Saturday, November 5, 2022

Answering E. Michael Jones, up to 8:47


JRS : A History of Anti-Logos - E. Michael Jones
Fides et Ratio, 3 Oct. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfzI__P6ZXI


3:54 No, Adam and Eve were not Revolutionaries.

By a Revolutionary, I understand a person perpetrating and handing on a Revolution.

In a sense, yes, they were, Original Sin is how they handed down theirs.

But in the sense that we concern the will that is concerned with the will while they were raising Cain and Abel, they were anything but Revolutionary, they were penitent ex-Rebels.

Robert E Lee (if you agree with calling the So[u]th Rebels) had more pride in his past after handing over his sword to Ulysses Grant, than Adam and Eve had of their past act.

In fact, child sacrifice to Moloch and Aztek sunworship hanker back to two revolutions thousands of years after Genesis 3.

In Genesis 11, the technocratic revolution of Nimrod is mentioned.

A bit later, some of the nations that were separated from Hebrews by God's remedy made a religious one involving apostasy from parts of what Original Revelation taught.

But before we get to Azteks and Molochists, there has to be yet another Satanistic Revolution, and that one involved hankering backj to the worst of both technocracy and "Classic Paganism" if one may so term it.

In carbon dated 2400 BC, a king of Ur sacrificed servants in the grave of his father. That's Satanic. Now, carbon dated 2400 BC would in actual fact be some time after Joseph (who came to Egypt before the actual year 1700 BC) but before Moses (who left Egypt the second time, with his people, 1510 BC). This means, the third revolution, starting trends of human sacrifice was a reaction of demons against God taking Abraham, Isaac and Jacob very visibly out of the gentile communities.

In Genesis, the Canaaneans don't seem to be child sacrificers. In some of the other books of Moses, Moses had at least heard of it, and it remained in place with such neighbours into the time of King Solomon and beyond. So, during the Israelite stay in Egypt. Like the building of a new city, politically identified with Nimrod's, though not in the same spot, by the Amorrheans or Amorrhites. Babylon.

4:46 I am on the one hand happy that you place, correctly, Abraham before the grave sacrifice in Ur, but on the other hand, you are denying post-Abrahamic genealogies, including those of Matthew 1 and Luke 3. In case you say the genealogies aren't complete, true for the one of Matthew, three generations immediately descending from Jezebels daughter Athalia are omitted - for ritual reasons. Damnatio memoriae.

You cannot extrapolate from such cases that genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are incomplete, let alone that post-Abrahamic ones are so, the one omission one could find probable is Kenan between Arphaxad and Saleh. Both LXX and Luke do have manuscripts without him, though.

And when you say Abraham lived about 3000 BC, you are in fact calling post-Abrahamic genealogies incomplete. You are saying there aren't 14 generations from Abraham to David, but more.

4:59 "much older than the Hebrews"

No. The same lines of evidence which would lead you to place Abraham in c. 3000 BC leads me to place early Pharaonic Egypt more recently than usually accepted in academia.

Historia scholastica states that the kingdoms started to form in the time of Abraham (the oldest one in Greece being Sicyon, later known as Corinth). George Syncellus - it means George the Cellmate, it is about monastic cells, though - tends to agree pretty much. Except perhaps for Egypt, which I might tend to disagree with. What archaeology digs up as "early dynastic" or immediately "pre-dynastic" is dated to c. 3200 BC at the oldest, within Abraham's lifetime, since 1935 BC (a space of 11 years of error margin, if you fix his birth to 2015 BC) is, as per archaeology of En Geddi, carbon dated to 3500 BC.

5:23 Are you referring to Giambattista Vico, 23 June 1668 – 23 January 1744?

His generalities about rise of civilisation seem so steeped in an idea which led to Engels and came from Cicero. And St. Thomas said Cicero was wrong.

Where exactly did St. Thomas refute Cicero and prefute Vico and Engels?

III Suppl, Q 41, A 1 - whether matrimony is of natural law. The relevant passages are objection 2 and its answer.

Objection 2. Further, that which is of natural law is found in all men with regard to their every state. But matrimony was not in every state of man, for as Tully says (De Inv. Rhet.), "at the beginning men were savages and then no man knew his own children, nor was he bound by any marriage tie," wherein matrimony consists. Therefore it is not natural.

...

Reply to Objection 2. The assertion of Tully may be true of some particular nation, provided we understand it as referring to the proximate beginning of that nation when it became a nation distinct from others; for that to which natural reason inclines is not realized in all things, and this statement is not universally true, since Holy Writ states that there has been matrimony from the beginning of the human race.

Hope you didn't give Vico too much credit, we'll see.

5:59 Harappa ... probably arrival of ...
  • Regma, son of Kush or rather his descendants, after Babel
  • speakers of Dravidian, later displaced by and mingled with Aryans.


Now, "10 000 BC" - we have no chronicle that states this. The carbon date of Harappa itself is actually from the time of the stay in Egypt:

"The Harappan Civilisation has its earliest roots in cultures such as that of Mehrgarh, approximately 6000 BC. The two greatest cities, Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, emerged circa 2600 BC along the Indus River valley in Punjab and Sindh."

The carbon date 6000 BC, like earliest parts of Niniveh, as opposed to near Qermez Dere, is from the life of Sarug, from c. real 2400~2200 BC.

6:08 No, it does not antedate the Hebrews by about 7000 years.

That kind of time would place not just Adam, but even Noah, 7000 years before Abraham, and probably involve extending even more times between Adam and Noah.

This in turn, leads to:
  • genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 being no longer genealogies with possibly one person left out (and if so probably for ritual purity reasons, like the three generations after Athalia), nor even Swiss Cheese genealogies, but genealogies with more holes than cheese, i e downgraded to basically worthless as historic document;
  • and so many generations with so many issues of transmitting collective memory between Genesis 3 and Abraham, that Genesis 3 would be myth rather then history or even legend.


You are attacking the privileges of the Blessed Virgin, indirectly, by stating (though not in so many words) that there was no historic memory of God's threat to the serpent, meaning we would be historically agnostic about whether God actually put enmities between Mary and the serpent, and there is no recorded event in which Genesis 3 was revealed to Moses. Tradition has that the six days were revealed to Moses on Sinai, but Genesis 3 is after the six days.

You are also undermining, by so doing, § 3 of Dei Verbum, in case you believe that to be a document of a real canonic council. At least § 3 is unimpeachable, and it is an impeachment of every old earth compromiser. Why so?

3. God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. 3:15) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7). Then, at the time He had appointed He called Abraham in order to make of him a great nation (see Gen. 12:2). Through the patriarchs, and after them through Moses and the prophets, He taught this people to acknowledge Himself the one living and true God, provident father and just judge, and to wait for the Savior promised by Him, and in this manner prepared the way for the Gospel down through the centuries.

From the start = ab initio, confer, in initio Deus creavit caelum et terram.
and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care = ceaselessly, meaning, for one thing, giving no time for early history to become a very unsafe bet or more myth, and for another, the care would also have prevented radical history loss as you are presuming and need to presume to compress over 7000 years of actual history into less than 1000 years of remembered history. Pretending otherwise is attacking Logos.

You are the one attacking Logos. Sale also lived thirty years, and begot Heber. or And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber. - that is a logos. And THE Logos could not have allowed such logoi to become meaningless, while taking care of mankind, nor could He have allowed them to do so while knowing they would be in the Bible.

6:20 - 6:30 Human culture struggling to get back to what Adam had by nature before the fall.

False. All individuals with very few exceptions are invited to such a struggle, but changes in culture are not (generally) a struggle to come up from bestial or satanic human relations, as if these were ever universal, nor are all inviduals in the position to need such a level of struggle.

Culture involved the spiritual culture, namely the memory (in non-Hebrews more and more distorted, especially around them, much less so in Amerindians) of the Original Revelation, which obviously invited individuals to take on such a struggle. But unless a culture is first perverted - over and beyond the fall - there is no struggle to restore the culture to Edenic ideals.

Once for instance Guaranís had lost agriculture and taken on nakedness and cannibalism, yes, Jesuits had to struggle to bring back their culture to Edenic ideals. That is why they called their missions with reservations Reducciones - reducir or reducere meaning "bring back"

6:49 That cultures without the supernatural grace get distorted is true.

But the caste system is not just a failure, the one in India. On the one hand it is the result of probable war.

While the Mahabharata probably involves pre-Flood memories (Krishna dying in 3102 BC = in the pre-Flood area, some descriptions are reminiscent of Atomic bombs, much more probable for pre-Flood era than for post-Flood era with technology loss and gradual recovery of technologies lost), it is very probably true that Mahabharata also incorporates memories of Aryans conquering Dravidians.

And on the other hand, the caste system incorporates the failure. A kind of slave hunt, where human respect in the absence of real worship of the real God, takes on godlike proportions. Where IV Commandment displaces I, II and III. As can be seen from Japan, where a manga recently showed an employee hosting his employer and basically pushing him to take advantage of his wife, you can see that such a displacement wreaks havoc with the subsequent commandments as well.

What is Molochic child sacrifice other than a parent claiming more power over his child than what IV allows him, if volontary? Or, if involuntary, other than a state claiming more power over parents than what IV with Romans XIII allows him?

7:11 Usury is also this kind of slave hunt and also involves giving a IV Comm. "superior" - in this case the kind of benefactor that a lender is - more power than is due to him through the IV.

Usury is against the VIII, again, such an overestimation of IV is wreaking havoc with other commandments down the line.

7:59 I have not read E. Michael Jones on Iliad.

Here is my take. The Trojan war may or may not have involved a "civil war between regions of Hittite Empire" or two Satrapies, as Walter Leaf considered, since Achaeans may or may not have been vassals of Hattusha. From the Tawagalawa letter 80 years before it, it would seem that the then Hittite Emperor acted as a mediator. 80 years after that letter, Hattusha was down, certainly from a civil war, and Achaeans and Trojans could fight it out, which they did, leading to how Troy is destroyed.

Achaeans at the outset, when arriving, however had a regionally mixed army. A man from Argos could be recruited alongside a man from Sicyon in the same boat, like Assyrians had this same way of crushing regional loyalties. This was the way Achaean kings were used to keeping the Achaean state together. And without it, it's inexplicable why Hercules didn't conquer a city of his own - the answer is, even if he could have taken one city (but he wasn't Ulysses, mentally), he would immediately have been put down by the rest of the Achaean state, at least this was a realistic fear.

In the tenth year, Achaeans were nearly failing, the army was getting demoralised. To boost the morale, it was suggested that soldiers should be shifted around and fight alongside the local compatriots, Sicyonites with Sicyonites, Argolites with Argolites and so on. We see this in Iliad B. And it stayed on after the war.

The nostoi, then, involve so much civil war in city by city (whether Mycenae or Ithaca, to name the two most famous ones) that both the renewed regionalism and the administrational chaos worked together to, probably fairly quickly, end the Achean State.

Conquered Greece conquered its conqueror - but still left Rome an Empire.
Conquered Troy also had conquered its conqueror - and ended the Achaean Empire, a low key counterpart to the Hittite one.

If this is how C. S. Lewis understood Homer, it explains perfectly the novel Prince Caspian. See Telmarines as Acheans, Calormenes more like Hittites (or Cretans.)

8:47 1200 BC is when Hattusha fell. Yes, I know it is carbon dated 1200 BC, but I think by this time we have a very near coincidence starting between real and carbon, as the carbon 14 reached present levels, meaning samples are not any longer being calculated to exaggerated dates by the discrepancy of a really lower initial and the presumed initial content in the sample.

Troy VIIa is dated at its fall to 1180, and tradition says 1179. The late Medieval version of the Christmas proclamation places the birth of Christ:

"A Moyse & egressu populi Israel de Egypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo. Ab excidio Troiae, anno millesimo centesimo septuagesimo nono. Ab unctione David in regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo."

The mention of the fall of Troy is no longer there, though the founding of Rome by Romulus is.

It is true that at least some Mycenaean palaces had been destroyed before this, which you could't tell from the Iliad or Odyssey.

Let's put it like this, there could still have been a king of Pylos receiving Telemachus, but his palace was in ruins, so he probably received in something like Beduin tents or caves or houses smaller than the palace.

As you can see from my previous discussion, the War of Troy only became possible, when the Hittite Empire was down, which was the case in 1200 BC, fall of Hattusha.

No comments: