... on Protestants Getting Wrong WHY "Pope Francis" is Wrong about Mother Theresa

Here is a video:

Mother Teresa Made a Saint by the Pope - Currently Burning in Hell - Salvation is NOT of Works!
Truth In Genesis
Ajoutée le 18 sept. 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-r5ecs0c9s

It attacks the "canonisation" of Mother Theresa in the wrong way. This is how I comment on beginning and some subsequent moments to correct it:

If Mother Theresa is burning in Hell or just staying in purgatory, some of her works were straw, and so much one cannot be sure THAT she built on the right foundation.

Some Catholics are sure she did not do so, and think indeed she is burning in Hell. Antipope Alexander IX has excommunicated her posthumously (if he is an antipope, as I think, invalidly, just as invalid as the "canonisation" by the other Argentinian Antipope). Pope Michael has at least not at all confirmed the "canonisation".

That said, this is not because of your theory about salvation by faith without works, if Keiren Parmley got you right (I haven't seen the video myself yet), but because some of her works were bad or inadequate, and considered such by Catholics throughout history. Like having Muslim and Hindoo patients in your hospital and NOT telling them about Christ.

By 1:28 it is clear, Keiren Parmley is right.

You actually DO have to keep the commandments (at least the last minute of your life, ideally some time before that too) to get to Heaven. John chapter 3 does mention that!

At 1:55, it is not keeping commandments now which saves from past sins, but it is one requirement for keeping the salvation you got through grace, through the sacraments of faith.

No, 2:22, it is your protestantism which will send you to Hell unless you repent.

2:34 The Bible does not say we ARE all sinners, but that all of us (except Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother) HAVE BEEN sinners.

We HAVE all SINNED - in the past. But some have been justified by grace since then, and ARE no longer sinners.

Luther's "at once sinner and just" is simply a lie. It sends to Hell.

2:46 The wages of sin is death. The pay roll a sinner is on mentions not just corporeal death, but eternal death, a k a Hell.

The payroll a just is on says eternal life. You don't get on it by works, but you stay on it by keeping the commandments, by works. By breaking commandments, you get back on the bad payroll.

3:13 Your name can get written into the book of life, which happens by a miracle of justification. A sacrament like Baptism or Confession or Extreme unction, in some rare cases the Eucharist can suffice, but usually you need to be already justified before receving it [1 Corinthians 11:29].

Your name can also get erased from it, as long as you haven't died. See here:

"He that shall overcome, shall thus be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels."
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 3:5]

So, if you do NOT overcome, perhaps your name WILL be blotted out?

See what I mean?

I am not yet settled on whether this channel abuses a clearly Creationist label ("Truth in Genesis" sounds as creationist as Answers in Genesis) to promote mostly other issues, but it would seem so from top 17 videos (not all necessarily bad). Since youtube allows one user more than one channel (if?) perhaps better restrict Truth in Genesis to Creationist matters and use another channel name for sth else?

... on Mystical Experience of Saint Thomas

... on Metaphysics of Saint Thomas Aquinas - an answer with my replies (quora) · ... on Bishop Tempier and the Late Brother Thomas · ... on Mystical Experience of Saint Thomas

Profile

Pete Ashly
https://www.quora.com/profile/Pete-Ashly

sees beautiful things

Peter's Quora persona expresses contrarian views, playfully seeking undiscovered answers. If you're here viewing his profile to learn about this perplexing behavior, please don't take him too seriously. The muses do all the writing anyway and he just types. Please forgive the bad smells, sheep tend to get poop on themselves.

Q

What are some flaws in Thomas Aquinas' thinking?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-flaws-in-Thomas-Aquinas-thinking/answer/Pete-Ashly

Pete Ashly

former software eng and mgmt at Secret Security Org

Answered 11h ago

He learned towards the end of life that he had no actual clue at all about the nature of “this”.

What could St Thomas Aquinas have seen in his mystical experience?
https://www.quora.com/What-could-St-Thomas-Aquinas-have-seen-in-his-mystical-experience

On the feast of St. Nicholas [in 1273, Aquinas] was celebrating Mass when he received a revelation that so affected him that he wrote and dictated no more, leaving his great work the Summa Theologiae unfinished. To Brother Reginald’s (his secretary and friend) expostulations he replied, "The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me." When later asked by Reginald to return to writing, Aquinas said, "I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw."

He realized that all his prior works were of the ego, by the ego and for the ego. The ego by definition has no clue about the true nature of existence. “I think therefore I am” in Aquinas’ case as in so many others aligns with “I think it therefore it is”. But the nature of God is bottom up, not top down like the domineering ego wants. God thinks.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3m ago

“He realized that all his prior works were of the ego, by the ego and for the ego.”

That is your interpretation of his vision, that is not his vision.

“The ego by definition has no clue about the true nature of existence.”

By definition?

“’I think therefore I am’ in Aquinas’ case as in so many others aligns with ‘I think it therefore it is’.”

Aquinas never said “I think, therefore I am”. He also never said “I think, therefore it is”. He said “we see, therefore it is”.

“But the nature of God is bottom up, not top down like the domineering ego wants. God thinks.”

You mean “God thinks, therefore it is”? Well, that is what Saint Thomas said too! In the Summa.

The procession of creatures from God, and of the first cause of all things (Prima Pars, Q. 44)
http://newadvent.com/summa/1044.htm

So, if you wanted a flaw in his, but not your own thinking, you have not found it.

Was it flawed in Saint Thomas? Then it is flawed in you as well. Is it right in your thinking? Then it was right in Saint Thomas’ thinking too.

Note

First version of this post had a post number beginning with three consecutive sixes. Is Pete Ashley Kantian? KANTIANAS is 666 in ascii, and Kantians are anti-Thomists.

Pete Ashley

has answered in two comments, so we get two threads of comments with my answers to his.

I

Pete Ashly

13m ago

I will admit to much ignorant blather here, but did aquinas ever say all is God and I don't exist, the church is all about bullshit, I am all the names in history?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

No, he did not.

Pete Ashly

51m ago

No, he was too smart for that, he knew he would be locked up like Nietzsche. Better to be silent from a tactical perspective versus tell the truth people and power doesnt want to know.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Sorry, but that is purely your own speculation.

It is not backed up by his own acts after the experience, like his confessing just before he died.

And when he was dying he would hardly have feared being locked up.

Also, “locked up like Nietzsche” didn’t exist back then.

We speak of Middle Ages, that was before Modern Psychiatry.

Also, he had already been locked up. He had been locked up by his family when he wanted to become a Dominican.

So, where do you get this from, except from your own ideas?

No documents from St Thomas’ time, at least!

Pete Ashly

1m ago

He died quickly after a trauma I believe. Timeline: How Thomas Aquinas died of a Brain Injury on March 7

Yes, it is my speculation, but it follows naturally from the great realization common to all cultures, so it is a high probability guess. You’re right, in the middle ages you might be more likely to be burnt :-)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1m ago

You misread your link.

And what you call “ the great realization common to all cultures” is not such, St Thomas had actually combatted that one as an Arabic intrusion into Sorbonne in his previous writings.

See his De Unitate Intellectus contra Averroistas.

If he had “realised” the bs you just promoted, he would have said something more specific than what he did. Like a retractation of specifically that work. He did not.

“You’re right, in the middle ages you might be more likely to be burnt :-)”

In fact, burning of heretics was a pretty recent thing, which he had defended.

It was also not a realistic threat against Sorbonne Averroism, perhaps, since mainly targetting Albigensianism.

Pete Ashly

2m ago

re: “St Thomas had actually combatted that” - You make my point, of the ego, for the ego and by the ego.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

I gave you fuel for your assessment of his previous writings, but none for your assessment of his supposed retreat from that.

II

Pete Ashly

9m ago

The ego program is the thing that creates the identity of you from your viewpoint as a mind body. Ego isn't being good/bad person, but basis for being a person. Pete Ashly's answer to What is the concept of Maya in Hinduism?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Well, sorry, but “basis for being a person” is certainly not the basis for bad theology.

It is one of the aspects of God’s creating us.

Pete Ashly

53m ago

What does it mean to be a human without free will? What is that person?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

• 1) Freewill is created by God.
• 2) Freewill is NOT the basis for bad theology, but bad use of it is.

Pete Ashly

7m ago

Freewill is a delusion, like a soul.

These guys present both logic and evidence:

Shan Kothari's answer to What arguments are there for or against the existence of free will? [not linking, but quoting in below answer]

Yuan Gao's answer to Do you believe in free will, and if so/not, then why? [dito]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Shan Kothari comes with this false pseudoargument:

“Determinism and randomness exhaust the possibilities.”

False.

Yuan Gao says:

“We didn't survive as a species by reacting randomly to events”

But human acts are more than just reactions.

In other words, both argue lamely.

The soul cannot be a delusion, since, without it, there would be no subject to be deluded about sth. Computers are neither deluded nor knowing. They are mechanically processing things that to themselves do not contain information, even if one result is symbols on a screen containing information to us - who have souls.

Pete Ashly

1m ago

Well, we’re going to have quite the void to cross here.

Can you tell me how a cosmos that behaves mathematically, a sea of molecules, is in essence any different from a mathematical simulation? And what in essence separates a simulated character, such as an agent in a game that provides a combatant, from a human in the mathematical cosmos?

This is the realization, we are literally God’s image.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

You are forgetting one thing.

In the computer simulation, a character is not having free will, but only showing us - who have it - exterior signs of such, arranged by people like us, also having it.

It is like a character in a novel. Susan Pevensie as printed words on paper does not exercise free will. The reader does, and gets an impression of Susan Pevensie doing so because he does, and because the author C. S. Lewis also did so.

So, the “cosmos that behaves mathematically, a sea of molecules” is NOT all there is.

Pete Ashly

1m ago

What exactly gives molecules free will? How does it work? Can you test that versus an alternative?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

The molecules as such do not have free will. Therefore something else than molecules does.

The alternative would be a world of molecules only and the consequence of that would be neither me nor you here discussing it or even imagining us discussing it.

Pete Ashly

3m ago

We are here. Molecules are all we can find. Where is the magic other ingredient?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Molecules are all you find by ONE method of research.

That one presupposes but does not explain this OTHER fact that we are here doing research. If you look at this fact, you have found at least one thing which is not obviously molecules.

And which, if analysed, as at first glance, is obviously NOT just molecules.

Pete Ashly

1m ago

Molecules assume complex configurations such as people. Does the configuration give them free will?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

No, we have free will from sth else than the configuration, so our souls are something else than the configuration.

If we were only the configuration of molecules, as mentioned, we would not be able to ask these questions.

Also, you are very far from having proven molecules by themselves assume the complex configurations found in bodies of human people.

Also, that is a very recent ideologeme, which Saint Thomas Aquinas obviously did NOT share.

It is a very sham history to impute to him your conclusions from that one.

Pete Ashly

Just now

Well, I think we’ve identified our gap. Until we find your magic substance, my contention it doesn’t exist versus your contention it does will be unresolved. Nobody can disprove what doesn’t exist.

Perhaps we shall leave that out there for the future, after having had an interesting conversation. Holiday weekends approach.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“Until we find your magic substance”

We already have, you are just not looking the right way when searching.

Enjoy your weekend.

Pete Ashly

48m ago

What is it then? I missed that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Yes, you missed because you insist on looking in the wrong direction.

In a lab there is exactly one place you can find a soul - a living person in the lab, not the things studied by the lab (including living persons AS studied by the lab).

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

1 upvote from Pete Ashly

You might want to know, this is going on to my blog:

... on Mystical Experience of Saint Thomas [link to this one on quora]

... on Conspiracy Theories

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Conspiracy Theories · New blog on the kid : Some People Seem to Stamp me as a Conspiracy Theorist

Q

Why are conspiracy theories rational to believe?
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-conspiracy-theories-rational-to-believe/answer/Anthony-Zarrella

This question previously had question details. You can find them in the question comments.

Quora Question Details Bot

Aug 8

How do conspiracy theories work and how they explain the current disagreements between political parties?

Anthony Zarrella

Attorney

Answered Aug 22

They aren’t. Period.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Aug 23

Except when they are?

Like the “conspiracy theory” about Nixon, thereafter known as Watergate scandal?

Anthony Zarrella

Wed

That’s the thing—there was no “conspiracy theory” in the common sense of the term.

There was a conspiracy… but it actually was kept secret, right up until it was blown by someone on the inside failing to keep it. There were no amateur sleuths with too much time on their hands and a paranoid mindset—there were professional investigative journalists following up real leads from a real informant.

Contrast conspiracy theories, which posit a near-flawless cover-up, with 0% defection… except somehow the evidence is available to Joe Schmo on the internet, who is clever enough to see the “truth” that everyone else has overlooked in plain sight. Yet, somehow, the same all-powerful conspiracy that has “silenced” all witnesses fails to do anything about Mr. Schmo posting their dirty laundry all over the internet…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3h ago

“There were no amateur sleuths with too much time on their hands and a paranoid mindset—there were professional investigative journalists following up real leads from a real informant.”

It seems the difference between these two is - how much they are paid and by whom.

“Yet, somehow, the same all-powerful conspiracy that has “silenced” all witnesses fails to do anything about Mr. Schmo posting their dirty laundry all over the internet…”

Getting out an attitude about Joe Schmo and about the internet is at least ONE thing they could do - or already did, courtesy to you?

Or maybe simply waited for you to do without bothering even to monitor it … except decades back when making decisions about who was going to be your teachers (yes, I consider departments of education one key to global conspiracies, which I think there are, or perhaps even there is, in the singular). Both in school and at university.

Henry Makow is a conspiracy theorist, and a known such. He has been doing so much by now, he has at least as much informants as those behind the Watergate blowup. Same for Lyndon LaRouche.

Also, claiming there were no people acting conspiracy theorists before the Watergate blowup is a fairly vast claim - which you could of course prove if there had been an internet back then, and no “cleanups” on it over time and we could not google anyone who had been getting jeers on the comment section of his youtube five days before the blowup.

Now, internet and youtube were NOT around then, so how do you prove the claim?

How do you prove, that the mentality of the professional journalist is not identic to that of the amateur sleuth with a paranoid mindset, for instance?

How do you prove, supposing it was not, that he had no contacts answering to that description which led him to chose an area of investigation?

There is a difference between a court of law in which a guilty man must be proven, and a police investigation, in which a suspect needs to be cleaned before investigation ceases.

A conspiracy theorist is not comparable to the court of law situation - since, by the fact of theorising rather than looking at a court sentence, he is admitting there was so far no condemnation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

45m ago

Also, a conspiracy theory usually does NOT posit a near-flawless cover up.

Look here:

“Follow the money … from the Templeton Foundation”
- creation.com
https://creation.com/follow-the-money

One of the foundation’s main funding areas is “public engagement”, and a representative sample of grants (ranging from tens of thousands to millions of dollars) clearly shows the foundation’s goals. Here is a small sample of grants that have been made more recently:

• Vatican Observatory Foundation—“Building a bridge between faith and astronomy”

I don’t see a very flawless cover up to one reason why a certain Guy Consolmagno quietly ceased to reply to mails from a geocentric (myself) after first reply.

Conspiracy theories are not about secret agreements and events only, but by large more about events actually shown in the open, but on which one counts that it will not be noted - as by most it is not.

Own answer

to above, after debating with Zarella

Link

Why are conspiracy theories rational to believe?
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-conspiracy-theories-rational-to-believe/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thomist after starting with CSLewis

Answered just now

“How do conspiracy theories work and how they explain the current disagreements between political parties?”

Have you ever seen the kind of question in which ALL parties agree, because it is sometimes a “matter of decency” to agree on a thing?

When this thing is keeping old laws as they are, OK, no problem - it could be a matter of decency when all parties today are agreeing along with many other parties of the past back to when the country became Christian.

When it is about introducing a new bill, or staying with a legislation which may have been rushed through fifty or hundred years ago, I sense a certain concern that the “matter of decency” and “broad agreement across party borders” stuff is due to some conspiracy.

Like some money offered, either directly to politicians of both or the several parties, or to some things in connection with both parties, by some vile thing like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Which, as we know, is promoting contraception and abortion.

Keeping school compulsion going, despite schools being at least as involved as guns in school shootings, seems to be one of the goal of some conspirators.

Since Columbine 1999, we have seen several debates about restricting gun rights, and I have seen ONE man debate about abolishing school compulsion, both compulsion in strict legal sense and in the sense of making schools less necessary for making a living later on. That ONE man being me.

I have also seen several things which seem like conspiracies to marginalise my blogs.

Do you begin to see where there might be a conspiracy?

Or, take the questions on which there is a widely acknowledged and dramatically mediatised disagreement between parties. Like Democrats being for gun control, Republicans against, mostly. Well, for some reason, there seems to be a silent agreement between both to mention guns, but not to mention the fact that both Klebold and Cassie Bernall were in some sense - I think a practical rather than a legal one - required to be at the High School.

Q

Conspiracy Theories: I have a boss who is constantly talking about the Illuminati and the New World Order. He completely believes in their existence and their influence in the world. I'd like to hear some opinions. Do any of you believe in those two things? If so, why or why not?
https://www.quora.com/Conspiracy-Theories-I-have-a-boss-who-is-constantly-talking-about-the-Illuminati-and-the-New-World-Order-He-completely-believes-in-their-existence-and-their-influence-in-the-world-Id-like-to-hear-some-opinions-Do-any-of-you-believe-in-those-two-things-If-so-why-or-why-not/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years

Answered just now

I certainly believe in them influencing the world, but I am less sure about their existence as a group other than more well known and openly acting lodges and sects.

So, say that many freemasons are involved in the French boycott of discussing Young Earth Creationism - this is a nobrainer, they exist, they are openly visible, they are known not to be promoting Biblical literalism for as long as they exist basically (even in the time of Anderson 1723 they were doing a clearly anti-Biblical thing, refusing to require adherence to a specific religion, while being a society of very clearly religious nature).

My doubt is this:

• are Freemasons in France simply obeying their Masonic leadership in the usual way?
• or are the lodges acting on orders of Illuminati, a kind of “backlodge” more secret than they are?

Or Bilderberg group and Bill and Melinda Gates promote depopulation. This is known. My doubt is this:

• is that a culture they share?
• or are they tools of the Illuminati?
• or are Illuminati their tools?

One function the theory of Illuminati could have is this, to exonerate ordinary Freemasons, ordinary people with that culture which the Gates foundation and the Bilderberg group promote.

“Yea, sure, they are in a vile thing, but they are not Illuminati, they are just unwitting tools to the Illuminati.”

It is possible that the guy you are exonerating with such words is “as Illuminati as it gets” in real life.

But that things like Bilderberg group, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Masonic Lodges do exist and do exert openly and sometimes perhaps less openly an influence for evil, that is not to be doubted.

Also, I am not sure that Satanism is not an optional exercise open to all Masons showing an inclination that way, I am sure it exists, among other things because there are defectors from it. Suppose these are false defectors, who would be willing to stage such a thing, in some cases arguably with very intense and prolonged efforts to appear as defectors from such a thing?

When it comes to John Todd, his show did not last that long in his life - his witness survived his show. He could have been a fake defector, and just be a clumsy one. That is one reason, if he is still alive and in mental hospital, I would like him freed from there (he has already served sentence for the crime he did) and publically HEARD about his testimony about Illuminati. It involves allegations about Tolkien and C. S. Lewis which simply seem impossible to me, among other things for reasons of how old each person was at a time. Unless of course he has some Cagliostro type longevity, which would have allowed him to be adult as opposed to teen before CSL died. But he could have been either lying or misled by co-conspirators about identity of the man whom he thought was CSL - he could have been told a very clumsy lie so that, if he should defect, his testimony should become less credible.

On the other hand, if John Todd’s age was faked and his youthful appearance hid an older person, it would be a good idea to hear him on what his real relation to JRRT and CSL were. Hear him, as in hear him in court, where he could go under suspicion of calumny - since if he was NOT paying JRRT and CSL to serve Illuminati before his defection, he calumnied these two by claiming he had done so. For my part, I think they were calumnied, but not sure if actively John Todd was knowingly doing so, and for what motive, or whether John Todd had been fooled.

Here is another defector:

Bill Schnoebelen FORMER ILLUMINATI MEMBER Speaks Out - Fact or Fraud?
Mark Dice
Ajoutée le 1 nov. 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wVZuKSDVGE

Bill Schnoebelen has been going on for a bit longer time than the years John Todd was active. John Todd was doing conferences I think in just two years, 1973 and 1974. That his testimony is still discussed is due to two circumstances, it was recorded and commented on, and that survives his activity, and he has been doing so ill since then, in personal fortunes, that one wonders if Illuminati were “taking care of him” so as to make him appear totally incredible. But it is now quite a few years since I heard of Schnoebelen, as I recall, and he is still going on.

So, if he is a fake defector - which I do NOT think he is - they sure did a better job this time than with John Todd.

Plus : if John Todd and Bill Schnoebelen are fake defectors from a sect never existing, at least Bill Schnoebelen has a backing of good conspirators who are helping him do an excellent show - but believing that is believing there is a conspiracy, just another one than the Illuminati one.

Oh, btw, if Bill Schnoebelen is a real defector he too is victim of a circumstance making him less credible : he has been published by Chick Publications, who have promoted the fraud Avro Manhattan and fraud or Novus Ordo dupe Alberto Rivera. THEY are in a conspiracy against Catholicism.

Btw, if Chick Publications would like to publish some of my material, go ahead. BECAUSE, my conditions are a general licence for anyone publishing, not a contract with exclusive rights, and therefore not a specific endorsement of publisher in his other capacities - this means, even if you could tie Chick to me, you could not tie me to Chick in that way.

If Chick Publications conspire to publish false testimonies, that is one possible explanation for Bill Schnoebelen. But not the only one, he could have taken them because he is too little knowledgeable about Catholicism to see that Avro and Alberto were frauds. He could have thought Chick was more honest and bright than he was in fact.

And of course, as I mentioned there are other candidates than Illuminati for being the conspirators driving the world down, the type of Protestantism with Anti-Catholic slant Jack Chick represents so far by publishing and endorsing Avro Manhattan and Alberto Rivera is one of the candidates, just as Communism and KGB are.

Note

The algorithm by which my qualification for a certain question is chosen by quoran machines is sometimes opaque to me. But in this case, the qualification as Creationist was chosen - even though Conspiracy theories are quite another kettle of fish. My experience of computers tells me, this could be because the LOTS of people who recently, last decade, have associated Creationism to conspiracy theorising, have cluttered quora with posts where both words are mentioned.

That Kent Hovind is a Creationist and that he is published by Jack Chick, these are two reasons why this could happen - but considering the number of Creationists who are not Hovind and are not published by Jack Chick - could it have happened without a conspiracy, this much?

Confer that my capacity as a Thomist gets automatically selected as my qualification for answering about rationality of conspiracy theories - Thomist and rational being also often associated. But this due to a very well known fact, accessible without any cluttering due to possible conspiracies.

Note on Schnoebelen

Updated with an excuse to him

If he was ordained as a priest, he seems to have been a bit vague about who did it.

Pope Michael may or may not have good reasons not to disclose personal identities of the bishops conserating him bishop, but he knows they are (or main consecrator is) of Duarte Costa line and what implies.

Schnoebelen seems to have been somewhat more vague:

When I was a Satanist, I was also an ordained priest in the Old Roman Catholic church and a minister in a supposedly “Christian” Spiritist church.

When and where do you find any "Old Roman Catholic church"?

You are Roman Catholic or Old Catholic, the separation was about Vatican I, which Roman Catholics accept, Old Catholics reject. This rejection also meant they have no episcopal connection to Rome, they have their episcopal connection to Utrecht. And as they are claiming precisely that no see is higher than the local see, they will hardly claim that Rome is above Utrecht, and therefore will hardly have any interest in calling themselves Roman.

Update: sorry, there seems to exist sth called "Old Roman Catholic" too, I did not know this.

Here is the source, the defense of Rolf Lingen

1. FRHL's ordination is considered to be valid, i.e. he is considered to be a validly ordained priest. On his youtube-channel ("sedisvakantist") he published: "Succession: Bishop Alois Stumpfl - Schismatic / Old-ROMAN-Catholic (*NOT*: Old-Catholic!); Stumpfl ordained AND consecrated Friedrich Wiechert; Stumpfl ordained AND consecrated Josef Maria Thiesen; Wiechert ordained Schmitz, Thiesen consecrated Schmitz. In 1978, Schmitz abjured from the Old-Roman-Catholic Church, testified by Marcel Lefebvre and Franz Schmidberger, and became member of the "Society of Saint Pius X" (SSPX). In 1980, Schmitz became sedevacantist and left the FSSPX. In 1996, he ordained me. IMPORTANT: Thiesen - as priest - converted to Catholicism. His ordination was considered valid by the Catholic Church both under Pius XI. and under Pius XII. He was not allowed to work as a priest in 1926. He received dispense from celibacy in 1942. Later, Thiesen reverted into the Old-Roman-Catholic sect and was consecrated by Stumpfl."

Imprisonment for Sedevacantism (2)
Pater Rolf Lingen | Ajoutée le 4 sept. 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0-l1KqkU1o

I owe Schnoebelen an apology./HGL



A Conspiracy to Shut Up a Question?

... on Bishop Tempier and the Late Brother Thomas

... on Metaphysics of Saint Thomas Aquinas - an answer with my replies (quora) · ... on Bishop Tempier and the Late Brother Thomas · ... on Mystical Experience of Saint Thomas

Q

How did the condemnation of Etienne Tempier in 1277 affect Saint Thomas Aquinas?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-condemnation-of-Etienne-Tempier-in-1277-affect-Saint-Thomas-Aquinas/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered Mon

It did not affect Saint Thomas Aquinas personally, since he had already died.

It did somewhat affect the reception of his writings.

Bishop Tempier, though not mentioning St Thomas among condemned authors may have had a suspicion against his orthodoxy as ulterior motive.

It is fairly certain there was at least an urban legend that parts of St Thomas’ theology had been condemned in the sentences condemned. This urban legend is still promoted by English scholars.

Some of them, at least.

In the year when St Thomas was canonised, Stephen Tempier’s successor Stephen III Bourret absolved all and any theses actually in St Thomas’ writings from any suspicion of having been condemned by Stephen Tempier, but the condemnation was not rescinded.

By then it seems to have been settled that Tempier did not in fact condemn any thing which St Thomas had directly defended.

Here is a phrase about the new sentence of Stephen Bourret:

“Cependant, un retournement de perspective n'allait pas manquer de se produire. Redoutant cette dérive fidéiste qui s'était amorcée suite à l'intervention de Tempier, le pape Jean XXII allait réhabiliter la doctrine thomiste par la canonisation, en 1323, de Thomas d'Aquin, suivie, deux années plus tard, de la levée, par Etienne Bourret, de tout interdit que cette doctrine avait pu encourir de par la condamnation de 1277, comme il a été dit ci-dessus.”

The analysis of Stephen Tempier promoting “fideism” (an anachronistic term, at least) I do not share, but the fact is, the act of Stephen Bourret was a lifting of any forbidding which the doctrine of St Thomas could have incurred by the condemnation of 1277.

In other words, Stephen Bourret was not saying the sentences of St Thomas had actually been forbidden by those condemnations.

A case in point:

St Thomas argues that all angels are IN FACT of different species, since immaterial.

Stephen Tempier condemns the sentence that they NEED TO be of different species since God were somehow not able to give immaterial things any principle of individuation.

This obviously is one of the diversities between the bishop and the dominican which have been construed as conflicts.

So, St Thomas has not argued that God could not make a haecceitas in purely spiritual things apart from their species, Stephen Tempier has not defined that God actually does create all angels or all angels of any given order in the same species. St Thomas did not argue what Stephen Tempier forbade later; and Stephen Tempier did not forbid what St Thomas Aquinas had argued earlier.

BUT they were arguably of diverse opinion on the matter what God in fact did when creating angels.*

Here is the source in Louis Valcke:

http://www.erudit.org/revue/ltp/2000/v56/n1/401278ar.pdf

Here is my quoting it, when giving the condemnations of Stephen Tempier:

Index in stephani tempier condempnationes

* In other words, I find it probable Tempier was a Scotist. Note, he was NOT a Nominalist, but firmly opposed to that.

... on Metaphysics of Saint Thomas Aquinas - an answer with my replies (quora)

... on Metaphysics of Saint Thomas Aquinas - an answer with my replies (quora) · ... on Bishop Tempier and the Late Brother Thomas · ... on Mystical Experience of Saint Thomas

Q

What are some flaws in Thomas Aquinas' thinking?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-flaws-in-Thomas-Aquinas-thinking

Profile

Erik Norvelle
https://www.quora.com/profile/Erik-Norvelle-1

Many years of academic philosophy, also serial entrepreneur.

Ex punk rocker, ex conservative Catholic, ex philosophy student, I have recently discovered that dating strippers is the answer to the meaning of life. I also speak native-level Spanish and am very opinionated.

1 Answer

so far, namely :

Erik Norvelle

Many years of academic philosophy, also serial entrepreneur.

Answered 3h ago

He was a rationalist and not an empiricist. Those are terms that don’t strictly apply, because they were invented to describe philosophers from the modern era, but the general idea fits Aquinas.

When I began doctoral studies in Aquinas, what I was especially interested in was Aristotle’s theory of “physis” or “nature”, and how Aquinas might have made use of it. Physis, in Aristotle, is his solution to the ancient question of how something might “move” (read change) without ceasing to be what it is. It has to do with the notion that a physical “substance” (being) can move because it is a composite of matter and form, where form is the principle of identity (what-it-isness) and matter is the principle of possibility (what-it-can-beness), and motion is the passage from potency (possibility) to act (isness). This theory is one of the unknown glories of Aristotle, ultimately wrong, but a serious and deep attempt to understand the natural world.

At the time I wanted to know what Aquinas did with this concept, and so I told my thesis director I wanted to study “nature” in Thomas Aquinas. Simple enough, no? Well, no… my thesis director said “yes” because he thought I wanted to study the “notion” of nature and not the “concept” of nature (yes, in Thomism there is a difference). A “notion” is essentially a way of talking about being (“ens”), i.e. it is being conceived of under the light of its whatness (essentia), with a specific focus on the interior origin and expression of that whatness (basically a metaphorical way of using the term “nature” to refer to something that doesn’t actually change, like being qua being). Don’t ask me why Aquinas needed yet another transcendental term for “ens” (there are many in medieval philosophy) but he used “nature” in this way. So instead of talking about dynamic, changing, real beings, when Aquinas talks about “nature” he is talking about something unchanging and metaphysical.

This follows on his general utter lack of interest in the natural world. The only things he seems to know about are general, sometimes unusual, ideas that he takes from various places, such as the occasional metaphor from Aristotle, or a tidbit from Albertus Magnus, or somewhere else (it’s not always clear where he gets his ideas about nature from). He discusses “nature” in the sense I was interested most fully in the Summa Contra Gentiles, but his ideas were so unoriginal and frankly silly that it kind of shocked me… here is this giant intellect saying things that were frankly stupid, and that nobody with anybody with any sense would say if they thought twice about it. And that was the problem, Aquinas said these stupid things precisely because he never actually thought about the issue. Aquinas loved metaphysics, he didn’t love physics (to use the Aristotelian distinction).

His whole metaphysics was taken whole-hog from Aristotle (as filtered through Averroes), but not because that metaphysics was a difficult prize attained only through years of inquiry into the physical, as with Aristotle, but because Aquinas thought it was elegant, even beautiful, and that it solved lots of metaphysical problems that otherwise were insoluble. Aquinas liked puzzles relating to being, and I believe that his famous esse/essentia distinction was, in good part, an attempt by him to understand how angels could exist and be numerically distinct despite not having matter (see De substantiis separatis for more on that issue).

So for Aquinas, in a sense, the world was to be understood upside-down… you start with metaphysical notions (not concepts, as stated above), and you view the world in light of them. And you never need to go anywhere near the actual creatures of the world (in the way that Aristotle did) because you have already got Aristotle’s solution in hand. Real, existing, changeable creatures have no interest for the metaphysician, who is occupied with greater questions, like the existence of God. So while Aquinas certainly knew (and knew well) Aristotle’s physics, it didn’t really matter to him, because unlike Aristotle Aquinas had no interest in the material, physical, real world.

And ultimately this is why Aquinas’s metaphysics fails: it was a slavish imitation of Aristotle’s, extended to deal with things like angels that were important for Christians, and adapted to deal with a triune God, also very Christian, but without any interest in what had so interested Aristotle, i.e. the natural world. And while for Aristotle the failure of his metaphysics would only have been an annoyance, because Aristotle never dogmatically proclaimed his metaphysics to be the final solution to anything, for Aquinas it is fatal, since really he has nothing else to fall back on. Aquinas is a very, very good interpreter of Aristotle, but as a metaphysician he is fatally uncreative.

So you can imagine my dismay when, after more than a year of searching the sources of Aquinas’s theory of nature, I discovered that there weren’t actually any. I had to go back to my thesis director and explain the problem, and he said “Oh, you mean that nature, well of course not, Aquinas is interested in nature as a metaphysical transcendental notion”. So I had to leave Aquinas behind, lose a year of my graduate program, and study Aristotle instead.

Aquinas may have been a genius, but as his biographers point out, he spent his entire life more or less in the clouds, thinking metaphysical and theological things, with scant time for real people, real things, real life. And this is why Thomism is ultimately such an unsuccessful philosophy, despite having been the more or less official Catholic philosophy for centuries: it just doesn’t give a shit about anything that’s actually real, it prefers to glory in its ideas and then try to make real beings fit those (rationalism), not the other way around (empiricism).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

34m ago

“He was a rationalist and not an empiricist.”

If you mean he appealed to pure thought while ignoring experience, and experiments, you are historically simply wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

12m ago

"So instead of talking about dynamic, changing, real beings, when Aquinas talks about “nature” he is talking about something unchanging and metaphysical."

A wolf changes several times over its life, but its lupine nature does not change. It is indeed metaphysically fixed.

"This follows on his general utter lack of interest in the natural world."

If so, why would his teacher St Albert the Great have praised him so much?

"The only things he seems to know about are general, sometimes unusual, ideas that he takes from various places, such as the occasional metaphor from Aristotle, or a tidbit from Albertus Magnus, or somewhere else (it’s not always clear where he gets his ideas about nature from)."

Any student will show up tidbits from his teacher. And if he's showing them on occasions where nature is NOT the topic per se, it seems to show rather a very intense interest in nature, since he brings in nature studies into other matters.

"He discusses “nature” in the sense I was interested most fully in the Summa Contra Gentiles, but his ideas were so unoriginal and frankly silly that it kind of shocked me…"

I don't know why "unoriginal" should shock anyone. Any philosopher worth his salt, from Socrates to presumably myself, takes glory in being unoriginal - in making points so obvious that someone has seen it before.

As to "stupid", I would really like to know what you are talking about and what you judge it by. Perhaps you are the more stupid of the two?

As for "silly", I relish the fact that much Medieval thought, whether Alcuin or St Thomas, is expressed in ways so simplistic as to seem silly to an oversophisticated culture where many terms are reused and misused by taking so much, on my view often too much, for granted as a thing anyone would understand. Or as a thing "of course I understand that", but which you perhaps was not putting your understanding to use when expressing this other thing.

A Scholastic can't hide the structure of his thought behind smokescreens or façades, he is obliged to show them forth as clearly as if he were building with Lego.

"His whole metaphysics was taken whole-hog from Aristotle (as filtered through Averroes),"

Simply false. St Thomas, like Bishop Tempier, rejected much of the metaphysics of Averroes, and while Tempier expressed himself in condemnations of 1277, St Thomas expressed himself in arguments against Averroism.

See for instance "de unitate intellectus adversus Averroistas" an undisputed opus or opusculum of his.

"but not because that metaphysics was a difficult prize attained only through years of inquiry into the physical, as with Aristotle,"

I am not sure either why it should in general be so, or where you get it from it was so with Aristotle. While Aristotle's metaphysics differ from those of Plato, he had studied under Plato and had conducted his years of study of nature with metaphysics in mind - as had obviously this other great naturalist St Albert, the very teacher of St Thomas.

"Aquinas liked puzzles relating to being, and I believe that his famous esse/essentia distinction was, in good part, an attempt by him to understand how angels could exist and be numerically distinct despite not having matter (see De substantiis separatis for more on that issue)."

Why? He for his part solved that one by saying the essence of each angel is distinct be a differentia specifica from that of each other angel.

And why would esse and essence NOT be distinct outside God? Are you claiming each of us has from all eternity been a necessity, so that our esse is just an expression of our essence? You would have a hard time arguing that one out, and especially to do so from a long study of nature!

"So for Aquinas, in a sense, the world was to be understood upside-down… you start with metaphysical notions (not concepts, as stated above), and you view the world in light of them. ... Real, existing, changeable creatures have no interest for the metaphysician, who is occupied with greater questions, like the existence of God."

You might want to explain that claim in somewhat simpler terms, like the wooden clearcut terminology of St Thomas. You might want to ask yourself how you would show a child of four, not that you thought so, BUT how you knew this.

"So while Aquinas certainly knew (and knew well) Aristotle’s physics, it didn’t really matter to him, because unlike Aristotle Aquinas had no interest in the material, physical, real world."

This seems to imply a kind of thought reading?

You are very obviously not analysing a single sentence of his in which he claimed or strictly implied that, you are imputing to him a motive which on your view explains what he wrote and what he did not write.

"And ultimately this is why Aquinas’s metaphysics fails:"

You are eager to show you understand WHY his metaphysics fail before taking the trouble to logically show THAT they do so.

"it was a slavish imitation of Aristotle’s,"

Supposing this to be true - it was in fact false, his proofs for God's existence are taken from Aristotle's Physica and he rejects some solutions by the Stagyrite in Metaphysica - but supposing this had been true, this would either imply that St Thomas was successful as Aristotle (on your view?), because Aristotle was so, or that Aristotle failed, like St Thomas did (on your view), even though you did not say one critical word of Aristotle IN THIS PASSAGE ... except of course "ultimately wrong".

I'd like to know why you are more interested (or seem to be so) in "serious and deep" than in ultimately wrong or ultimately right.

I would also know on what grounds you consider that Aristotle's theory of natura was ultimately wrong and what grounds you have for saying St Thomas was also wrong.

Could it so happen that you are simply presuming the metaphysics (as yet not even fixed, since contradictory between one theory and the other) of "modern science" as "ultimately right", and therefore as a good standard to study whether Aristotle and Aquinas are ultimately right, or ultimately wrong, and therefore reducing the interest of reading them to verifying who of them contributed most to the modern "success" (on your view) through their "failures" (on your view)?

That is not an attitude worthy of a philosopher!

"So you can imagine my dismay when, after more than a year of searching the sources of Aquinas’s theory of nature, I discovered that there weren’t actually any. I had to go back to my thesis director and explain the problem, and he said “Oh, you mean that nature, well of course not, Aquinas is interested in nature as a metaphysical transcendental notion”. So I had to leave Aquinas behind, lose a year of my graduate program, and study Aristotle instead."

If you mean that nature, Saint Thomas' theory of it is God created it. See for instance Prima Pars, after discussion of the Holy Trinity. And God keeps it in existence. That is Saint Thomas' theory of nature in the modern sense of the word, precisely as it is any Christian's theory of nature in this sense. As to how he used natura, he used it exactly as Aristotle used physis, and I can't see why you are so much more interested in Aristotle than in Saint Thomas. Unless perhaps you have un as yet unstated bias, but since not wanting to play thought reader, I think I had better ask you about it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"Aquinas may have been a genius, but as his biographers point out, he spent his entire life more or less in the clouds,"

I don't know what biographers you are thinking of. Not Chesterton, at least.

Or were you thinking of when he forgot the company he was dining with and remembered the Averroists he was arguing against?

Well, unlike royal courts, monastic table manners don’t depend on taking interest in the company.

"thinking metaphysical and theological things,"

That he spent a lot of time on that - but let's not forget prayer, of which he was not writing autobiographically, but which is very welldocumented from daily routines of Dominicans. That he spent a lot of time on that is actually true. It is also what one would expect from a philosopher.

And chores. And preaching.

"with scant time for real people,"

Oh, both the fellow Dominicans and the people he preached to and heard confessions of are of course fake people ... I'd like to hear you argue that one out metaphysically!

"real things,"

Right. He never enjoyed real beans, unlike Father Mendel.

He never fought against nocturnal pollutions (not even before that episode in which he was promised chastity by the angel), unlike St Francis of Assisi.

He never noted real prayer involves real alpha state, despite using that example to prove that Down's syndromers can pray.

He never .... < /sarcastic mode off >

"real life."

Wait, he never lived a real life < ok, sarcastic mode on again > but he is a fictional character, like Susan and Lucy Pevensie, and yet somehow managed to write such a lot?

If so, like Lemony Snicket, he ought to have a ghost writer.

But in that case, you might want to disclose what the metaphysics of the ghost writer was as opposed to the one attributed to him ....

Or ... < / irony off > were you simply presuming on some modern prejudice about what "real life" and "real people" mean?

[I looked at his profile after asking this.]

Alberto Martín

16h ago

Of course, only empiricists are interested in ‘real beings’, that is, taken as (external) objects to the mind, and not in the harder fathoming of ‘being as being’, which is what interested St. Thomas and is the terrain of metaphysics. You seem to lean to empiricism as your preferred philosophical stance, which is unobjectionable, of course, and what you say about St. Thomas Aquinas is essentially true. He was too much of an Aristotelian (unlike St. Albert the Great, who was a Platonist), which is the key. In the context of St. Thomas’ ides I understand what you say: “changeable creatures have no interest for the metaphysician”, but I am sure you will not hold that view when speaking of metaphysics (non-duality or spirituality) in general.

I believe that the distinction essence- accident, and substance-form are still important in the realm of metaphysics – equivalent to purusha-prakriti of (Indian) Shankya philosophy and consciousness-phenomena or (either external or internal) ‘objects’ of Shankarian Advaita Vedanta – or being-becoming more generally.

Erik Norvelle

8h ago

Thank you for your comment Alberto. Personally I am more Wittgensteinian, and tend to believe that metaphysical discourse is meaningless. However, in this case I tried to avoid any bias and make it clear that the rationalist-empiricist distinction is not truly applicable to the case of medieval philosophers. I just think it is a handy analogy.

Albertus Magnus could not have properly been a Platonist, since the works of Plato himself were unknown to the medieval world, except (I believe) for the Timaeus, which was not extremely influential. However, as with many, many high medieval philosophers up until the coming of Aristotle, he was strongly Neoplatonic, since Neoplatonism had been the predominant philosophy in the Church ever since the patristic years. What is interesting to me is that Albertus did in fact have a great interest in nature… nothing that he says is of particular interest, but he had a certain interest in botany, and tried his hand at optics, perhaps influenced by Ibn Haytham. Neoplatonists, as opposed to Plato himself, had a much greater interest in the natural world because of their doctrine of exitus-reditus (leaving-returning), which meant that the divine/One, in its progress back to itself, is manifested in nature in a more direct way than in classical or medieval Aristotelianism.

I would just note that the distinctions to be drawn in Thomas are usually made as: substance-accident, form-material, essence-existence. If you are ever interested in pursuing the subject more, I suggest Etienne Gilson´s “Being and Some Philosophers”, which is quite enjoyable to read.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

I second the endorsement of Gilson.

I do not second the endorsement of Witty.

While we are at it, here is what came to my blog:

... on Metaphysics of Saint Thomas Aquinas - an answer with my replies (quora)

And as you mentioned Witty, if you know French:

Quand Witty ne l'était pas

I see you updated your answer, but did not detect where you had changed it.

What changes should I take into account?

.... against "Exodus didn't happen" revisionism

Here is a video which needs answering all over the place:

Exodus Didn't Happen
HumansofTerra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EATSlwYFzTU

And here are my answers:

1:00 If it is a historical archaeological event, it should be very easy to prove, you said?

Most historical events are without archaeological traces. The battle field of Waterloo, like many others, seems to have been during the heighday of industrial capitalism, "progress" been scoured for human and equine bones to use as ... dung on fields, after grinding.

But supposing that had not happened, even more, an intact archaeological site at Waterloo could not possibly tell you which side one. For many corpses, the uniforms would have rotted, so you could not tell which was French and which was German or Russian or English. But even having the side with most dead doesn't mean you are the side with least surviving and fit for fight soldiers, and therefore does not mean you are the side that lost.

Only NARRATIVE can tell you who won at Waterloo.

This event had several parties gaining glory from it, and the one not doing so was also a Christian country admitting defeats, a corps of writers who were writing for people who remembered, and not just for a small élite chosing what it wanted to remember.

So, at Exodus, one side gained glory, other side wanted to forget its shame, was perhaps even overmanned soon after by Hyksos so as to have other issues than recalling it. And of the massive shame of Hyksos era - supposing as I do these were Amalekites, not Israelites, that Joseph was not among Hyksos - we get ... the Ipuwer papyrus. Which also involves hints at what may have happened just before Hyksos came, and hints which get somewhat close, in places to Exodus account of Ten Plagues.

You claim it should be easier than that to make a case? You don't get what historiography is like.

Abdulrahman Kheder

you are right

1:30 "400 years of slavery in Egypt"

Actually, it was more like 215 years in Egypt, not all of it as slaves.

2:02 You have not told us what you base it on that Egypt had 7 million inhabitants at the time.

And 25 % of a population - or more - are possible to keep down if the determination is very ruthless. And those facing it very ill organised.

And a large chunk (I felt like haggling over 20 - 25 % but let's not, we don't know from sources comparable to Numbers what Egyptian population was like), a large chunk leaving would imply a loss which would involve a defenselessness against Hyksos, just after.

2:19 Now you are speaking of "Hebrew slaves" as a merchandise, i e as privately owned slaves.

I will give you one more evidence we don't have for that one : we have no Biblical evidence for it either.

The case is that the Egyptian state treated Hebrews as slaves in the end : which would mean as slaves of the state, not of any particular buyer or seller.

2:27 "if you are looking for Hebrews in Egypt, you are not going to find them"

Except some claim we already just recently did that!

File not found [for the link I gave, which functioned yesterday.]
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a027.html

3:25 Since it was the first born of each family, he would have been buried in the family grave. [No mass grave, as per false inference falsified as fact.]

No people writing of this? You realise that scribes were functionaries of the régime and in general of the élite? Egypt had no free authors.

And, as said, if Hyksos came in just after, the death of the first born would have been dwarfed by ensuing traumatisms.

3:36 A huge media outcry?

But Egypt had no private media, basically. Scribes were not authors in the sense we know them, there was no journalism.

The outcry there was, was oral. Scripta manent, but verba don't, as you know, they volant instead. On the Egyptian side, that is.

3:41 If people were lamenting all over Egypt, first for firstborn, then for army, last for Hyksos, how would we know?

There is exactly one papyrus reflecting lamentation over the Hyksos invasion, the famous Ipuwer one!

We can access more material for one single year, probably, even just for Egypt (if you know Arabic) than we can for the 2000 year (Biblical chronology) or 3000 year (secular chronology) history of Egypt from Narmer to Cleopatra.

4:10 Traces left by beduins 100's of years ago, 1000 of years ago etc. may well have effaced anything of the footprint type trace of Israelites.

4:18 you don't find all that many dead bodies in Sinai, of all that passed through and probably died there.

Perhaps because dry is not enough, you need burial too. To preserve them.

And buried bodies are obviously not too likely to be found over the surface.

4:20 "There would be kitchens"

From a people whose only cookery chore for most of the 40 years was collecting manna for the day Sunday to Thursday, manna for day and day after Friday.

5:26 Egypt occupying Canaan 2000 BC to 1150 BC ... according to their own administrative evaluation.

This would probably partly correspond to the time of Judges - with carbon rising, fewer centuries in real story would look like more in carbon dated chronology. And during Judges period, you do find lots of times that Canaaneans - very possibly as vassals of Egypt - were occupying Israel.

6:50 Ramses III has been considered as identic to Biblical Shishak (time of Solomon or just after).

7:31 Suddenly the account given by one side - Merneptah's bragging - is credible to you in absence of evidence from the other side.

What if Merneptah's bragging was ... bragging?

7:50 Merneptah wiping out Israel might be, kind of, not mentioned in the Bible, because it didn't happen.

Remember, his people had few scribes, a very élite corps, from which expulsion was probably very painful (a bit like some are now trying to make expulsion from academia, or supposed such).

They could be counted on not to contradict the Pharao.

8:01 "as if the tribe of Israel were bandits"

Pagans would probably see Hebrew monotheists as such, especially after them destroying so many idols.

Also, if Egypt was occupying Canaan, an independist movement of any sort could be counted on as being described like that.

Also, some vendettas by Israelites against Canaanean and Philistine (possibly Egyptian vassal) occupiers would include a fairly distinct glamour of banditism.

• 1) Mernaptah could have described Israelites like that for these reasons;
• 2) the reading which makes Israelites ONE tribe could be a misreading for bandits being ONE tribe OF Israel - there was a time when the Benjaminites were nearly wiped out (saving 600 men) for a gang rape / murder case. Judges 19-20. Merneptah could have taken glory for Israelites punishing that gang rape.

8:06 Messing with the Egyptian trade routes, so he wiped them out.

He could have bragged about that as a short term solution, while the next long term one could have been a trade agreement.

Also, since Merneptah was an old man when assuming the throne (65 sth) people could have been telling him what he wanted to hear. Hoping to clear things up when he died.

8:33 "The Hebrew we have now is dated back to 700 - 800 BC"

On what exact grounds?

8:39 "Palaeo-Hebrew ... can go back to 1000 BC"

On what exact grounds?

Jesus

History.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesus Er, no.

Apart from your impersonation attempt (unless you forgot the accent on ú, and are Spanish), you have another bluff factor : saying "history" when in fact there is not clear cut historic evidence for this.

9:36 Erasing history for Moses may be done without erasing whatever name he was known under other than Moses, so without actually hacking.

If for instance Moses was Amenemhat IV (succeeded by his sister .... the daughter of Pharao who had raised him?) that would be Moses prior to hitting the Egyptian overseer.

Moses' entry into Egyptian history 40 years later was intense, but also brief, and followed by such chaos that no monuments would have been there to erase after it anyway.

Other possibility, as Rohl identified a Vizeer of one Amenahmhat as Joseph due to similarity of his name to Zaphnah paaneah. It could have been a name given Moses as he was, like Joseph, a Hebrew.

... on Nature of Catholic Authority

... on Knowledge of Hagiographers · ... on Nature of Catholic Authority · On Francisco J. Ayala

Why Be Catholic and Not Just Christian?
Ascension Presents
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJCbCs-y1_k

Generally : a very good overview on why the Magisterium is a necessary part of the Church.

Details :

5:16 It seems you get Arians somewhat wrong.

Like Charles Taze Russell, though unlike him in so many other ways, they were also attacking full humanity of Christ, saying that first thing after God, namely "Son of God" as they misinterpret it was instead of a human soul in Christ.

Speaking of VISIBLE Church, who is the visible Pope in your view? Do you call him Benedict, Francis or Michael? Or perhaps Boniface? Or Alexander? Each of above is visibly claiming to be or have been pope or was a few years ago, and for one who claims to have been pope some claim he still is.

You know there was a Council dealing with who was the right Pope, back in 1409? And another one in 1414?

7:40 "It is not without scientific error."

It seems you just narrowed down the possible papacies of your acceptation to either "Francis" or "Benedict".

Do you know how many Church Fathers you just contradicted, in the sentence and in the things you presuppose before saying it?

I guess you know some Latin, here you go:

New blog on the kid : Grammatica et Logica de Canone Celeberrimo Concilii Tridentini
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/07/grammatica-et-logica-de-canone.html

I think a Catholic can first of all rule out "Francis" and "Benedict", due to their open conflict with the session IV of Trent.

If they are not Catholics, as St Robert Bellarmine observed, they can't be Popes. A head is a member. You can't be head of a body you are no member of.

8:13 speaking of "infallible interpreter" what were infallible interpreters back in 813 saying of historical accuracy of Genesis 1-11? Of astronomic accuracy of Joshua 10:12,13?

Or in any century up to magisterium of Pope St Pius X, including his own Biblical commission, answers from 1905 and 1909?

Creation vs. Evolution : When Are Implicit Citations Licit?
[feat. mag. of 1905]
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/when-are-implicit-citations-licit.html

Creation vs. Evolution : I have been Asked if Kent Hovind didn't have Talmudic Positions?
[feat. mag. of 1909]
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/i-have-been-asked-if-kent-hovind-didnt.html

I am not claiming to be myself an infallible interpreter. I am just claiming I am not getting the infallible interpreter from back in about a century ago (he died in 1914) wrong.

And in case you were to claim the "magisterium" of "John Paul II" in 1992 and 1996 or more especially of his then "cardinal Ratzinger" in 1994 (or 93?) proves I am getting the magisterium of St Pius X wrong, what is the use of an infallible interpreter if it is infallibly so unclear it has itself to be reinterpreted each time there is a new pope, on each question?

None, and that is why the magisterium of Popes and Councils past still counts, and counts against what you consider as being the Catholic Church.

8:52 It might interest you to know the authority I accept, at least provisionally, Pope Michael, approves of my fidelity ot magisterium past (and through him also present) as approving Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism.