside Eden. Eden was east of that and Eve was created in Eden. I don't think Adam would have walked as far as Baghdad coordinates on day six so I highly doubt he went as far east as Baghdad.

Emmaus (if east of Jerusalem) seems a more realistic option. Would also make the Eucharist with the Emmaus disciples literally "paradise regained" (even geographically).

Bonus point : it seems to be in Ayalon, so Joshua came there too. Extra bonus point, even if Adam was more than we, would he, without God's special help, have made the 32 km (160 stades) in time to both name beasts and go to sleep at 3pm while God created Eve? So, if God gave him special help and also gave the Emmaus disciples special help, that's another sign of this being a fairly good spot to prefer over Baghdad.

II

2:34 "400 000 years of archaeology"

Let's quote wiki: "One of the first sites to undergo archaeological excavation was Stonehenge and other megalithic monuments in England. John Aubrey (1626–1697) was a pioneer archaeologist who recorded numerous megalithic and other field monuments in southern England. He was also ahead of his time in the analysis of his findings. He attempted to chart the chronological stylistic evolution of handwriting, medieval architecture, costume, and shield-shapes." (article Archaeology, a linea First Excavations)

Even if John Aubrey did this when he was newborn (clearly impossible in a sense that talking snakes aren't, if angelic beings use their apparatus, especially a fallen one), he excavated Stonehenge less than 400 years ago, not 400 000 years ago.

So, we do NOT have 400 000 years of archaeology. You presumably mean we have in very recent years had archaeologists make claims about dating some of the excavations to 400 000 years back. That's a very different claim. There is no 400 000 years of targetting archaeological knowledge behind that archaeological claim of having knowledge.

III

3:49 IIa) 5000 years ago, 2957 BC, the Flood left lots of sediment, beast fossils, plant fossils, like some in Karroo considered from fauna types in them as "Permian, Triassic and Jurassic", some in coal mines considered as "Carboniferous" and so on.
IIb) when considering "kind" as equalling "species" you put the problem on the wrong level. There was ONE couple of hedgehogs on the Ark, and from them we have today SEVENTEEN species of hedgehogs in FIVE genera. Hedgehogs are a subfamily, not a species, in taxonomy.

4:39 Have you heard of the Sahul-Sunda landbridge? Back in the ice age?

Like, Creationists consider the ice age was from Flood and ensuing centuries, I'd consider that as 2957 BC to 2607 BC (when Noah died). And scientists have linked Sahul Sunda to sth like a landbridge in precisely the ice age, their problem being only they misdate the ice age.

5:00 On CMI, the reason cangaroos and Tasmanian devils came to Oz, that being very far out, is, being shy, they fled from placental mammals.

Luckily for the cangaroos, Sahul Sunda was flooded in the Younger Dryas (just at the end of Noah's lifetime, the very years before 2607 BC) when the ice age ended and the sea levels rose. No teleportation needed, though it would not have been impossible either.

IV

6:02 Finally, you have a point I don't need to disagree on, as I am a creationist, "but" not a JW.*

Generally speaking dates this far back have some issues historically as to reliable chronology.

607 BC is a standin for more mainstream 539 BC?

St. Gregory of Tours, writing about events about 1000 years later, considered Clovis died in 555 AD, and St. Martin died 444 AD, and obviously this was symbolically connected to Christ dying 33 AD. It so happens, St. Martin actually died earlier, in 400, and it was his successor St. Brice who died 444. And Clovis in 510.

Generally speaking, the further back, the less reliable chronology.

* It can be added, they are now into Day Age, not pure YEC!

V

Dialogue

TruthHasSpoken

Congrats on leaving ! Your questions are good ones for Witnesses. Watchtower error's by taking the bible at times literalistically (the words), not literally (the meaning the author intended to convey) and at other times visa versa when they shouldn't. They have a hard time interpreting the text as it's not their book to begin with, and they have decapitated it from the faith from which it came. The Kangaroo question (eastern grey Kangaroo) is one I ask Witnesses. I never get an answer and I can see them stumble always when I ask it, though I do with gentleness and respect.

TruthHasSpoken

@Vusi Mngomezulu Still waiting for your answer as to what is in error with timeline below, all using Watchtower's literature. Watchtower's own literature proves Jerusalem fell in 586/587 bc (thus 1914 is bunk, and WT is a man-made organization, not of God, warned of in scripture)

539 bc - Babylon falls to Persia (Awake, 6/12/12 p 12)
556 bc - Nebonidus reigned for 17 yrs, the Babylonians defeated him (Aid to Bible Understanding, p 409)
555/6 bc - Labiashi-Marduk reigned for < 1 year, succeeded by Nebonidus (A2BU, p 1196)
560 bc - Neriglissar reigned 4 years, succeed by Labiashi-Marduk (A2BU, p 178)
562 bc - Evil-Merodach reigned 2 years, succeeded by Neriglissar (A2BU, p 178)
605 bc - Nebuchadnezzar reigned 43 years, succeed by his son Evil (Awil) Merodach (Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, pg 480)
586/587 bc - Jerusalem fell in the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. (2 Kings 25:8-9, New World Translation)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Kangaroo question (eastern grey Kangaroo) is one I ask Witnesses."

As a Catholic (I converted back in 1988, before the infamous "CCC" and its promotion of evolution, taken by some as nec plus ultra of the magisterium, am currently accepting Pope Michael as Pope - at least he doesn't believe either Adam had lots of not quite human sapiens ancestry or that he lived 400 000 years ago), as a Catholic, what is the problem?

I think Tas Walker and Jonathan Sarfati could answer it quite well, I have simply little patience to listen to when this comes in the video, since at 3:06 or something he already tears my patience to pieces with his total transfer of confidence in Watchtower club to having it in "science" club instead. Btw, while they are not Catholics, and while your attitude helps to keep them away from Catholicism, they are clearly not JWs!

Vusi Mngomezulu

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Please answer my simple questions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Vusi Mngomezulu I cannot see the comment you made to Truth has spoken.

I also do not know why you think you posed any question to me. I don't see any comment between my own one and your words "Please answer my simple questions."

Perhaps you meant to ask Truth has spoken to do so and clicked an answer button on the wrong comment?

TruthHasSpoken

@Hans-Georg Lundahl " "CCC" and its promotion of evolution,"

Note, there is no dogmatic / doctrinal stance on creationism vs evolution. Catholics can take either side. IMHO, science points to evolution but within that framework, God did indeed have an original male and female human couple. The point of Genesis that the author is conveying, is that God created all things.

" your attitude helps to keep them away from Catholicism,"

How so ? Note, my conversation's with Witnesses is quite varied. It depends on what they bring up in conversation usually (evolution is one of them) but most often, I focus on the Deity of Christ, what the word "begotten" means, what the word "Son of God" means, and how it is that they know that their bible's table of contents is true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthHasSpoken You forgot the case about the particular cangaroo species ... I'll perhaps resume watching. Here is anyway on your arguments, not in the same order:

"The point of Genesis that the author is conveying, is that God created all things."

1) Is that the point of Genesis 49:10? I thought the point of that is, the Messiah came before Judaea lost sovereign state status, after Herod I died?
2) Is there anyone else than Moses you think is the author?
3) If you consider the point of Genesis 5 and 11 is not chronological, please show how Genesis 5 and 11 are supposed to fit with your idea that "[t]he point of Genesis that the author is conveying, is that God created all things."

" Note, my conversation's with Witnesses is quite varied."

But your attitude on Creation vs Evolution is certainly part of what keep Creationist Ministries like the named Australians of CMI to consider Catholicism is the true Church!

"It depends on what they bring up in conversation usually (evolution is one of them) but most often, I focus on the Deity of Christ, what the word "begotten" means, what the word "Son of God" means,"

Sarfati and Walker being Trinitarian, they have no need of that.

"Note, there is no dogmatic / doctrinal stance on creationism vs evolution. Catholics can take either side."

Would you mind writing that in a mail to the Archdiocese of Paris as well as the FSSPX in Paris, also known as St. Nicolas du Chardonnet? I am being treated as either a JW, or at least unduly influenced by them, because I am creationist.

However, seriously, I think you are wrong. Humani Generis did not allow for Adam having parents that were truly human (if they had been, he would not have been the first man), and without such, there is no possibility they could have been talking, so he would have grown up as a feral child. The non-traditional alternative that Pius XII allowed learned people to defend in learned debates is a dead end for this reason.

"science points to evolution"

Can you explain what "science" means in this context? Is astrology a science? Does European and Romanian hedgehogs evolving from a common ancestor equal evolution, or is the word for some vaster thing, like millions and billions of years and cats and dogs having a common ancestor?

TruthHasSpoken

@Hans-Georg Lundahl “You forgot the case about the particular cangaroo species”

I don’t follow you. My question to Jehovah’s Witnesses is “how is it that the Eastern Grey Kangaroo is only found in Australia ?” (and neither is there archeological evidence anywhere else in the world for it). This is an example only. I never, ever get a good answer from them. If one takes Genesis in a literalist way, Noah and the Ark - the flood waters covering the entire earth - only occurring some 5000 years ago, one has difficulty answering how this land animal traversed the sea … only to be found in Australia.

"The point of Genesis that the author is conveying, is that God created all things."

In context, I was referring to the creation story of Gen 1.

“Is there anyone else than Moses you think is the author?”

See the article on Catholic dot com website written by Jimmy Akin, Who Wrote the Books of Moses. This is another topic on which the Catholic Church does not take a doctrinal stance. It matters not to my faith at all whether there were one or multiple authors. It remains ... the Written Word of God, inspired by God. I leave it there.

“But your attitude on Creation vs Evolution is certainly part of what keep Creationist Ministries like the named Australians of CMI to consider Catholicism is the true Church!”

I echo the teaching of the Catholic Church. If they don’t agree then it’s on them.

“Would you mind writing that in a mail to the Archdiocese of Paris as well as the FSSPX in Paris, also known as St. Nicolas du Chardonnet?”

Write and ask them to show you when and where the Catholic Church has taken a doctrinal stance on evolution vs creationism ? They won't be able to.

“I am being treated as either a JW, or at least unduly influenced by them, because I am creationist.”

That someone would do so is wrong. It reflects the sinfulness of man, not the teaching of the Church.

“Humani Generis did not allow for Adam having parents that were truly human (if they had been, he would not have been the first man),”

The Church teaches that God infused an original set of human beings with souls, whether this came from creationism or evolution. And that this original set of human being with souls, sinned, and that sin caused a rupture between God and man ... and God would eventually heal that rupture (God becoming man and offering a perfect sacrifice to heal the rupture)

"science points to evolution"

Science, archeology specifically, shows evidence of the human species evolving over time. At some point, God infused that species with human souls. Copying from a Catholic dot com article titled Adam, Eve, and Evolution as they articulate it better than me :

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthHasSpoken "My question to Jehovah’s Witnesses is"

Ah, thank you for giving it!

" I never, ever get a good answer from them."

Well, they aren't exactly experts in Creation Science.

"In context, I was referring to the creation story of Gen 1."

The point is, Genesis 1 actually has a chronological relation to Genesis 11 stating Abram left Ur of the Chaldees via genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11.

Jimmy is as usual widely off the hook on matters where he differs from Fundies (rather than from Protestants or Jews or Atheists)

"Despite the fact that he figures prominently in the books and that they quote him frequently, even relating long speeches by him, none of the books state that they were written by Moses. They do not identify an author."

That is beside the point. Neither does the Gospel of Matthew contain a verse saying it was by Matthew the Levite and former tax collector who was one of the twelve. Authorship (Matthew or Luke, Moses or David) is decided by tradition, like genre of fiction or historic (at least purported) fact (Gospel vs Lion Witch Wardrobe).

"They also contain parts that could not have been written by Moses, such as the material recording his death at the end of Deuteronomy, and indicating that some time had passed since this event: “There has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (Deut. 34:10)."

Yeah, the precisely last chapter of the five books was actually written by Joshua.

"There are other passages that it’s hard to imagine Moses writing, such as the one stressing his humility: “Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all men that were on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3)."

It's not a cultural universal that meekness is a good thing, and Moses could have seen it as a handicap. A humble man may not write the words "I have the Christian virtue of humility" but he may very well write "I have a real low self esteem". I think that is exactly what Moses meant. And God LATER revealed that this was a good thing. In II Kings 6:22 King David uses the word "humilis" in a way that doesn't convey he regards it as a virtue, he regarded it as a tactic.

Hence, Moses' real humility is not a proof he cannot have written he was the most humble.

"In the 1700s, scholars began to propose that there were certain identifiable sources that were used in the composition of the Pentateuch."

Did Jimmy Akin even check if Astruc and Wellhausen were put on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, before it was abolished?

"I echo the teaching of the Catholic Church. If they don’t agree then it’s on them."

In fact THEY echo the constant teaching of the Catholic Church over centuries, you don't. It's on you.

"Write and ask them to show you when and where the Catholic Church has taken a doctrinal stance on evolution vs creationism ? They won't be able to."

I am humbler than any other man around here - in the sense of having a social handicap, which they acerbate. I don't expect them to answer me, any of them, they have avoided it in the past. I was asking you for the service Aaron gave Moses before the Pharao ...

"That someone would do so is wrong. It reflects the sinfulness of man, not the teaching of the Church."

That sinfulness of man reflects the consensus of clergy in the Archdiocese.

"The Church teaches that God infused an original set of human beings with souls"

Indeed.

"whether this came from creationism or evolution."

Pius XII refused to himself decide on it.

Pius XII was however not saying Adam's physical ancestry could have had rational souls.

Now, the important thing is, if Adam was ever conceived and inherited anything with whatever mutations, he was a child. And if his progenitors had no souls, they also had no human language, meaning he would have grown up as a feral child.

"evidence of the human species evolving over time. At some point, God infused that species with human souls."

Yes, at its very beginning. Anything else would have made Adam a feral child, before he sinned.

"It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance"

"Allows for" is overdoing what Pius XII actually said in Humani Generis § 36. He doesn't say that the teaching "allows for" it, he says the magisterium does at present not forbid learned men to investigate it. I think the feral child argument would close the investigation, rationally speaking (but Archdiocese of Paris AND Trads here have not shown themselves rational).

TruthHasSpoken

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "It's on you."

The Church has no doctrine on creationism vs evolution. Period. Nothing here is ON me.

That said, just HOW is it that the Eastern Grey Kangaroo is only found in Australia ??

"It's ON you" to explain it. :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthHasSpoken "Period."

Yeah, period between 1950 and now, basically. What about the other centuries? I mean, unlike me, you consider the Vatican II Sect rather than the Vatican in Exile as continuing the Vatican from 100 years ago, right, and by extension previous centuries too?

"HOW is it that the Eastern Grey Kangaroo is only found in Australia ??"

I forgot to repeat it in this thread (still somewhat doused from a few kicks on the forehead I got on Holy Saturday morning), but in my comments on time signature 4:39 and 5:00 below my comment on time signature 3:49, I answered JW Science! like this:

// Have you heard of the Sahul-Sunda landbridge? Back in the ice age?

Like, Creationists consider the ice age was from Flood and ensuing centuries, I'd consider that as 2957 BC to 2607 BC (when Noah died). And scientists have linked Sahul Sunda to sth like a landbridge in precisely the ice age, their problem being only they misdate the ice age.

On CMI, the reason cangaroos and Tasmanian devils came to Oz, that being very far out, is, being shy, they fled from placental mammals.

Luckily for the cangaroos, Sahul Sunda was flooded in the Younger Dryas (just at the end of Noah's lifetime, the very years before 2607 BC) when the ice age ended and the sea levels rose. No teleportation needed, though it would not have been impossible either. //

Freely after CMI, including the Australians Sarfati and Walker, as mentioned (they don't use the Roman martyrology for Christmas day, but Ussher as Biblical chronology, unlike me).

@TruthHasSpoken You also have not answered the point that an evolutionary origin for Adam would involve his being a human child to non-human beings which could not have had a human language, and he would have grown up a feral child - do NOT attribute that kind of cruelty to God!

TruthHasSpoken

But it seems

he took it away

after notification reached me

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Have you heard of the Sahul-Sunda landbridge? "

Still does not explain why Eastern Grey Kangaroos are ONLY found in Australia and that no archeological evidence of them (bones) are found anywhere else. Timor included.

"the reason cangaroos and Tasmanian devils came to Oz, that being very far out, is, being shy, they fled from placental mammals."

And ... where is the evidence to support this claim ?

"Yeah, period between 1950 and now, basically."

Period. The Catholic Church has never, ever had a doctrinal position. Before 1950. After 1950. Never. And if you think that it did, just cite the Church writing. No conjecture, no personal opinions needed. Just the Church writing that backs up your position.

Should be easy if you are right. :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthHasSpoken "Still does not explain why Eastern Grey Kangaroos are ONLY found in Australia"

Well, because they were getting away from certain placental mammals ... which came along elsewhere.

"And ... where is the evidence to support this claim ?"

CMI, being precisely Australians, ought to know how shy kangaroos are, right?

"and that no archeological evidence of them (bones) are found anywhere else. Timor included."

Why presume that small populations should leave palaentological traces where they just pass? MOST traces of the past are gone.

I'll give you another question, on the same logic as yours, which evolutionists explain that manner : why is it that nowhere, ever, anywhere, in the whole world, two layers of different periods of land vertebrates lie straight on top of each other, as far as we have found? Evolutionists will have it, most traces of the past are gone, so, sure, on this or that or sundry place, a Permian fauna will have lived there, on land, and later on a Triassic fauna, but they didn't both leave traces we found, because that would be just too rare a coincidence, and so on for any other pair of two periods, let alone triple of three ...

"And if you think that it did, just cite the Church writing."

Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono; a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo; a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo; a Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo; ab unctione David in Regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo; Hebdomada sexagesima quinta, juxta Danielis prophetiam; Olympiade centesima nonagesima quarta; ab urbe Roma condita, anno septingentesimo quinquagesimo secundo; anno Imperii Octaviani Augusti quadragesimo secundo, toto Orbe in pace composito, sexta mundi aetate, Jesus Christus, aeternus Deus aeternique Patris Filius, mundum volens adventu suo piissimo consecrare, de Spiritu Sancto conceptus, novemque post conceptionem decursis mensibus (Hic vox elevatur, et omnes genua flectunt), in Bethlehem Judae nascitur ex Maria Virgine factus Homo.

Martyrologium Romanum for December 25th. At your service.

"Having disposed of the very difficult questions concerning the origin of our world and the beginning of the human race, the natural order requires that we now discuss the fall of the first man (we may say of the first men), and of the origin and propagation of human death. For God had not made man like the angels, in such a condition that, even though they had sinned, they could none the more die. He had so made them, that if they discharged the obligations of obedience, an angelic immortality and a blessed eternity might ensue, without the intervention of death; but if they disobeyed, death should be visited on them with just sentence — which, too, has been spoken to in the preceding book."

St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book 13, "Chapter 1.— Of the Fall of the First Man, Through Which Mortality Has Been Contracted." At your service.

On top of your theory requiring an ancestry which would have left young Adam a feral child, it obviously also requires death before sin, if not of men, at least of creatures very like men - sth which St. Augustine says here is impossible.

Do you want more?

TruthHasSpoken

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Well, because they were getting away from certain placental mammals ... which came along elsewhere."

And those placental animals chased them all the way to Australia ! That's quite a journey from Turkey ! Why did the placental animals not ALSO go to Australia ?

"St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book 13, "Chapter 1.— Of the Fall of the First Man, Through Which Mortality Has Been Contracted."

I love St Augustine. Have read many of his writings, including his tractates. His words that you cited do not constitute Catholic Doctrine.

Interesting George. Taken in a literalist interpretation, the Old Testament flood (and Noah's Ark) occurred some 5,000 years ago. YET .. the last Ice Age was some ~12,000 years ago. Do you see a problem with your land bridge hypothesis ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthHasSpoken "And those placental animals chased them all the way to Australia ! That's quite a journey from Turkey !"

Cizre (landing place, Mt Judi) to Sydney : 13 733 km. Ice age, 350 years (Flood to death of Noah). 39 km 237 m per year.

"Why did the placental animals not ALSO go to Australia ?"

They didn't hurry, since less shy, and the Sahul Sunda landbrige or near such was flooded and the gap very much widened 350 years after the Flood, in the Younger Dryas.

"St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book 13, "Chapter 1.— Of the Fall of the First Man, Through Which Mortality Has Been Contracted."

"I love St Augustine. Have read many of his writings, including his tractates."

OK ... in which of them does he show any openness to Deep Time?

"His words that you cited do not constitute Catholic Doctrine."

By themselves, if there are other Church Fathers that contradict him on the point and supposing this had no Biblical backing in St. Paul, which it does ... can you:
a) identify and read the relevant passage in St. Paul and show a chink where you can wedge in death before Adam?
b) show another Church Father or himself at another time promoting Deep Time or a mere openness to it?

"Taken in a literalist interpretation, the Old Testament flood (and Noah's Ark) occurred some 5,000 years ago. YET .. the last Ice Age was some ~12,000 years ago. Do you see a problem with your land bridge hypothesis ?"

A total impossibility - for those who take the 12 000 years ago in a literal interpretation.

I reckon carbon years can be due to both decay and lower initial carbon 14 content. Have I made it clear how I "get around" the problem?

Carbon 14 in 2957 BC : 1.4 pmC (1/64 of present value or of 100 pmC). Adds 35 000 carbon years to the actual age.
Carbon 14 when Noah died (as per Babel beginning and identifying it with Göbekli Tepe), that is in 2607 BC : 43 pmC. Adds 7000 carbon years.

TruthHasSpoken

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "can you"

Hans, I have no interest in debating this topic ... zero. The Catholic Church has never established doctrine on evolution vs creationism. I bid you peace .. and wish you well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthHasSpoken If you mean:

• since Darwin
• on the level of infallible dogma
• or on the level of universal Church

you just happen to be right.

If you mean creationism is fine enough even not in direct polemics against evolution, on levels like fidei proxima, or on levels more regional, you are totally wrong. It is up to you if you dare the debate on that one or not, but just to mention, it's like Nestorius saying to a layman (and I suppose you aren't even bishop) "you can't say it's heresy to deny Theotokos, the council of Ephesus hasn't been held yet!" You see, Nestorius was apparently in excellent standing, since patriarch of Constantinople (from 10 April 428 to August 431) and the first guy who took issue with his stance was a layman, obviously not on the basis of infallible dogma.

In the case of "lex credendi lex orandi" (and vice versa), the fact of the Roman martyrology from 1583 to 1992 or something and before that the Usuardus used in Rome since late 1400's definitely is, if not dogmatically, at least on some clear level doctrinally saying God created heaven and earth 5199 years before Christ was born. Session IV of Trent ties the exegesis at least disciplinary to consensus of Church Fathers, and you cannot say that the matter is too unimportant (to be doctrinal) if:

• they polemised against longer timelines
• it touches humanity of Adam
• goodness of God before sin
• truth of Christ (like not just intending to be truthful, but also knowing what He has to witness to) in Marc 10:6
• and good guidance of God offered to mankind from Adam to Christ, as per Dei Verbum §3, which is very Young Earth Creationist compatible.

If in face of this, you are still stuck in Deep Time a few millions of years ago, well, I bet you "have no interest in debating this topic" - with someone more knowledgeable on Creation Science and on Catholicism than the JW's you usually meet.

@TruthHasSpoken Forgot a local council in Cologne actually affirming Creationism after Darwin, just before Vatican I (which didn't repeat it, but also didn't get to finish proceedings). So, on local levels, while not infallible, you have a doctrinal statement since Darwin, in direct polemics. It would certainly have excluded Adam having evolutionary ancestry.

TruthHasSpoken

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Rather Hans, I have no interested in debating it .. it matters not to my Catholic Faith. Other uses of my time. Don't puff yourself up in thinking ITS YOU ... I see much pride in you (just saying)

"* on the level of infallible dogma ... or on the level of universal Church ... you just happen to be right. "

Right. Which was my point all along. Catholic's are free to disagree, and thus, I defend your right to your position. And that same Universal Church never held a doctrine on the topic, even before Darwin.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TruthHasSpoken Yeah, it is obviously very proud to say one has an argument against someone else's position, when one has in advance backed that by arguing and the other has refused to do so?

And very humble to answer an argument by appeals to detecting pride rather than by argument?

"you just happen to be right"

If, and only if, you actually need a direct papal definition or ecumenic council definition specifically directed against Darwin's and Deep Time's specific errors, not just general support for YEC credenda.

"Catholic's are free to disagree,"

I haven't seen that in Paris ... and you haven't shown a specific right prior to the discussion to disagree on whether Adam's direct creation from dust, Biblical timeline, universal flood, all kinds now living from the Ark (unless fish or invertebrates).

The specific right given by Pius XII was given in a very hedged fashion, he didn't say anyone had a right to believe Adam had biological ancestry, he said people had a right to defend that in debate. You seem more interested in believing it (a right not granted in 1950 HG § 36) than in defending it (a right actually given in the hedged manner "at present the magisterium does not forbid" - very much weaker than "it is allowed" which he didn't say).

I'm Not Putting Feminism over Islam, and David Wood is Right on Some, Not on All

That's one reason I disagree with David Wood, while also not believing Islam is the right religion (I don't think Protestantism is it either, by the way).

Without Lies, Islam . . .
29th April 2022 | Acts17Apologetics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feH0oXrMOfk

That the Blessed Virgin Mary was anything from 12 to 16 is more probable than Her being over 18.

St. Joseph would have been a widower, though 90 is less likely than 45 - 60 or sth - he was still active in the flight to Egypt, but was arguably dead before Christ started His Public ministry.

Also, as all four women in the OT who individually are explicitly named "blessed" are types of the Blessed Virgin : the two "among women" were so for defeating an enemy of Israel, She defeated Satan (already, and once more with Her Son); Abigail stopped King David from killing and Israelite and She stops Christ from rejecting unworthy Christians from their repentance, and Ruth married an old man (the closer relative of her husband would have been younger, more of an age peer), and She ... well, it seems St. Joseph would be an old man.

Dialogue:

Leo M

Why on earth the permittable age of marriage is still discussed in xxi century. Is like people denied all sciencntifal advance made by humanity for last 1000 years.
On the other side we have still people who believe in flat earth.
Back when I was in school that would something next to silly joke.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There is actually no scientific advance at all involved in the change of the permittable age for marriage.

Muslims go to the extreme low end of the well known puberty spectrum that was well known 1000 years ago : 9 years.
Modern feminists go to the xtreme high end : 18 years.

Catholics traditionally go to the mid point : 14 for men, 12 for women.

Jeff Wii

Thats the wonder of Islam.. make everything backward again

Leo M

@Hans-Georg Lundahl well, I know that some people discredit all psychological knowledge but you can not really discredit the knowledge on human development.
Developmental studies show clearly that 6, 9 and 12 years old are far from being ready to undertake the responsibilities that goes with marriage and surly are not ready to start the action activities. I would say 18 years old are still not ready and would discurrage so early marriage.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Leo M That is not a progress in the knowledge of development, it's a shift in the assessment of what it means to be ready and also what the responsabilities are.

It's ideology.

History disagrees.

I'd as likely ask you to consider the progress in astrology and pretend Virgos should marry late (some people knowing myself to be one seem to have wanted to delay my marriage, so they are presumably astrologers).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jeff Wii I'm fairly fine with being "backward again" and think you are unjustly flattering Islam.

Some of the things you'd call progress, like policing and psychiatry come from the Islamic culture. You may not realise that from Quran or Hadiths, but look up Harun ar Rashid in Arabian Nights, or the Cairo stories about a former thief gone police detective.

Top Ten Myths Muslims Believe about Islam
30th Jan 2021 | Acts17Apologetics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LajSmnUmz9A

1:17 That the Sun goes around the Earth is true. Joshua 10:12. If it wasn't usually the Sun and Moon that moved, but Earth turning around itself, this would be the only instance that a Miracle Worker in all of the Bible told another entity than the one supposed to miraculously change behaviour what to do. Also, in Malachy (I think it was, or perhaps Habacuc*) it says they stood still "in their orbits" and not that they stood still as seen from our perspective.

Unlike Magellan for Earth being round, there is no proof for Heliocentrism. THE top argument from such minded scientists to the non-specialists would arguably have been telling them to discount their immediate vision of things, since to Martians or Selenians or Jovians, Mars, Moon, Jupiter would seem the centre of the Earth. Never mind we haven't found any Martians, Selenians or Jovians. That was how Kepler argued in his "Dream" and how Euler argued to tell a Prussian princess (apart from appealing to specialist status of Newton). And as I spent more of my childhood before puberty in Germany and Austria than in Sweden, I also heard that argument in Austria. As a child.

And you had better believe me, I have made a comment on the top six reasons** for earth turning around itself and one on the top six for its orbitting the sun, I have answered more about heliocentrism than you are here answering about Islam. Some of these arguments would make real good sense if there were no God, but that's about it.

That the Heavens would fall down on Earth, if taken as a literal roof, is arguably nonsense, but some things would fall flat without God upholding them. 22:65 is understating it : they would fall, not to Earth, but into nothingness.

* Habacuc 3:11, in fact
** in response to Frédéric Chaberlo:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Fr. Chaberlot sur le paradigme héliocentrique - avec mes critiques
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2012/12/fr-chaberlot-sur-le-paradigme.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : La cosmologie moderne, repose-t-elle sur spéculation non vérifiée ou non?
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/01/la-cosmologie-moderne-repose-t-elle-sur.html

Each of them is involved in a series that features "history of science" and involves observations on "discoveries" in the Galileo sense, as they were made.

3:16 I recall a few Muslims sitting around a prison table, they had more and more monopolised my company and one of them stated "Muhammed was like the son of God" - and myself getting in trouble for contesting this and stating who really IS not just "a" (an adopted) but THE Son of God, namely Jesus, and thereon stating what I believed and believe about the Quran. Namely, first instance, it's not being the word of God, and second instance, stating whom I believed instead had talked to Mohammed.

So, are you depicting me as an Islamiser?

4:02 Was Mohammed swearing false here?

4:53 Mohammed did something else to black African slaves too. Europeans usually didn't.

Afro-Americans have typically often African Y-chromosomes. Afro-Iraqis have typically often Iraqi Y chromosomes.

7:36 On this one, the Quran could be defended.

1) Earth, dust, mud = creation of Adam's body
2) water, blood clot, small seed = creation of bodies after that
3) nothing = creation of souls.

While this doesn't make the Quran inspired by God, it is on this one basically citing Jewish and Christian sources without absurdity.

The context for "nothing" being the individual man, and what he recalls, it is apt that the individual memory confirms the soul was created from nothing.

9:30 It is also formulated in such a way that it can be taken to mean not just a ban on "apostatising" from Islam, but on any conversion except the one to Islam.

As I have converted from more or less Evangelical Church Hopper to Lutheran and from Lutheran to Catholic and since then have been a few years (late 2006 to Pentecost 2009) among the Orthodox and then back to Catholic, there would be people who would be targetting me for that reason, if they take 4067 of your source that way.

And as it is not quite safe to make me directly a martyr in the West, giving me an "excuse" as mental patient is also a way of such targetting. Unfortunately, more than one non-Muslim seems to have been somewhat happy to extend me such excuses for similar reasons ... Jews for calling Mary Mother of God and for preferring Catholicism as a Christian confession (when I have some Jewish ancestry), Protestants for thinking there is no ban on bowing down to images (separate from the ban on strange gods, and hence concerned with images of idolatrous religions, it's not the image that makes a religion idolatrous, see a man on Quora called David Chord), Evolution believers for my being YEC and Geocentric, Modernist "Catholics" for thinking I am Catholic while being YEC and Geocentric (hint : I converted in 1988, the openly pro-modern-science "Catechism of the Catholic Church" was not an object for my promise to believe what the Church teaches, it only came in 1992, when I had already concluded Modernists weren't really Catholics) ... possibly one or two Orthodox too, for reasons both of their Modernism and their anti-Catholic prejudices.

10:22 Actually, the NT claims to submit to Jesus, you need to submit to His Church.
Mohammed is about as credible as Joseph Smith and a lot more credible than Luther, when it comes to this. And obviously none of these three really is credible. Catholicism is.

Matthew 18:17 says individuals need to submit to the judgement of the Church and II Tim 4:15 shows an individual excommunication.
Matthew 28:19 says nations need to do that too as is confirmed by Apocalypse 2:27, 12:5 and 19:15, which is a nice parallel to Psalm 2:9 showing Christ is Son of The Lord. The parallel between Apoc passages to Mt 28 is most directly to verse 18 the words "and in earth" or "and on earth", making verse 19 a proof Christ delegates His powers at least to some degree to His Church.

11:26 "Allah's speech ... is also eternal"

Question between two great religions - was the Word made Flesh - or Paper?

While the idea of the Muslims is garbled, it is an echo of Christian truth.

The question between Catholics and Protestants is similar - did Christ delegate Flesh or Paper to represent Him while His visible presence is up in Heaven and not down here?

There are Calvinists who refer to the Bible as "the paper Pope".

11:43 "in addition to the eternal Quran, Allah's spirit is eternal"

By now they have echoed all of the Blessed Trinity.

And, like Islam, Mormonism also rejected the Three in One, and reduce the Three Persons to simply Three and is also therefore Polytheistic.

13:02 I can't state for sure Feminism isn't worse than Islam.

Just to mention one point : abortion.

14:25 sth There is actually one more place than Fantasy Land where Islam has improved the status of women.

A bit like Catholics and Anglicans too. The Indian subcontinent. But perhaps that is what you meant by Fantasy Land, so much being clearly Disney Land in that area.

There are Hindoo "saints" who count as "saints" for being "martyred" for burning widows. That murder would have met death penalty under Portugal as much as under Muslim majority populations - for instance in Pakistan.

I'm not sure whether English possessions hung or just imprisoned widow burners.

15:41 Now you are attacking Christianity.

2.9 children per woman = "very low view", average of non-Muslims is 2.2, Christians are at 2.6, a Feminist would say this proves, Christians have the second lowest view of women, as they have the second highest fertility. So, a high view of women would involve low fertility, and you get that in China and India where abortion is allowed and female foeti are selectively aborted, but if a woman isn't aborted, hey, at least she enjoys a high view, since a low fertility.

While David Wood, having concentrated fairly much on apologetics against Islam, is knowledgdeable on much, far more than I, not having converted to Catholicism, he doesn't notice when he's really attacking Islam for being right, for agreeing with Catholicism. Like appreciating a high fertility in married women.

Etsy and Yanki

Jewish Girl Is Forcefully Married To An Elderly* Guy, So She Leaves Home And Runs Away
23rd Febr 2022 | Pink Movies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqRSPoHvwUE

* Actually, Yanki isn't elderly, he's about Etsy's age.

In Catholicism, there is no such thing as a forced and valid mariage.

Arranged, yes, forced, no.

And meeting is considered not just OK, but normal.

What was St. Francis of Sales saying about temptation and sin?

"Just as a maiden, as long as she says no, isn't married, so a tempted soul not consenting isn't sinning"

Btw, his mother married at 14 a man either 40 or even older than that - but they had been seeing each other since she was 8 (seeing in parents' presence, not touching).

I think the idea of not seeing each other before the wedding night has two roots.

1) If our ancestor Juda was born of a wedding where Jacob only saw Leah after trying to marry Rachel, why shouldn't we make parental arrangements like Laban? Well, what about Joseph, who was born of Jacob's marriage to Rachel?
2) The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. - God didn't bless that. But the problem was not the fact of a personal choice (see Jacob with Rachel), it was the fact it was unilateral. The sons of God here probably means angelic beings.

Alternative reading - sons of God is Seth's godly line, and daughters of men are some ungodly line (Cainite or other) and the problem is choice outside the true religion. Jacob was also obedient about not looking for a wife where he was living, among Canaaneans.

Please note, as Catholicism is the true religion, I'd be making that exact mistake if I married someone of Jewish, secularist, Muslim, Calvinist, 7 Day Adventist or so on and so forth convictions.

Bridegroom 45, Bride 14

14-year-old Girl Married an 45-year-old man. What would happen to the poor little Bride?
9th April 2021 | JIANG ZI MOVIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxva8pgqZV8

In the European middle ages, a bride of 14 could certainly marry a man of 45 at times, and even be his third wife.

But women's worth was not in being a wife and bearing a son to the exclusion of everyone else. (everything else, sry).

If she was a third wife, two wives would be already dead, often enough from childbirth. And girls who didn't want to risk that had an option of going into the monastery. Option, not enforced punishment, as with the adulteress female servant in this picture.

A daughter of the Habsburg Emperor married at 26, because a marriage she didn't like had been arranged for her. She kept saying "I don't like him, I'd rather go into the monastery" and she finally got another husband, probably she might have preferred the monastery even over him, but he wasn't as bad and the imperial dad didn't want to miss out on the opportunity of an alliance through a daughter.

There is a superficial similarity between Confucian feudal and Catholic feudal, but it is - superficial.

Obviously, I disagree with the ideology behind the expression "reproduction machines" ...

Eve was called Eve, as mother of all living.

She was also promised pain in childbirth (few exceptions since then) for her sin.

History vs Dillahunty

Matt Dillahunty Dismisses History
11th April 2021 | The Crusader Pub
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DiwH2aUJFY

1:16 Hear Matt Dillahunty!

"I'm not a historian, I'm not a historian!"

I think these ten words are the most candid phrase he ever spoke!

So true for when back as Evangelical he believed Baptist Continuity or Landmarkism, I suppose and so true now he is an Atheist.

2:37 "was later identified by Constantine in the fourth century"

By Constantine's mother, St. Helen, perhaps, you mean, the son who was Emperor remaining in Constantinople?

I'd refer to, though I haven't recently reread, How the Holy Cross was Found: from event to Medieval Legend by Stephan Borgehammar, who gives three versions of the legend from within 100 years after the at least purported event, concluding that the legend must have formed soon after the purported event and basically letting people understand it was a deference to Swedish Academia (very atheist) not to conclude even further that the event happened, with the shadow of the midmost Cross raising a dead person, and so on, as the legends portray the event.

Unlike Dillahunty, Stephan Borgehammar actually is a Historian, as at least a Church Historian, subdiscipline of Theology at Lund University.

Suan Sonna Corrects Sola Scriptura

Why Sola Scriptura Isn't Compatible with Other Protestant Beliefs w/ Suan Sonna
19th Oct. 2021 | Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq6gyorv5Go

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Accept the traditions - there goes, as mentioned, Protestants trying to do without bishops or Apostolic succession, but of course also Theistic Evolution.

Jekris Certeza

What tradition is here referring to? How does he know that Paul was referring to RC tradition? The Biblical text where Paul says tradition was clearly referring to the Gospel he was preaching.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jekris Certeza The Gospel he was preaching, no qualms about that.

How do we identify that today?

Well, as he said to hold fast to traditions, he presumed the Church he was part of to be capable to hold fast to traditions - not to abandon them and only a thousand years later have them painstakingly reconstituted by learned scholars looking through the Scriptures.

Holy Scripture has no word saying "the Scriptures will always be faithfully copied somewhere" but it has words saying the Church will hold fast to its primitive traditions.

And this means that all Protestantism is blown out of the water.

"How does he know that Paul was referring to RC tradition"

The options are:

• Roman Catholic (as said not the perversions that involve Theistic Evolution)
• Eastern Orthodox
• Coptic (also referred to as Monophysite)
• Armenian (also referred to as Monophysite, though not the same as previous)
• Assyrian (also referred to as Nestorian).

If we eliminate Nestorians and Monophysites as Christological extremes, that leaves RC and EO.

When we see the differences, between these two, EO is the only with some clearly antipapist bias (RC have Popes in Rome, Coptic and Armenian and Assyrian Churches have bishops over all other bishops, that is a similar position, at Alexandria, Etchmiadzin (I think it is pronounced) and Ecbatana (I think it was)). EO are also the only ones that say unleavened bread is "Judaising heresy" ... I think from there, RC is the safer option.

Would you pretend to Baptist continuity? That would fulfill "hold fast to the traditions" if historically true or even half and half realistic, but it cannot, since historically very clearly false. And I mean very clearly. It is more probable to say that the XXth C. saw a successful Crusade against the Saracens, than that all the centuries between Nicaea and Menno Simons saw a preserved original Baptist tradition. For the crusade you at least have Word War I on the Oriental front (Turks were a successor state to Saladin, and while French and English had forgotten about the Crusade, the English took and the French left to the English a land territory involving the Holy Sepulchre) - or Franco's Crusade against the Reds (Azaña was not a Muslim, but he was, like the Saracens, an enemy of Christendom in Spain). For the Baptist continuity, there are centuries when you have nothing at all concretely historically to point at. I have seen so many adherents of BC / Ruckmanism (or a few so often over) say "but I don't know exactly where my Baptist brethren were in the AD year 600 or between the years 550 and 650, I don't care, there must have been" - well, he didn't know because there weren't any. That blows out BC. And, as said, all forms of Protestantism except BC are theologically at odds with "hold fast to the traditions". Failing to do so was not an option for the Church that Christ founded. Not with the promise in Mt 28:20.

The Crusader Pub Correcting Ray Comfort

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: The Crusader Pub Correcting Ray Comfort · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Do Catholics Believe Penal Substitution?

Ray Comfort slanders Catholics, then THIS happens
25th April 2022 | The Crusader Pub
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqt0ts9VOlI

3:42 hear, hear!

[Context : Crusader Pub here had mentioned we actually believe what the Bible says.]

8:28 Actually, he hasn't. John 6.
[46] Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. [47] Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

Him Bike

That’s not what Ray said.
Ray said u have everlasting life because u have Christ in u. The verses u posted don’t say that

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Him Bike Read verse 50 again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Him Bike By the way, if you look at the time signature, it's when Crusader Pub says Ray Comfort made something up on the spot, not about his own theology, but about the Catholic one.

So, I told Crusader Pub that, yes, we Catholics belive we do have everlasting life because of the Eucharist - and by the way, through the Eucharist we do have Christ in us.

Him Bike

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I think the point is
It’s not automatic.
Many Catholics receive the Eucharist and never go to confession and love with their girlfriend and so on. It’s not automatic. I think that is the point.
Maybe I’m splitting hairs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Him Bike The point is, those cases while occurring are not the normal case, which Our Lord was talking about.

Him Bike

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ok I’m completely confused now.
My guess is
Ray told the lady u believe because you’re Catholic u have everlasting life in the Eucharist.
My guess is the video maker of this video says
No
We have to go to confession
We have to go to mass
We have to not cheat on our wife
We have to pay taxes.
I can’t be a mafia hit man
Go to mass half the time
And say I have everlasting life because
I receive the Eucharist.
Which is what Ray is implying.
You Catholics think u have everlasting life
BECAUSE u receive the Eucharist.
No it’s much more than that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Him Bike Yes, and, as a Catholic, I consider the maker of the video is wrong.

The Eucharist is the centrepiece of everything else mentioned.

A sacrilegious communion will not give you eternal life, but they are the exception, and Christ was in John 6 stating the rule. You avoid breaking commandments to be able to go to communion, and communion also makes you better at avoiding that breaking. But simply think the commandments without the communion would get you to heaven is like saying goodness without Christ will get you there.

Him Bike

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
I’m not talking about Christ
I’m not talking about the Eucharist
I’m taking about rays presentation

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Him Bike You have Christ in your heart through the Eucharist - in some cases through the reception in voto, and in some because you are preparing to actually receive, but anyway through the Eucharist.

If you are NOT talking about Christ, but ARE talking of the Eucharist, do you really believe the Real Presence? I do.

@Him Bike Sorry, misread, missed second "not" ...

8:55 The effects are incompletely stated.
If someone without own fault goes to Communion with a mortal sin on the conscience, it is also forgiven, like if you forgot it. There are occasions, rare but extant, where making an act of perfect contrition, a resulution to confess later, and going to Communion, will restore, not just increase, your union with Christ. Like if you are dying, there is a deacon who can give communion from the sacrarium in the tabernacle, but no priest who can absolve you.

9:14 in the cases of unbaptised, it's no doctrine they receive any grace, though in fact I did receive a Catholic communion (Novus Ordo, but priest arguably ordained before 1968 or by bishop consecrated before then) before I was baptised.

However, when it comes to restored justification, in exceptional cases one does indeed obtain the forgiveness of mortal sins with the Eucharist only.

The Crusader Pub

I appreciate your watching, and your feedback. I definitely recognize that there are exceptions and nuances to the more general statements we (I) make. I think that's part of what makes Catholicism difficult for many Protestants who seem to prefer a strict black/white dynamic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The Crusader Pub Not when it comes to "all days" in Matthew 28:20, there they are so addicted to grey zones.

I would not think your statement was "more general" it was only more canonic. Theologically, it is correct to say the indwelling of Christ through the Eucharist is what gives us eternal life, since Baptism and Confirmation at the first justification, Penance and Extreme Unction at re-justifications, are directed to the Eucharist. If someone gets baptised, then dies before receiving the Eucharist, the fact of getting baptised means he received the Eucharist in voto, like St. Emerentiana arguably received baptism in voto.

10:19 As an ex-Lutheran, yes, Luther tried to avoid transsubstantiation, so have Anglicans often done historically, in the mainstream, but nevertheless taught Real Presence and split up with Zwingli over that one.

I have never, ever been a Zwinglian about the sacrament any more than Calvinist about individual election to get saved. Not when I was a Church hopping unbaptised near Evangelical, not when I was not practising much, and not when I was Lutheran.

10:50 Before you answer.

Ray's argument is like arguing against the Incarnation, and stating "who has seen me has seen the father" is just figurative, no claim to divinity, because, you see, God is still up there in Heaven, as He says so.

Yes, Our Lord did both claim divinity and that the Eucharist was His own literal body.

Gorthygara

Jesus abides in the heart of the regenerated child of God
Nope, your wrong, He is not in the Eucharist, maybe if you read the gospels but you must ask Jesus to open your eyes to see His truth and open your ears to hear His truth

Then your heart will be pierced and you may be enlightened and become Born Again with the Spirit of our God Almighty
Amen seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be open...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Gorthygara "Jesus abides in the heart of the regenerated child of God"

Correct so far, and as the Eucharist is the most important part of the [re]generation, your next sentence is wrong.

I feel no need to deny God already gave me the truth, while I was in Vienna, and the prayer you suggest me to say would be insincere and sinful.

Gorthygara

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
It's just that God does not dwell in a man made object and as the eucharist is a object made by a man then what the catholic church are doing is not God's way, nor is all the idolatry and worshipping statuses with repetitive praying goes against the teaching of the bible

Seek truth from God's Word written in the New King James Bible
They are many versof the bible also but when you seek with all your heart

God will write His Word on your heart and then you will not need another to teach you...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Gorthygara "It's just that God does not dwell in a man made object"

Like bread, or wine ... what about a body born through nine months of gestation in flesh?

"and as the eucharist is a object made by a man"

Like the bread and wine were manmade objects until the Word came along?

"then what the catholic church are doing is not God's way,"

It would not be if bread and wine remained bread and wine. Check out the guys who believe they remain bread and wine and nothing else, and still bow down ... that's not us Catholics.

"nor is all the idolatry and worshipping statuses"

You believe there is a II commandment in verses 4 to 6 in Exodus 20. We believe the II commandment begins in verse 7. And "do not bow down to them" refers, a) to strange gods, b) to the natural things worshipped as gods by pagans (lightning, sun and moon, human fertility, agrarian fertility, fish fertility, sea safety or danger, realm of the dead).

"with repetitive praying goes against the teaching of the bible"

Matthew 6:7 says nothing about "repetitive prayer" in good Bible translations, like Douay Rheims or Monsignor Knox.

Douay Rheims : 7 And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.
Knox : Moreover, when you are at prayer, do not use many phrases, like the heathens, who think to make themselves heard by their eloquence.✻
Footnote : The very rare verb which our Lord uses here probably means to ‘stammer’, to ‘hesitate’. The heathens used to address their gods by a series of titles, with the superstitious idea that the prayer would not be heard unless the right title was hit upon.

(I would myself have given as a very literalistic translation "stutterspeak" for "battologein")

"Seek truth from God's Word written in the New King James Bible"

God's word is not written, but faked in that version:

"And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words."

What heathen were doing that then and there? Buddhists and Hindoos already existed but not in the region. Islam didn't exist yet, nor Sikhism. The one kind of heathen who did already exist there used no such thing, they used the kind of holding speeches to God, like the footnote of Monsignor Knox tells. As a Latinist, I happen to know that. Velleius Paterculus is the last Roman historian preserved as such to us, of contemporary events, before a gap where we have only Gospellers and Josephus, before Tacitus resumes. His last phrase is a prayer, and Christian copyists may have shortened it:

// Let me end my volume with a prayer. O Jupiter Capitolinus, and Mars Gradivus, author and stay of the Roman name, Vesta, guardian of the eternal fire, and all other divinities who have p329 exalted this great empire of Rome to the highest point yet reached on earth! On you I call, and to you I pray in the name of this people: guard, preserve, protect the present state of things, the peace which we enjoy, the present emperor, and when he has filled his post of duty — 2 and may it be the longest granted to mortals — grant him successors until the latest time, but successors whose shoulders may be as capable of sustaining bravely the empire of the world as we have found his to be: foster the pious plans of all good citizens and crush the impious designs of the wicked.​ //

As you see, he is not repeating a short phrase, he is varying the thought in many phrases hoping one will be right ...

"They are many versof the bible also but when you seek with all your heart"

Already did, when I was younger, that's why I am a Catholic.

"God will write His Word on your heart and then you will not need another to teach you..."

He did that too.

14:18 It might include people who tell lies about Christ's Church, Crusader Pub, and it would also include people who adulterate the essence of the promises in

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

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.
[1 John 1:9]

15:36 Are you sure Ray Comfort actually does believe in further purification after death, or further sanctification?

In a sense, even Catholics don't believe this, at least dogmatically.

If I were to state "no one gains any more merit after death, purgatory is just for paying a debt on insufficient acts of penance after forgiven mortals and insufficient detachment from venials" I would perhaps not state the full truth, but it would also not be a heretical statement. Unlike the statement "there is no purgatory" it wasn't condemned at Trent.

Also, he could believe in an instantaneous deliverance from all remainders of sin, not taking time, coinciding with death or judgement of the one that's going to Heaven.

20:46 By the way, you are getting one subscriber more here ...

[The Crusader Pub also is a Catholic internet content provider who wants to get a revenue from his content - in my case not through youtube, but through anyone willing to print and sell and send me voluntary royalties.]