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

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.

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl
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
Church (no, it's not of the Catholic Church).

@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.

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

Hans Georg Lundahl
@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.

No comments: