Biblical Errors - no such thing

Unless you mean errors in one specific or even more than one specific manuscript of the Bible.

Biblical Errors
Tumblar House | 11.III.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY9BAOd_XPs

I

3:47 Are there Church Fathers saying there are real discrepancies or such saying there are apparent ones?

I'd like to see you point to a specific text in this selection:

The Fathers of the Church (NewAdvent site)
http://newadvent.com/fathers/

Meanwhile, here is one saying there are apparent ones but no real contradictions:

The Harmony of the Gospels (St. Augustine)
http://newadvent.com/fathers/1602.htm

II

4:01 "Biblical inspiration does not mean everything was dictated by the Holy Ghost."

Depends on which book. But even in cases the hagiographer was a historian, making a human effort to know history, like arguably Moses for most of Genesis (though he was direct prophet for 1:1-2:4), like definitely St Luke, we can depend on the Holy Ghost not letting any factual errors slip through either in the autograph or in all preserved versions.

Suppose Emmaus was not just politically and socially but also geographically same place as modern Amwaz. Now, Amwaz is 160 stades or 32 km from Jerusalem, Emmaus is 60 stades or 12 km from Jerusalem in St Luke ... most preserved versions. But there is a Syriac manuscript which actually says 160 stades. This could be the one trace of the autograph.

On the other hand, there are other possibilities, Emmaus was arguably destroyed in year 70 AD and then rebuilt when Christians came back from Pella (in Jordan, not in Macedonia, to clarify). Now, for St Cleopas, Roman Martyrology says he is buried in Emmaus. If he has a grave in Amwaz, it could have happened like this, St Cleopas was martyred outside Emmaus as to its pre-70 location, and then Emmaus (modern Amwaz) was rebuilt around his grave. By Christians. Hailing from old Emmaus, which had been 20 km or 100 stades closer to Jerusalem.

I mean, for a papal definition, you will hold it is free from error, and yet you do not consider the Holy Ghost actually dictates it, reducing the Pope to his secretary. Why? Bc you believe in providence. While a Pope and while St Luke had free will, they also had an intention to say the truth, now, with that intention, saying sth untrue would have been praeter intentionem. This being so, God can have simply preserved either of them from stumbling praeter intentionem. This involves no violation of their freewill, as they were not intending to teach error either of them.

... on Calvinistic OT Canard

Is the Old Testament Calvinistic?
Tumblar House | 15.VIII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0XFnoz_H3E

I

Starting with a dialogue, before my own comments:

Nick J

After each of the first five plagues in Egypt it simply reads, "And Pharao's heart was hardened, and he did not let the people go."

But it is specified after the second plague came to an end, the plague of frogs, that "Pharao seeing that rest was given, hardened his own heart, and did not hear them, as the Lord had commanded" (Ex 8:15).

It is not until the sixth plague, the plague of boils, that it tells us, "And the Lord hardened Pharao's heart, and he hearkened not unto them, as the Lord had spoken to Moses" (Ex 9:12). That was also the first time his magicians were powerless to compete.

So he had at least five chances, after having already brutally oppressed the Israelites and had all their newborn males killed, before God then confirmed Pharao's choice for him.

Throne and Altar

When it says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart it isn't being literal. God simply allowed Pharaoh to have his way. I'll try to find the sources but other passages in the OT refer to Pharaoh hardening his own heart.

1 Sam 6:6 - Why do you harden your hearts, as Egypt and Pharao hardened their hearts? did not he, after he was struck, then let them go, and they departed?

We can think of God hardening Pharaoh's heart in a passive way. If I say, "you're making me hungry", are you literally creating hunger within me?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Throne and Altar "it isn't being literal."

It is, as for activity.

"God simply allowed Pharaoh to have his way."

Same thing.

"other passages in the OT refer to Pharaoh hardening his own heart."

So did previous passages in Exodus, about first five plagues, as Nick J noted.

I had totally forgotten that aspect.

"before God then confirmed Pharao's choice for him."

Exactly so. Thank you, @Nick J

Now

for my own comments. So far without dialogue (except with video / Charles A. Coulombe).

II

"In a way that wasn't possible in the old testament."

No where in the OT does it say "no one except God can forgive sin".

However, neither is anyone given a hint someone else can either. The kohanim couldn't, what prefigured confession was distinguishing leprosy from non leprosy. That was a hygienic, not a moral issue. Meaning one could draw a kind of empiric conclusion, kind of inductive reasoning that no one except God could.

Which conclusion in the NT we gather that the Pharisees had reasoned, and we read they were considering God in the Flesh a blasphemer because of this.

Hence the Calvinist attack on confession, and of absolution being a "name of blasphemy" never mind Our Lord instituted it in John 20:21-23.

They will say "no one except God" and miss Our Lord cured the lame to prove "the Son of Man can forgive Sin". The power did not just belong to Him as God, it also belonged to Him as Man. And He was free to hand it on, esp. when we consider "as the Father has sent me, I send you". [John 20:21, so in the passage where absolution is instituted]

And yes, Calvinism very much mirrors post-Temple Judaism, in being a religion of Scripture, Exegesis and Morals, but with nearly no cult beyond bans, beyond being forbidden to do some things.

This is also (in a diluted way or identic or exaggerated way) true of other Protestants.

Note however, post-Temple or Rabbinic Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament.

III

5:31 "that reinforced the resemblance between Calvinism and the Old Testament"

No, Sir!

Between Calvinism and post-Temple Judaism, which is as little the religion of OT as Calvinism is that of NT.

IV

5:59 God meant He was withdrawing from Pharao the graces of conversion.

Before that, God might have given to Pharao some grace of conversion (which is actual graces, not sanctifying grace) which he rejected, then God decided, no more grace for that heart = it is hard, set on what it had decided without God.

I did not see Nick J had noted exactly same thing in better supported detail.

David Wolf Sees a Danger ... I don't agree on its nature

The Dangers Of Bible Reading In Public Education
David Wolf | 3.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeKKpuwjNg8

I

1:50 How about the German model ... also in Austria.

IN public school, Catholic parents send Catholic children to Catholic catechism class, Protestant ones to Protestant catechism class (generally Lutherans and Calvinists are no longer that different in Germanies, they are a bit like United Church of Canada, to give a comparison from Americas). Jewish parents to Jewish catechism and in some Bundesländer Muslim parents to Muslim catechism.

I think even some Bundesländer by now (esp in former GDR) allow Atheist parents to send children to classes of Humane Ethics.

Either way, Catechism is not optional, all need to take it, but parents decide what confession. (In my case a back then Swedish High Church Lutheran mother chose Catholic catechism).

5:07 I am not sure what you mean by "sectarianism".

I am sure that the German model involves sectarian division, because Protestants by definition are not the Church, but a sect.

If this sect already exists, they are usually not first generation former Catholics, but the sect exists as a Protestant population where greatgrandfathers or further off is typical of the Catholic background, they are not to be wiped out by Inquisition and therefore their educational choices are to be respected.

II

2:50 In some cases they are doing so on texts where the Catholic Church has not decided on the interpretation.

For instance:

Genesis 11

[1] And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech.

Clearly includes Hebrew patriarchs and clearly includes whereever they were.

[2] And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.

All, or just some? Including the Hebrews or excluding the Hebrews?

Of the Babel builders, all, or just the élite? Was Babel like a real global village or just a virtual one, like New York is these days?

I don't think the Pontifical Bible commission ever gave an answer on this one, so I think all three (at least) options are licit.

• Hebrews included in Babel-builders?
• Hebrews excluded, but all the rest concretely at Babel?
• Hebrews excluded, an élite of the rest gather at Babel to build the tower, while others have some geographical spread?

I take this last possibility. CMI (who are Protestants) take the first.

I do not think there is any harm in us arguing this out. I most definitely don't think it is "dangerous" that we do so.

3:01 Yes, when it comes to Exodus 20:4 there was a council called Nicaea II, I agree.

The two Baptists with the Bible verse are in fact both rejecting it. So, arguably, they are not arguing about exact meaning of Exodus 20:4, since they erroneously think that images in and of themselves, not just as example of strange gods (Exodus 20:3), get a no no from one separate commandment.

This means, what they are arguing about between them is arguably sth Nicaea II did not decide.

3:09 "there is no point on even having a debate on this"

True for some points, like Exodus 20:4 or Colossians 1:15 on the basis of which Nicaea II argued that Incarnation had changed the deal about images.

Not true for certain other points.

3:36 Sure I agree on the council of Chalcedon and have had to defend Chalcedonian christology against what I have seen as examples of shockingly bad Christology in Evangelicals.

When dealing with them, I can not just refer to the Council, whose authority they reject, I have to back it by the Bible.

But when some say Mary is no longer Christ's mother, since Christ no longer has the body of flesh, or on same principle reject Eucharist as invisibly a bilocation of His body from heaven (using "bilication" loosely, it is actually a somewhat different miracle for Padre Pio than for the Eucharist), I needed to do two things:

• have a shock at how non-Chalcedonian their Christology sometimes is
• defend Chalcedon by the Bible, which they claim to believe.

III

6:57 Arguably Catholic and Protestant children in same classroom hearing teacher who could be either read the Bible is a very dangerous idea, but if there had only been a division, Catholic children in one classroom have the Bible Douay Rheims version with Haydock comment read by a Catholic teacher and in one or two other classrooms Presbyterians and Anglicans have KJV read with Presbyterian or Anglican comment by a Presbyterian or Anglican teacher.

Also, anyone who risks being in so clear a minority as to be an easy target for harassment should have a clear right to not go to school.

By the way, here is the wikipedian account of background before the riots of 1844:

"During the 1840s, students in Philadelphia schools began the day with reading the Protestant version of the Bible. On November 10, 1842, Philadelphia's Roman Catholic Bishop, Francis Kenrick, wrote a letter to the Board of Controllers of public schools, asking that Catholic children be allowed to read the Douay version of the Bible, used by Roman Catholics. He also asked that they be excused from other religious teaching while at school.[6][7] As a result, the Board of Controllers ordered that no child should be forced to participate in religious activities and stated that children were allowed to read whichever version of the Bible their parents wished. Nativists further inflamed hostile feelings towards Catholics by reportedly twisting Kenrick's requests to the Board of Controllers as an attack against the Bible used in Protestant devotionals.[6][8]"

"Approximately one year later, a rumor was circulated that Hugh Clark, a Kensington school director who was Catholic, was visiting a girls school, where he demanded that the principal stop Bible reading in school. The story also claimed that the principal refused and that she would rather lose her job. Clark denied this version of events and claimed that after finding out several students had left a Bible reading to read a different version of the Bible, he commented that if reading the Bible caused this kind of confusion, that it would be better if it were not to be read in school. Protestants claimed that Catholics, with direct influence from the Pope, were trying to remove the Bible from schools.[8][9] Kenrick issued a statement[when?] asserting, "It is not consistent with the laws and the discipline of the Catholic Church for her members to unite in religious exercises with those who are not of their communion." [7]"

I have left out a paragraph stating how Philadelphia had had Orange societies forming to protect Orange supremacy / Protestant supremacy in face of Catholic numbers as early as 1830's.

This actually goes some way to explain where the twisting of a Catholic's words would come from, since these societies are clearly involved in anti-Catholic lying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_nativist_riots

Note well, Kenrick was the Catholic bishop, Clark was just a Catholic school director. I'd agree with the sentiments of bishop Kenrick, you seem to prefer those of school principal Clark.

Bible reading, sure, as long as Catholics and Protestants don't need to do so in the same classroom with the same teacher from the same Bible.

IV

8:50 "The United States has a history of this"

Has it occurred to you that the US or what became so also has an opposite history?

Lord Baltimore of Maryland, William Penn, two men who made sure that, while Charles II could secure no religious freedom for Catholics in England, he could do so in English colonies.

Note also, New England Puritans are much towted, but they are only Northern half (with consideration of Maryland and Philadelphia even less than half) of the 13 colonies.

V

debate:

jimmy c

You're right.

Peter warns in his epistle "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, " (2 Peter 1:20). And there is also 2 Peter 3:15-16: "And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think St Peter was writing to Romans, and that he was referring to some verses in Romans that later on Protestants also twisted to their own destruction ....

I most definitely do not think that he was speaking of having an opinion on geographical spread or opposite of mankind during Babel event.

II Peter 1:20 in Douay Rheims and with Challoner comment:

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

[20] "No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation": This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.

jimmy c

@Hans-Georg Lundahl are you saying the bible can no longer be twisted to one's own destruction and the message of those verses are bound by time?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl it doesn't matter who he was writing to. The important lesson here is why he wrote it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimmy c "The important lesson here is why he wrote it."

Yes.

"are you saying the bible can no longer be twisted to one's own destruction"

Not at all.

I am saying that he had a heresy about how one is saved in mind, one that is rehashed by Protestants, but obviously any other heresy would also be twisting scripture to one's own destruction.

I am therefore saying, outside heresy we do have a liberty of interpretation, unless the magisterium has decided against one's point.

jimmy c

@Hans-Georg Lundahl and how did they rehash it? Through their own private interpretations. So no wonder we have so many protestant churches today that can't seem to agree on anything. That's why the early church fathers warned about interpreting scripture on your own.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimmy c "That's why the early church fathers warned about interpreting scripture on your own."

Did they really do so about matters like Biblical history?

For instance, the other day I saw St Justin Martyr claim King David lived 1500 years BC, which means he would have misunderstood Biblical history some, that usually being the date of Exodus.

@jimmy c "Through their own private interpretations."

Private then in the sense of opposed to official magisterium.

Not the least private in their intentions. To Luther, his misunderstanding of Romans was meant to be Catholic dogma ... he just ditched the magisterium when it didn't comply with that.

Since he was not a private person studying the Bible from curiosity, he cannot be compared to someone having own ideas about how Biblical history works out with archaeology.

@jimmy c "That's why the early church fathers warned about interpreting scripture on your own."

Sure you don't mean when heresiarchs did so without any reference to apostolic Church?

@jimmy c "So no wonder we have so many protestant churches today that can't seem to agree on anything."

There are limited variations, though.

Some totally off hook, as with ecclesiology, and some more like one position coinciding with Catholicism or even both positions being licit in Catholicism.

jimmy c

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Luther is just a prime example of how awry things can go when you pick up a bible an make yourself your own self appointed authority through your "own private interpretations" Hebrew 13:17 instructs us to obey &submit to our leaders? Countless sects with no leaders ..Sad ! Some protestants believe in infant baptism while some don't. Some believe in divorce; others don't. Some believe in abortion even partial births others consider it murder !!.Satan surely knows how to divide & take one away from the ONE Truth ...Baptist, Anabaptist, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodist, Seven Day Adventist, Born Agains, .....39000 + divisions no leaders, no truth, no unity... chaos & confusion. God certainly is not the Author of Confusion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimmy c "Countless sects with no leaders"

Not true, each has leaders.

And Luther was a leader of one in Wittenberg.

The problem is not "I read the Bible and I take it as it seems to mean" (until I run into a difficulty and ask or consult Church Fathers or St Thomas Aquinas).

The problem is making up verse so and so means the opposite of dogma such and such.

And I mean dogma of the Catholic Church, not just of any leader, all Protestant churches (or sects) have leaders.

jimmy c

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you still don't get it. We're done here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimmy c I'm not your inquisitor, feel free to leave the conversation, meanwhile, it has gone to my blog as well:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : David Wolf Sees a Danger ... I don't agree on its nature
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/02/david-wolf-sees-danger-i-dont-agree-on.html

Scroll down to Roman numeral V. That's us, starting with you.

@jimmy c Oh, if your point was any individual Bible reading or even casual act of interpreting sth one way or the other is wrong, that is not sth I don't get, it's sth I don't agree with, and neither did Challoner, if you see how he commented that verse.

jimmy c

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the problem is there's too many Luther's.

“I therefore, yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that ye use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those [that are given to this] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison, speaking things which are unworthy of credit, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant of does greedily take, with a fatal pleasure leading to his own death. I therefore, yet not I, out the love of Jesus Christ, “entreat you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment.” For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and “corrupting the word” of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk, as if they mingled aconite with sweet wine, that so he who drinks, being deceived in his taste by the very great sweetness of the draught, may incautiously meet with his death. “Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil.” For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chap. VI-“Abstain from the Poison of Heretics”)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimmy c What exact poison of heretics would St Ignatius have been referring to?

Some people ten times more poisonous than Luther, and these guys do not seem to even base anything on misreading canonical Bible books. They seem to be discarding the Bible completely, which they do, since they are Gnostics.

Comparing Lutherans to Gnostics is like comparing Muslims to Hindoos. Muslims at least believe in Doomsday, Hindoos just in "next incarnation" or in avoiding it.

jimmy c

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so Ignatius is wrong and you're right. Thanks for revealing yourself to be exactly what he warned about.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimmy c "so Ignatius is wrong and you're right."

No, but St Ignatius was simply not talking about 2 Peter 1:20 in that letter. Why? Because the heretics he was dealing with were not accepting all books of the Bible anyway.

"Thanks for revealing yourself to be exactly what he warned about."

I don't think so.

I pleaded for a right to read Biblical history and to consider the events as they naturally appear to the reader. I claimed no such liberty for dogma. I also do not claim it where the reading seeming natural to one would conflict with dogma.

St Ignatius was definitely saying somewhere "do nothing without the bishop" and it seems BISHOP Challoner (he was bishop for English Catholics, he was not an Anglican heretic pseudo-bishop) laid down the limits and I claim to stay within those limits.

Contradicting your overheated misapplication of St Ignatius is not contradicting the Church.

jimmy c

@Hans-Georg Lundahl drink your own poison.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimmy c I hope no one drinks anyone's poison bc of me.

You have pointed out no actual heresy in me.

... on Russia and on Sweden

Basically promoting this video:

The Utter Chaos in Europe; Russian plans for EUROPE
KeytotheBible | 2.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhEOp_Aul7M

Here is a comment, basically telling why I promote it, it's not bc I'm a fan of their channel:

I am a Swede.

Sweden clashed with Russia over who should convert Finns to what Christianity (Roman Catholic or Russian Orthodox) as early as the Middle Ages.

In 13th C. Alexander Nevski defends Novgorod against Swedes and even more against Teutonic order. He submitted to Tatars to fight off Germans.

The peace of Nöteborg (Russian Oreshek or Orekhovets, Finnish Pähkinäsaari, on 12 August 1323, regulate the border.

In 14th C. St Bridget of Sweden has one vision in which Christ through her tells the Swedish king to crusade against the Pagans of Novgorod.

16th C Sweden gains quite a lot of land South of Finland, in what is now Estonia and Latvia (back then the names were Estonia for northern part of Estonia, southern part and most of Latvia were Livonia, and one part of Latvia was Curonia). Beginning of 18th C. Charles XII loses that to Peter the Great.

Beginning of next century, Sweden and our king Gustav IV Adolf (named after Gustav II Adolf, aka Gustavus Adolphus) loses Finland and temporarily northern parts of Sweden to Alexander I. Finland became a Grand Duchy.

At Russian Revolution, unusually, in Finland the White Army is victorious under Mannerheim, a man from the Czar's army, and Finland becomes independent for the first time since it was a conglomerate of pagan tribes. World War II, Germany takes Norway in custody, Soviet Union attacks Finland and permanently conquers part of Carelia (the disputed territory in 13th C).

In the Cold War, Sweden had a secret agreement with NATO.

It can be added, the high command on Russian side in Finland was led by one whose ancestors had been conquered by Russia a century earlier or less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Buxhoeveden

... On Apostolic Succession in Correction of Jordan Cooper

On Apostolic Succession
Jordan Cooper | 30.I.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xRwwCswp1I

I

see below with debate under heading V.

II

4:54 "aren't talking about sacramental authority"

Why would they when it is for one thing clear from the Bible (words of institution say "do this" to the twelve, John 20:21-23 promises the same body the power of forgiving or withholding forgiveness on God's behalf, St Paul to St Titus or more probably St Timothy says to recall the power given through his laying on of hands), and for another thing dangerous to reveal in an as yet Pagan world?

Gustav Wasa knew very well what a bishop and a non-bishop could do, so he forced one elderly Catholic bishop to lay hands on Laurentius Petri. This doesn't mean Laurentius Petri handed on the apostolic succession, has to do with verifiable intention.

5:15 "the way it develops later"

For reasons stated. And I object very strongly to "develops later" terminology, you pronounce it as if it were later a novum.

5:30 "it comes out of this idea of"

Ideas a and b are both stated in NT Bible books.

In Fathers, idea a is stated earlier than idea b.

Of the options:

• 1) Fathers had reason to mention a before they had reason to mention b
• 2) Fathers forgot b was in the Bible books and developed b independently from a, even if it logically doesn't follow

which one makes more sense in a Church given the promise "every day" in Matthew 28:20?

III

6:27 Obviously, with a broken link in some place, that place will have no valid bishops, priests or sacraments beyond those that laymen can confer at least in cases of necessity without a priest, that being baptism and matrimony (if a couple otherwise having the right to marry cannot find a priest willing to marry them within two months, they would make valid marriage vows even without a priest to bless them).

You cannot have any general anguish on "what if", since the Church has made sure to avoid broken links (up to changes after Vatican II, but that is in a Protestantising anti-Church, and doesn't affect all Catholic clergy, since some rejected these changes in time, like Catholics rejected changes of Protestant Reformations even when pretending to be episcopal).

IV

I think I'll break off watching here, since subtitles are automatic and clearly garbled, and resume the refutation when I have a computer with headphones and sound. Feel free to answer before that happens, should you have occasion.

V

Debate, but muted on the other side. He wanted to get out and so he blocked me. My responses partly quote him.

i

4:20 Would you agree to two things:

• a) while changing Sabbath to Sunday is reflected in a hinting way in Acts, the change itself is not in any NT Book, and not in any OT book either?
• b) even so, sanctifying Sunday is obliging on us, up to Doomsday?

Bc if you do, how are you not defending tradition as infallible outside the purely theoretic framework of sola scriptura?

ij

@Tom "The Bible's Letter to the Hebrews specifically rules out this possibility."

Only if you suppose the sacrifice of the Mass to be another sacrifice and not the same as that of Calvary.

We actually consider it the same.

Two Masses are not two separate sacrifices, they are the sacrifice of Calvary made present in two times and locations often outside Palestine and often after AD 33.

@Tom "Sola Scriptura as found in the New Testament,"

Sola Scriptura is specifically ruled out by the New Testament and nowhere found in it.

iij

@Tom "But when assessing the gravity or degree of difficulties of such a thing, this must be, in the end, a not-infallible judgment."

It can't, due to Matthew 28:20 saying "all days".

You probably get Sola Scriptura from a comment in St Athanasius whose point was that Arius was using, not tradition, but things totally extraneous to either Bible or Tradition.

Your first difficulty with Sacred Tradition is answered.

If you read up in St Paul's three epistles to Timothy and Titus, you see bishops are being trained as guardians of tradition.

While this includes all NT as well as OT books of the Bible, some points are not directly found in it.

iu

@Tom I'd have to ask you (or if you prefer someone else to answer, not forcing you but I take this as public debate, not a private conversation with you):

• 1) does Malachi 1:11 indicate Mass is a sacrifice?
• 2) does the citation in Hebrews of "tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec" in light of Genesis 14:18 indicate it?
• 3) supposing Mass were not instituted as a sacrifice, where was the Church not having it in 7th C AD?

Not just the one not directly stating it, but one stating or showing for them Mass was no sacrifice, and which can otherwise be defended, from the Bible, i e nothing like Gnostics, Manichaeans, Iconoclastic Emperors of Byzantine Empire, Paulicians etc. - was there one?

Matthew 28:20 says "all days". I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, I do believe in Tota Scriptura.

For good wishes, same to you. I am not an Inquisitor.

VI

7:14 It can be added, some consider Apostles were never Baptised either.

Therefore, that the laying of hands was not how they received orders doesn't mean it is not strictly necessary after them.

The character is there for three sacraments : Baptism, Confirmation and Deaconal or Sacerdotal Ordination / Episcopal Consecration.

That this is not explicitly treated of in Bible or very early Church Fathers doesn't change that that is tradition.

7:40 You are also confusing "call" with character.

A man can be called to priesthood, but as long as not ordained, he cannot be living that call.

The call is God's preference for your life, the ordination gives power to transsubstantiate, offer sacrifice of Mass, absolve.

... on Expertise

10 Famous People Mistakenly Cited as Experts
TopTenz | 28.V.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR5tSIovOeE

I

1:34 Come on, a debate and a productive conversation are two different types of verbal interaction.

And while climate change was perhaps on the debate Ham vs Nye, the main topic was Creation vs Evolution.

What is the scientific field for that one, if there is any?

And Tyson being good at explaining concepts doesn't exactly mean he is good at examining what concept needs to be considered as true.

And I mean this on a "simple concept" level.

II

I think your obsession with "no training at all" is somewhat of an appeal for East Bloc "intellectual hierarchies" ...

In the East Bloc, however, people were also trained in ideology and it spread very well thanks to Darwinism and Draper White, so, this means while people were basically required to either listen to "trained people" or shut up, they were also required to listen to this ideology. And in some cases, like Oparin's idea of abiogenesis, there was more ideology than science.

Experiments have to date failed to replicate what Oparin was suggesting.

Speaking of which, while you are not the active researcher behind all of your shows, you definitely have hosted some badly researched comments, like Uighurs being a Muslim sect rather than a majority Muslim ethnicity in China.

Check this link:

Comic Guide : Marco Polo : Band: 6 - In der Höhle der gelben Teufel
https://www.comicguide.de/index.php/component/comicguide/?controller=details&file=book&content=short&comment=short&id=31129&page=5

If you look at the picture in the link, you will see one Marco Polo in fictitious situations and just before him, an Uighur who is a Buddhist. While that person is a comic book fiction by Enzo Chiomenti and Jean Ollivier, that comic book seemed to be well researched and therfore, if it features an Uighur Buddhist, I take it Uighurs in historic times have been both Buddhists and Muslims.

Since the image doesn't click up on previous link, here is a link directly to image:

https://www.comicguide.de/pics/large/31132.jpg

III

10:46 You're the opposite of Beyoncé in my criticism.

She got credit for writing songs written by her team, you got discredits for research done by the teams you represent ...

Apart from the difference between credit and discredit, the situation is parallel.

Internet users are often these days used to doing their thing without a team behind them, that includes me, I sometimes get dialogue partners or correspondence debates, but there is no standing team I consciously work with (there might be one hiding from me, but making youtube recommendations, though), so, I see a vlogger (I'm a blogger, with b) and assume he's researched what he is saying. My bad.

Taking note, the author of this one is Gregory Myers.

IV

12:57 In other words, how about starting to cite C. S. Lewis or G. K. Chesterton instead of Einstein?

They were amateurs, but they certainly cared and certainly did amateur level research ... they also showed me the way to a clearly well trained theologian like St Thomas Aquinas, and I am probably not the only one.

V

13:40 Actually, the individual mom ought to be more important than any number of scientists a to the vaccines her baby is or is not given in shots.

The fact there are even groups of moms shows that governement has been giving too much power to scientific expertise and too little to those God actually gave the task of taking care of the children, moms and pops.

"many deadly diseases that were thought beaten could start seeing a serious resurgence"

Oh, the way mankind survives is by beating deadly diseases till all are immortal, not by reproducing so those who die are replaced in their families?

So not the case.

These scientists may be well trained in immunology, in epidemology and so on, but they have no training in Christian morality (as can be seen from some supporting abortion and contraception) and therefore their view on whether vaccines should be compulsory or not is morally worthless - at least not greater than that of moms and pops.

14:13 "The problem comes down to the way many people evaluate information,"

And so scientists should be given the power to evaluate it for other people and enforce their evaluation? Sounds horribly East Bloc to me.

"and it leads to many parents improperly considering other mothers or parents as experts simply because they happen to also have a child"

I'm not sure considering them "as experts" is really the correct term.

They may be considered as a relevant counter culture. Their stance may be considered as the morally correct stance. Which the epidemologist as epidemologist, the immunologist as immunologist, has really no superior knowledge or training about.

Probably the idea of "many deadly diseases" ties in with "we live significantly longer now than back before medicine checked epidemics".

We have less child mortality, unless you count abortion and in at least one case a vaccination cocktail gone wrong.

But adults certainly do live at most a decade or two more than earlier, and those who live longest seem to be most tied to caring homes. While people leading rich lives, even among atheists, one could cite Christopher Hitchens who died at 62 a few years below the median of a medieval non-royal and non-feudal known person.

Like C. S. Lewis, 64. Tolkien dying at 81 would be like near upper end of pre-modern known people.

VI

14:27 "as if having a child made you an expert not only on child rearing, it also makes you an expert at everything that could possibly befall them"

We live under God's providence, there is no such thing a an expert at everything that can befall anyone.

I prefer someone erroneously getting a similar status by the actual parents over someone being given by the state such a status against parents, as in CPS decisions.

14:31 "she is just sure of it"

Well, how have revolutions happened in the past?

Even erroneous suspicions against people in certain positions have been decisive for taking action. Sometimes bad action, as storming of the Bastille, with a blood bath on the guards, but those doing it had no training in military discipline any more than the first crusaders and those having such training were exactly the suspects.

Collectively, and due to an overkill a few months earlier, perhaps not quite unreasonably.

Here it is experts who are the suspects.

If you recall what expertise were giving as advice to the Kennedy family about Rosemary, perhaps not too unreasonably either.

I'd agree with Gregory Myers that she was wrong in saying her child got autism from vaccines.

I think you are likely to be wrong whenever you say your child has autism, even if it is from a psychological or psychiatric authority saying so.

Fact Check Miss on Myself, Too

... on a Few Items where "Simon Whistler" Needs Better Fact Check · .... on a Few More Items Where "Simon Whistler" Needs Improving "His" Fact Check · ... on Use and Abuse of Wiki · On more Fact Check Fails "for Simon Whistler" · Fact Check Miss on Myself, Too

I spoke of TopTenz as Simon Whistler's channel and while he performs on it, he doesn't seem to own it.

There are other channels where he performs, and Today I Found Out is run by a team and was not involved in any of "his" fact check misses.

Sorry to Simon for blaming him for his authors' faults and sorry to TIFO for potentially letting bad fact check on the TopTenz team smudge their reputation, just because they share Simon Whistler.

Sincere Apologies,
Hans Georg Lundahl