Friday, January 26, 2024

Continuing the Same Video

Michael Lofton Pretends that Anyone Finding a Contradiction in "Pope Francis" Would, on Same Standards of Logic, Find Them In the Bible TooContinuing the Same Video

When Catholics Argue Like Atheists
Reason & Theology | 20 Jan. 2024

XIV, Number of Captured — is it Perhaps "Parashim"?

25:13 On this one, I'll have to admit I am stumped.

Just possibly, the author of the earlier book, which I suppose II Kings is (or the second part of Samuel), could have transmitted an incomplete summation, while the more complete figure was incorporated into the later book.

I e, the Bible would in such a case basically be saying:
"He took 1700 .... wait, it's actually 7000 ..."

The harder part was, did King David really subjugate Syria and Moab to Damascus and to Euphrates?

Then I was reminded that, yes, we know the kind of people who would be too dishonest to admit that in their own chronicles.

25:13, bis. Other possibility, "parashim" literally means horse, but is used as technical term "horseman" which might well be a charioteer.

Suppose that the 7000 really were horses? Horseman a mistranslation in this case?

7000 / 1700 = 4 point sth ..

The problem with that one is ... why are only 1000 chariots taken if 1700 charioteers are?

XV Numbers Returning (Neh 7:1, Ezra 2:1)

25:26 In my online Douay Rheims, verse 1 gives no different numbers, not even same numbers, and further down its 42 360 in each.

W a i t ... there are discrepancies.

One of them is this one:

13 The children of Adonicam, six hundred sixty-six.
18 The children of Adonicam, six hundred sixty-seven.

One of them is the first time they were counted, one of them the second time they were counted. A new person had been born or reached adulthood in the meantime.

The actual odd thing is, the total it adds up to is the same.

XVI Divorce Bill.

26:05 Jesus put the standard of justice one notch further up.

26:20 He's just revoking a temporary dispensation.

XVII Omniscience, Day and Hour

28:09 We have patristics on this one.

Jesus knew the day and hour, but He chose not to divulge it. He used the phrase about "not knowing" as meaning a refusal to divulge.

E, fifth tu quoque

28:58 Now, if the "magisterium" of "Popes" Wojtyla through Bergoglio is not indefensible, how about defending the accurate meaning of CCC § 283?

XVIII Achimelech or Abiathar?

30:18 II Kings 21 says Ahimelech the priest received King David.
Mark 2 says David was received under Abiathar the High Priest.

Pretty simple, Abiathar did not receive in person. Ahimelech at this point was only priest, not yet High Priest.

By the way, we know from Paralipomenon (I or II, forget which) that Ahimelech was the son of Abiathar.

XIX, "This Generation"

31:38 A Patristic reading is, the parts that refer to Doomsday will take place within "the generation of the just" = the time of the Church.

A Jesuit, I think, and perhaps Haydock resuming him, have said some of the things in this speech are actually about the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (37 years later, obviously some are still alive).

32:38 There is a reading about Sun = papacy; Moon = Imperial power; Stars = bishops.

The apostasy in all of these areas is a bit more apocalyptic than the astronomical observations.

32:47 The generation of the just would seem to be precisely two thousand years so far (or not a full decade in defect).

XX Not One Stone — Wailing Wall

34:13 Damien Mackey states that the wailing wall was not part of the temple.

XXI Shema or Trinity? St. Athanasius says : Both.

35:40 Why did St. Athanasius write Quicumque Vult in Latin when the rest of his writing is in Greek?

Because he was in Trier, an outpost just before the un-Roman Germania. Augusta Treverorum, if you take a time machine back then and ask for directions.

Why did he state what he stated in it? Because Jews were asking him this exact question.

Here is his answer:

So the Father is God, the Son is God,
and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord,
and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.

F, sixth tu quoque

37:52 I actually do not think "ah, whatever!?"

And Church discipline as in FS § 31 or Church Catechesis as in CCC § 283 are not supposed to be divine mysteries to the faithful.

XXI, Paradoxes of the Resurrection.

39:13 God will sort the atoms out, so the molecule that was in someone's body when he died will typically, but not totally all of them be around in the body that's risen.

Thank you for citing Job against the Waldensian and one extreme Protestant heresy, by the way.

I say typically but not all cases, because people who die at age 80, will, if rising in glory, be resurrected the physiological age 33. People with obesity will lose weight (I bet St. Thomas was looking forward to that one) (Chesterton too). People who are too lean will get weight back or gain weight they never had.

39:49 First of all, the cannibal's body cannot be all consisting of that victim's body's matter, and second, that victims body arguably has parts a cannibal won't eat. Or can't eat.

So, some matter will certainly belong to each body alone, and not to the other.

G, seventh tu quoque

40:48 This seems like the seventh major direct tu quoque.

So, the fact is, I don't think there are any ways to harmonise CCC § 283 with Trent Session V, Decree on Original Sin, canons 1 to 3, without getting into even worse stuff than the mere contradiction.

Now, if you think I am wrong there, how about trying to help me, or at least my readers out?

You see, I would publish your answer on my blog. Probably along with my snarky comment on it, but still. Some of my readers might actually agree with you.


One in the feed has a point:

When will the Pope bashers realize that "praying for the Pope's conversion" is flying in the face of God

Thanks Mike. If Bergoglio is Pope Francis, we shouldn't pray for his conversion. If we should pray for Bergoglio's conversion, we shouldn't call him Pope.

Precisely why I took issue with a text by Father Schmidberger, where he says "also today, Peter is in chains, in chains which he has forged for himself, chains of heresy and error" ... er, no. If Wojtyla was in such chains, he was not Peter. If he was Peter, he was not in such chains.

No comments: