Wednesday, February 28, 2024

How Traditional Are Those Trads? As Per Christ and the Americas, Not Very


Reviewing my Trad Catholic School Books: "Christ and the Americas", Ch 1 (Middle School History)
Kevin Nontradicath | 26 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJUR5chlguo


2:07 It's off. The supposed Trad pretends the Agricultural Revolution (Agricultural Post-Flood Recovery) happened in 9000 BC.

Nope. According to my latest tables, 9000 BC in carbon dates (and yes, those dates are usually carbon) translates as 2590 BC, 17 years after Noah died, 17 years into Babel, a k a Göbekli Tepe.

Christ and the Americas is written by a Semi-Trad!

3:30 The guys who sacrificed children to "God" sacrificed them to the Devil. That's as little "God" as New Age "Jesus" is Jesus.

It was part of a Jewish apostasy.

5:44 Yeah, the sources are so detailed from all of these centuries that such an omission is very conspicuous, right ...?

Let's take as an example the Old Irish* original for Be Thou My Vision:

The original Old Irish text, "Rop tú mo Baile", is often attributed to Saint Dallán Forgaill in the 6th century.[4] However, scholars believe it was written later than that. Some date it to the 8th century;[5] others put it as late as the 10th or 11th century.[6] A 14th-century manuscript attributed to Adhamh Ó Cianáin contains a handwritten copy of the poem in Middle Irish, and is held at the National Library of Ireland.[7] A second manuscript is at the Royal Irish Academy, dating from about the 10th or 11th century.


7:47 "bloodthirsty and primitive"

I can hardly balk at "bloodthirsty" about Azteks, but what's "primitive" about that?

The book was written by someone connected to the Knights of Columbus, who was on top of that misusing the word "primitive" ... unless the meaning is, this is the "primitive" result of Babel, which I would grant after reading up on Göbekli Tepe.

8:13 The two don't exclude each other.

The Red Army is both blessed by survivors from Auschwitz and cursed by people seing it approach Budapest, Vienna and Berlin.

9:02 Public schools are centres of indoctrination for Heliocentrism, Big Bang, Deep Time (which the author of that book was not combatting), Evolution, Materialism, denial of Freewill ...

I've been to some. I have also seen how my affairs went, when I refused to get indoctrinated.

The school was run by FSSP? Not FSSPX, but FSSP?

10:42 I think that you have just revealed that YEC material is not a "Trad" "Catholic" approved source ...?

I mean, fertile crescent carbon dated to 9000 BC, no indication this was a post-Flood recovery, and also no indication there is something at least off with the carbon date ...

Too bad. I took tradition seriously, without having an actual chance to simply "integrate in the club" and on one occasion this led to me reading St. Augustine, City of God.

The timeline from Adam to Abraham, well, it has some fluidity between LXX and Hebrew versions of the chronology (Genesis 5 and 11), but no patience at all with the even hint that the chronology, whichever version was the true text, was somehow not meant to be taken literally.

Do you think there are "Trads" of that type who** stamp me as "Protestant" for literally agreeing with a Church Father (outside some people's absolute favourite quote mine from him, "it sometimes happens that those outside the faith consider themselves as knowing sth about X, Y, Z from reason and experience, and ...").
__________________________

As for your final remark, I sometimes ask myself how people brought up believing:
  • a) Adam was created specially by God, we all descend from him, at least vaguely implied Genesis 3 is known to Moses by transmission from Adam
  • b) a total refusal to consider evidence making this credible, i e that of Young Earth Creationism, as appropriate reading
which seems to be the rationale behind the boycott I have suffered, will fare.

I think some will grow up learning to not ask questions.

And some will grow up, ask questions, and exclusively fall on evidence that's coming from the wrong way ...
__________________________

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Thou_My_Vision#Text
** I have time and again tried ask them, and time and again been met with evasiveness ...

Mentors and Liars are both Menteurs, in French


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Mentors and Liars are both Menteurs, in French · New blog on the kid: Are we in the Last Days? · back to: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Sins against Prudence, Sins against someone else's Prudence

Or so I was told by one trying to be one ...

Why Teen Dating is Stupid (and how to date correctly as a guy)
Miloh | 4 Jan. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDf4tSgu1Mg


7:34 I'm fortunately no longer in High School.

However, how come teens married a few decades ago, and now a man all of a sudden in High School age absolutely has to ignore girls and "improve" himself for ... teachers and gym trainers who want his money?

(When it's not shrinks, of course)

10:09 Moral of the story, courtesy of Spiderman.

Spiderman, courtesy of Stan Lee.

Stan Lee, courtesy of a religion that's obsessed with mentoring.

I Did Not Evade Swedish Prison, Nor Get an Unusually Early Release, and Trent Horn is just not as Catholic as I (First Half on a Video by Allie Beth Stuckey)


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: I Did Not Evade Swedish Prison, Nor Get an Unusually Early Release, and Trent Horn is just not as Catholic as I (First Half on a Video by Allie Beth Stuckey) · New blog on the kid: Quoting Allie Beth Stuckey

“Our Rights Come From God” Is Apparently Christian Nationalism | Ep 958
Allie Beth Stuckey | 28 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZgbma7Kbw


2:37 bis, in case you wonder, I was recently corrected by Father Fulcran Vigouroux on Biblical inspiration. Note, I disagree on how he applied this, he was a day ager and believed in a huge regional, but not global Flood (he knows better now, he died in 1915), but he corrected me on the nature of Biblical inspiration.

I had thought that God worked with Hagiographers basically as with Popes.
  • the man decides to write on a topic or to pronounce judgement on a topic
  • God protects the Pope from doctrinal and moral error, but the Hagiographer from any even just factual error.


Uh, uh ...
  • God decides that the Hagiographer writes
  • God decides what he brings into his book (one of the 73 of the Bible)
  • God either directly decides or at least protects the wording of each truth.


And this does not preclude human initiatives, it says that any human initiative was totally subordinate to God's intention. But any way, there is a definite divine plan for Genesis bringing up this and not that about pre-Abrahamic ages. Or for Jesus filling in about them. Some evils seem to be very obvious to us that live now, "oh, that's how the impious men were harrassing Noah, up to when he started building the Ark" or "this has to have been Nimrod's tactic of tyranny, and it's leaving traces even to the Andes" ... but if they had been stated directly, the Bible would have needed Stephen King as hagiographer, and the ambitious tyrants of centuries past would have had a source for evil creativity.

Unfortunately, this kind of inspiration as making God the literal (though not exclusive) author of a book is not what some guys considering themselves as "Catholic" learn in the RCIA class. Best wishes for Trent Horn working out his salvation, but as a Catholic Apologist he is deeply flawed. And note, I and Fulcran Vigouroux have just been fleshing out a definition from Aeterni Patris or Pastor Aeternus ... a council Trent Horn professess to believe in.

17:21 This happened before Jesus had opened the Pearly Gates.

The soul of Lazarus (and of Abraham too) was detained in the netherworld for the sin of Adam.

But there is more to it, death came through sin. Jesus hates death, and will destroy it as the last enemy. A compound of body and soul had been ripped asunder.

Vicarious atonement is not correct about salvation, but it is spot on about resurrection. Death got one victim, of infinite worth, Who had not sinned. Death obviously had to give back within three days, and will also hand back the other guys on the last judgement.

B u t, temporarily, death lost Lazarus too. Jesus had him back on the feet. "In no time" would be exaggerated, it obviously took time to roll away the stone.

17:36 If you ever do an interview with Trent Horn, or Jimmy Akin, ask them about how they feel about human death.

  • Before Adam sinned?
  • Was there no single Adam?
  • Was immortality an option given a pre-existent mankind through Adam as representative, and he missed it?
  • Was Genesis 3 as far back as William Lane Craig says, and if so, how did Moses know about it?


Quiz them. They may be Catholic souls, but as to their Apologetics, they are not fully Catholic.

18:09 Whether you consider I committed a crime in 1998 or not, it was preventable.

If police had not sided, systematically, with shrinks, and ignored, as systematically, my pleas to get my freedoms back, I would not have shot one in the hip with his own pistol.

26 years later, people are still provoking me to prove a point I'm a dangerous criminal who needs supervision 24 / 24, 365 / 365, the rest of my life, even if I was only sentenced to 3 and a half years, and came out perfectly legally in 2000, and have never been sentenced since.

19:34 Speaking of productive citizens ... I have 11 000 + blog posts, most of which boil down to forms that are immediately marketable, i e poems, sheet music, recipes, but above all essays and dialogues (the latter to be marketed would need the other participants to be OK, but that's not all of my posts). My output on a typical day, when there are no textile or social issues that take precedence over writing, varies between 2000 and 4000 words.

I have a Swedish passport, and both Sweden and France are in the Schengen space, so I am by no means an illegal immigrant in France.

Some of the guys on your side (yes, it exists here) seem hellbent on treating me as an illegal immigrant and on top of that a lazy slob who would need to be treated for years if not life as an invalid before getting back to a work force consisting of normal employment.

Such guys are actually pushing for a repeat of 5.II.1998.

20:00 Speaking of "mooch", whenever I do panhandle, I nearly always have a cardboard with a URL, so I'm offering reading. When not, I try to make a cardboard with a URL while seated.

As Parisians and Paris dwellers are typically not fluent in German or Swedish, and myself I am not really all that fluent in Spanish, the URL's I offer are in French or English, or bilingual in both.

Swedish is on a separate blog. German is on a separate blog. Spanish is on a separate blog.

I have people considering me as a moocher and trying very hard to pretend I am, coming to me and complaining that a URL does not legibly spell out "I'm hungry" or "give me work" or "some cash, please" ... what I'm offering is not my necessity, it's my writing. And it's usually not about my necessity, and I'd love for even less of it to be about my necessity. B U T, I have enemies who disagree with that.

Thanks for teaching me a new word, by the way!

23:59 One can be in a real refugee situation and not able to go through the legal process.

I try to avoid Sweden. What happened in 1998 was the fullblown confrontation of a talking past each other which I had been involved in with Swedish society since I was basically 12--14.

I know Sweden is not good for me. But none of the measures can be pinpointed to a specific official persecuting me for my Catholic faith or for my will to get married with a younger girl. It's just that they are very out of tune with Swedish society. Even if the next Swedish official on a hypothetic return were fully supportive, it's a question of time before the next attempt to change my mind, and therefore before the next violent confrontation.

I really and truly did go to a Catholic country with a refugee motivation. But I have no means to prove it, and so I am happy to be legally residing here anyway.

Proving it to France, to French officials, who are also not the best friends of Catholic family values, would be like for a Jew in 1938 going from Austria to Mussolini or Horthy to prove he risked persecution after the Anschluss. They were part of the Anti-Comintern pact, and as such they were not demonising each other.

24:42 It can be noted, I have not looked for French welfare either.

Part time I had CMU, "couverture médicale universelle" due to panhandling not giving me sufficient to pay for a hospital visit. Or a dentist one.

Then I started to see doctors presuming off my situation to present me as an ignorant person. When asked to fill in the issue why I did not already have CMU (after I had not had it for a while), they filled in for me, "méconnaissance des droits" = "ignorance of my rights" ... which was not exactly true, and which I did not exactly want to subscribe under.

This way, I have by honesty and dignity been barred from re-applying for it.

25:25 I think you have a point about obesity.

But I don't think it's a point against Ibarra. If he gets prison, he may be saving his life from obesity and diabetes imposed by people told by the "most responsible ones" that a man in the street should not be given money, he should be given food so he can't spend any on drugs and alcohol.

I need to consume lots of coffee and more alcohol than before (though far from drunkenness) in order to pee out extra calories, because of the people who take that attitude.

Sorry, I don't think he's a saint, but on that level, he is kind of a victim. Not on all levels, but on that one.

The alternatives are not either everyone in the street is taken into custody, as Trump dreams of doing, or the anarchy demoralises the ones in the street so much they overeat out of depression. No. Some people really and truly are pushing people on the street to overeat. Give food. Make it a hard negotiation to say "no thanks". Add irritations. If someone has food at hand, even if it's not very healthy, and has just undergone some stress, he definitely will at least 1 time out of 2, perhaps 1 time out of 10, consent to eat food he would otherwise not have eaten and did not really need.

25:38, no, a man on the street who's getting fat is not "taking the resources" he's taking what some people give him, while actually barring him from healthier resources.

25:44 A man on the street who gets fat is not taking the spoils, he's taking the crumbs.

He's not pillaging, he's pillaged. I literally was that, I need to change sleeping bag often, to clean each of the possibly still extant lice, and I just found out this morning one of the sleeping bags was stolen. But even when that doesn't happen, a man on the street can get pillaged of sleep and of time.

And yes, sleep privation is a way of pushing someone to overeating. EVERY hour lost sleep can be short term compensated by calories. Some people genuinely like to bully the homeless by sleep privations, the German language has a derogatory term for them, "Penner" = sleepyhead. Some people seem to believe the problem of homeless people is, they get too much sleep, they get used to being lazy. No, the homeless get too little sleep, get irritable, and unconcentrated.

Next guy who dislikes my writing is too likely to actually pretend my lack of concentration is due to overconsumption of internet, well, blocking me from the internet is blocking me from writing, and blocking me from sleep is making sure I have less concentration.

27:42 About ten years ago, or some more, when I was new in Paris, there was a debate about Putin and generally Eastern Europe doing the same, sending lowlife to, for instance, France.

I was obviously targetted, while Sweden is not one of those countries, and one of the lines was putting doubt on my being really a Swede.

29:21 Just noting, I have some Swedish pride, I will for instance defend Swedish positions about Ukraine and about Putin.

I will defend the right to wear breeches, both as folk costume and as reenactment (sewed things to keep the knitted sashes I tie them in better to the pant leg below the knee), that's not big in Paris, though not unknown in France.

But I really and truly believe French Right Wing Catholicism as per 1990 was a saner thing than Lutheran Conservatism the same year. I really do take pride in being in France, rather than for instance Sweden or England.

32:04 Unfortunately, in the Progressive Era, the US was producing a lot of negation of the image of God, a lot of prejudice.

A Heterosexual May December? Stamping that as paedophilia and therefore wrong, well, Progressive Era US, and state on state implementing the 18 / 18 rule for marriage, or even 21. That was just decades before Kinsey Report and Roe.

Stating certain people are improductive and should be sterilised? Wendell Holmes was ahead of both Hitler and our own Per Albin Hansson.

If you want a uniquely Christian country, well, a few decades ago, Spain was a better example than the US. I think there was a good reason why the Kelly family went from the US to Spain. And ancient border states along the now Mexican border, formerly having a border to the North instead of to the South, are generally better than New England. Or Dixie apart from Florida / Texas.

34:00 I think there are lots of Western and White countries, which are in the same position as the US.

I discovered you back when it was about Kyle Rittenhouse, I think, and some immigrants in Paris, many of whom are well integrated, were not happy with my sharing your story and some others on Rittenhouse.

In the US, some are attacking you because parts of the country had a slave owning past. In Europe, the schtick is, some countries had a more recent Fascist past. I don't think that's a thing to be ashamed for for all Fascisms (except those that imitated Wendell Holmes), but even if the Fascism was in any way shameful, that's not a reason to deny each country its honour and dignity decades later.

34:13 In the time of Nimrod, God not just gave us "the idea of" languages, He gave us languages.

The first 400 years after the Flood (or 530 for those using a full LXX chronology, or 100 for those using Masoretic chronology), everyone spoke the same language as Noah and his family had spoken on the Ark. After some time of compelled working on a hair brained object, like rocketry for a useless purpose and 4500 years before we had sufficient technology, or if some prefer, a skyscraper for the same purpose, drafting people around the globe, I would say to Göbekli Tepe, God released that compelled work force.

It's work compulsion has not been equalled until 19th C. Capitalism, if even then.

The means of doing so was imposing languages in a world without [insert your favourite language learning facility], so international cooperation suddenly became impossible.

34:31 How much of the disorder for the area was about making 70's style hippie existence impossible by "responsible people" making up for the lack of homeless being rounded up and put into "facilities" (for their bullies)?

To what degree was the victim involved in this?

37:56 How much is a ticket on a GreyHound bus? Are there cheaper ones?

Does one need a helping hand from an NGO to buy such a ticket?

40:07 As you just mentioned, Ibarra was not originally in Athens. He was some other place.

Do you think every illegal immigrant in Athens is the kind of type that the people who know them would want to suffer for what a stranger did?

How do we know that this was not arranged by some right winger who wanted disturbance of the good cheer between volunteers and illegals already in that place?

I think there is more than one who has wanted to disturb my existence as a homeless man, by bringing on other homeless.

As he was new to Athens, he can not have been long term targetted by Laken Riley in the way I just suggested, thanks for exonerating her. But what's not exonerated is people disapproving of her and other peoples' generosity and deliberately asking for someone to be brought along from somewhere else, who might disturb the idyll. You know, people who hated Woodstock took at secret glee in Altamont and the death of Meredith Hunter.

42:55 If you think enforcing borders could have saved Mollie Tibbetts, sorry, you are deluded, unless you want a Berlin wall.

Cristhian Bahena Rivera, aged 24 at the time of the crime, lived and worked in the rural Poweshiek County area where Tibbetts vanished.[22][23] Originally from El Guayabillo, Guerrero, Mexico,[24] he arrived illegally in the United States at age 17 and had lived in the area for several years.[25] He had worked at another farm before coming to Yarrabee Farms near Brooklyn, Iowa, in August 2014.[25] Rivera self-identified and received his paychecks under the name John Budd.[26][27]


So, he was a hardworking man, he had a US identity, though it was a fake one, he had picked her up in a car he had been able to buy, he was everything you ask from an immigrant, except having his papers in order. He was productive. He had had paychecks and probably paid taxes for 7 years. To imagine ICE would have deported him is like asking them to employ mediums to track illegal immigrants they can't get at by normal human means.

Here is Mollie Tibbetts' father.

Tibbetts's father said, "The Hispanic community are Iowans. They have the same values as Iowans. As far as I'm concerned, they're Iowans with better food".


42:58
On July 1, 2015, 32-year-old Kathryn "Kate" Steinle was shot and killed while walking with her father and a friend along Pier 14 in the Embarcadero district of San Francisco. She was hit in the back by a single bullet. The man who fired the gun, José Inez García Zárate, said he had found it moments before, wrapped in cloth beneath a bench on which he was sitting, and that when he picked it up the weapon went off. The shot ricocheted off the concrete deck of the pier and struck the victim, who was about 90 feet (27m) away.[1] Steinle died two hours later in a hospital as a result of her injuries.


He had never been in jail for violent crime.

The gun was unsecured when it disappeared from the owner.

Members of Steinle's family did not want her to be in the middle of a political controversy, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. "I don’t know who coined 'Kate’s Law,'" Kate's father Jim Steinle told the paper. "It certainly wasn't us."[86]


Given his absolutely horrid approach to gun security, a crack down (pun intended!) on heroin dealers might be mor fruitful than one on illegal immigrants.

43:47 While "the great replacement" is preferrable to "the great aging" ... it's main way to get avoided is actually starting to make babies.

Like, Dobbs was an excellent move, how about getting rid of contraceptives as well?

Meanwhile, José Ibarra was arguably not an angel, considering his record in NYC, but what he had done was not sufficient to put him in prison. Someone stressed him out about ICE, while NYC was back in 2023 still a sanctuary city. However, his act seems to have changed the mind of the mayor.

Two Answers to Dan McClellan


Two Answers to Dan McClellan · I Was Challenged to See More Dan McClellan ...

When does the Bible begin to be more historically accurate?
Dan McClellan | 27 févr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF5pkO2p4_k


0:11 The Hebrew Bible is historical evidence.

You are posing the question the wrong way.

Just because the Bible is a religious document, this does not mean it is somehow not a historic one.

The idea that "one evidence is too little, you need corroborating evidence" is a false methodology in history.

UNLESS for time periods that are so well documented and in a so well preserved documentation that a lack of corroborating evidence would be very conspicuous.

In the 19th C. AD, European countries and colonies, and obviously ex-colonies, the lack of corroborating evidence would be conspicuous.

In the 19th C BC, the time of Isaac and Jacob, not so much.

Jim Jimjim
@jimjim292
@hglundahl You're not a scholar and don't know anything.

Juan Ausensi
@juanausensi499
It is evidence. But it's weak.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl
@jimjim292 I'm at least a half scholar in Latin and Greek, just not the kind of scholar you like to rely on here.

Your tone is distinctly rude.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@juanausensi499 No, 1 source in the 19th C BC is not as weak as 1 source in the 19th C. AD would be.
0:30 So, Caesar did not erect stelae in Gaul over his victories. Does this omission disqualify a 10th C. manuscript from accurately telling his campaigns? No.

Juan Ausensi
You should ask yourself why not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@juanausensi499 Do you have any good reason for Caesar which does not also cover early parts of Biblical history?


1:13 There are other explanations.

Less Biblical inerrancy, Elhanon killed the "brother of Goliath" and a copy omitted "brother of". More Biblical inerrancy, Goliath's brother was also named Goliath, either because the father literally reused the exact same name, or because two foreign names were transscribed identically to Hebrew (like Lithuanian transscribes both Jonah and John as Jonas).

Ford Prefect
@fordprefect5304
Goliath has bigger problems.

If you read the detailed description of Goliath a 10th century philistine. He is dressed in 7th century Greek Hoplite Armour.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@fordprefect5304 What exact words are such that it's 7th C. Greek rather than 10th C. Greek?

Btw, since Philistines have partly Cretan ancestry, Greek as such is not a problem.

Ford Prefect
@hglundahl 10th C. Greek

Chain mail armour was not invented until the 8th century.

@hglundahl Philistines have partly Cretan ancestry

Except there are paintings of Philistines, and they are not wearing "Hoplite Armour", they were Mycenaeans. Dorians invented chain mail amour in the 8th century.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@fordprefect5304 The Hebrew words seem to mean "breastplate with fish scales" or even harness with scales ... you still have not shown that the description is depicting a hoplite.

We could even be dealing with a description of a Mycenaean helmet, boar tusks overlapping like scales, as the words come just after the mention of the helmet.

Ford Prefect
@hglundahl 1 SAMUEL 17
RRV
5 And he had an helmet of brass upon his head, and
he was clad with a coat of mail
KJV
5 And he had an helmet of brass upon his head, and
he was armed with a coat of mail;
Try again....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@fordprefect5304 RRV and KJV are translations.

Biblical inerrancy doesn't mean there are no minor mistranslations.

Especially not in versions that even have major ones, as KJV mistranslates for instance Matthew 6:7.

The original wording was perhaps misunderstood and mistranslated.

Ford Prefect
@hglundahl The David and Goliath Story as Reminiscent of the Iliad

Also prominent among the indications of Greek influence on the story of King David is the image of his battle with Goliath, a story that only became associated with David at a later stage (2Sam 21:19 ascribes this battle to another, lesser known warrior named Elhanan). Much of the story of this battle is reminiscent of scenes from Homer’s Iliad, including the battle of champions and the description of Goliath’s armor , which more closely resembles the armor worn by Achilles in the Iliad than battle dress worn by Philistines as depicted on Egyptian monuments.

Credit:
Dr. Richard Lederman taught courses in Bible, Religion, and Comparative Mythology at Georgetown University, Montgomery College, and Gratz College. He holds a Ph.D. in Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literature from Dropsie College. Before returning to academia, Lederman worked as a Jewish communal professional.

@hglundahl Dr. Richard Lederman
Uses the Hebrew bible which closely matches the dead sea scrolls. But I am making sure you figured that out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@fordprefect5304 Did he ever mention that the Hebrew terms are sometimes translated differently?

Either way, no, I already explained the Elhanan passage why it's not the original version for 1st Kings 17.

Some people with degrees have such an itch to reconstruct, they are incapable of simply reading a text, and if there is a problem reread it for other possible meanings.

Battles of champions would have been standard in the Bronze Age, and Homer didn't have it from his own time, but from back in the days of the Trojan War.


1:29 "the stories are legendary, or they are complete fiction"

Legendary here in your usage depends on a Protestant prejudice against legend, which I don't share. It doesn't mean fiction. It means history that's supposed to be read or recited on occasions calling for it, i e history that has historical relevance. If you give a completely historically accurate version of Paul Revere's ride, on a 4th of July, that still is "legend" because history related to War of Independence is meant to be read (the exact Latin meaning of legenda) on celebrations of 4th of July.

There is no complete fiction, not even partial fiction, except as to exact wordings used in past dialogues (a convention you find in the BC / AD time Ancients that explains diversity of logia in different Gospels), in the historical books of the Bible. The Bible scholars who hold there is, are basically Liberal Protestants, that is Apostates.

MrMortal_Ra
@MrMortal_Ra
“There is no complete fiction” Genesis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@MrMortal_Ra I don't think Phil Collins said that phrase.

Were you referring to the book of Genesis and quoting part of my phrase?

Because, no, Genesis is NOT complete fiction. Not even partial fiction.


1:37 "we can't really reconstruct"

Even before other problems, you have a very basic problem of methodology, in thinking the modern scholar has a duty to "reconstruct" what some person or event was. Taking an ancient source at face value doesn't seem to be on your table even as an option.

Dan McClellan
@maklelan
Refusing to question the historicity of any source is absolutely not on the table. That's not how scholarship works.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@maklelan I'm sorry, but your view of scholarship is worthless as to how we know the ancient history we know.

I know modern scholarship is in a kind of a turmoil, but argue your points, specific or about principles, instead of appealing to how "scholarship works" as if that were the eleventh commandment or 15th sentence of the creed or eighth petition of Our Father.

Juan Ausensi
@hglundahl "but argue your points, "
That's what he does with his videos.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@juanausensi499 except I called him out for precisely not doing that!

Juan Ausensi
@hglundahl I know. You should watch more of his videos.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@juanausensi499 He was on this thread and could have linked to another one.

When it comes to the epistemology of history, he has learned a set number of talking points, which he is not willing to question, nor able to defend when others attack them, which I did.

IF by any chance he had another video where he "explained" the things "I was confused about" (stating it from his perspective, not mine), he could very easily just have linked to it. In fact, he was stumped by my angle of attack.

OR, I would be very surprised.

Juan Ausensi
@hglundahl You aren't entitled to an answer. Next time, don't be hostile, and ask genuine questions, if you have any.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@juanausensi499 What should NOT be "hostile" about someone arguing badly and my dismantling that bad argument?

I was not "asking questions" but defying his lack of real argument. If he had had any, he could have provided, no big deal at all.


How Christian nationalists misread Romans 13:1
Dan McClellan | 5 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdAuxG038Cw


0:41 Protestants have certainly abused Romans 13, like against Pilgrimage of Grace, like against Dacke, and the infamous Coligny, presuming he had state authority as a noble, and peasants hadn't, in 1568 would probably if challenged by a pastor he respected have appealed to Romans 13 for executing peasants trying to defend the religion of Castres, a Catholic town. More recently, Lutherans and Anglicans have argued against Franco's right to "rebel" against de facto persecutors of the Church.

This does not mean we get to say Romans 13 is not for all times.

Among other things, it involves setting up limits for the use of power by those holding public office.

1:56 "singularly illsuited" only by Protestant misreading. Here is Witham, a bishop of English illegal Catholics residing in Douay:

Let every soul, or every one, be subject, &c.[1] The Jews were apt to think themselves not subject to temporal princes, as to taxes, &c. and lest Christians should misconstrue their Christian liberty, he here teacheth them that every one (even priests and bishops, says St. John Chrysostom) must be subject and obedient to princes, even to heathens, as they were at that time, as to laws that regard the policy of the civil government, honouring them, obeying them, and their laws, as it is the will of God, because the power they act by is from God. So that to resist them, is to resist God. And every Christian must obey them even for conscience-sake. St. John Chrysostom takes notice that St. Paul does not say that there is no prince but from God, but only that there is no power but from God, meaning no lawful power, and speaking of true and just laws. See hom. xxiii. (Witham)


Note the wording "no lawful power, and speaking of true and just laws" ... i e, there is such a thing as unjust and therefore false "law", of obedience to which the "taking of the mark" would be an example.

2:05 How about taking a cue from Witham and conferring the prophetic blessing of Judah by his father Jacob?

Genesis 49:
8 Juda, thee shall thy brethren praise: thy hands shall be on the necks of thy enemies: the sons of thy father shall bow down to thee. 9 Juda is a lion's whelp: to the prey, my son, thou art gone up: resting thou hast couched as a lion, and as a lioness, who shall rouse him? 10 The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations. 11 Tying his foal to the vineyard, and his ass, O my son, to the vine. He shall wash his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape. 12 His eyes are more beautiful than wine, and his teeth whiter than milk.

Specifically in verse 10, the Messiah had to come before Judaeans could lose sovereignty.

The stonings and stoning attempts in the Gospels were partly a way of pretending to have retained the sovereignty.

But the Messiah did come, the last sovereign abused his power to try to destroy him, and Judah lost sovereignty.

St. Paul is in the immediate context telling Christians not to establish a parallel civil justice system.

Judah and Ephraim have lost civil sovereignty, and to this day their Christian and Muslim descendants have no sovereignty compared to the foreigners who came in after the Balfour declaration. Thereby, they have also fulfilled the prophecies about them carrying arms no more. Armies in Palestine the last 2000 years have not been armies manned by Palestinians, until very recently.

Before 3:04

In Petrus of Tarantasia, I found an exposition of 1 Cor 7:20 etc stating that liberty and servitude are both amenable to make one's salvation, therefore both should be preserved. Note, as the presupposition is about servitude to men who want to exploit you as work force, domestic entertainment or field labour or lots in between, this holds. It would not hold about shrinks, since they interfere in things pertaining to salvation, notably, it is necessary for some men to marry, they are greatly hampered if they can't, as St. Paul mentioned, so, a kind of lordship that can interfere with your right to marry (other than the voluntary celibacy and the ones that involves) is still to be avoided.

3:04 The kind of attitude to the Bible that you endorse, "time dated documents, not directly applicable today" is actually part of the problem you describe, one starting with Luther.

At a certain point in the late 19th C. Protestants had their identity politics bent on progressivism, therefore on a liberal reading of the Bible. Otto von Bismarck is a prime example, and Marcan priority is a poisoned gift to Bible scholars from one fawning on him (if it had been a Catholic, back then, he would have been excommnicated).

Sunday, February 25, 2024

Trent Horn Pretended to Oppose "Satan's Guide to the Bible"


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Trent Horn Pretended to Oppose "Satan's Guide to the Bible" · Creation vs. Evolution: Have Fundies Changed Sides, or is Something Else Going On?

Unfortunately he a poor job of it. Since Satan was a liar from the beginning, you oppose him with truth.

Satan's Guide to the Bible (REBUTTED)
The Counsel of Trent | 22 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Se2yEZigXA


1:24 W a i t ... don't tell me you are going to do a Ratzinger style reinterpretation of "asserted" so that basically no info is asserted, unless it's the main point !

/ fa ce pa lm !

2:21 Another proof from CCC that two of the C's are misplaced in its name ...

No previous catechism has a similar blooper.

Weavile
@461weavile
I don't understand. What's the proof? What "c"s are you talking about?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl
@461weavile
that's why 2:16 the catechism says of the creation 2:18 account in Genesis that quote the 2:20 account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses 2:23 figurative language

@461weavile [3] C's:

Catechism (it has that form)
of the
Catholic
Church (no, it's not of the Catholic Church).

Weavile
@hglundahl Ah, you're just another goofball denying what the Church teaches. Nevermind; I thought you had something insightful to say.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@461weavile So, you pretend that "the Chuch teaches" that Genesis 3 is figurative and "portrays" the first people as Adam and Eve, rather than Adam and Eve being real people and Genesis 3 described in literal terms? § 390 and some surrounding ones.

Or that "the Church teaches" that modern discoveries have enhanced our understanding of how man and the universe emerged and how old they are, beyond what we had already learned from Genesis 1 and 2?

Have you considered that the Church cannot authoritatively teach things that are against all Church Fathers? Confer Trent Session IV. Or that a literal Adam is involved in three dogmas about original sin, Session V, canons I, II and III?


3:12 The problem is not the genre of Exodus. The problem is the expectation that historic at least large scale events should leave us archaeological evidence.

There are not many bones left in Waterloo. For Cannae, there is one or two swords, one or two bucklers, in the case of two, it would be a Roman and a Carthaginian one. If we ignored Livy, we could reinterpret the evidence as a Roman and a Carthaginian had a single combat there. And note, 1511 - 216 = 1295 years more recent than the Exodus, for Cannae.

If you read through Caesar's Bellum Gallicum, you will find lots of Roman camps, lots of battles. The archaeological record is perhaps one single Roman camp from that time. So, the lack of archaeological evidence is far from a reason to accept the project of reinterpreting the Exodus.

1) Not all events leave traces even immediately,
2) And not all immediate traces are preserved.

3:51 Names of the two pharaoh's searched for. I found a tenth dynasty Merikare, whose predecessor does not sound like the older guy:

Wahkare Khety

So ... ?

6:12 According to the Bible, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob called God Elohim, and also used combinations involving El. The tetragrammaton was specifically given to Moses, perhaps not as a complete novelty, but Abraham, Isaac and Jacob seem not to have used it, for some reason.

I feel shame when a supposed Catholic, and what's more a supposed Catholic of recent Hebrew origin has so little faith in the books of Moses ...

7:33 Indeed, in this passage "happy" simply means lucky, referring to the luck God was granting the barbarians from Persia, who were going to do that kind of atrocities ... and incidentally free a former victim of atrocities who had received such at the hand of Babylon.

10:06 While J. P. Holding did not approve of it, he argued Jephtha's daughter simply had to serve in the temple the rest of her life. She practically became the first nun.

Here is Hebrews 11:31 By faith Rahab the harlot perished not with the unbelievers, receiving the spies with peace. 32 And what shall I yet say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, Barac, Samson, Jephthe, David, Samuel, and the prophets: 33 Who by faith conquered kingdoms, wrought justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, recovered strength from weakness, became valiant in battle, put to flight the armies of foreigners: 35 Women received their dead raised to life again. But others were racked, not accepting deliverance, that they might find a better resurrection.

13:06 The question is parallel to why God killed children through waters and fires in the Flood and the fall of Sodom.

Killing all the adults involved and sparing the lives of the children would have involved too much trauma.

Generally, when bandits are killed, their children can be parcelled out to different families. But in the Canaanite case, the upshot of that would have been, basically a Canaanite child or sibling group per Israelite family. Imagine having thousands on thousands of people (15 years later on) whom you had to tell "yes, we killed your parents because they were evil" ...

15:35 For us as Catholics, Moses is the author of the five books of Moses, minus the death narrative of Moses, and Joshua for the book of Joshua, with the corresponding exception.

Exeunt later chroniclers ....

15:44 "to retain their own world views, which were theologically and morally undeveloped"

Not to the point of including into a text that God was earmarking for the Bible any erroneous statement, whether the error be moral or factual.

16:02 The thing is, here we are not dealing with error on the part of Moses, we are dealing with Moses as intermediary for the dispensations that God made ...

16:35 Matthew Ramage may have found grace with antipope Ratzinger, but not with St. Thomas Aquinas. I have translated a passage from the latter, where he supports the dictation view of inspiration.

How about you look up what the UNDISPUTED Vatican council (1869 to 70) has to say on Inspiration?

Either every word choice, or at the very least everything conveyed, is God's initiative. For word choices, hagiographers at the very least had a protection like that of the real Popes, when speaking ex cathedra.

18:04 Did I mention I considered Ratzinger as an antipope?

You have just read out loud an act of accusation against him, signed by himself and Seewald ...

18:40 Being aware that Modernists dispute authorships is like being aware Commies deny God.

There are two authorship issues I can see internal evidence and early tradition about:

1) was Hebrews by St. Paul or by St. Barnabas?
2) was the Johannine corpus by the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve, or by a Cohen, a lesser disciple?

The answer from Asia Minor to the Pope St. Agapitus doesn't mention the John they had known had been one of the twelve apostles, but that he had served as a Cohen, arguably Cohen Gadol; Tertullian thought that St. Barnabas was the author of Hebrews.

You really seem to find better familiarity with temple things than with fisherman things in the Johannine corpus, and you really do see a slight difference of style in Hebrews. E g the lack of a specific greeting.

But "pastorals have too developed a theology about the structure of the Church" is simply question begging, plus comes from Prussia during the Kulturkampf.

19:21 You are forgetting that a secondary object of the faith, which must therefore also be held with unwavering faith, is the historic circumstances by which the divine revelation reached us. In the case of historic books, that means both the events described, and the author's credible access to them.

19:26 Biblical scholarship is usually not very Biblical and not very scholarly. I obviously mean things like Bart Ehrman disputing most of the Paulines.

Skepticus
@skepticus5705
He actually represents the scholarly consensus, which was well established long before he was even born.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl
@skepticus5705 Yeah, in Prussia, during the Kulturkampf they started with Markan priority.

No, seriously, on this matter there is not one scholarly consensus, and the one he's representing is not the conservative or sane one.


19:55 The clincher for the Sanhedrin was very arguably our first Pope presenting himself as "Cephas" and not as "Caiaphas" — using the Aramaic instead of the Hebrew, like someone who only accesses the Scriptures through Targums in the then vernacular Aramaic.

Rabbinical training they very obviously had received by Jesus Christ. Just that He didn't order them to be snobs about knowing Hebrew.

20:56 St. Paul was not earlier than St. Matthew.

21:50 You cannot state that the Church authority or St. Paul taught that the Second coming would be during their natural lifetime.

23:54 No, it does not deny the human elements of Scripture.

It does not deny St. John was arguably in an alpha state or theta state while receiving the Apocalypse, and it does not deny that Luke for his Gospel and Moses for Genesis to a very high degree relied on previous documentation, oral or written.

Your objection totally parallels the Protestant objections against Papal or Conciliar infallibility.

24:00 For lots of Christian history, at the very least we have had Church Fathers and Scholastics expressing themselves as if God actually did precisely that. Cardinal Franzelin proceeds to reinterpret that a bit, but first he actually acknowledges it.

I have Franzelin's views from the Day-Ager Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux, by the way, and I'd appreciated Fulcran a bit more, if he had lived up to that principle.

25:05 You have missed the elephant in the room.

1) The numbers don't reflect the same people, new ones have been born and reached the age to be asked, some have on the other hand died;
2) the children have very typically not been raised at the family's discretion, but by Marxists.

Why I Don't Spend Much Time on Hell as a Theme : Others Do It Better


What PC Catholics won't let me say... - Fr. Mark Goring, CC
Fr. Mark Goring | 3 May 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATXbNtsuVzE


If I am on my blogs not warning of Hell, the one single reason is, I am not a preacher.

People like Ray Comfort will speak of allowing people to drown instead of jumping into the water to save them ... well, if you are not a trained life saver.

My business is usually apologetics, I defend the exact Catholic or other truth that I find attacked. Including when Kristi Burke attacks the eternity of Hell.

But if some people consider I do not believe in Hell's existence, I do, so, I will share this video.

Saturday, February 24, 2024

Is "Prophecy of St. Nilus of Sinai" (no such thing) Used in Thinking About Me?


Trads have long to me documented an ill-will, not against my carnal person, but against my pretence of having some kind of competence to write about what I wrote about. Here is Anthony Stine, whom they DO promote, being definitely INCOMPETENT:

We Were Warned: The Chilling Prophecy Of Satan Deceiving Mankind
Return To Tradition | 23 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntOMqEyXnmc


And here am I, exposing it:

0:21 When I look up St. Nilus of Rossano on the wikipedia, I can find nothing related to this prophecy.

St. Nilus of Sinai wrote lots of things. But can the thing you are reading from pretend to be a genuine work of his?

And St. Nilus of Palestine isn't really the one either ...?

While Nilus of Sora, canonised 1903, was so by Muscovite Schismatics.

I think Nilus the Myrrh-streamer is the one you are going for, and while there are miracles, he too was "East of 1054", plus his predictions (the ones you probably read from) seem to have been published in 1912.

I go to a Trad Ortho site* which says:

The Russian translation of the book published on Mt. Athos back in 1912, “The Posthumous Predictions of St. Nilus the Myrrh-streaming,” which has long been famous, contains prophecies by this great ascetic concerning the last days, the world-wide enthronement of the Antichrist, and the tribulations which the world will experience upon the enthronement of the Antichrist. Now we have received the Russian translation of the predictions of this wonderful Athonite recluse which especially pertain to the 20th century. These predictions are truly extraordinary!


0:26 No, the prophecy is not of St. Nilus of Sinai, the Vth C. married priest (first married, then priest).

It's from Nilus the Myrrh-Streamer.

One probable reason for the misattribution is, Trads itch to use it, but have a much stricter distance taking from the community that the Myrrh-Streamer belonged to.

A wiki search is sufficient to refute you.

Unless obviously, instead of quibbling about "notoriously unreliable wiki" you produce more reliable sources, and no, the conversations between Trad Priests when on a retreat, or even having that booklet read to them during dinner, presented as by St. Nilus of Sinai, does not count as "more reliable sources" ... ancient manuscripts would, but I am not holding my breath.

1:17 What you are reading seems unlikely to have been written in the Vth C. but much more likely to have been forged in 1912 on Mount Athos.

Already the fact that someone in the Vth C. thought there would be a year 1900 is unlikely. Often people thought:

  • the world was created 5500 BC and the Second Coming was upcoming for 500 AD
    or
  • the world was created 5200 BC and the Second Coming was upcoming for 800 AD.


However, Mount Athos 1912, you can definitely see where such words back then would be coming from.



1:17 bis / about the picture and the text.

The injunction is very clearly apt for the monastic life. However, if any trad is trying to press home this point to me, how about noting, I am N O T a monastic.

What's being denied me is the means to form a family and live a moderately happy life.**

* The End Times
Holy Transfiguration
http://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/mod_endtimes.html


** Here I think it is a good point to end the video.

Friday, February 23, 2024

Just in Case Anyone Accuses Me of Sola Scriptura, Look at Me and Keith Nester


Where do I agree with him? What do I pose as at least potential disagreements? First his video:

Is Catholicism Biblical?
Keith Nester | 9 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgmvReJiX0I


Then my comments:

2:10 One thing that is explicitly taught in the NT is, all of the Old Testament is about Jesus.
Plus, a few verses, and some passages in other Pauline letters, and Hebrews and Apocalypse flesh part of that out. But not all of it.

I started RCIA over more than once. And Fr. Bischoffberger S.I. loved this, as he also loved the final verse in the Emmaus passage in proof of the Eucharist.

2:59 I pretty often do precisely that.

"You don't have to be part of a specific denomination"
Acts 2:47
"Yeah, but that's still not how you get saved"
it says "together" and it's about "such as are saved" PLUS you still haven't shown where your version of salvation is in the Bible.

3:05 You should be asking, where in the Bible is the pre-Trib rapture.

Here is rapture, but it doesn't say pre-Trib, at all:

Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air, and so shall we be always with the Lord.
[1 Thessalonians 4:16]

As per previous verse, it's set in the time of the General Resurrection, which occurs after the Tribulation.

5:10 Do you think CCC is authoritative?

Its § 283 contradicts at basically every point what Catholics have believed over the centuries.

As not just a convert Catholic, but also a fairly accomplished history geek, I happen to know the contrary positions beyond dispute.

OK, if you want to argue the § is not speaking about Deep Time and Evolution, Deep Space and Heliocentrism, fine, do that, it could be a tour de force.

Or if you want to argue the CCC doesn't invalidate the Catholicism of everyone in communion with "Francis" because Jesus, Our Pascha is the valid catechism for the Byzantine rite, fine, do that.

But if you want to argue Deep Time is compatible with Bible, Church Fathers, Magisterium up to recently, you have quite a job to do. And if you want to bring up 1909, which explicitly authorises Day-Age, well, that's explicitly about Creation Days prior to the Creation of Adam. If you'll believe U-Pb dating proves the Earth is 5 billion years old as Pius XII said in 1951, certainly in polemics against eternal steady state models, but still, or, despite him saying it is very precise, believe that date should actually rather be 4.5 billion years, you'll have to admit that any time whether 5000 years ago or 40 000 years ago, the atmosphere had a roughly comparable amount of carbon 14 compared to now.

That's where you date human skeleta to ages way beyond the Biblical timeline, and accepting that was clearly not on the table in 1909, and definitely not authorised. A human skeleton can't be prior to the end of the Creation Days, it has to be posterior to Genesis 3:19. But the timeline from Genesis 3 to the time of Moses is not super elastic. To Haydock, who uses a Masoretic chronology, it's 2500 years. With full LXX chronology, it's more like 3817 years from Creation to Exodus. But not 40 000 years. You realise the difference is important for the natural historic reliability of Genesis 3?

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.


And, yes, in case you think even 2500 or 3800 years would be "way too much" and the ages of the patriarchs shouldn't be taken literally, St. Augustin very explicitly says they should in City of God. If you read through books 12 through 17, you won't miss the relevant remark.

5:39 Whether or not they ever learned things by promptings of the Holy Spirit which He never said, the Holy Spirit omitted nothing.

That the Holy Spirit added is debatable.

That He omitted nothing is certain:

John 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

6:15 So, now that CCC § 283 shows Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio are not the ones preserving the preaching of the Apostles, do you prefer Rogelio Martinez as Michael II or Joseph Odermatt as Peter III?

7:35 So, while saying amen to those words, I recommend you seek out more Traditional authority.

Both Michael II (as far as I know) and Joseph Odermatt are Young Earth Creationists and at least Michael I was a Geocentric too.

8:10 "It teaches only what has been handed on to it" -- thereby disidentifying the ones issuing that Catechism (with its § 283) from being the magisterium here spoken of.

9:29 However, the Bible does tell us Thessalonica and Beroea are models of the Faith, which given the geographical distance means, the OT has 45 (or possibly 46) books, if we count it in miles, and the overall Bible has 73 (or possibly 72) books of we count it in km.

The Bible does have more Easter Eggs (pop culture meaning of the phrase) for the end times than just who or whose institutions are the BEAST.

12:02 A Church Father remarked that the names of the real ringleaders of factions were deliberately hidden, and St. Paul here says "we changed their names to our own ones" ...

Did you know that PAULUS PP adds up to 666 and the five cases of Apollo in Classic Greek add up to 2666?

An Easter Egg, in which Novus Ordo and the Med Corps are being targeted as equivalent to those factions that the historic St. Paul and Apollo were active in suppressing. And no Pope named Paul prior to "Paul VI" ever wrote "Paul, Pope" as "PAULUS PP" ... for one thing, if Paul was written in majuscules, it was often PAVLVS, which changes the number sum in ASCII, for another "Pope" would be written out or spelled for instance "pp." ... but also, all prior to Paul V lived way before ASCII and computers.

Mike Winger Has His Issues, As Noted by Reason and Theology


Mike Winger Foolishly Mocks the Saints #pope #catholic
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jEXK9mHdixU


I

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl
Sts Symeon Stylites and Genevieve of Paris (or of Nanterre, where she was born) had visio conferences by miracle, like later Sts Clare and Francis of Assisi.

It's thanks to Sts Symeon Stylites and Genevieve that France and generally the West exists.

It's thanks to them that the Roman world didn't continue in a rut much like the Putin version of Russia or fall down as prey to Arian invaders in the West.

The FP is clearly merited.

II

Ave Maria
@AveMaria33777
That's what you call a lack of education.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
to be deep in history is to be Catholic
to be shallow in history is to remain outside, unless you're cradle Catholic, apparently

III

Joshua Young
@JoshYng
Idk anything about pillar saints. But wouldn’t this logic lead Mike Winger to have to also say fasting is stupid because it’s intentional suffering for God?😂

Reason & Theology
@ReasonandTheology
Right.

James Mcphillips
@omentrikal1
It is

IV

Ck
@Ckkkkkkk12345
Mar Maroun or St. Maron did that, he would go up to the mountain and stand their with his arms open for very long periods in repentance for sinners.
Now he is the only saint in the world who has a sect that carries his name.. the maronites that are mainly in Lebanon now although he was from Syria

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not sure one should refer to Maronites as a sect ... they are one of the Rites of the Catholic Church (like Latin, Byzantine etc).

V

Michael Bottorff II
@michaelbottorffii4913
I'm with Mike on this one. These public displays seem to directly defy Jesus's warnings against self-righteous displays of prayer and fasting from Matt 6:5-18.

James Adams
@jasmadams
Oh yeah, when I want to look good and preen in front of my peers, this is precisely what I do. Get a grip...

Michael Bottorff II
@jasmadams Why do you harden your heart to the Words of our Lord?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The pillar saint is living so far from the public, even with "public display" he can't possibly enjoy honours given him.

No Pharisee (they were what Jesus talked about!) was ever a pillar saint.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@michaelbottorffii4913 Your misuse of Our Lord's word is NOT the word of God.

VI

Tom Gjokaj
@tomgjokaj
Poor Mike, just wings it

Reason & Theology
Basically

Harley Mann
@harleymann2086
Wing-ding is more than a font on our computers 🤣

VII

Chwedl
@chwedl13
Just making God looks weird to everybody else while in truth its only in Protestants people like them but for us Catholic we respect and honor them. 🙄🙄🙄

Hans-Georg Lundahl
amen!

VIII

Hjc
@hjc1402
Isn’t this considered asceticism?

Reason & Theology
Yes

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, and it's the original Greek word for St. Paul's words about athletes!

Answering an Attack on Genesis


The Problem With Adam and Eve | Response to Ken Ham
Alex O'Connor | 18 Sept. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3EIx_ZQlc4


2:02 The world as God made it contained no evil.

In the beginning of Genesis 3, this is no longer true of the angelic world, since a third of the angels made themselves evil after God created them, but was still true of the material world. The biological serpent was not evil, but was cursed along evil, because an evil angel had used it for an evil purpose. In fact, that evil angel was the ringleader of the rebel angels.

Everyone who starts out good and becomes evil, was not evil as God created him, but only became evil by chosing to become that, or to become sth other than God had intended it to be.

River Bank
@riverbank2193
A problem that occurred to me in the past few years is that God supposedly knows and sees all things. He knows what will happen in the future as well as the past. He can give you prophecy. So when he created Adam and Eve and put them in the garden, he knew exactly what was going to happen. He knew exactly how it was going to play out from the start. Which makes him the designer of this system. If he knew ahead of time that the serpent would tempt the human beings, and the human beings would partake of the forbidden fruit, how does that make the human beings or the servant responsible? God set up the system, knowing exactly what would happen from the beginning. That is kind of like a computer programmer purposely designing a computer with a known glitch, and then blaming the users of that computer when the computer fails. It doesn't make sense.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl
@riverbank2193 Answered the other place.


3:52 Two solutions:
Adam literally in the same moment and therefore both in the same day died spiritually.
Adam died physically in the same figurative day, that's really a "day from God's perspective" = 1000 years from ours.

Dying at 930 means dying same millennium as one sinned?

L.Ron Dow
@L.Ron_Dow
Adam & Eve were NOT made immortal - they were always destined to die. This is why they were expelled from Eden - to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life and becoming fully like the G0Ds. The G0Ds were scared of their creation - just as they were at Babel.

Georgie
@thenotoriusg
Literally what?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Literally, same day @thenotoriusg, he died spiritually.


4:11 The talking snake is literal, because the story is.
God permitted Himself figurative language, because He knew Adam knew Him.

River Bank
In order to be a literal story, it would have to make sense. But it does not make sense so it has to be chalked up to being mythology.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@riverbank2193 You have so far not shown that.


5:17 Eve was deceived.
That's why Adam's sin was worse. He wasn't deceived.

He also wasn't in advance prone to sin, but prone to be solidaric with his wife. A solidarity which then quickly broke down because of the sin.

6:15 non possumus non peccare ...
not said of every sin singly, only of over time

16:29 You have shown no argument whatsoever against Genesis being a historical account.

You have only shown that as such a thing, it doesn't inspire you to Theodicy.

As for "ludicrous" ... here is Haydock (look him up).

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)


River Bank
He did show an argument that Genesis has flaws. He very clearly showed inconsistencies and contradictions. To be a true historical account. There should be no inconsistencies or contradictions. He showed how certain parts of Genesis don't make sense.

A problem that occurred to me in the past few years is that God supposedly knows and sees all things. He knows what will happen in the future as well as the past. He can give you prophecy. So when he created Adam and Eve and put them in the garden, he knew exactly what was going to happen. He knew exactly how it was going to play out from the start. Which makes him the designer of this system. If he knew ahead of time that the serpent would tempt the human beings, and the human beings would partake of the forbidden fruit, how does that make the human beings or the servant responsible? God set up the system, knowing exactly what would happen from the beginning. That is kind of like a computer programmer purposely designing a computer with a known glitch, and then blaming the users of that computer when the computer fails. It doesn't make sense.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@riverbank2193 None of the arguments show that Genesis contains any contradiction, nor does this one.

"like a computer programmer purposely designing a computer with a known glitch"

We are not computers, freewill is not a glitch, and annihilating Adam and Eve because He knew would not be very favourable to us, their descendants. Not what you want, not what I want. He could have.

"To be a true historical account. There should be no inconsistencies or contradictions."

Even if there had been inconsistencies, that would at worst make Genesis a true historical account with some flaws. There aren't any, and even if it's four months since, Alex O'Connor didn't show any.

Sorry for replying this late, but I missed the notification.

River Bank
@hglundahl I have heard it pointed out that the timeline is different depending on which chapters of Genesis you look at. So that would be an inconsistency or contradiction. As far as it being an historical account, I like to imagine what would happen if intelligent beings came from another planet and we were trying to explain to them the history of our planet. On the one hand we have very sophisticated science telling us that the universe is billions of years old and the Earth is millions of years old and there is a specific order in which life evolved on our planet that is backed up by fossil records and genetics. On the other hand we have an ancient text that tells us otherwise. One story says that God created the animals and marched them past Adam so Adam could name them. Could Adam have named the millions upon millions of species that exist on our planet as they marched past him? And the majority of species that existed on our planet died out before humans existed on our planet. So how could he have named them? There were no humans in existence for millions of years but there were man man species living that went extinct.

The ancient text tells us first there was light and then at a later date God created the sun to light up the day and the moon to light up the night. But the moon is not a light. The moon reflects the light of the Sun. And how would there have been light before they were stars or a sun?

The ancient text also tells us there is a god that speaks freely with man in the beginning, but has no communication with us any longer. It also tells us about a talking serpent (requires faith in supernatural events). It tells a story about a god who knows everything, including the future and how the future will unfold. He creates human beings knowing exactly what's going to happen and then punishes them for doing what he knew what they were going to do all along. He knows that the answer is to send Jesus Christ but he doesn't do it for thousands of years. In the meantime he just punishes humans and gets angry with them (although why would he get angry if if he knows what the future holds? There are no surprises.) and at one point decides to kill them all except for a few. All the while knowing that won't do any good. How did Cain move to a nearby land and take a wife? He obviously married his sister. I've heard the morality of God never changes. But in that case it would have to. It would have to be OK to marry your sister back then but not OK now. That's changing morality. You don't see any flaws in Genesis because you are a believer and you believe it is perfect in the way it is. Imagine someone coming from outside our planet, outside our society, and trying to explain the validity of the stories. Would you go with the scientific evidence, or would you go with the dusty mythology? There are a lot of ancient mythology's in our world. This is the one that you cling to because this is the one that is associated with your belief system, maybe the way you were brought up. But that's pretty much the only evidence there is for its validity. That you believe it.

"...The problems go from there. Most commonly noted is that the creation stories in chapters 1 and 2 appear in fact to be different stories that actually contradict one another including the sequence in which things were created (were animals before humans, for example, or the human before the animals?). I go on to show just why neither account can pass muster as a scientific account of what actually happened, despite valiant attempts to make them “work.” In Genesis 1, how can there be light on earth long before there is a sun, moon, and stars? Or how can plants exist without a sun (photosynthesis?!). And in Genesis 2, how could humans appear before plants or animals, and how could every living creature appear as a full-blown species "

Hans Georg Lundahl
@riverbank2193 "I have heard it pointed out that the timeline is different depending on which chapters of Genesis you look at."

Genesis 1 gives a broad panorama, Genesis 2 more detail on day 6, creation of man.

The words about a different timeline can be interpreted otherwise, as Hebrew doesn't have a pluperfect, and they can also be interpreted as Adam created last of the males, Eve last of the females.

"On the one hand we have very sophisticated science telling us that the universe is billions of years old and the Earth is millions of years old ..."

We have a very sophisticated superstition to that effect, a bit like we also have a very sophisticated superstition by Churchyard and Blavatsky not forgetting Edgar Cayce, about Mu, Lemuria and Atlantis.

"there is a specific order in which life evolved on our planet that is backed up by fossil records and genetics."

Only to those who skip or twist detailed knowledge about fossils, detailed knowledge abuout genetics.

"Could Adam have named the millions upon millions of species that exist on our planet as they marched past him?"

He only had to name certain types of vertebrates, and species have diversified since then. He would have been naming about 2000 animals, perhaps 2400.

"There were no humans in existence for millions of years"

There were no millions of years in the first place.

"But the moon is not a light."

The moon is not an independent light, but certainly the relative closest source of light for the night.

"And how would there have been light before they were stars or a sun?"

Because God created it.

"but has no communication with us any longer."

The latter part is not in the ancient texts. Have you heard of Garabandal?

"(requires faith in supernatural events)"

Yeah, so?

"He creates human beings knowing exactly what's going to happen and then punishes them for doing what he knew what they were going to do all along."

His knowledge does not preclude their responsibility.

"He knows that the answer is to send Jesus Christ but he doesn't do it for thousands of years."

Man needed to first see the misery of non-Christian existence. For instance in the domination of the evil demon Apollo, as depicted in Greek tragedy.

"at one point decides to kill them all except for a few. All the while knowing that won't do any good."

It definitely did good. God delayed the degeneration into modern horrors (psychiatry, cps, compulsory school, abortion, halfway houses as a necessary intermediate stage before homeless can have a home), which was ongoing, along with cannibalism, vampyrism and forced gay marriage and prevention of real marriages in the pre-Flood era.

"How did Cain move to a nearby land and take a wife?"

It says he "knew her" carnally there, not that he got her there.

"He obviously married his sister. I've heard the morality of God never changes. But in that case it would have to."

No, the sister marriages in the first generation after Adam and Eve were not morally equivalent to sibling marriages later on. Simple as that.

"It would have to be OK to marry your sister back then but not OK now. That's changing morality."

Not if the married siblings in that generation had one relationship less merged than "married" siblings would have now.

"Imagine someone coming from outside our planet, outside our society, and trying to explain the validity of the stories. Would you go with the scientific evidence, or would you go with the dusty mythology?"

If we take the word "dusty" literally, it's more dust in the scientific evidence than in the myths. They actually do not contradict.

"There are a lot of ancient mythology's in our world."

The other ones usually have true stories (for instance about Hercules or Orestes, poor guys), even if the ones telling them were sore at theology.

"That you believe it."

No, that a population believed it to be part of its history. That's generally speaking the best proof there is for the historic factuality of a text.

"why neither account can pass muster as a scientific account of what actually happened,"

There are lots of accounts that are not scientific, that are nevertheless not fables. Historic, journalistic, autobiographical ...

"and how could every living creature appear as a full-blown species"

What's the supposed problem with that one?

@riverbank2193 PS, if you ever have to speak to Aliens, please tell them, you belong to Jesus, they have no authority over you.

shrek is cool
@shrekiscool4743
@hglundahl we know stuff about genetics and fossils that is proven through empirical observation. We know how genetic variation occurs, for example, and that is perfectly backed up by every single creature that has ever lived. If you want to call that superstition, then the sky being blue is superstition, so is pretty much every single thing we know about our reality. That includes your holy book.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@shrekiscool4743 We know extremely well how genetic variation occurs between blue eyes and brown eyes, wrinkled and smooth peas, yellow and green peas ...

That is about as relevant to disproving the historicity of Genesis as shrek being cool.

Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

shrek is cool
@hglundahl then why did you mention it? You were all like "they claim they have evidence for genetic variation" then proceeded to label it irrelevant to the conversation

@hglundahl ah wait I just read your thing again, didn't realize you were a young earth creationist. I know you're very likely to ignore this to continue yelling into your little echo chamber over here but I'd like to point you towards Professor Dave's videos on the subject matter, like his debate with Kent Hovind.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@shrekiscool4743 "You were all like "they claim they have evidence for genetic variation""

Not in my comment on 16:29 — perhaps you mistook another commenter and myself.

"to continue yelling into your little echo chamber over here"

I was not yelling. I am so far from being in a little echo chamber, that my exposure, deliberate, continual and for decades, to people like you, starts to become irksome when I come across deliberate or spontaneous totally monstrous misrepresentations of myself.

I was not stating you were now deliberately misrepresenting me. I'm very willing to grant your misrepresentation was spontaneous. Without your giving it a second thought.

But it is a misrepresentation. You did not hear me yell, you saw words written on a screen arguing for a certain conclusion and when it was for that conclusion, you spontaneously assumed that:

a) I was yelling
b) I live in an echo chamber cut off from the likes of you.

This is so far from being the truth that if I ever punch someone on the nose for saying what you said, by now this would be standing up to a school yard bully.

"but I'd like to point you towards Professor Dave's videos on the subject matter"

He's a hack. He's also pretty much a hater of Creationism, but he is the one who really lives in an echo chamber, so much that he can come off as generous and understanding to those who haven't broken his bubble enough.


See also:

Mark Doughty
@markdoughty8780
As a Roman Catholic, I always find these uploads fascinating. I'd never heard of Ken Ham before viewing this video, and, his version of Christian theology does seem to sit at the more extreme end of Christianity. Interesting all the same - thanks for uploading.

dulls
@dulls8475
He just believes what God wrote in Genesis. What do you believe? The world or God?

Mr. Mild
@MrMild-sv7is
How do you know Ken has the correct interpretation?

Volleyball, Chess, and Geoguessr
@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr
@dulls8475 He probably just believes his church

Hans Georg Lundahl
As a Roman Catholic, I see nothing extreme about Ken Ham.

But I converted in 1988, you may have had your catechesis or RCIA later. Btw, I don't consider Bergoglio to be Pope. He's extremely Anglican in a bad way.

Mark Doughty
Perhaps conservative would have been a better word to use. I'm a cradle Catholic; having said that I've thoroughly researched the subject and Roman Catholicism seems to me to cover the entire corpus of what Jesus Christ was teaching. @hglundahl

Hans Georg Lundahl
@markdoughty8780 If you have thoroughly researched the subject, you should be aware that YEC is the position of the Church historically. A literal Adam and Eve is presupposed in the dogma of Trent Session V on Original Sin, canons I, II and III, plus obviously in all Church Fathers who make mention of the matter.

Mark Doughty
Yes, I am aware of that. The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree which was ratified by Pope Pius X (on June 30th, 1909) regarding the literal historical meaning of the opening chapters of Genesis, stating that they could not be doubted concerning the creation story of all things (being created) by God at the beginning of time which includes the creation of man as well as everything else.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@markdoughty8780 are you also aware that:
  • things like the PBC are just a means to rapidly convey Bible and Tradition
  • and the Old Earth solution given as acceptable back then basically involves

    • a) deep time up to creation of Adam and no men up to then
    • b) and basically straightforward Biblical chronology from then on.


JW's hold that position. I find it incompatible with dating related evidence, specifically carbon dating.

Did Jesus Debate ? (Spoiler alert : yes, at age 12)


My final comment:

In one of the comments, I said:

"you are spreading (if you agree with him) some misinformation on what Jesus did to save us"


on this one, you didn't. Best wishes moving towards Catholicism before your lifetime naturally runs up or you are asked to take a mark!

It's Already Started, They Are Everywhere and They Can't Stand God
Off The Kirb Ministries | 17 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU3ZUw7kWJs


Notice this woman:

"I think that
3:37
you and I are probably believe the same
3:38
thing but what you need to do is go out
3:40
into the world and live your message and
3:42
people will come to Jesus"


Witnessing by life, but not by words, except if asked to by the one one's witnessing to:

  • St. Paul tells Christian wives to do this for unbelieving husbands
  • KGB has put Orthodox, and from them on Lutherans and Anglicans and as of lately Anti-Pope Bergoglio up to pretending or actually incorrectly believing that this is what God wants for all Christians, in all situations.


In fact, I don't think Todd Friel is doing an excellent job, you are spreading (if you agree with him) some misinformation on what Jesus did to save us (I had to clean up under a video of Tovia Singer) and how we are individually saved. But at least, he and you don't have this horrible false shame about actually verbally arguing sth, even if you don't fully live up to it.

4:18 "He didn't debate"
"You are right"

No ... He certainly offered Pharisees more than one debate, by giving the first reply to their first argument.

They had known since He was 12, a debate against Him is a lost cause .... the generation of Gamaliel and Nicodemus admired Him. The generation of Paul were the ones crucifying him, or perhaps more typically, people ten years older than Paul.

We time after time see Pharisees cancelling debates ...

4:40 Yeah, Todd. And how will someone preach, unless he be sent?

The exact verse that swayed my confirmation god-father's confirmation god-father to join the Catholic Church. Todd Friel, Ray Comfort, yourself, Kirb, you are not sent.

My catechesis teacher, the chaplain Wilhelm Imach, Oblate of Mary Immaculate, received his sending the day in 1958 when a bishop layed his hands on his head and ordained him.

That said, I do debate. You do not need to be a preacher to debate, and there are so many:
  • Atheists
  • Protestants
  • Jews
    and very occasionally also
  • some Muslims

eager to preach to me, that I do get debating occasions.

4:55 Todd Friel is not commanded to go anywhere. B u t he has a very valid point that when someone is sent to preach, he is meant to preach "opportune, importune" (a Latin phrase that helps me find the verse it's found in), as St. Paul told St. Tim:

Praedica verbum, insta opportune, importune: argue, obsecra, increpa in omni patientia, et doctrina.
[2 Timothy 4:2]

9:25 Yes, Pints with Aquinas (Matt Fradd) was hosting Dale Ahlquist, and they were having a conversation of Chesterton. There is a clip I just watched about CSL, who, famously, didn't convert to Catholicism. I have been having a few debates about why under that clip. Some Feeneyites take the stance, "it's not enough even if he was moving towards Catholicism, if he didn't enter, it's too late after 22 Nov 1963" and some Protestants were making the argument "he was perfectly right" and then some Neo-Catholics were making the argument, due to his ultra-anti-catholic upbringing in Belfast, he psychologically couldn't, and that exonerates him.

I am sorry, there are some reasons to be worried about his eternal salvation or lack of it.

Some things I could bring about to the Feeneyites, but also some things which are really worrying.

12:18 Time might be running out in another way too.

You know what kind of time runs out c. 3 and a 1/2 years before Christ returns? Yeah, precisely. Don't take the mark!

C. S. Lewis Didn't Convert — Chesterton Did


Why Wasn't C.S. Lewis Catholic!? w/ Dale Ahlquist
Pints With Aquinas | 21 févr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73w-VWIHxFA


Own comments to the video:

1:27 "a sense of the real presence"

That one I'd like to see evidence for.

You see, he once in Letters to Children said he hadn't any clue why actually eating Jesus would make any difference. Not sure where.

That's probably his most dire lacuna ...

When it came to Evolution, when he became a Christian, it was he who was too Evolutionist to be Catholic, he considered not only man as a product of Evolution (apart from God at a certain point — we can't know when or how — imparting His image) and the individuals Adam and Eve as emblems.

At the end, he was fortunately moving away from that, but by then Humani Generis plus its reception involved some Catholics moving towards a very illogical compromise of Adam, yes, direct creation of his body from dust, no. He probably just wouldn't do that. Which is more creditable to him than the now mentioned lack of sense of the real presence.

As for "all seven sacraments" the Anglican community has all, either genuinely (Baptism, Marriage) or in simulacra (Ordination and any sacrament that needs an ordained minister). It's not like Classic Lutheranism, three, or Calvinism, two.

1:48 I think that's true about part of CSL's arguments.

But there is a part where I instead, with sorrow, think he got his bad arguments or positions from "Bishop" Charles Gore.

3:22 I have not read that essay the last ten years at least.

B u t, both to some degree illustrate "and the light shone in the darkness", however, it's only the stained glass window that illustrates the sequel of those words.

"Don't curse the dark, light a match" ... fireworks or the The Little Match Girl

Then there is a light from beyond the stars, where the darkness God separated from light never reaches. Grace is shown by the stained glass window, since a Cathedral at 9 am is only dark locally inside, and the stained glass windows are there to expel that darkness, with light from the outside.

3:59 That one, yes, that one I definitely have heard or read, and I think it's Chesterton.

4:39 Here is one of the versions:

‘It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense and can’t see things as they are. Anything that anybody talks about, and says there’s a good deal in it, extends itself indefinitely like a vista in a nightmare. And a dog is an omen, and a cat is a mystery, and a pig is a mascot, and a beetle is a scarab, calling up all the menagerie of polytheism from Egypt and old India; Dog Anubis and great green-eyed Pasht and all the holy howling Bulls of Bashan; reeling back to the bestial gods of the beginning, escaping into elephants and snakes and crocodiles; and all because you are frightened of four words:

‘He was made Man’.’


(The Oracle of the Dog)


5:40 Unless it's Cardinal Faulhaber, a great-grand-nephew several generations younger of Blessed Andrew Faulhaber (murdered by executioners of Frederick II, and sorrily enough, the Poles now living there aren't interested in a canonisation, after they drove away Germans in 1945 — Catholic Germans of Silesia, who honoured Fr. Andrew Faulhaber.

The Cardinal said "es ist unglaublich wie viel mann glauben muß um ungläubig zu sein" ...

Unbelievable, how much you need to believe to be an Unbeliever.

He also said "wo der Glaube geht hinaus, da geht der Aberglauben hinein"

Exit Faith, Enter Superstition.

Dialogues begun by others:

I

Matt Schneider
@mattschneider78
"The Roman Church where it differs from this universal tradition and specially from apostolic Christianity I reject. Thus their theology about the B.V.M. [Blessed Virgin Mary] I reject because it seems utterly foreign to the New Testament: where indeed the words ‘Blessed is the womb that bore thee’ receive a rejoinder pointing in exactly the opposite direction. Their papalism seems equally foreign to the attitude of St Paul towards St Peter in the Epistles. The doctrine of Transubstantiation insists in defining in a way wh. the N.T. seems to me not to countenance. In a word, the whole set-up of modern Romanism seems to me to be as much a provincial or local variation from the central, ancient tradition as any particular Protestant sect is." - C.S. Lewis


Jack was so real for this.

Susan D
@susand3668
My dear friend, please read that section you refer to again, all the way through. Jesus responds saying, "No, rather, 'Blessed those hearing the Word of God and keeping it.'" ( cf. Luke 11:28) Who was the very first person to hear that God was becoming a Man? And who was it kept all these things in her heart? (cf. Luke 2:19 and 51) Who is the first Christian, and the one that Jesus Himself honored, as He never broke any of the Ten Commandments? Why don't you think it right to honor her, too? She was filled with the Holy Spirit when she said "All generations will call me blessed" (cf. Luke 1:48) Not because she bore Him, but because she was His first follower, as Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, said, "and blessed is she who has believed there will be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her concerning the Lord." (cf. Luke 1:45)

Zachary Evans
@zacharyevans8152
@susand3668 she was indeed an important woman but she was not sinless.

Frieda Wells
@friedawells6860
I think an honest reading of John 6 strongly supports the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@hglundahl
"a rejoinder pointing in exactly the opposite direction."

A rather dull misunderstanding of what Jesus said on the occasion.

She had been happier being told She was sinless by St. Elisabeth, than being told She was being the Mother of God by Gabriel. Her Son was on the occasion asking them to give Her the right compliment.

Not the best CSL quote, and I'm afraid it is genuine.

"Their papalism seems equally foreign to the attitude of St Paul towards St Peter in the Epistles."

1) One occasion in Galatians 2, after St. Peter had been named "Peter" in chapter 1, mentions "Cephas" ... probably already a common name, shared in Hebrew form by Caiaphas;
2) Most (though not the Stromatist) presume it is St. Peter, and they consider momentarily speaking up against a Pope doing wrong as fair game on this account (so, St. Thomas).

He has a bad prooftext, expands it to "several occasions" in the epistles when it's only one, and applies it with Ignoratio Elenchi.

"The doctrine of Transubstantiation insists in defining in a way wh. the N.T. seems to me not to countenance."

So does the dogma of the Holy Trinity, which was defined 17 councils before Trent. Against Arius.

"as much a provincial or local variation from the central, ancient tradition as any particular Protestant sect is."

One could conceivably compared to other Apostolic-Succession type Churches without a Reformation have that opinion about Catholicism, I tried it and it failed, I am a revert from Orthodoxy. But the comparison here is widely underestimating what the evils of any Protestant sect are, given that they all involve the totally anti-Biblical Reformation. Condemned in its premiss about the immediate pre-Reformation Church, as much as Mormonism and JW, by Matthew 28:20.

Now, in fact all of the Apostolic-Succession type Churches without a Reformation do in fact state Our Lady was without sin. Not all of them say "conceived", which is bad, but all say so about Her acts.

added and withdrawn
[Matt Schneider "Hans-Georg Lundahl St. John Chrysostom explicitly taught that Mary sinned, my dude."]

[Note sure whether he withdrew or it was deleted for him]

Hans Georg Lundahl
@mattschneider78 — did you withdraw an answer yourself or was it censored?

Matt Schneider
@hglundahl Withdrew a comment....decided I wasn't interested in a back and forth in the comments section. I'm currently off of X for lent, but if you want to talk you can find me on there. Blessings.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@mattschneider78 This is youtube, not X.

Ask your priest.

Tom
@tomsdigest
Also great was his letter to his friend Dom Bede Griffiths, who zealously tried to make him pope: "One of the most important differences between us is our estimate of the importance of the differences. You, in your charity, are anxious to convert me: but I am not in the least anxious to convert you. You think my specifically Protestant beliefs a tissue of damnable errors: I think your specifically Catholic beliefs a mass of comparatively harmless human tradition which may be fatal to certain souls under special conditions, but which I think suitable for you….As well–who wants to debate with a man who begins by saying that no argument can possibly move him? Talk sense, man! With other Catholics I find no difficulty in deriving much edification from religious talk on the common ground: but you refuse to show any interest except in differences."

Hans Georg Lundahl
@tomsdigest Dom Bede was a religious, and as such had a formal duty to witness.

If CSL was right about the Catholic system, he was for that very reason wrong to support such a bloody and fanatic business as the Reformation (or spell it with D if you like) actually was.

He's treating Anglicans and Catholics as sister churches, when Anglicans only exist because of a daughter rebelling against a mother.

I think that Dom Bede was (at this point) aware that CSL was already having nice edifying chats with Catholics like the Italian priest, like Sister Penelope, like the sibling group who wrote him a fanletter on a Narnia book.

As Matt
seems unwilling to engage, I will take it up. No, I looked it up, and would be more detailed had he actually aswered. St. John Chrysostom spoke of imperfection, not of sin. You need to go as far away as Theodoret and an Alexandrian of the V and VIth CC. to get even a hint about "reproach" and in common life reproaches are not just for offenses, but also for clumsiness. However, most ancient authors and the canonised saints among them, don't even agree with that.

Barely Protestant
@barelyprotestant5365
@friedawells6860 You demonstrate you did not know well the Anglican or Lutheran understanding of the Blessed Sacrament. We literally claim we are eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist, and that we receive Salvation in It.

Barely Protestant
@hglundahl we are under no obligation to presume the lies of papism are true; in fact, Truth obligates us to reject the papal lies for what they are.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@barelyprotestant5365 Lutheranism and to some degree Anglicanism has a more Catholic understanding of the Blessed Sacrament than the rest of Protestantism.

By now it would in both communities depend on what school someone belongs to.

@barelyprotestant5365 Is it a papal lie that Luther and Cranmer got ordained as priests in the Catholic Church?

Barely Protestant
@hglundahl No, and we would never even want to claim otherwise. We literally call ourselves Catholic. We literally confess to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Also, if it depends in Anglicanism and Lutheranism on what schools someone belongs to, whether or not they believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the same can just as strongly be said concerning Papism. Anglicanism and Lutheranism explicitly reject, Confessionally reject, ANY understanding of a mere symbolic and/or non-salvific understanding of the Blessed Sacrament (and Baptism, as well).

Hans Georg Lundahl
@barelyprotestant5365 "On 3 April 1507, Jerome Schultz, the Bishop of Brandenburg, ordained Luther in Erfurt Cathedral."

Jerome Schulz opposed the Reformation.

"To support himself and his wife, he took a job as a reader at Buckingham Hall (later reformed as Magdalene College). When Joan died during her first childbirth, Jesus College showed its regard for Cranmer by reinstating his fellowship. He began studying theology and by 1520 he had been ordained, the university already having named him as one of its preachers."

Nicholas West would probably have been the bishop ordaining him as priest, he died before the English Deformation.

He was also consecrated bishop. By John Longland. A man who believed not just in the Real Presence, but actually in Transsubstantiation.

"During the English Reformation, he was among the conservative bishops, recognizing Transubstantiation. His conservatism is attested to by his complaint in 1536 to Thomas Cromwell about Protestant preachers in his diocese.[5] Longland is referred to by John Foxe, the martyrologist, as "a fierce and cruel vexer of the faithful, poor servants of Christ." Foxe states that he violently constrained men, women, and maidens to testify against one another. He delivered some over to the secular arm to be burned."

It can be noted, Longland and Cranmer were in 1533 still Catholics in good standing with the Pope, Clemens VII.

So, it is not a lie to say that what happened was not even seeming like an even split, it was seeming like what it was, subordinates rising up, permanently, against the papacy as such. As I said.

"the same can just as strongly be said concerning Papism."

Not unless you count Vatican II Modernism as Papism, which I don't.

"reject, ANY understanding of a mere symbolic and/or non-salvific understanding of the Blessed Sacrament"

But usually don't admit Transsubstantiation, and especially not the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Barely Protestant
@hglundahl your argument is...what, exactly? That the Reformation happened? Um, yeah: it happened. And...?

Hans Georg Lundahl
@barelyprotestant5365 Yes, it happened, and not as an even remotely equal split where both parties had at least some claim of being traditionalists rather than restorationists, which is against Matthew 28:16--20.

The problem is not that God would not send someone to correct His Church if it fell, the problem is, God would not allow His Church to fall that low in the first place.

Barely Protestant
@hglundahl I mean, at this point you are just moving the goalposts. I'm not interested in a "dialogue" like that.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@barelyprotestant5365 My comment 12 days ago was:

"He's treating Anglicans and Catholics as sister churches, when Anglicans only exist because of a daughter rebelling against a mother."

My comment just now was simply spelling out why this follows from Reformation in relation to Matthew 28.

But if you are taking this as my moving the goal posts, go for it.

Btw, if it was about John 6, I bumped in on your answer to Frida who was by "Protestant" arguably not mainly thinking of Lutheran or Anglican views. So, not doing a reformation which implies God left His Church in ruins for centuries is not moving goalposts on this issue, it's the other issue.

II

markiangooley
@markiangooley
Lewis was raised in an exceedingly anti-Catholic environment, told Tolkien as much, and said that Tolkien couldn’t understand how deep it went and how becoming Catholic was simply impossible for him.

Maybe he would have eventually been able to get over his upbringing.

Carlos Sardina 3
@carlossardina3161
Bulverism at its finest. Maybe, perhaps, he was actually convinced Catholicism was false!

Ted’s Music
@tedsmusic5556
I doubt he would’ve gotten over it. Irish Protestants don’t often become Irish Catholics.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@carlossardina3161 Being actually convinced doesn't preclude being wrong for specific non-rational reasons.

We are here in a somewhat Catholic company where the position "Catholicism is false" is presumed to be already disproven on other grounds than any analysis of CSL.

I'd be happy to take your finest pick of his arguments against Catholicism (he had some) and disprove them without presuming on (though maybe looking forward towards) the upbringing of CSL

Hans Georg Lundahl
"Maybe he would have eventually been able to get over his upbringing."

While he wasn't, one of the possible explanations is he was overvaluing human attachments over God's call to truth.

"an exceedingly anti-Catholic environment,"

Is that really so?

One man, the clergyman grandfather, arguably was exceedingly anti-Catholic. I think the rest were more like snobbishly anti-Catholic. I think he remained snobbishly anti-Catholic, close to a High Church Lutheran plainly saying Luther was wrong, but waiting to convert until Catholicism first cleans up a bit of "popular piety" (dreaded word!) about the Blessed Virgin. He was also at a certain point in the forties when writing The Problem of Pain or Miracles or both equally snobbishly anti-Fundamentalist. "We are not Fundamentalists" / "aren't" whichever it was.

Paul O'Donnell
@pod1977pod
@hglundahl That is really so.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@pod1977pod Like, in the Protestant parts of Belfast, there is no difference between Ulster Scots and Ascendancy, back then?

Carlos Sardina 3
@hglundahl Even if Lewis' reason for not being Catholic are irrational, Catholics should engage with his arguments instead of presuming he isn't Catholic because of his group identity. That type of argumentation should not be encouraged.

And you're welcome to look up Lewis' reasons for not being Catholic yourself; they're not hard to find.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@carlossardina3161 Once the arguments are settled, and I am highly willing to do so, and I have engaged with them myself, I am not as ignorant about CSL as you seem to presume, one can proceed to argue, is such and such a group identity, and I would not say Ulster Scot heavily Anti-Catholic, I would say Ascendancy and therefore snobbishly Anti-Catholic, is fair game.

I think CSL actually said so in the essay on Bulverism.

You seem to want to reduce his highly intelligent observations on that day to a kind of basically ban on calling out group identities, roughly equivalent to newspapers refusing to directly tell the name of a suspect who's an immigrant.

If CSL for instance thought that Torquemada went to Hell for persecuting people over their real religion, crypto-Judaism, or Henry VIII did so over his over-eagerness to get a Catholic annulment instead of a regular Anglican divorce, he could obviously argue that this was wrong, but he would be foolish to not add that this supposed wrong (and a real wrong in not wanting to stay faithful to Catherine!) stemmed from them being Catholic. Indeed, he basically did in a letter to Dom Bede Griffiths.

Once I had satisfied myself that CSL was actually sloppy in his arguments against converting (and yes, I am aware of them), I am free to ask, what made him so. Over reliance on "bishop" Gore (for instance on Luke 11) would be one; i e obedience to the wrong guys. But given he was simply snobbish about Fundies, it can be argued without absurdity, he was snobbish about Catholics too.

III

The Proceedings
@theproceedings4050
Get real. I know its hard for Catholics to look past themselves, but C.S. Lewis was a staunch Protestant from the time of his conversion to his death. He flat out refused his good friend's request to join the church. At the end of time, there will be all the churches and we will all realise the fulfillment of the Lord as Catholics and Protestants alike. Catholicism is a choice, not an inevitability.

Carlos Sardina 3
Thank you. You can find much about why he isn’t Catholic if you just do a bit of searching. It takes a lot of pride to think that Lewis would have become Catholic given enough time.

Dr Jan
@drjanitor3747
Protestants are lost.

Hans Georg Lundahl
"as Catholics and Protestants alike."

I don't think that since CSL's death we have moved that direction.

More like the end times will see Protestants in roles like Lion power and Leopard power and partaking of the final composite beast.

Remegio Sagarino
@remsaga
I dont believe that Catholic faith becomes only a choice

The Proceedings
@remsaga I don't see how you could believe anything else, considering that not everyone believes as you do.

The Proceedings
@hglundahl I'm glad you think so low of us and our God. Go with peace.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@theproceedings4050 "and our God" ... are you the kind of high ranking Calvinist modernist who's likely to head the Calvinist leopard head and aware that your god is the Devil?

Or do you worship the true God, in which you could be a misplaced Catholic soul?

IV

Jackson Esq
@jacksonesq9992
God gave Lewis the great grace of putting Tolkien and others in his life so that Lewis might become Catholic. Lewis rejected this great grace. He remained an Anglican. Therefore he remained a heretic. Therefore he remained outside of the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. What a tragedy.

Alex Brown
@thyikmnnnn
Shouldn’t God give everyone a chance to learn about the Catholic Church ?

Jackson Esq
@thyikmnnnn It isn’t for us to tell God what He should do. How did you reach an abyss of depravity such that you believe that it is?

The Proceedings
Who are you to make these claims? Are you God? It sounds like you like to be your own ruler and that of others. You preach your own Gospel, but let it be elsewhere Satan.

David fettig
@davidfettig8885
Wrong!

E. M.
@e.m.8094
That is not true. It's not the name of your denomination that saves you It's repentance from sin, faith in the work of Jesus on the cross (and subsequent resurrection) and living a life for God.

Dr Jan
@e.m.8094 Catholicism isn’t a denomination.

Zachary Evans
Did the devil inject his influence into the Roman Catholic leaders who were responsible for the atrocities (mass murder and fear) that the RCC committed throughout the vast majority of her dominion? Because this is what has driven people away from the church Christ established. But part of that statement in and of itself is contradictory because one could infer I am conflating the RCC with the Church Christ established. It is not. Not anymore. And comments like yours do not help anyone come to know Christ.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@zacharyevans8152 "the atrocities (mass murder and fear) that the RCC committed throughout the vast majority of her dominion"

Is your history professor's name Jack Chick?

Hans Georg Lundahl
@theproceedings4050 "Are you God?"

I hope to belong to the Church that God visibly founded.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@e.m.8094 "It's not the name of your denomination that saves you"

The other things you mention are available in the Catholic "denomination" ... less clearly so in some others.

E. M.
@hglundahl I think you may have missed the point of my post. I was responding to a comment saying that you had to be Catholic for salvation. That's heretical.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@e.m.8094 When exactly was it condemned?

V

Jackson Esq
It’s not enough to be on the trajectory, because merely being on the trajectory doesn’t place one inside the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Are Fradd and Alquist adherents of the false religion of Vatican II, which teaches that there IS salvation in other religions? As for his remark about one either being a nihilist or a Catholic after 1000 years, it’s nonsense.

Hans Georg Lundahl
I don't think it is nonsense.

In the pre-Flood world men lived nearly that long, most became, while aware of God's deeds in the past, nihilists, possibily denying them, certainly considering them irrelevant.

Men not unlike Putin.

We can see hopes of CSL converting, we can see fears of his not converting, Anglicanism isn't self contained like "I don't care" is or like truth is. In a thousand years, he would have decided one way or the other.

In the pre-Flood world, they did, and God sent a Flood.

VI

Georg Wagner
@georgwagner937
As an ex-catholic, most of these quotes seem to be absolutely arrogant.
"to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant"
"if everybody lived a thousand years everybody would be catholic"
OK. You want to say you're deep in history and you have the wisdom of a thousand years lived. That's not arrogant?
The fake humbleness is just painful.

Zachary Evans
Par for the course my friend. They all sit in their little mahogany clad man-dens sucking their tobacco aparatuses pontificating about protestants while true Christ followers like John Lennox, William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, Dr. James Tour, and Cliffe Knechtle do all the heavy lifting. Bunch of phonies these RCC apologists. They should aspire to be more like Dr Stephen Meyer (a Catholic I believe) and less like cult leaders trying to groom new followers into "the one true church".

I never understood the "deep in history" quote. The RCC was a tyrant for hundreds of years. They soiled the bed during ww2 and tried to restore their subscription numbers with their newest expansion pack "Ascension of the Mother" which didn't work in the long run. Clearly. Europe is a secular wasteland.

I say: "to be deep in scripture is to cease to be Catholic."

The moment you Catholics stop yapping about your Catholicity and start loving your identity as a CHRISTIAN will I stop with my scathing witness of you. Same goes for Protestants.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@zacharyevans8152 I can explain one part of "deep in history" with a quote from you, though perhaps not to you:

"The RCC was a tyrant for hundreds of years."

That quote makes you totally shallow in history. Is Disneyland your best source for Blackbeard Teach, the pirate? Is your best source for Hitler's character Chaplin's Dictator? Those two examples would not be quite as disastrous as your real life one.

"They soiled the bed during ww2"

Not really. And absolutely not as much as some Protestants did. A famous picture of men in bishops' cassocks raising a Hitler salute is widely supposed to be of Catholic bishops. Not so, they are Lutheran-Evangelisch and Calvinist-Evangelisch clergy, Protestants of Germany. I have seen a supposed nun receive a signature of Hitler. Her attire is more a Lutheran deaconness.

So, your source for Catholic Church history, is it at least Cornwell, or did you sink as low as Avro Manhattan, a fraud about other things too?

"true Christ followers like John Lennox, William Lane Craig,"

Those two are Deep Time Compromisers!

"do all the heavy lifting"

Because they do it in pulpits rather than living rooms where they pod-cast from? You are shallow about more than history.

If you mean they confront aggressive atheism, so do Pints with Aquinas and so did Chesterton. He even fought against atheist bad habits like Eugenics. Which I am afraid CSL forgot to do.

Hans Georg Lundahl
"You want to say you're deep in history and you have the wisdom of a thousand years lived."

Being deep in history occurs if you are that kind of geek. I am, Newman was.

Chesterton did not claim to have lived for 1000 years, but when they did, prior to the Flood (ok, not for all of 1000, but often past 900), no one was a heretic or pagan. They were pious or they were consciously nihilist and even Satanist, as in Devil Worshipping.

"absolutely arrogant."

Your fake standards of humbleness are painful. I'm not claiming you fake your adhesion to that standard, though!

VII

E. M.
I don't know of any other Christian denomination that comes across as elitist as many Catholics do. I don't see this from Baptists, Lutherans, etc. I don't understand it whatsoever. 🤷

David The Good
@davidthegood
It's the O.G. — there's no real way not to sound elitist if you believe it's truly the original Church.

Hans Georg Lundahl
When you say on another thread it's heretical you need to be Catholic to be saved, do you have that from Pius XII's condemnation of Feeney or from John Wesley's dream?

E. M.
@hglundahl I said you "DON'T" have to be Catholic. It was in response to a poster who claimed you do.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@e.m.8094 yes, in response to me.

So, where does it say it's heresy to say you do have to be it?

1) Pius XII condemning Feeney?
2) dream of John Wesley?
3) ...?

E. M.
@hglundahl Let's just go straight to the source itself (because that's what really matters anyways): What does THE BIBLE say about how one obtains salvation/eternal life with God? I have yet to see ANY translation that says "You must be of the Roman Catholic persuasion". If you feel there is chapter and verse that makes this claim, please cite the scripture.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@e.m.8094 Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.

It does not say He increased them in separate and rival groups or as individuals at home. Such as should be saved.

If you pretend the Church described in Acts and the Epistles is another one than the Roman Catholic, feel free to tell me which one.

E. M.
@hglundahl First off, the "Roman Catholic" Church wasn't even established when Luke wrote the book of Acts. Secondly, that is not the gospel message of salvation. Whether Protestant or Catholic, we are saved by trusting in the death and Resurrection of Jesus as the sacrifice for our sins. Our faith is evident by this trust, and a changed life of repentance. Irregardless of our denomination, let us hold fast our profession and lead lives of dedication to Him until that glorious day! 🙌

Hans Georg Lundahl
@e.m.8094 You have made lots of claims that are not in the Bible.

And you have refused to answer my challenge:

"if it wasn't the Catholic Church, which one was it?"
"the Catholic Church wasn't established then"

Well, that was not my challenge. If it was not the Catholic Church, which other Church was it?

N o w ... in fact you missed a proof text.

Such was were going to be saved were gathered T O G E T H E R ... and that means into O N E Church. So, instead of strawmanning my argument by pretending to a gratuitous identification of that one Church with the Catholic, how about answering my reply question to that : which are the alternatives? Chapter 2 and verse 47 makes it clear a purely individual process of salvation is NOT the answer.

By the way, when we ask which ones are the alternatives, how about noticing, the Catholic Church at least makes the claim, and your "Church" doesn't, making it automatically non-identical to the one of Acts. And any Catholic will tell you "Roman Catholic" a) is not the Catholic name of our Church though we accept it, b) our Church began in Jerusalem, and Peter was Pope in Jerusalem, we watch him as such in Acts 1 and Acts 2, before he went to Antioch and after Antioch to Rome, which is where he died. Just to save you the strawman of a Church agreeing to have been founded in Rome pretending to be identic to the one founded in Jerusalem.

E. M.
@hglundahl All who believe in Yeshua Hamashiach, repent from sin, and trust in His redemptive work are saved and part of the "Bride of Christ" (aka: The Church). NECESSITATING a particular name/denomination for believers seems (in my opinion) a bit cult-like. (1 Corinthians 1:10-17)

In my 25+ years of following Jesus and dedicated Bible study, I have yet to hear a theological stance like yours.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@e.m.8094 "NECESSITATING a particular name/denomination for believers seems (in my opinion) a bit cult-like."

It was not so much a particular name, even Christians was what we were called only in Antioch (it was Chair of St. Peter in Antioch, yesterday), and Catholics too, in very early post-Apostolic times, it was about a particular community.

"All who believe in Yeshua Hamashiach, repent from sin, and trust in His redemptive work are saved"

You have still not backed that up by the Bible. Automatically becoming part of the Church, rather than openly and socially taking steps to join it and ask Her for baptism is not how Acts 2:47 tells us it works.

"I have yet to hear a theological stance like yours."

Perhaps you haven't interacted with well instructed Catholics before, or perhaps you didn't chose to stay around for sufficiently long after being put off by some other doctrine Jesus revealed to us, we find sufficiently clearly recalled in the Bible, and you find insufficiently proven in the Bible (like a Jew who doesn't find Jesus in the OT).