Friday, January 13, 2023

Michael Lofton Clickbaited

The early Church wasn't against Icons. He also doesn't say it was.

How Could the Early Church Be Against Icons?
Reason & Theology, 12.I.2023

4:49 A few reflections.
A) I still have no idea what early church father was, if any at all, "iconoclast" or more broadly anti-icon.
"02:20 Fathers who are opposed to icon veneration?" - section was supposed to be finished on 03:06!
B) For Nicaea II to claim this is apostolic, we do not just need Colossians 1:15 together with the fact that Jesus can be depicted. We need actual early Church tradition, if not explicitly documented at least realistically presumed.
C) we would be perhaps in a position similar to about the Dormition and Assumption, where Gavin argues that was one tradition among several, but even he did not deny at least Copts were providing it to some others (still) in the Church - or that it took over and became prevalent.

5:36 Are you denying an early (though restricted) veneration of Sudarium and Shroud?

Are you denying Our Lord sent an image to Abgar of Edessa?

8:54 Immaculate Conception:
Sub tuum praesidium (Greek and Coptic endings)
Greek tradition, at least slightly post-schism, meaning Palamas (and Avvakum)
Probably : Paris, through Anne of Kyiv becoming Queen of France prior to the schism.

The odd man out is the Latin West prior to ...

A defesa da Imaculada Conceição - por Duns Scotus
Renan Santos, 1 Fevereiro 2015

... and some hyper-Augustinians after Duns, Luther, and a certain Greek of Venice who studied theology in Wittenberg and whose manual was translated to Slavonic for Moscow in 1666.

9:13 I'd feel the same about Old Earth Compromisers in 1909 .... note, a permission is not an infallible statement, it is a disciplinary statement, and as such revokable.

By carbon dates being available, by mounting evidence Cro-Magnon was fully human carbon dated 30 000 years ago, by mounting evidence Neanderthals were fully human, by genetic evidence the ancestors of today's populations were already in place in carbon dated 7000 years ago, we have no more excuse to dispute the literal validity of some sort of Biblical chronology.

I know perfectly well, one cannot say "THE Biblical chronology" as if there were only one reading ... that's why I said "some sort of" ... Martyrologium Romanum, which I follow in practise (pre-90's version), does not have literally 480 years from Exodus to Temple (Temple being 50 years after anointing of King David). It is also not fully squareable with Acts 13.

But the point is, if Adam is THE first man, if he is ancestor of ALL men alive today, and was so to pre-Columbians and pre-Cookians prior to colonial admixture, which the Church clearly taught, with solemn banning of the theses of Isaac Lapeyrère, and if Genesis 3 was faithfully transmitted as history from Adam to Moses, the conclusion must be, carbon 14 needs a recalibration by Biblical chronology, and some other methods (U-Pb) need ditching.

No comments: