Michael Lofton Pretends that Anyone Finding a Contradiction in "Pope Francis" Would, on Same Standards of Logic, Find Them In the Bible Too

Michael Lofton Pretends that Anyone Finding a Contradiction in "Pope Francis" Would, on Same Standards of Logic, Find Them In the Bible Too — Continuing the Same Video

When Catholics Argue Like Atheists
Reason & Theology | 20 Jan. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcI86MwPN58

I Gen 1:11 v. Gen.2:5-6

8:48 1) Light was already there since day 1, it was just not localised in per se luminary Sun and reflective lunary Moon.
2) The herbs and trees and so on were created in functional maturity.

9:03 No, Genesis 2:5-6 is either not speaking of Day 6, but we are still in the summing up of the six days, or, if it is about day 6, it's about a specific land, probably the one where Adam was created, which is probably where he was later buried, i e Calvary.

9:55 I don't think what I did was anything like extreme.

A, first tu quoque

10:20 Before you add "don't do that with the magisterium" show how any upholder of CCC § 283 falls under that description.

Because, it's very hard, or rather even impossible, to reconcile the passages you just read up with that paragraph. Pretending the Bible gave spiritually useful imagery but modern science the actual facts is very much not reconciling them.

II Father of Henoch.

11:23 Elementart my dear Lofton!

Henoch ben Cain and Henoch ben Jared are two different people. Only a Hindoo would confuse them and call this composite "Barat" (city founder, check Henoch of Genesis 4; taken up to heaven, check Henoch of Genesis 5).

III Age of serving Levites.

12:26 That one was some degree of challenge.

Numbers 4:3
Ver. 3. Thirty. Moses speaks of those who had to carry the sacred vessels. Those of 25 years old might perform some offices; (C. viii. 24,) and even at 20, they began to serve the tabernacle, in the reign of David, (1 Par. xxiii. 24,) the fatigue being then diminished, and the splendour of religion increasing. The Sept. read 25 instead of 30, in this and all other places, and some think that the Hebrew should be so too. The time for the admission of priests to their more august functions is not specified, but was determined by themselves to be at least 20 years of age. Outram, Sacrif. i. 7. --- To stand. This was the ordinary posture of the priests in the temple. The king alone was allowed to sit. Maimonides. --- Heb. "all that enter into the host, or army, to do the work in the tabernacle of the assembly," shall be of a competent age and strength. H.

I looked it up.

According to Haydock, it's basically about different services in the tabernacle.

But generally, between two different books c. 1000 years apart, Numbers / Ezra, the idea that changes may have occurred in discipline comes to mind.

IV When did Osee become Josue?

12:50 Before I look it up, two solutions. Both possible, one true.
1) Exodus and Numbers are two different narratives, but share a common chronology, so one book is not inherently set after the other.
2) The reference in Exodus has been redacted, Hosea changed to Joshua in reference to his later being mostly known as Joshua, and the Exodus text itself lacking a description of how he came to change name.

Such redactions, I think, were licit all through the Old Testament covering both language form, as Hebrew changed over time, and terminology. For instance, in Exodus 1:11 I think the second city was called something different back then, but a scribe in the temple changed its name to Ramesses, to match a name change under the post-Exodus Ramessides.

To instead insert a description of how Hosea came to be known as Joshua into Exodus would have gone beyond that liberty of redaction, since it was arguably more than an off remark like Joshua 4:9 b.

12:57 Looked up Numbers 13:17.

These are the names of the men, whom Moses sent to view the land: and he called Osee the son of Nun, Josue.

Here we get the context of when Moses called Osee the sun of Nun, Josue.

It could be we are really dealing with sth which predates Exodus 17:10, but even if not, the non-insertion of "Osee, who was later named Josue" would be explained by this lack of context, the redaction, simply changing the name in the text, as this is no error, as this is the same person, is less intrusive.

V Did Sisera face death asleep or awake?

13:28 No, there is no direct contradiction about Sisera's state prior to dying.

The hit would have woken him up from sleep momentarily, but he would have pretty immediately fainted from the brain damage.

VI Did Samson carry out God's will?

13:59 There is also a strict prohibition against suicide. At the very least in the Decalogue.

Nevertheless, God wanted Samson (not Solomon) to do both against these prohibitions, because He could make an exception to His law.

So, Samson tried to marry a gentile woman, he also killed enemies of God in a way that also killed himself.

VII Shall one answer fools?

14:41 Obviously, Proverbs is saying there is a case for either way.

There is also, for each, a cost, if you compare the other verse.

Or we can take Haydock on 26:4

[4] "Answer not a fool": Viz., so as to imitate him but only so as to reprove his folly.

VIII Does Leviticus 16 apply forever?

[Contrasting Leviticus 16:34 with Hebrews 10:12—18]

15:55 And the solution is the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Which continues literally "all days even to the end of the world" that for which Leviticus 16:34 was a shadow.

The OT commands of the ritual type both do and do not apply to Christians, they apply in their essence but not in their letter.

Btw, don't try to push this kind of thing between Biblical history and CCC § 283, it's only commands that can be changed in application, truths cannot cease to be literally true.

The real problem is for the Jews, who do not have an altar, since AD 70. Hebrews 13:10 is very much to the point. In a way that Protestantism will not cover. If the Jewish Apologist you had to deal with was Tovia Singer, be adviced that, unlike Hollywood, where "Christianity is Catholic" (by default), for TS, "Christianity is Calvinism" (and related).

16:14 Supposing the priest you go to celebrates a valid liturgy, the last time he sacrificed the Lamb of God was whenever he last celebrated Divine Liturgy. I e, within 24 hours.

16:19 The Day of Atonement is 364 / 365 in Mass, and 1 / 365 in Liturgy of the Presanctified.

Going by Latin rite, you may have more Liturgy of the Presanctified than just Good Friday.

[16:22—16:38
"you've taken your animals to the local Levite priest and you and you've seen the High Priest go into the temple and he's laid hands on the scapegoat"]

16:38 You seem to be quoting your remarks to the Jewish Apologist ...

16:57 Nolite putare quoniam veni solvere legem, aut prophetas: non veni solvere, sed adimplere.
Facta sunt enim haec ut Scriptura impleretur : Os non comminuetis ex eo.

Matthew 5:17 (which once upon my time I misunderstood) is pretty well explained by John 19:36.

Probably, you don't have the problem of CCC any paragraph, since "Jesus, Our Pascha" seems to be a much more reliable catechism.

The title being a very clear reference to John 19:36.

IX Why did King David number Israel: God or Satan?

17:30 I had that one recently.

God being angry and Satan getting permission to seduce are both valid answers on different levels.

17:38 Satan is God's hangman.

B, second tu quoque

18:42 Feel free to show me or anyone else what exact nuance I'm missing about either CCC § 283 or Fiducia Supplicans §31.

And especially show me how these two ("magisterium" of JP-II, B-XVI, F; "magisterium" of F) are lot easier to deal with than the fairly elementary stuff you present.

X Israel or Jesus?

[Osee 11:1—Mattthew 2:15]

19:34 The OT nation of Israel (I wrote "nation of Jesus" inhabitual but correct) was back in Hosea's days as close as you got to Jesus' mystical body.

It refers to both.

20:04 I begin to get a very definite impression that your "Jewish Apologist" refers to Tovia Singer.

XI Who killed Goliath?

20:25 Goliath would clearly be possible to be more than one person, named so, so, Adeodatus son of Forrest and David son of Jesse killed one each.

Hypothesis: Goliath and Goliath were twins.

The father knew he would be incapable of telling them apart, so he gave both the same name.

C, third tu quoque:

22:02 I don't think Goliath and Goliath being twins is very subtle.

I think any reader of Hergé would agree this is a very easy harmonisation. Dupond and Dupont (Thomson and Thompson in English).

I think there is even Biblical near proof of this one:

And there was a third battle in Gob against the Philistines, in which Adeodatus the son of the Forrest an embroiderer of Bethlehem slew Goliath the Gethite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
[2 Kings (2 Samuel) 21:19]

Another battle also was fought against the Philistines, in which Adeodatus the son of Saltus a Bethlehemite slew the brother of Goliath the Gethite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
[1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 20:5]

One and the same man (or giant) is both Goliath and "the brother of" ...

22:11 Again, if you have similarily easy explanations about CCC § 283 or FS § 31, go ahead, give them, instead of making a lesson about how that is so much easier to explain than the Bible passages ... because if the harmonisations are really all that much easier, it would be easy for you to give them.

XII Stalls of King Solomon

23:16 III Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of chariot horses, and twelve thousand for the saddle.
II Paralipomenon 9:25 And Solomon had forty thousand horses in the stables, and twelve thousand chariots, and horsemen, and he placed them in the cities of the chariots, and where the king was in Jerusalem.

KJ I Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
KJ II Chron 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

I'm pretty sure LXX has the harmonised version, like in the Vulgate / Douay Rheims.

I'm pretty sure Hebrew interlinear has the non-harmonised version, like in the King James.

I looked it up, and in both the 12000 are parashim.

Now, this is a fair little challenge (I think this is the second time I said so). Among other things because, if King David and his son King Solomon had riders, sitting in the saddle, the archaeology usually credits Assyrians with inventing this later.

On the other hand, it seems that Biblical archaeologists who support the Bible have a view of David / Solomon findings that Finkelstein disagrees with, dating them 9th instead of 10th C BC by carbon.

This could mean, the Assyrian traces of very early cavalry can be explained as actually not from a century after David and Solomon, but from the very same century.

On the other hand, if there was no cavalry per se in the time of Kings David and Solomon, the 12000 refer to chariot drivers and each disposed of 3 horses, but three of them of 10, a horse in reserve.

Either way, the stalls could have been rebuilt, the stalls for one horse each replaced by stalls for 10 horses each.

A bit to chew in, but definitely nothing resembling any definite contradiction.

I think even Kent Hovind got this one right, the last point at least, so, on this I profit from his learning. Do you feel any shame in presenting as a hard conundrum sth that even a Baptist denier of Infant Baptism and of Holy Mass can get an easy answer to?

D, fourth tu quoque

23:59 How about your introducing your explanation for for instance FS § 31 and CCC § 283, instead of complaining that a Biblical inerrantist would be inconsistent in rejecting explanation qua such in that case?

Because, you have not shown that is what we are doing, so far.

XIII Father of Samuel

24:46 I find it highly probable that the father of Samuel was a Levite from within the territory of Ephraim.

See Joshua 14.

I — XIII contradictions and A — D tu quoques in 24:46 or 25 minutes, and there is more upcoming.