Dialogue Continued

New blog on the kid: Leo XIV (if such) Refers to Leo XIII ... and Leo XII? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Michael II Remains My Pope · An interview with Pope Michael by Christian Wagner .... Second Part of Video · Ulysses Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, Theologians? · Dialogue Continued

D I S C I P L E M I K E

@Thedisciplemike

I dont think geology is thr enemy. Its the tools or methods of aging used in geology that is. It assumes two impossible to prove concepts; a closed system and constants

PETER HELLAND

@peter52helland

@Thedisciplemike Brownson meant that Satan was using false science in geology to attack article one of the Apostle’s creed, the foundational article. It was always assumed that article one combined with the Nicene Creed which said Christ rose on the third day “according to Scripture”. What did scripture teach about how God created the world? He spoke things into existence in the space of six literal days. Vatican one was supposed to have enshrined that truth but they were attacked by communists and shut down. But during this time many churches added the six days to their creeds.

D I S C I P L E M I K E

@peter52helland right. But why 6 literal days? Whats the purpose of this? If all we believe it for is as a propositional fact, weve lost before weve begun, since the there is no theological or philosophical weight behind one story or the next. Whats MORE important is what the post V2 Church still affirms. The rich symbolic meaning

PETER HELLAND

@Thedisciplemike The issue is what did Jesus and the Apostles believe about Moses writing God created in six days? Apostles Creed must align with the Apostles. The job of the Pope is to defend and propagate the faith as understood by Jesus and the Apostles. To err here on article one is to lose the foundational doctrine and then everything will collapse.

D I S C I P L E M I K E

@peter52helland well, its hard to say what you mean by "believe". I don't think they had the same concept of a pure propositional knowledge, or episteme, of matters pertaining to belief, but rather gnosis, which was deeper, and eido, which was even deeper and built upon symbology.

PETER HELLAND

@Thedisciplemike . What did the Apostles themselves teach about 6 day creation? We can’t figure it out? The foundational doctrine? Then we are lost.

D I S C I P L E M I K E

@peter52helland we dont deny the story God has revealed to us, which is what our Lord wants us to believe, which is the Genesis account. This account alone gives us meaning and purpose, especially liturgically. But thats not the same as some meaningless propositional account.

PETER HELLAND

@Thedisciplemike Jesus said: John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Every reputable scholar I have read including liberals affirm that Jesus and the apostles understood and taught that Moses meant his account of creation to be literally true. The days were literal 24 hours. The Church apparently leaves it up to the individual to decide on this issue and follow their conscience. I believe the popes and the church have been heretically wrong on creation evolution.

D I S C I P L E M I K E

@peter52helland im not sure of what the scholars say. Nor do i care. Theres no good reason to assume they "believed" anything "literal". I dont think any ancient had any understanding of a separation betwern the literal and symbolic

PETER HELLAND

@Thedisciplemike . Those words don’t really play into this issue. What simply did Moses, Jesus and the Apostles teach about how and when God created the world? Forget literal or symbolic. What is the answer?

PETER HELLAND

Google the answer first:

AI Overview

+25
Biblical scholars generally agree that the creation narrative in Genesis 1, attributed to Moses, depicts God creating the world in six days. Jesus and the apostles, while not directly elaborating on the creation narrative, affirm the authority of Scripture, including Genesis, and thus implicitly endorse the creation account.

However I believe Jesus and the apostles did directly elaborate on the creation account.

D I S C I P L E M I K E

@peter52helland right. And so do modern Catholics. They endorse the creation account. They just dont take it literal. Im not even necessarily disagreeing with you. Im just failing to see the connection between the literal and its necessity and what we can gain from believing its literalness that we cant viewing it symbolically.

D I S C I P L E M I K E

@peter52helland right. That question pertains to the narrative. The answer in its theological value is the narrative of Genesis.

PETER HELLAND

@Thedisciplemike . Most Catholics that have lost their faith since Vatican II have testified it was because they believed science over Jesus and the apostles on the book of Genesis. This has been rigorously verified by Professor Christian Smith at Notre Dame and author Thomas McFadden.

If it becomes clear to me some church is not teaching what the Apostles taught on foundational truths I get away.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Thedisciplemike "If all we believe it for is as a propositional fact, weve lost before weve begun"

It isn't.

It is far more important that:

1) Adam lived within a reasonable time of transmission (given patriarchal lifespans) from when Abraham or Joseph or Moses could put Genesis 3 down after oral transmission;
2) and all men, including a Neanderthal carbon dated between 42 000 and 47 000 BP descend from him and therefore are more recent than 5500 BC.

And by the way, both Gap Theorists like Cardinal Wiseman and Day-Age Theorists like Father Fulcran Vigouroux believed this (except they didn't know how the Neanderthal skeleta would carbon date).

However, if creation days up to Adam and Eve are either six literal or one single moment, this poses no problem.

On the other hand, if before the creation of Adam you have millions of years, mountains we would trace to Flood sediments and Flood year eruptions (Pyrenees, Alps, Andes, Himalaya, Greater and Lesser Ararat) would instead belong to far older times and preclude the Flood from being global, and that would certainly have bad implications for theology despite Fulcran Vigouroux in his 1880 manual being sanguine on that issue (he had no occasion to repeat that in 1909). We are to believe that the pre-Flood world was so corrupt, God erased even animals (like if some T Rex or similar were artificial giantism in Velociraptors and used in kind of a Berlin wall automatic kill system to prevent human passage, it would make sense to blot out all T Rex and Noah just took Velociraptors into the Ark). This is not simply an equivalent of Calvinist "total corruption", no, "as in the days of Noah" means that human society was actively quenching human hope.

Equally, Jesus said "from the beginning of Creation" and He is God in the Flesh. You cannot use Colossians 1:23 to argue this means only "human creation" since we believe the Gospel is preached in the blessing of non-human beings and objects as well. Your pet cat can't have millions of years of ancestors before you have human ones, and salt can't be older than Adam either.

Again, on the scientific side, in order for the atmosphere to have been so low on carbon 14 when that Neanderthal died, it had to be young by after 5500 BC. Not millions of years old. And in order for the lava over Tautavel man not to be 300 000 years old, it's an asset if the lava cooled rapidly in Flood waters and therefore contained excess argon before potassium 40 started doing it's thing since solidification.

D I S C I P L E M I K E

@hglundahl all of this is meaningless and proves my point. What does it matter that propositionally there are precisely 458 leaves on my lawn?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Thedisciplemike Oh, the Flood punishment is meaningless?

Sin coming through the voluntary act of one man and transmitting to all because he is ancestor to all is meaningless?

Isn't a literal crucifixion and resurrection meaningless too, if so? Why don't you go off to progressive Christians writing off literal Christianity as Mythicists do? Why don't you join some liberal Muslims who certainly take issue with a literal resurrection and before that crucifixion?

Whether there are 458 leaves or 457 or 459 doesn't matter. Whether you have lots of leaves on your lawn or have raked them and burnt them does.

Whether there are 10 000 years or 4 500 000 000 years on earth prior to Adam doesn't matter much either, but whether Adam was created way beyond multiple lifetimes of his or within 168 hours of the very universe does.

PETER HELLAND

The main thing people picked up from Vatican II that lived through it might be: “follow your conscience”. Vatican II leaves it to the individual to follow their conscience on creation teaching.

D I S C I P L E M I K E

@peter52helland i dont see how a proposition has anything to do with conscience lol

PETER HELLAND

@Thedisciplemike . Because truth is everything: Douay-Rheims Bible
2John 4: I was exceeding glad, that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.

New King James Version
I rejoiced greatly that I have found some of your children walking in truth, as we received commandment from the Father.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Thedisciplemike Do you see what a proposition has to do with faith?

Are the 12 articles of the Apostolic creed propositional truth or can they too be edifying stories that "make a theological point" without being literally true?

D I S C I P L E M I K E

@peter52helland right, but propositional truth is not the only kind. Propositional truth is the appearance of things. Surface layer. Such truths can change.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Thedisciplemike "Propositional truth is the appearance of things."

No.

Propositional truth cannot change.

[It can change tense form between prophecy and after fulfilment, but it cannot change other ways]

D I S C I P L E M I K E

@hglundahl well the 12 articles are both literally true and they each have rich significant theological truth. No Catholic denies the 12 articles are literal

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Thedisciplemike OK, then you can't pretend that literal propositional truth is meaningless either.

[Disappeared, so I reposted]

D I S C I P L E M I K E

@hglundahl there are X leaves on my lawn. That can change tomorrow.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Thedisciplemike No, tomorrow cannot change how many leaves are on your lawn right now, tomorrow can only change the tense of it, like tomorrow you would say "yesterday there were 458 leaves on my lawn" ...

The sentence "there are" in the present tense is ambiguous as to propositional content, since it refers to different times depending on what time it is pronounced.

D I S C I P L E M I K E

@hglundahl and the meaning of how many leaves are on my lawn would change drastically depending on the subject. Theres no inherent meaning to the fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Thedisciplemike The fact that it is a fact is meaningful in relation to many different subjects it would be meaningful to.

So, yes, facthood has inherent meaning, because each fact is potentially meaningful to many things.

The non-time-span before Adam was created is meaningful in scientific ways, for Adam's descendants to be able to be carbon dated to way older than they were, and theological ways, in God not heaping cruelty even on irrational animals before he fell.

Before Adam was, their sole master was God. God is righteous. The righteous one has mercy even on his livestock, even if they can't talk. The reason animals suffer cruelty (from men, from circumstances, like disease, from each other) now is that Adam has already sinned and Creation not yet been renewed.