Jimmy Akin starts OK - till he gets started on the subject of Hell fire

Matt Fradd from Pints with Aquinas channel interviews Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers. I commented as I saw, c. first half third of it:

10,000 Objections to Catholicism ANSWERED w/ Jimmy Akin
30th Dec. 2021 | Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi6YIqv0iSM

16:55 Does Jimmy Akin believe any real pope, persistently, after fraternal correction from inferiors, continued to believe a false thing?

John XXII famously went back on what he was attacked for, and the Sirmian formula was not on Liberius' own agenda, he stated he had been forced to sign it.

20:42 What first c. document?

I'm aware of Sub Tuum Praesidium in Coptic and Greek saying "thou only pure, thou only blessed" to Her (helped a lot at my return from Romanian Orthodoxy), but I thought it was second c.?

26:42 See the parallel between Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:42.

Blessed among women, as already said by the angel, means She was victorious over one main enemy of Israel. Similar words (but with some restrictions) had been said about Jael and Judith after they killed Sisera and Holophernes.

But when St. Elisabeth added "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" she made unambiguously clear which enemy of Israel, and that one was not flesh or blood, but the old serpent. And as we know the old serpent is victorious by sin, his defeaters need to be victorious by sinlessness. And note, "ponam inimicitias" is clearly about "mulierem" and add to this her victory, means She has to be sinless.

27:27 Note very well, I count Mary and Jesus not as typological, but as literally promised fulfilment of Genesis 3:15.

There is no more direct one. Hence, it can be used for theological proof.

28:28 And the woman of Apocalypse 12?

And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

The only part that seems awry with applying it to the Blessed Virgin (apart from Challoner saying it's about the Church) is, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. (V. 2)

The virgin birth was a miracle sparing Her a painful delivery. But the question is, how long did the normal process last, and when did the miracle take over?

However, the Dormition and the empty tomb opened by St. Thomas is Church history.

And obviously, if OT scribes could make Church history accurate in Paralipomena, NT scribes like St. Andrew of Crete can make Church history accurate now too.

34:34 Quibble. Kierkegaard doesn't finish in "-ahrd" but in "awrd" since Danish aa = Swedish å = were pronounced "ah" c. 1300 maybe up to 1400, but have been pronounced "oa" / "aw" for all of the Modern Era. In Old Icelandic, the cognate is spelled á and was pronounced "ah" but this is in Modern Icelandic "ow". Often - I think Swedish and Danish added some å / aa that aren't á in Icelandic.

35:55 I was received into what I now believe to be the Vatican II Sect, then believed to be the Catholic Church, in 1988.

Rejecting Fundamentalist Exegesis was certainly not a requirement in 1985 - 88 in the Diocese of Stockholm.

I would say, some degree of Fundamentalist exegesis actually is a requirement, not bc sola scriptura, not bc rejecting spiritual senses, but bc accepting literal sense as fully historical. And that a man who has grave issues on that one, like Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger expressed in 1992 and following years and Jorge Mario Bergoglio has expressed more recently, is in a position, similar to the one who accepts tons of Catholic doctrine, but not the divinity of Christ. In other words, they are wrong to present themselves as Catholic.

Sorry Akin, more or less goes for you too, even if you are a layman, as an apologist, you have a somewhat approaching episcopal duty to be aware of all of the faith. Including, the Flood actually happened. Including, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are sufficiently complete to qualify as genealogies - which brings Abraham and cities in Mesopotamia and Pharaonic Egypt into with 2000 to 3000 years (depending on the text version) from Adam and Eve, these being the literal first couple.

Troll Patrol

Twilight zone. Dank weed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Troll Patrol What the Hell are you talking about?

Respect for the Bible seems Ancient Aliens or substance abuse to you?

Troll Patrol

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Nope. I read regularly and have 40 or so bibles on my shelf. I oppose the heresy of "bible alone" - which is impossible. Why? The ego interprets, coloring and flavoring the passages at it desires. THAT is not truth. The bible is not an idol although many make it so. It is not God. It does not save. Jesus Christ saves. The book is about him, but tells 1% of what He did. Are you satisfied with 1%?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Troll Patrol "I oppose the heresy of "bible alone" - which is impossible. Why? The ego interprets, coloring and flavoring the passages at it desires."

While "proprio ingenio innisus" is part of the paragraph in which Trent condemns what is sometimes referred to as Bible alone, it was not the main part of the condemnation, but what was the main part was going against the interpretation either:

a) that the Church hath held and holds (not just "holds right now" but it must be the same as previous centuries)
or
b) of the Church Fathers in their consensus.

@Troll Patrol "The book is about him, but tells 1% of what He did."

The Old Testament typoligically says more about what He did. Christ gave his apostles a complete OT exegesis after His Resurrection, which means that a Catholic, Patristic interpretation of the OT gives me much more of what He did than just the NT.

So does the liturgy, including icons, when accessible in Communion with actual Catholics. That doesn't seem to include you.

39:38 Taking the fire of hell as literal fire is not just Medieval St. Thomas Aquinas, it's also St. Augustine.

He once said:

* the fire is literal, the worms are a metaphor
* if you want to take one take on both, it's better to take worms as literal than fire as non-literal.

39:55 It could be added, the souls are not going to remain disembodied souls forever.

Hence, both Heaven and Hell being places, and Hell being full of physical fire, are quite as they should in regards with the Resurrection of the Body.

41:00 Whatever one may say about "real essence" - Hell is at least per accidens c. 6300 km below our feet. (Also known as 3 958.8 miles).

Tempier condemned 1277 ... VIII:5 (19). Quod anima separata nullo modo patitur ab igne. VIII:8 (108). Quod anima humana nullo modo est mobilis secundum locum, nec per se, nec per accidens; et si ponatur alicubi per substantiam suam, numquam mouebitur de ubi ad ubi. VIII:30 (214). Quod anima nunquam moueretur, nisi corpus moueretur, sicut graue uel leue numquam moueretur, nisi aer moueretur.

VIII:5 etc = English numbering, (19) etc. original numbers in Paris.

41:32 The problem of how fire can burn a non-physical soul is somewhat dwarfed by how it can burn resurrected bodies of the damned, and these still continue to exist as sentient bodies - but Moses and the Three Young Men saw kind of solutions to that one.

VI:32 (60). Quod ad hoc quod omnes effectus sint necessarii respectu cause prime, non sufficit quod ipsa causa prima no sit impedibilis, set exigitur quod cause medie non sint impedibiles. -Error, quia tunc deus non posset facere aliquem effectum necessarium sine causis posterioribus.

Preservation of bodies and tormenting of souls as if with sense organs feeling fire is not above the omnipotence of God.

41:43 - 42:00 "....but we also have to understand its limits - and we do that a little bit better today than some folks in the past. Because, in the past, you had a lot of people who weren't even literate, I mean, even in first century Palestine, ninety percent of the population was functionally illiterate."

In first C. Palestine, lots of people were illiterate in Hebrew. Someone presented himself as Kipha and not Kaiapha? (A bit as if a Swede had called himself Pelle instead of Petrus before a Lutheran clergyman) Oh, he can't Hebrew, conclusion as per Acts 4:13. This does not mean functional illiteracy as we would see it today, post-Classical and post-Sacred language era.

Then, these men had been trained by a Man who was and is God. (And as God the Son is Man, and Resurrected, Heaven needs to be an actual place right now, not just after Doomsday). On top of that, one of His disciples, a certain Matthew who took down the words now chapter 18 verse 8, was a Levite, despite misusing his learning for some time as a tax collector. He was highly literate.

But suppose it had been true. This would have meant, 90 % of His first hearers would have been very likely to misunderstand Him - making Him a liar.

But on top of that, your general type of argument seems to have been already condemned, either Syllabus of errors (Pius IX imitating the genre of Tempier) or the decree on Faith and Reason in the Council of the Vatican, 1869 to 70. We do not get to imagine what people in the past missed as to the sense of dogmas, just because, at least presumedly so, literacy rates are higher.

Troll Patrol

We learn from the bible that Christians do not need a bible. No Christian in the bible HAD a bible. Do we make ourselves superior?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Troll Patrol The Christians in the New Testament certainly had the Old Testament.

And the Christians in the New Testament were certainly involved in the writing of the New Testament.

This means, the Church of the New Testament left us with a Bible as much as with a Church. Sure, the Bible was as yet nebulous as to canon, but each book that was later collected in the definitive canon of Trent was held canonic at least by some local Churches.

Therefore, we cannot imagine we know the meaning of the dogmas better than people did in the past. The meaning of some historic circumstance, certainly, like I hold it probable we can know the City of Babel was in Göbekli Tepe, or that the number of the beast is calculated by ASCII, but as to the meaning of the dogmas, no, we do not know them better.

That obviously includes the respect for the Bible.

Troll Patrol

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Where? In the Synagogues only! Shepherds were excluded! We revere the Hebrew Scriptures, but the "New Testament" is what saves us. NOT the book. You will not believe what the New Testament is. Look in the King James Version and see.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Troll Patrol While the New Covenant is what saves us, and not the Book, belonging to the New Covenant involves not being a heretic. The Catholic Church forbids communicatio in sacris with Anglican heretics, and that's what much of the Novus Ordo sect has come to now.

You are factually wrong on pretending only the Synagogues had the Old Testament. The Holy Mass involves two main parts, Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Sacrifice. Now, the Liturgy of the Word definitely is based on the already existing synagogal service. Any shepherd who went to the Eucharist from Pentecost day on, would do so under a presbyter or bishop who did have an Old Testament.

Why do you refer me to King James Version? I do Douay Rheims, when I do English!