JRS : A History of Anti-Logos - E. Michael Jones
Fides et Ratio, 3 Oct. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfzI__P6ZXI
3:54 No, Adam and Eve were not Revolutionaries.
By a Revolutionary, I understand a person perpetrating and handing on a Revolution.
In a sense, yes, they were, Original Sin is how they handed down theirs.
But in the sense that
Robert E Lee (if you agree with calling the So[u]th Rebels) had more pride in his past after handing over his sword to Ulysses Grant, than Adam and Eve had of their past act.
In fact, child sacrifice to Moloch and Aztek sunworship hanker back to two revolutions thousands of years after Genesis 3.
In Genesis 11, the technocratic revolution of Nimrod is mentioned.
A bit later, some of the nations that were separated from Hebrews by God's remedy made a religious one involving apostasy from parts of what Original Revelation taught.
But before we get to Azteks and Molochists, there has to be yet another Satanistic Revolution, and that one involved hankering back
In carbon dated 2400 BC, a king of Ur sacrificed servants in the grave of his father. That's Satanic. Now, carbon dated 2400 BC would in actual fact be some time after Joseph (who came to Egypt before the actual year 1700 BC) but before Moses (who left Egypt the second time, with his people, 1510 BC). This means, the third revolution, starting trends of human sacrifice was a reaction of demons against God taking Abraham, Isaac and Jacob very visibly out of the gentile communities.
In Genesis, the Canaaneans don't seem to be child sacrificers. In some of the other books of Moses, Moses had at least heard of it, and it remained in place with such neighbours into the time of King Solomon and beyond. So, during the Israelite stay in Egypt. Like the building of a new city, politically identified with Nimrod's, though not in the same spot, by the Amorrheans or Amorrhites. Babylon.
4:46 I am on the one hand happy that you place, correctly, Abraham before the grave sacrifice in Ur, but on the other hand, you are denying post-Abrahamic genealogies, including those of Matthew 1 and Luke 3. In case you say the genealogies aren't complete, true for the one of Matthew, three generations immediately descending from Jezebels daughter Athalia are omitted - for ritual reasons. Damnatio memoriae.
You cannot extrapolate from such cases that genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are incomplete, let alone that post-Abrahamic ones are so, the one omission one could find probable is Kenan between Arphaxad and Saleh. Both LXX and Luke do have manuscripts without him, though.
And when you say Abraham lived about 3000 BC, you are in fact calling post-Abrahamic genealogies incomplete. You are saying there aren't 14 generations from Abraham to David, but more.
4:59 "much older than the Hebrews"
No. The same lines of evidence which would lead you to place Abraham in c. 3000 BC leads me to place early Pharaonic Egypt more recently than usually accepted in academia.
Historia scholastica states that the kingdoms started to form in the time of Abraham (the oldest one in Greece being Sicyon, later known as Corinth). George Syncellus - it means George the Cellmate, it is about monastic cells, though - tends to agree pretty much. Except perhaps for Egypt, which I might tend to disagree with. What archaeology digs up as "early dynastic" or immediately "pre-dynastic" is dated to c. 3200 BC at the oldest, within Abraham's lifetime, since 1935 BC (a space of 11 years of error margin, if you fix his birth to 2015 BC) is, as per archaeology of En Geddi, carbon dated to 3500 BC.
5:23 Are you referring to Giambattista Vico, 23 June 1668 – 23 January 1744?
His generalities about rise of civilisation seem so steeped in an idea which led to Engels and came from Cicero. And St. Thomas said Cicero was wrong.
Where exactly did St. Thomas refute Cicero and prefute Vico and Engels?
III Suppl, Q 41, A 1 - whether matrimony is of natural law. The relevant passages are objection 2 and its answer.
Objection 2. Further, that which is of natural law is found in all men with regard to their every state. But matrimony was not in every state of man, for as Tully says (De Inv. Rhet.), "at the beginning men were savages and then no man knew his own children, nor was he bound by any marriage tie," wherein matrimony consists. Therefore it is not natural.
...
Reply to Objection 2. The assertion of Tully may be true of some particular nation, provided we understand it as referring to the proximate beginning of that nation when it became a nation distinct from others; for that to which natural reason inclines is not realized in all things, and this statement is not universally true, since Holy Writ states that there has been matrimony from the beginning of the human race.
Hope you didn't give Vico too much credit, we'll see.
5:59 Harappa ... probably arrival of ...
- Regma, son of Kush or rather his descendants, after Babel
- speakers of Dravidian, later displaced by and mingled with Aryans.
Now, "10 000 BC" - we have no chronicle that states this. The carbon date of Harappa itself is actually from the time of the stay in Egypt:
"The Harappan Civilisation has its earliest roots in cultures such as that of Mehrgarh, approximately 6000 BC. The two greatest cities, Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, emerged circa 2600 BC along the Indus River valley in Punjab and Sindh."
The carbon date 6000 BC, like earliest parts of Niniveh, as opposed to near Qermez Dere, is from the life of Sarug, from c. real 2400~2200 BC.
6:08 No, it does not antedate the Hebrews by about 7000 years.
That kind of time would place not just Adam, but even Noah, 7000 years before Abraham, and probably involve extending even more times between Adam and Noah.
This in turn, leads to:
- genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 being no longer genealogies with possibly one person left out (and if so probably for ritual purity reasons, like the three generations after Athalia), nor even Swiss Cheese genealogies, but genealogies with more holes than cheese, i e downgraded to basically worthless as historic document;
- and so many generations with so many issues of transmitting collective memory between Genesis 3 and Abraham, that Genesis 3 would be myth rather then history or even legend.
You are attacking the privileges of the Blessed Virgin, indirectly, by stating (though not in so many words) that there was no historic memory of God's threat to the serpent, meaning we would be historically agnostic about whether God actually put enmities between Mary and the serpent, and there is no recorded event in which Genesis 3 was revealed to Moses. Tradition has that the six days were revealed to Moses on Sinai, but Genesis 3 is after the six days.
You are also undermining, by so doing, § 3 of Dei Verbum, in case you believe that to be a document of a real canonic council. At least § 3 is unimpeachable, and it is an impeachment of every old earth compromiser. Why so?
3. God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. 3:15) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7). Then, at the time He had appointed He called Abraham in order to make of him a great nation (see Gen. 12:2). Through the patriarchs, and after them through Moses and the prophets, He taught this people to acknowledge Himself the one living and true God, provident father and just judge, and to wait for the Savior promised by Him, and in this manner prepared the way for the Gospel down through the centuries.
From the start = ab initio, confer, in initio Deus creavit caelum et terram.
and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care = ceaselessly, meaning, for one thing, giving no time for early history to become a very unsafe bet or more myth, and for another, the care would also have prevented radical history loss as you are presuming and need to presume to compress over 7000 years of actual history into less than 1000 years of remembered history. Pretending otherwise is attacking Logos.
You are the one attacking Logos. Sale also lived thirty years, and begot Heber. or And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber. - that is a logos. And THE Logos could not have allowed such logoi to become meaningless, while taking care of mankind, nor could He have allowed them to do so while knowing they would be in the Bible.
6:20 - 6:30 Human culture struggling to get back to what Adam had by nature before the fall.
False. All individuals with very few exceptions are invited to such a struggle, but changes in culture are not (generally) a struggle to come up from bestial or satanic human relations, as if these were ever universal, nor are all inviduals in the position to need such a level of struggle.
Culture involved the spiritual culture, namely the memory (in non-Hebrews more and more distorted, especially around them, much less so in Amerindians) of the Original Revelation, which obviously invited individuals to take on such a struggle. But unless a culture is first perverted - over and beyond the fall - there is no struggle to restore the culture to Edenic ideals.
Once for instance Guaranís had lost agriculture and taken on nakedness and cannibalism, yes, Jesuits had to struggle to bring back their culture to Edenic ideals. That is why they called their missions with reservations Reducciones - reducir or reducere meaning "bring back"
6:49 That cultures without the supernatural grace get distorted is true.
But the caste system is not just a failure, the one in India. On the one hand it is the result of probable war.
While the Mahabharata probably involves pre-Flood memories (Krishna dying in 3102 BC = in the pre-Flood area, some descriptions are reminiscent of Atomic bombs, much more probable for pre-Flood era than for post-Flood era with technology loss and gradual recovery of technologies lost), it is very probably true that Mahabharata also incorporates memories of Aryans conquering Dravidians.
And on the other hand, the caste system incorporates the failure. A kind of slave hunt, where human respect in the absence of real worship of the real God, takes on godlike proportions. Where IV Commandment displaces I, II and III. As can be seen from Japan, where a manga recently showed an employee hosting his employer and basically pushing him to take advantage of his wife, you can see that such a displacement wreaks havoc with the subsequent commandments as well.
What is Molochic child sacrifice other than a parent claiming more power over his child than what IV allows him, if volontary? Or, if involuntary, other than a state claiming more power over parents than what IV with Romans XIII allows him?
- Daniel pk
- regarding "pre flood memories" of various cultures, there is a very interesting detail in Genesis that many people miss: Abraham/Abram is a gentile born and raised in "Ur" (a sumerian/assyrian city) he gets a "call" from God to go to Canaan (and Egypt) and so he becomes the founder of the hebrews, this is the DIRECT link betwen the old testament and the sumerian stories (the flood, Noah/called utnapishtim in the epic of Gilgamesh, the "nephilim"/gilgamesh himself is part nephilim...)
Genesis 12:1 The LORD had said to Abraham, “Leave your native country, your relatives, and your father’s family, and go to the land that I will show you...and he set out for the land of Canaan....at that time the Canaanites were in the land
Genesis 11:31 Terah took his son Abraham... and together they set out from Ur to go to Canaan....
also the main story of atlantis is contained in Genesis:
"Atlantis" by Plato (the text indicates that the source for this story is Egypt):
"when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power
"Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them/
Genesis 6,2:
"And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 3 that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. 4 And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 5 Now the "giants" were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.
6 And the Lord God, having seen that the wicked actions of men were multiplied upon the earth, and that every one in his heart was intently brooding over evil continually, 7 then God laid it to heart that he had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply. 8 And God said, I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth, even man with cattle, and reptiles with flying creatures of the sky, for I am grieved that I have made them."
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Daniel pk "Abraham/Abram is a gentile born and raised in "Ur" (a sumerian/assyrian city)"
Is the city Sumerian? Woolley's Ur?
Or is it Assyrian? Edessa, aka Urfa, now Şanlıurfa?
One more, is he a gentile, and in what sense?
If you mean he is pagan, that would perhaps be the case if he had only his father and grandfather to go by (supposing Joshua meant the older Nachor, and not his grandson, Abraham's brother, who is also father of all Israelites, through Rebecca and her nieces Rachel and Lea), but if his great-grandfather Sarug's lifespan overlapped with his own (for 50 years according to a good LXX reading of Genesis 11), he was, skipping two generations, depository of unmixed original revelation, through his grandfather. In other words, no, he is not pagan.
"and so he becomes the founder of the hebrews, this is the DIRECT link betwen the old testament and the sumerian stories (the flood, Noah/called utnapishtim in the epic of Gilgamesh, the "nephilim"/gilgamesh himself is part nephilim...)"
1) Do we have any copy of the epic from his time? Please note, if the Bible is historically accurate (and we should at the very least give it the benefit of the doubt), this means that Abraham was involved in events (Genesis 14) that involve Amorrhites evacuating from En-Geddi. However the archaeology of En-Geddi places the evacuation of temple treasures on (dateable) reed mats to carbon dated 3500 BC. This places Abraham before any copy of the Gilgamesh epic.
2) Supposing the epic already existed in some version in his day, and he lived among people knowing a version close to the one we have, what would prevent Abraham from having independently even of that, like through Sarug, a correct access to a more unadulterated version of the events.
"also the main story of atlantis is contained in Genesis:"
Egyptians refashioned the memory of the Flood in two ways. The more well known, from Egyptian papyri, remakes some memories of the Flood into a creation story. This is also the case with Norse myth, where earth and man are created after the Flood.
The more unknown, if at all Egyptian, would be what Solon and Platon had from Egyptian priests, restricting the Flood to just part of the world, not all of it.
7:11 Usury is also this kind of slave hunt and also involves giving a IV Comm. "superior" - in this case the kind of benefactor that a lender is - more power than is due to him through the IV.
Usury is against the VIII, again, such an overestimation of IV is wreaking havoc with other commandments down the line.
7:59 I have not read E. Michael Jones on Iliad.
Here is my take. The Trojan war may or may not have involved a "civil war between regions of Hittite Empire" or two Satrapies, as Walter Leaf considered, since Achaeans may or may not have been vassals of Hattusha. From the Tawagalawa letter 80 years before it, it would seem that the then Hittite Emperor acted as a mediator. 80 years after that letter, Hattusha was down, certainly from a civil war, and Achaeans and Trojans could fight it out, which they did, leading to how Troy is destroyed.
Achaeans at the outset, when arriving, however had a regionally mixed army. A man from Argos could be recruited alongside a man from Sicyon in the same boat, like Assyrians had this same way of crushing regional loyalties. This was the way Achaean kings were used to keeping the Achaean state together. And without it, it's inexplicable why Hercules didn't conquer a city of his own - the answer is, even if he could have taken one city (but he wasn't Ulysses, mentally), he would immediately have been put down by the rest of the Achaean state, at least this was a realistic fear.
In the tenth year, Achaeans were nearly failing, the army was getting demoralised. To boost the morale, it was suggested that soldiers should be shifted around and fight alongside the local compatriots, Sicyonites with Sicyonites, Argolites with Argolites and so on. We see this in Iliad B. And it stayed on after the war.
The nostoi, then, involve so much civil war in city by city (whether Mycenae or Ithaca, to name the two most famous ones) that both the renewed regionalism and the administrational chaos worked together to, probably fairly quickly, end the Achean State.
Conquered Greece conquered its conqueror - but still left Rome an Empire.
Conquered Troy also had conquered its conqueror - and ended the Achaean Empire, a low key counterpart to the Hittite one.
If this is how C. S. Lewis understood Homer, it explains perfectly the novel Prince Caspian. See Telmarines as Acheans, Calormenes more like Hittites (or Cretans.)
8:47 1200 BC is when Hattusha fell. Yes, I know it is carbon dated 1200 BC, but I think by this time we have a very near coincidence starting between real and carbon, as the carbon 14 reached present levels, meaning samples are not any longer being calculated to exaggerated dates by the discrepancy of a really lower initial and the presumed initial content in the sample.
Troy VIIa is dated at its fall to 1180, and tradition says 1179. The late Medieval version of the Christmas proclamation places the birth of Christ:
"A Moyse & egressu populi Israel de Egypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo. Ab excidio Troiae, anno millesimo centesimo septuagesimo nono. Ab unctione David in regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo."
The mention of the fall of Troy is no longer there, though the founding of Rome by Romulus is.
It is true that at least some Mycenaean palaces had been destroyed before this, which you could't tell from the Iliad or Odyssey.
Let's put it like this, there could still have been a king of Pylos receiving Telemachus, but his palace was in ruins, so he probably received in something like Beduin tents or caves or houses smaller than the palace.
As you can see from my previous discussion, the War of Troy only became possible, when the Hittite Empire was down, which was the case in 1200 BC, fall of Hattusha.
No comments:
Post a Comment