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

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.

No comments: