Sharing Kreeft and My Comments

Dr. Peter Kreeft & the Most Destructive Belief in History
Spirit & Spire, 13 March 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7otyYZ6exJI

1:24 I am shocked.

Kreeft is either 86 or 85 going on 86.

You mentioned "father and grandfather" - what about greatgrandfather?!

Spirit & Spire

Good info

4:49 Technical quibble. It no where says "apple" in the text. 6529. peri in Hebrew internlinear translates as "fruit" ...
LXX ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ καρποῦ τοῦ ξύλου I translate without Strong as "but from the fruit of the tree"

The tradition in Western iconography comes from the same instance as Christmas trees - the mystery play on December 24 about the Fall.

You need a green tree in winter, that's a pine (fortunately doesn't make its way into paintings) and you need an edible fruit, and apples keep well, hence red apples were chosen.

Spirit & Spire

Great reference again

8:07 Does that Jesuit enumerate Evolution (Big Picture, from Big Bang to Abiogenesis, and from One Celled Creatures to Man) among the gods of atheism? He should.

9:38 I am shocked to see, after checking the preview, he didn't!

The atheist perverted god of the three first ways is matter and energy.
The atheist perverted god of the fourth and fifth way is evolution.

The failure of all except the fit (never mind how it comes to be there) explains the ordering of the universe, including our biosphere, and the most evolved creature (ourselves or dolphins which ever atheist you ask between Galton and Sanger and Generation Z and HHGG) is the most noble thing. To, obviously, them.

Note, "most evolved creature" involves a verbal plagiarism from Christianity. If they had invented the vocabulary, it would have been "evoluture"

19:18 Wait - St. Thomas spoke of the "heart of God"?!

Before St. John Eudes and St. Margaret Mary Alacoque?!

What did CSL say about scholasticism fuelling his devotion and his heart singing unbidden? Makes sense.

20:51 Most of the quote is actually St. Thomas quoting St. Augustine's Enchiridion, XI.

Gerard D'Silva

??? Perhaps the time reference is incorrect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Gerard D'Silva It is really from 19:55 to 20:51. By 20:51, due to my double-checking the summa, and resuming the video, I had forgotten that just before Kreeft started quoting, he had said himself that St. Thomas was quoting St. Augustin.

So, the time reference is from when I stopped the video to write the comment, but the comment is still somewhat absurd due to the fact that a) I was tired and b) I was stopping the video to double-check and search references so often that a little more than 30 seconds earlier on the video, Peter Kreeft had said the same thing I pointed out ...

21:21 Let's recall that Catholics, Jew or Gentile, are spiritual Jews. The carnal Jews who are not yet Catholics need to one day convert, when God sends Enoch and Elijah.
In the meantime, they need to have a living.
Let's recall that Jews in Hollywood mostly do a better thing now, and there are at least two Jewish linguists on youtube I immensely enjoy, than Jewish usurers or shrinks.

21:41 Oh yes. Job was certainly asking "when is Eliud going to just shut up" and the first thing God says is to ask him "do you know that guy?"'

When Job saw God shutting up Eliud, he knew God would fix the rest as well.

Job probably got an answer in that single moment to exactly every question he had asked during the whole book.

"if God had answered Job ... now I've got a couple of more question!" You are describing their dialogue in Heaven? Of which the life of St. Thomas Aquinas was arguably a by-product, a response to another question by Job, like "and when will people on earth know this before they die?" I checked. St. Thomas made two full length commentaries on OT books after becoming a Dominican (I attribute Postilla in libros Geneseos to his time in Roccasecca), those being Psalms and Job. 31:31 Note, while the "dunghill covered with snow" is certainly not a type of salvation, penal substitution may hold true on other levels. For instance, being trapped in death and dead souls even of the just being trapped in Sheol, were punishments for all of mankind due to Adam's sin. Christ shared that punishment for us, so we could share Resurrection and Heaven with Him. 38:14 Especially not Apollo ... check out the five cases of that name in Greek, gematrias added up. A Hebrew gematria is arguably always the status absolutus, because the construct is a truncated absolutus. But in Greek, a nominative is not a truncated genitive. Both are full forms. Same for dative, accusative and vocative. It is the name of a demon if you add an Upsilon, both in Homer and Apoc. 9:11, and it is also the name of a man, if you check out the Renaissance opinion that Apollo, Aesculap, Panacee and Salus were a family of physicians, wrongly deified, but rightly honoured instead as pre-Christian saints. That's why the Hippocratic oath could be sworn by Christians - they did not consider it swearing by false gods, but instead by true saints of the true god. Whether they were right or wrong about their sanctity, this still makes Apollo the name of a man. More banale, it is the name of a man named in Acts or Epistles. 39:20 There are two opinions of the Socratic dialogues. My Greek professor considered all (except possibly Apologia and final words) are fictions by Plato, not much unlike Cicero's dialogues or Consolation of Philosophy. I consider all or most (possible exception "He Polis" or "de Re Publica" / The State, and possibly also Laws) as documented dialogues - the disciples learning the words of the participants by heart, taking turns to note, and then reconstructing the whole once they were among themselves again - just as I believe the words of Our Lord were recorded by His disciples. With very short snippets of the words of the Pharisees, probably because they already knew Him and knew they would lose the argument if they went on. Either way, the Gospellers quoted Pharisees very arguably without them giving consent forms to use their words. On my view, it is arguably because writing dialogues without participating in actual ones, is hard. My dialogues on social media with opponents are good. Sometimes the prevalence of quote-answer-quote-answer within a single answer is boring, but one can even it out by rearranging until quotes are not needed to know what I am responding to. But my dialogues in fictions are horrible. Writing good fictional dialogue is a skill not all have, and obviously those who are good at philosophising may often have neglected it. Plato, on my view, mostly didn't need to. 45:10 "each angel being a separate species" It is not condemned that this had to be so given what universe God was creating. And that is more or less all that St. Thomas was saying. However, it is condemned that even God was obliged to do it like that. 16 (81). Quod, quia intelligentie non habent materiam, deus non posset plures eiusdem speciei facere. Bishop Tempier. Condemnations of early 1277 (or late 1276). Condemned proposition 81 in the Paris original, and in the English adopting of them, condemned proposition chapter VII, errores de intelligentia sive angelo, proposition 16. 48:08 I think you have just made a good point for homosexuality not being inborn and therefore being curable. 1:02:38 I think even the high priest could only say it with drumrolls, inaudibly to bystanders. Not sure exactly how it could then be communicated from one to the next, but still. 1:11:43 Ultimate dream of any snowflake - having a name which no one else knows. 1:22:03 You just gave a clue as to "thousand generations" (how I recalled Exodus 20:6) can be reconcile with a world soon ending after being begun c. 7000 years ago - not generations of parents and children, but of prayers for and prayed for. We come from the tenth generation from Adam surviving the Flood, 4980 years since then divided by even 25 gives barely 200 generations. 1:25:12 What is the book called?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, Peter Kreeft, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven: But Never Dreamed of Asking Soon 33 years old, actually tomorrow in fact. So, p. 133 "where is heaven" is not in the preview sample (page and title known from the index which is in it), would Peter Kreeft agree with: * at the coordinates of earthly Jerusalem * but 1 light day higher up.

Spirit & Spire

Great question… good job finding the answer. I’m sure it was helpful to others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I suppose you read the book, didn't you? Including the pages starting on 133? If so, you would know if Peter Kreeft agrees heaven is an actual place or not.