Youth and Ash Wednesday, and a Look at J.P. Holding

Temporal Mission 1, Part 1: Reversing the Juvenilization
tektontv, 29 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjYdaAjuSSc

I

Oh, you are going to argue against the early Christians?

Sts Barbara, Lucy, Agnes and Agatha were martyred at what exact age?

Thomas E. Bergler wouldn't have approved of it ... perhaps that was the rationale of St. Lucy's persecutor Paschasius - do you think he was a Jew? A lapsed Catholic? A bad Catholic?

Because Paschasius includes a reference to Pascha, we can rule out he was simply a Roman Pagan since immemorial times in his ancestry.

II

dialogue

Ben Thomason

I have a question about the Census described in Matthew. I've just been told that we don't actually have any records of the Romans taking a census that required everyone to return to their ancestral homelands, that this is thought to have just been Luke trying to connect Jesus to King David, and that such an undertaking would be a logistical nightmare. "You would have to shut down the entire economy for what? A month probably? Who would farm? How would people be fed? Who would guard the towns? Did everyone bring their pets with them? Did people get paid for this trip or did they just eat the cost? What about the aged, the infirm, and the insane?"

What say you?

tektontv

That's a dumb quote. The "economy" would not have been affected at all; many of those who worked were journeymen able to take their trade with them, and they'd find plenty of work in the Jerusalem area. That said, the census was probably coordinated with a Jewish festival, which meant everyone was already in town. Next this dumbass will ask what they did with their pets and how farms managed when everyone went to festivals.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I've just been told that we don't actually have any records of the Romans taking a census that required everyone to return to their ancestral homelands,"

I argue St. Joseph was making a pun on "each in his city" .... and by so doing managing to avoid for some time Roman tax collectors.

In the reign of Herod, Judaea and Bethlehem had no Roman tax collectors. Precisely as Puerto Rico doesn't have tax collectors of the IRS (I think it's called).

The operative thing is, a Galilaean was supposed to do the census in Galilaea, not in Egypt, an Egyptian in Egypt, not in Syria etc ... and for other census types than taxes, a man of Pompeii (still standing) was not allowed to do it in Herculaneum (also still standing).

The Roman Empire (including the late Republic) was as federal as the US. Or as the HRE (where Liechtenstein was state n. 343, easy to recall as it's the cube of seven). "City" in the context means a subdivision of "Imperium Romanum" ... except St. Joseph's city was outside it (and he took the wording in the meaning they would have in Jewish culture).

People living far away from their "city" would usually have been Roman citizens who didn't at this time have to pay taxes to Rome anyway, but were instead likely to provide legionaries by volunteering .... so, no real problem for the economy.

I was hoping to have more videos to comment on prior to Ash Wednesday, if the "Temporal Mission" was going to be about "Reversing the Juvenilization" ... have so far not yet seen any more, though./HGL

Leviticus 25:23

The Late Great Land Promise Debate, Part 1B: For Sale By Not Owner
10th June 2021 | tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CAiJzDBrhM

Reminds me of Zionism.

I debated with a Swedish Jew on a forum (I'm a Swede myself) about Zionism having no right to replace the Palestinians.

I mentioned villages had been owned by Palestinians for centuries and they were suddenly replaced by Zionist evictors.
He countered that the Palestinians were in fact tenants, and the Zionists had (in those cases, I think he meant) bought the land from real estate owners in Beyruth or Cairo.
I answered that the right of a community to stay at where they have their land is a priority over the rights of real estate owners.

Now, this seems to vindicate Palestinians on the count of Leviticus 25:23. Thank you for the video!

.... on Demographics of tektontv (Life expenctancy, marital age, retirement)

Screwy Moments in Scriptural Interpretation 14: Is Retirement Biblical?
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6MkCxjUW0A

"1) Most people died before they reached age 35."

Where do you get that stats from? Not as in "what scholar", but what is his raw material for that conclusion?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : "in a time when most people died at an average age of 35"
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/01/in-time-when-most-people-died-at.html

Since that article, I have been backing it up as to ages in which we know sufficient numbers of people to make stats. I linked to the other English articles in top below title of post. I made a French series too:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Les âges des ancêtres DU Robespierre - et d'autres!
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/01/les-ages-des-ancetre-du-robespierre-et.html

+ the sequence.

B U T those Biblical times, where exactly do you get that many stats? Fewer people remain documented to our day, at least as far as I know. This goes for both times of United Kingdom, Judah and Israel, Exile and thereon, and for Gospel times.

So, where is the raw material for that conclusion?

"2) If you got to be as old as 65, you were normally unable to work for other reasons."

Dito.

News Bulletin on Numbers and Deuteronomy
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMAFVnfB1PA

4:29 12 was the minimum age for marriage, based on:

while Talmud allows marriage to girls under 12 down to 3 (or 3.5?) marriages contracted below 12 can be revoked by the wife, however the Yemenite rabbis disapprove of that.

(reference to Jewish Encyclopedia article may be added later, when I have walked away, looked it up and come back to computer, OK!)

I had said : "while Talmud allows marriage to girls under 12 down to 3 (or 3.5?) marriages contracted below 12 can be revoked by the wife, however the Yemenite rabbis disapprove of that."

Either the editions have been changed or I am mixing up two diverse works of reference. I can also have been of sloppy memory about the implications of a me'un.

A marriage from 12 and a day to 12 and a half can be contracted by the father or inhibited by the father, unless the na'arah becomes orphan (or is so already) or she becomes fully major, bogereth.

A marriage up to 12, while she is ketannah, can only be contracted by the father, but can be repudiated by her as long as she is not older than 12.

But from 12 and a day on, if she has not pronounced a me'un, this is considered as a form of consent as an adult.

Ref. article Child Marriages, Macmillan Encyclopedia Judaica, 1971 ed. vol. 5 and col. 424, 425. Too long to actually copy the full text here by hand, having no copy paste!

Back to context:

THIS is fairly easy to reconstruct as : 12 is a remaining OT limit, valid since the times of King David if not before, while "down to the age of 3" is a later and in fact Babylonic addition.

Now, there is a case for fathers marrying girls off as soon as they can be married - and the Pauline verse about "better not to marry his daughter" is actually not against this, but about parents respecting a choice of virginity.

But whether this case meant the custom of marrying daughters off at 12 was prevalent as early as in times of Moses or not is another question.

The case has so much to do with generally being very aware of issues concerning chastity, which can have come by as a result either of living among Canaaneans or as a result of living in Babylon in exile.

So in Moses' time it is possible some girls were not married until 17 or even 19 while they technically could have married as soon as 12.

Talmudic traditions on this subject are subject to caution, if that is where yours scholarship has them from.

5:09 So, if Pagans did it a certain way ... you have VERY extensive sources of when Pagan girls in the time of Moses married?

I think not!

First, you may be thinking of the wrong Pharao, second, I doubt you have good statistics even from the times of the one you are thinking of.

5:21 Age 12 was and is a normal minimal age for a girl marrying. Based on Menarche. Look up the french article, and you will find why 12 / 13 is a fair age:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9narche

Says nothing about how long some girls can wait past that.

5:29 While Pagans are on the subject ... they sometimes differ.

Babylonians were flat earth, Chanaaneans / Phoenicians round earth - what were the Hebrews who lived between them?

6:51 "because the typical human lifespan of the day was as low as 25"

(If it was 35, sorry, watching this without headphones).

What exact old pair of shoes did you pull that (either of the two) figure out of?

[6 days after older comment which has not been answered either!]

6:59 Sure "adolescence" as "developmental period" is either modern or Pagan (associated mainly with male population having a longer and in Athens even compulsory eductaion).

Puberty and you could marry. But how soon you married after that would depend.

7:08 It used to be even 12 in some states.

In 1995 I read of a girl who quit school by marrying at 12 instead of continuing to 16. Clinton was menacing to stop that.

7:16 The maturity for marriage is organic, not "psychological".

A development of brain which stops at 12. And puberty.

The mean age for puberty is just after this development of the brain. Directly just after for girls, 2 years delay for boys (adding up to 14).

The NEXT change in the brain is after puberty is well past - and too late to be relevant for marriage (it happens 18-25 and is actually a shrinking, a weeding out of neuronic pathways not necessary during puberty).

11:22 Actual bottom line : a Pagan girl from Midianites would probably have not chosen her husband (Midianites were slave traders, see Genesis, which makes me suspect they treated daughters as property too - care to guess where I get the comparison from?) so a Midianite girl of 12 would probably not try any resistance but rather go "oh, you mean it's actually marriage? I can chose my husband among the other slaves? your son actually has to ask me, even if I am your captive?"

11:45 All marriages were arranged in that area?

Heavy extrapolation from some that were.

I'd like to know what scholar made that blooper.

10:35 I think your problem with that fundy atheist is partly that you are too bashful about what he is saying.

A Hebrew wedding involved a ritual defloration, see Genesis account of how Jacob was tricked into deflowering Lia instead of Rachel. So, if marital age was a minimum 12, sexual activity was a minimum 12 as well.

Since puberty usually happens around this age (and this independently of lowered puberty) and since a certain brain development ends here, I don't see much point about being bashful about it.

OK, girls' hips are less extended at 12 than at 17 (one reason for which certain girls would wait even if they could marry at 12 legally), but on the other hand, some first marriages occur at 30 and a first childbirth at 30 is due to non-birth-extended plus more rigid hips even riskier per se at 30 than at 13.

While ma has told me not to quote her, I still do. She was a med student while telling me, and I am not pretending this is medical advice. It is however an argument based on medical facts.

... on Sufficiency of Scripture and Bible Canon (feat. our very special guest star : J. P. Holding)

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Sufficiency of Scripture and Bible Canon (feat. our very special guest star : J. P. Holding) · Great Bishop of Geneva! : Answering a Page about "Apocrypha"

For some who are not familiar with the genre I am using here (and no, it is not the dialogue which is default genre on this blog), you first listen to the video. You then read the text of my comments. The hours after I publish this, the text will probably still be top of comments, but when there are 1000 plus comments, you will need to go here to read them. In each comment I give time signature, often an indication of what J. P. Holding was saying at that point, and my response to it. So, the genre is not "dialogue", but detailed comment including in some places refutation.

TL;DR of below : J. P. Holding misconstrues what "sufficiency of Scripture" was about, and also partially refutes both this heresy and gives me opportunity to refute the heresy he is promoting on so called "Apocrypha" or "Deuterocanonic Books".

Video

Punch Bowling #1: The Sufficiency of Scripture
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvn8lKwa3ks

1:52

The wonderful summersaults of Reformation ideology!

If Luther as a disciple of fairly recent Erasmus who had been alerted by also fairly recent Valla* (all of the three Catholic priests before writing, and the two non-Luther remained so!) that details about less recent and closer to Gospel times Roman Antiquities* were being gotten wrong makes a contextualising comment from purely human scholarship, that is fine with "sufficiency of Scripture".

B u t if Erasmus responds (like he did in De Libero Arbitrio, I think) about the need of reading much less recent and much closer to the Gospel times Church Fathers, like St Jerome, oh, no, that is "human traditions"!

* Valla specialised in showing what the Roman currency of money really was like. De Asse et Partibus eius. I am not making this up! Really relevant for a full understanding of any Gospel text involving Shekels, I suppose, but perhaps a bit superfluous to understanding the theological part of it.

1:58

Catholics rely on specific extra-Biblical, but Biblically endorsed information sources, like St Jerome. Lutherans rely on specific extra-Biblical, Biblically not endorsed information sources, like Valla. And for that matter Erasmus, when it came to pronouncing Koiné as Attic was pronounced by Plato, except where spelling differs.

2:14

"The Original Writings were Greek."

OK, I am into the LXX too, as a good substitute for the lost Hebrew "Vorlage" of it, but LXX is after all a translation ...

Irrelevant to the point? Well, so could Valla's De Asse be irrelevant to any point about parables or events involving money in NT. While the theological analysis by Sts Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom could be very relevant - the precise thing Luther jettisoned.

If you actually said "Greek and Hebrew", I am watching this in sound off with subtitles. A neat lesson about computers not at all getting language.

2:39

But the "sufficiency of Scripture" was NOT in response to the texts some Catholics term Deuterocanonical and Protestants usually term Apocrypha (a term also covering heretical and spurious wrtitings like infamous Gospel of Thomas, not meaning the Childhood Gospel of St Thomas, but the other one). We had TWO distinct disputes. Just on Scripture.

Sufficiency of Scripture, aka Sola Scriptura, condemned by Trent responding Scripture must be interpreted according to the Church, Fathers as history of the Church being, whenever agreeing, nearly on par with Scripture, Magisterium of the present as rulers of the Church being the present mouthpiece of both.

Judaising OT canon, motivated by St Paul saying they back then received Moses and Prophets from the Jews (who up to very recently - indeed childhood of St Paul himself - had been the true Church of God) and pushed into meaning Reformers ought to take the OT canon from Masoretic version, from Jews having been not the true Church for 1400 and some years. Except the Reformers even then didn't quite do that. This was condemned by Trent responding by reaffirming canonicity of ALL books mentioned by the council of Carthage.

Yep, the very same ancient Church Council which first in so many words gave you 27 books of NT, also in so many words included I and II Maccabees in OT! And Trent stood by it.

Note, I am not sure whether Council of Carthage also said all other books are non-canon, but Trent did not. At least not explicitly.

Depends on exact status of dioceses like Iasi admitting III and IV Maccabees or Susdal/Moscow admitting "I Esra" (in another sense than we use I Esra as your Esra, Russians call that II Esra. Our II Esra and their III Esra is your Nehemia). Or Aksum admitting book of Henoch. Because Trent explicitly stated "as received by the Church".

Argue Orthodox and Monophysites are quite outside the Church and there was no proof these books were admitted by the dioceses before they became Schismatic or Heretic, well, that proves 73 books ("72 books, or 73 if Baruch be counted separately from Jeremiah") are all [there is of the] canon.

Argue either they somehow remained in the Church or the books were at least received by them before the separation from Church, you open up at least some possibility for Catholic Church to confirm these books.

But the question between sufficiency of Scripture vs sufficiency of Scripture, Fathers and Magisterium is separate from the other question about which books belong to the canon.

2:47

That "specific set" of authoritative texts:

• did not exist on the Christian side, since all Christians previous to Reformation admitted Deuterocanonical texts (unless you count as Christians Albigensians who threw out most of both OT and NT, like Marcion!)
• did not exist on the Jewish side either, since the Jews obviously did not admit any of the 27 NT books
• but was a Judaeo-Christian hybrid canon.

3:10

"The Psalms are poetry, not didactic instruction"

While the specific layout of any psalm follows a poetic plan which might be somewhat confusing to certain didactic purposes, the genres do NOT exclude each other.

In other words, the statements in the psalms shall all be taken as true, and at least most of the time even literally true.

I'll give you an example of didactic literature formulated as singable poetry:

A false witness shall not go unpunished:

New blog on the kid : A false witness shall not go un punished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape ...
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-false-witness-shall-not-go-un.html

3:18

"There is nothing in the text which says Scripture has a magical power to educate or to find responses to anything and everything ..."

well, neither in the Psalm, nor in the Classical Protestant "proof text" for sufficiency : "all Scripture is useful" etc. Thank you very much for shooting Reformation in the foot once again!

3:35

None of those passages was written after the Bible was finalised!

No shit, Sherlock! I think St Robert Bellarmine and a few more would have said that to Protestant apologists (including, in the case of St Robert, [to] James VI & I of Scotland and England).

4:11

From text given in video, not [from] subtitles.

"1) The doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture wasn't formulated to exclude contextual helps."

Not some of them, not those of the Valla and Erasmus type. To exclude some others, yes, very definitely yes.

"2) The Holy Spirit isn't a magic fact-dispensing-on-request gunball machine, and is never protrayed as such."

Well, there is this text about [Matthew 10:19] : But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. Just note, this does not exclude reading apologetics way before that hour, way before being delivered up. But yes, in some context the Holy Ghost will indeed dispense answers when needed. And is here portrayed as going to do so.

With jpholding/tektontv on Inerrancy

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : With jpholding/tektontv on Inerrancy · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I Failed J P Holding's Test - But Let's Look at his Criteria · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Notification to Mike Licona (not answered)

Thread:

Sts Jerome and Ambrose to the rescue of Geisler?

02-02-2017, 03:26 PM #1

02-02-2017, 03:53 PM #2

_________________________

Yesterday, 01:58 PM #3

Yesterday, 02:01 PM #4

Yesterday, 02:03 PM #5

Yesterday, 02:08 PM #6

Yesterday, 02:17 PM #7

hansgeorg

Sts Jerome and Ambrose to the rescue of Geisler?

Geisler's Shootin' Gallery
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxoqKVaFM2k

At 3:34 we see a picture with St Jerome saying "It's symbolic!" [text] and St Ambrose saying "Yep, it sure is!" [text].

So far I see no problem, since all Church Father were looking for symbols or perhaps rather speaking up on already known symbols all over the Bible.

In OT the symbols can be "allegoric", like Isaac carrying the firewood for his sacrifice allegorises Christ carrying the Cross.

In NT the symbols can be "anagogic", like this or that part of Christ's life telling us sth about the future glory.

In OT and NT the symbols may be moral, telling us how we should or should not behave.

And obviously, Christ's miracles are full of symbols for the sacraments he left to the Church.

BUT the wabbit had been saying ..."the Church Father Jerome says, it is not historical, but symbolic".

Where, exactly where (and not just a wiki, please!) does St Jerome actually say it is NOT historical?

Sites like CCEL (?) or Newadvent are trusted for patristic quotes with this guy!

And of course, if you know Latin, take a look here at how Church Fathers explained the Bethsaida miracle of the blind who was healed:

www.corpusthomisticum.org/cmc01.html#85666

I see St Jerome last, giving several hints about symbolism of the matter (notably such as give hints about why priests use spittle when administering baptism, I think right before the actual triple immersion (or triple pouring on head, a non-standard version which is used so often it is standard, but theologically it's an optional replacement for immersion).

But for my part I saw no hint whatsoever of St Jerome saying a single word to the effect "it did not happen".

Of course, perhaps the Library Science might have included Latin and your Latin could be better than mine ...

___________________________________

Three days and JP is not backing up what should have been his fact research?

3:43 saw it as a fitting symbol of washing away of sins in baptism...

Yes, but STILL no direct indication St Ambrose did not see it as historic too.

4:07 If Geisler really believed your stuff about Sts Jerome and Ambrose not taking the healing of the blind as historical, that would be gullible.

BUT the video shows your Geisler ... I'd like to see that from Geisler's own site.

I think Nick Peters was collaborating on the video, how about Apologiaphoenix stepping in, it seems jpholding is somewhat occupied ... or a bit unsure of his Latin, and less sure on where to find the relevant St Jerome passage in Newadvent or CCEL (or whatever the abbreviation might be ...)?

And since I just started hearing about Mark Licona* saying the rising saints were not literal "but apocalyptic", feel free to document that view of Matthew 27 from either St Thomas:

http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/cml26.html

in his own commentary on St Matthew, or the Church Fathers he cites in the Catena Aurea:

http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/cmt26.html

(not same link, one letter different in urls).

* Mike, my bad.

[Last edited by hansgeorg; Yesterday at 02:28 PM.]

Yesterday, 02:23 PM #8

Punkish

It's Mike, not Mark, Licona.

Yesterday, 06:20 PM #9

jpholding

Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

Three days and JP is not backing up what should have been his fact research?

I'm giving a nut the attention he deserves, which is NONE.

Today, 02:38 PM #10

Today, 03:03 PM #11

Today, 03:22 PM #12

hansgeorg

Quote Originally Posted by jpholding View Post

I'm giving a nut the attention he deserves, which is NONE.

Three things:

• 1) You might want to read all of my post which I quote this from:
  
  

  Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

  
  
  Jesus also said that if you call your brother a fool, you are in danger of hellfire, .

  
  
  
• 2) If you actually did answer, you failed to do so. Grammatical mistake at least "I was" et "and will resume that after this clarification". You were not at the moment of writing so.
  
  
• 3) A cheap copout for avoiding a debate, sth which you seem to consider Greider ridiculous for doing ....
  
  In other words, I'll have to give a little move on St Jerome's Latin, I presume ...

Aquinas in Catena Aurea for the passage (labelled chapter 8, lectio 3) cites St Jerome three times.

Hieronymus 1.

Et eduxit eum extra vicum, idest vicinitatem malorum.

And he brought him outside the village, that is outside vicinity of evil men.

Expuit autem in oculos eius, ut videat voluntatem domini per flatum spiritus sancti.

And he spit into his eyes, so he should see the will of the Lord by the blowing of the Holy Spirit.

[Here he certainly is saying the story is symbolic, but if he added it was not what happened, I have so far missed it.]

Impositis autem manibus interrogat eum si videret: quia per opera domini videtur maiestas eius.

And having imposed hands, he asks him if he sees : because by the works of the Lord His majesty is seen.

Hieronymus 2.

Vel videt homines velut arbores, quia omnes homines existimat se superiores.

And he sees men like trees, because he considers all men superior to himself.

Iterum autem manus posuit super oculos eius, ut videret clare omnia;

And again He poses the hands on his eyes, so he should clearly see all;

idest, per opera visibilia intelligeret et quae oculus non vidit,

that is, by visible works should understand also what eye hath not seen,

et clarum animae suae statum post rubiginem peccati, mundi cordis oculo contueretur.

and the clear status/state of his soul after the [rubigo, looking up ... rust] after the rust of sun, behold with the eye of a clean heart.

Misit eum in domum suam, idest in cor suum, ut videret in se quod ante non vidit.

And he sent him into his house, that is into his heart, so that he should see in himself what before he had not seen.

Non enim putat homo desperans de salute omnino posse quod illuminatus facile potest perficere.

For a man despairing of salvation does not consider he can do at all which illumined he easily can bring about.

[Again, a very close symbolic reading of the story, still not a single hint it never happened.]

Hieronymus 3.

Dicit autem ei et si in vicum introieris, nemini dixeris;

And He told him "and if you go back to the village, don't tell anyone"

idest, vicinis caecitatem tuam semper enarra, non virtutem.

that is, tell your village neighbours ever of thy blindness, not the miracle.

Here we see sth which does not make perfect sense if St Jerome had been considering the story as it is historic : or perhaps it does, Christ could have been telling the man he was risking sth if he went back to Bethsaida and witnessed on having been cured.

jpholding, Apologiaphoenix, anything to add?

Where exactly do YOU find St Jerome said "this is not historic"?

jpholding, Nick Peters / Apologiaphoenix, time for you to show you learned something too.

Here is the Latin on St Thomas own comment and on his collection of Patristic comments (previously linked to) where it is discussed of the resurrection of many saints and prophets, an event which Mike (?) Licona wanted to label as "apocalyptic, not historic":

Lectionis 2 excerptum, capitis 27

Supra positum est miraculum, quod factum est circa sacra templi; hic ponit miraculum quod factum est circa elementa. Et ista convenientia inveniuntur primo quantum ad virtutem passionis; secundo quantum ad effectum salutis; tertio quantum ad iudiciariam potestatem, quam Christus patiendo meruit. Convenit quod terra mota est etc., quia non potest praesentiam tantae maiestatis sine tremore sustinere; unde in Ps. CIII, 32: qui respicit terram et facit eam tremere. Et petrae scissae sunt, per quod signatum est quod nulla virtus potest ei resistere; III Reg. XIX, 11: transit dominus subvertens montes, et conterens petras. Et monumenta aperta sunt. Monumenta sunt claustra corporum mortuorum. Unde signatur quod vincula mortis disrumpit; Os. XIII, 14: ero mors tua, o mors, morsus tuus ero, Inferne. Item I Cor. XV, 54: absorpta est mors in victoria. Item convenit quantum ad effectum. Commovetur terra dum quidquid terrenum est abiicitur. Ps. LIX, 4: commovisti terram, et conturbasti eam, sana contritiones eius, quia commota est. Item petrae scinduntur, quando duritia cordium ad compassionem movetur; Ier. c. XXIII, 29: verba mea, scilicet passionis, quasi ignis, et quasi malleus conterens petras. Item quod monumenta aperta sunt, signat quod mortui in peccatis debent resurgere; Eph. c. V, 14: surge qui dormis, et exurge ex mortuis. Item convenit venienti ad iudicium, quia ipso veniente, terra movebitur; Agg. II, 7: adhuc unum modicum est, et ego movebo caelum et terram. Item petrae scinduntur, quia omnis altitudo virorum deprimetur. Item monumenta aperientur, quia mortui venient ad iudicium; Io. V, 28: venit hora in qua omnes, qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem filii Dei. Consequenter tangitur miraculum in hominibus. Et primo tangit resurrectionem; secundo manifestationem. Dicit ergo et multa corpora sanctorum qui dormierant surrexerunt. De illis solet esse quaestio, utrum resurrexerint iterum morituri, vel non morituri. Constat aliquos resurrexisse, ut post morerentur, ut Lazarus. Sed de istis potest dici quod surrexerunt non iterum morituri, quia surrexerunt ad manifestationem resurrectionis Christi. Certum autem est quod Christus resurgens ex mortuis, iam non moritur. Item si surrexissent, non esset eis beneficium exhibitum, sed potius detrimentum; ideo surrexerunt tamquam intraturi cum Christo in caelum. Et exeuntes de monumentis post resurrectionem eius, venerunt in sanctam civitatem. Et notandum quod licet istud dictum sit in morte Christi, tamen intelligendum est per anticipationem esse dictum, quia post resurrectionem actum est; quia Christus primogenitus mortuorum, Apoc. I, 5. Et venerunt in sanctam civitatem, non quod modo esset sancta, sed quia ante fuerat; Is. c. I, 21: quomodo facta est meretrix civitas fidelis, plena iudicii? Vel dicitur sancta, quia sancta ibi tractabantur. Vel, secundum Hieronymum in sanctam civitatem, scilicet caelestem, quia cum Christo venerunt in gloriam. Et apparuerunt multis. Sicut enim Christus potestatem habet se manifestandi quibus vult, sic intelligendum de corporibus glorificatis.

Lectionis 10 excerptum, capitis 27.

Hilarius in Matth.

Movetur terra, quia capax huius mortui esse non poterat; petrae scissae sunt, omnia enim valida et fortia penetrans Dei verbum, et potestas aeternae virtutis irruperat; et monumenta aperta sunt: erant enim mortis claustra reserata. Sequitur et multa corpora sanctorum qui dormierant surrexerunt: illuminans enim mortis tenebras, et Infernorum obscura collustrans, mortis spolia detrahebat.

Chrysostomus in Matth.

Ipso quidem in cruce manente eum irridentes dicebant alios salvos fecit; seipsum non potest salvum facere. Sed quod in se facere noluit, in servorum corporibus, cum multa superabundantia demonstravit. Si enim quatriduanum Lazarum exurgere magnum fuit, multo magis eos repente qui olim dormierant, apparere viventes; quod futurae resurrectionis erat indicium. Ut autem non putaretur esse phantasma quod factum est, Evangelista subiungit et exeuntes de monumentis post resurrectionem eius, venerunt in sanctam civitatem, et apparuerunt multis.

Hieronymus.

Quomodo autem Lazarus mortuus resurrexit, sic et multa corpora sanctorum resurrexerunt, ut dominum ostenderent resurgentem; et tamen cum monumenta aperta sunt, non ante resurrexerunt quam resurgeret dominus, ut esset primogenitus resurrectionis ex mortuis. Sanctam autem civitatem in qua visi sunt resurgentes, aut Ierusalem caelestem intelligamus, aut hanc terrenam, quae ante sancta fuerat: sancta enim appellabatur civitas Ierusalem propter templum et sancta sanctorum, et ob distinctionem aliarum urbium, in quibus idola colebantur. Quando vero dicitur apparuerunt multis, ostenditur non generalis fuisse resurrectio quae omnibus appareret, sed specialis ad plurimos, ut hi viderent qui cernere merebantur.

Remigius.

Quaeret autem aliquis quid de illis factum sit qui resurgente domino surrexerunt. Credendum quippe est quoniam ideo surrexerunt ut testes essent dominicae resurrectionis. Quidam autem dixerunt, quod iterum mortui sunt, et in cinerem conversi, sicut et Lazarus, et ceteri quos dominus resuscitavit. Sed istorum dictis nullo modo est fides accommodanda: quoniam maius illis esset tormentum qui surrexerunt, si iterum mortui essent, quam si non resurgerent. Incunctanter ergo credere debemus quia qui resurgente domino a mortuis resurrexerunt, ascendente eo ad caelos, et ipsi pariter ascenderunt.

Origenes in Matth.

Semper autem haec eadem magna quotidie fiunt: velum enim templi ad relevandum quae intus habentur scinditur sanctis. Terra etiam movetur, idest omnis caro, novo verbo et novis rebus secundum novum testamentum. Petrae autem scinduntur, quae mysterium fuerunt prophetarum, ut in profundis eorum posita spiritualia mysteria videamus. Monumenta autem dicuntur corpora peccatricum animarum, idest mortuarum Deo; cum autem per gratiam Dei animae huiusmodi fuerint suscitatae, corpora eorum, quae prius fuerunt monumenta, fiunt corpora sanctorum, et videntur a seipsis exire, et sequuntur eum qui resurrexit, et in novitate vitae ambulant cum eo: et qui digni sunt habere conversationem in caelis, ingrediuntur in sanctam civitatem per singula tempora, et apparent multis videntibus opera bona ipsorum. Sequitur centurio autem, et qui cum eo erant custodientes Iesum, viso terraemotu et his quae fiebant, timuerunt valde, dicentes: vere filius Dei erat iste.

Returning next day:

Yesterday, 07:34 PM #13

jpholding

Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

Three things:

1) You might want to read all of my post which I quote this from:

I'd rather read The Joker's autobiography. Much saner. Go somewhere and speak in tongues, Hans.

Yesterday, 08:24 PM #14

TheWall

Wait a second. The words used for fool there in the original language translates to unbeliever. The passage refers to the idea of saying that another who may be a rather in faith should not be called an unbeliever. Also important is that the passage says danger of hell fire meaning reparations can be made if the one slandered does believe.

Yesterday, 08:38 PM #15

Cerebrum123

Quote Originally Posted by TheWall View Post

Wait a second. The words used for fool there in the original language translates to unbeliever. The passage refers to the idea of saying that another who may be a rather in faith should not be called an unbeliever. Also important is that the passage says danger of hell fire meaning reparations can be made if the one slandered does believe.

I don't think it translates to unbeliever, but references a passage in Proverbs which speaks about unbelievers.

Today, 12:32 AM #16

thewriteranon

Quote Originally Posted by Count Olaf

Can you name me a language that was spoken by ancient Romans and is still spoken by very irritating people today?

In loca parentheses

Poco de la rentis

Today, 11:24 AM #17

Today, 11:28 AM #18

Today, 11:29 AM #19

Today, 11:31 AM #20

hansgeorg

Quote Originally Posted by jpholding View Post

I'd rather read The Joker's autobiography. Much saner. Go somewhere and speak in tongues, Hans.

I don't have that gift.

My Latin is study knowledge and my Gaelic is so non-extant that after a comparison of Matthew 28:16-20 I am about like saying "an t‑aon deisceabal déag" would be equal to "undecim discipuli" or "the eleven disciples". If I had the gift of tongues, I would be reading the Gaelic bible as a running water, as it is this reminds me that Gaelic has a funny way of expressing eleven with a noun : "the one disciple [and] ten", my studies in Gaelic so far having failed to achieve anything close to fluency.

Quote Originally Posted by TheWall View Post

The words used for fool there in the original language translates to unbeliever.

Matthew in original Aramaic - not extant for us to discuss.

Matthew in relatively original Greek ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ· μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός.

As far as I know, moros means fool, not unbeliever.

Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

I don't think it translates to unbeliever, but references a passage in Proverbs which speaks about unbelievers.

Which passage?

Quote Originally Posted by thewriteranon View Post

In loca parentheses

Poco de la rentis

What language is that? Or what dialect of Latin is that? Not pure Classical, not pure Hispanic ... what does rentis mean?

And why was the message by "count olaf" earlier in the thread deleted?

As far as I recall

thereupon thewriteranon answered "It. Is. A. Joke." and I asked if that guy was related to Lemony Snicket. Someone else had mentioned the reference was to "the fool hath said in his heart" in psalms. I don't recall if I answered, but I can answer here : saying "in one's heart" that "there is no god" is not absolutely the same thing as intellectual atheism, though that is included as one instance : it is living one's life as if there were no God, any case, even those who intellectually believe He does exist.

Ah, let's not rely on

my memory just, when we can have copies from the thread itself:

02-07-2017, 02:33 PM #21

Cerebrum123

Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

Which passage?

Oops, it was Psalms, not Proverbs. Here you go.

Psalm 14:1 [ Folly and Wickedness of Men. ] [ For the choir director. A Psalm of David. ] The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

02-07-2017, 02:33 PM #22

thewriteranon

Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

What language is that? Or what dialect of Latin is that? Not pure Classical, not pure Hispanic ... what does rentis mean?

And why was the message by "count olaf" earlier in the thread deleted?

It's. A. Joke.

02-08-2017, 12:01 PM #23

02-08-2017, 12:01 PM #24

hansgeorg

Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

Oops, it was Psalms, not Proverbs. Here you go.

Psalm 14:1 [ Folly and Wickedness of Men. ] [ For the choir director. A Psalm of David. ] The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

Is it sure that the application of "fool" in Matthew 5 is tied to "fool" in Psalm 13:1?

That psalm in Latin is "dixit insipiens" and the word in Matthew is "fatue".

Also, one can ask whether the psalmist means that all people who actually are fools have said some atheistic thing in their hearts, or whether he means like "he is fool who hath said in his heart" etc.

Note that King David was not saying this TO a particular person whom he considered such (except if reciting third person statement and letting that person take a guess) and therefore King David was not running afoul of Matthew 5.

Quote Originally Posted by thewriteranon View Post

It's. A. Joke.

I don't know that guy ... is he related to Lemony Snicket?

I tried

to post a link to the post, but I am still not being published "until moderated". It can be added I started the thread as "tWebber" and now have statute "Caught in the Matrix".

However, there are other sayings of Geisler (beyond affirmation of literal inerrancy, of inerrancy in literal sense) to which the Church Fathers are not coming to the rescue.

"Geisler" :

Phooey, I say that no method is legitimate if it goes behind or beyond the text to find a meaning.

"tektontv's alter ego:"

Oh good heavens, that's exactly the kind of backwards attitude which got us in this mess.

From:

Geisler 2: The Rise of the Ehrmanator
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emGf9YAsN58

I agree

that that attitude got someone in a mess.

I do not agree

that it is backwards in the sense of being overall conservative or reactionary on a Christian scale.

On the contrary, it was a very progressive attitude with men like Calvin, Bucer, probably even Martin Luther already.

If J. P. Holding really wants to go beyond the text, so be it - if he does so along with the tradition of the Church, as opposed to based on dubious hypotheses on II Corinthians coinciding with the famine predicted by Agabus, or Dinippus service as corresponding to what is now social service provider proving it really affected Corinth (not to mention precisely in time for arrival of St Paul's Epistle).

Other pearl from video

"Ancient Israel was a high context society."

You don't say so!

You'll be telling me water is wet and sea water salt too? Don't shock me by saying obvious truths like that!

The problem with J. P. Holdings general attitude is about its correponding to this scenario:

• Israel was a high context society;
• the early Christians remained so;
• the Jews remain so to this day and can be relied on to provide the original context;
• the Christians didn't remain so, and the Catholic tradition cannot be relied on to provide the original correct context.

With such an attitude on who preserved tradition correctly (and yes, preserving correct original context is precisely what is meant by "tradition"), the logical consequence would be becoming a Jew rather than a non-Catholic Christian.

And, obviously, he is not logical, but instead says "therefore we are free to invent the correct original context as new discoveries".

While Geisler is incorrect, against the Catholic tradition (which has preserved the original context, including since Christ gave a course to his disciples the four meanings of Scripture), it is at least an understandable reaction when confronted with the Modernist one.

... or mostly support of tektontv's Defense of Christmas series

Christmas is Pagan and Other Myths, Part 1: The Fundy Who Stole December 25th
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAZ233XMLDE

2:17 "unless you were a particularly wealthy [or important] person, people had no way to track time that closely" ...

Er, not the case.

Tracking dates is not all that difficult.

If that hadn't been so, how could ordinary Hebrews know what date to celebrate Sukkoth, Seder of Passover, and so on?

Each Hebrew month began by a New Moon. Btw, as with Muslims today there can be quarrels on what evening a month began (up to Hillel II who invented precalculated calendars: Hillel II (Hebrew: הלל נשיאה, Hillel the Nasi), also known simply as Hillel held the office of Nasi of the ancient Jewish Sanhedrin between 320 and 385 CE. Thanks wiki) I think date of Seder when Christ celebrated with Last Supper may have been disputed between Him and non-Christian Jews like Kaiaphas, what evening two weeks earlier the New Moon of Nisan was sighted. So, unless there was a dispute over what evening a New Moon was (won't happen every year same place, rather places tend to differ over where a New Moon is seen same or next evening), it is just a matter of counting days from New Moon. Even ordinary people had that leasure.

Also, Birthdays were looked down on by Hebrews. Instead of celebrating a 30:th birthday party, one celebrated any major party after that - and Jesus was invited to a wedding in Cana. Satan and Angels offered Him kind of birthday presents that birthday, I'd think, and He was probably alerted to Satan's malice because He knew it was His birthday. But when angels offered Him refreshments, He knew He could accept, He had already won that round against Satan. I think those angels celebrating His birthday were what gave Christians the right to do so too.

And in Egypt the Egyptians (who celebrated birthdays) were of course asking. One very early Christmas hymn, to the Blessed Virgin Mary, is from Egyptian Christians.

2:27 You are referring to peasants, but Joseph and Mary were burghers, of the House of David and inmarried (Mary descending) also from Levites.

Also, a peasant in Protestant pre-modern Ozark is what you gave a good description of, but in Middle Ages, one rather remembered date of Baptism - generally eight days later. And it was remembered like "second Sunday after Michelmass" (after 29th of September) and so on. That is, it was remembered after calendaric principles of feastdays.

2:36 Leasure and means to TRACK birthdays were not rare. Means of making lavish feasts on them a bit more so (unless wine, bread, olives and perhaps a bit fish or meat and dates counts as lavish). But thing is, birthday celebration in time of OldTestament was usually a Pagan practise related to Astrology, celebrating your horoscope.

3:58 I am for my part saying it is true he was born that time of the year.

I think for one thing, the courses of priests (Gospel + Josephus) in temple and counting 15 months from conception of St John the Baptist (Gospel again) will bring you to something like that, and if January 6 principally is date for wedding in Cana, this would have happened some time after His thirtieth Birthday, some days between desert and Cana, calling the disciples who were with Him in Cana. Which also means His thirtieth Birthday was around that time of the year.

Now, if Roman and Hebrew calendars don't overlap equally from year to year, and January 6 is correct for wedding of Cana, tracking this back to december 25 forthrity years earlier would be risky - except for that argument about Zacharias in the Temple.

4:12 Armenians celebrate on January 6 : Birth, Adoration of Magi, Baptism AND Wedding at Cana.

Orthodox celebrate in whichever calendar they use December 25 : and if the Calendar is Julian one, that falls, between 1900 and 2100, on January 7 Gregorian. Between 1800 and 1900 (when as yet no Orthodox used Gregorian) it fell on January 6 Gregorian - coinciding with custom of Armenians, whence the mistake.

Chr[i]stmas is Pagan and Other Myths, Part 2: Why December 25th?
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qEk2ieUCOA

Christmas is Pagan and Other Myths, Part 3: Stuffing the Tree Up
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixehxlPnbtE

Christmas is Pagan and Other Myths, Part 4: Christmas Tree Potpourri
tektontv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqqnizHe_0o

Not as comments under videos, but as messages to youtube channel:

Since comments are off on part 3 (stuffing up the Christmas tree), and I am halfway through, I am not sure if you have heard the latest:

Writing the Renaissance : 16th Century Christmas Trees
http://writingren.blogspot.com/2015/12/16th-century-christmas-trees.html

Now I'll go back and listen - Merry Christmastide, what's left of it!



And on 4, comments are off as well, actually, there is an even closer parallel than the stones at Jordan.

Purim and Chanukkah - neither of them prescribed in the law of Moses directly per se - only indirectly in a way which CLEARLY points to Christian Holidays being legitimate.

Forgotten the passage, but it was sth about adding to feasts in order to commemorate the great deeds of God.

5:09 same video.

Jews in Jesus' time obviously at least some of them already believed in purgatory and in praying for the departed (at least the faithful departed).

Trey Smith made a video on Henoch, in which a passage sounded like a good reference both to Stabunt Iusti (Wisdom 5:1-5, I think) about those who get to bosom of Abraham directly and to a passage in the Epistles of St Paul about what happens if you build stubble on the right foundation - a passage Catholics interpret as referring to Purgatory, because it does involve the right foundation. Some refer it to Hell and "saved but as by fire" to refuting annihilationism. The passage in the books of Henoch, as I recall, a week or more ago, clearly does give hope for those who need to repent. Whether Henoch is genuine or 3:rd or 2:nd C BC apocryph, it does reflect what Jews clearly believed then.

So, how come Luther understood Purgatory belief was an abhomination so much better than Our Lord when He had time to deal with it?

... on Inquisition, Galileo, Emperor (St?) Constantine

video commented on:

tektontv : Miss Dusters 3: Inquisition Fables
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfE1TVZbN8Y

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Those that didn't confess received harsher punishments?

As far as I know the procedure, those who did not confess at all could not be condemned (unless they "confessed by behaviour", like crypto-Jews refusing to eat porc or Albigensians - veggies back then - refusing to kill and eat a hen).

Those who denied a confession already given or only confessed after torture were given harsher punishments.

tektontv

What credentialed historian says such a thing?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My source is Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, from memory.

One more thing, in England (I have this from Henry Charles Lea) the Inquisition against the Lollards gave the local bishop full discretion on trial, it was not like Inquisitions controlled by Rome. It can be noted that St Joan was tried like that, and that bishop Cauchon before accepting had consulted Paris University on whether licit or not. Sorbonne said yes, & when she was burnt regretted and insisted on Roman system.

tektontv

Um, Lea is precisely the source that historians like Kamen are pegging as full of false information.

And really, can't you do better than a "dictionary" that is over 100 years old? Like something by a credentialed historian?

was going to post following but "Vous avez été bloqué par le propriétaire de cette vidéo." = blocked.

Lea's conclusions suck.

But his precise facts on precise occasions do not.

The 1401 decision by English Parliament, the fact that the 1401 law was behind the burning of Tyndale (and Mary Tudor's other heresy hunts, despite the warning from both Spain and Catholic Church she had better not) and similar facts you can find in Lea have not been discredited.

I looked up:

Henry Kamen : The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision
http://www.amazon.com/The-Spanish-Inquisition-Historical-Revision/dp/0300078803

If we assume that the words, supposedly from Kamen, about Inquisition's suspects confessing falsely in order to get away with more lenient penances by fear of otherwise being falsely condemned and more severely punished, are about the Spanish Inquisition (and mind you, Henry Kamen studied the Spanish one) then also the position is ludicrous.

Saint Ignatius of Loyola was a mystic, a hesychast, a penitent who prayed as a recluse and gave spiritual guidance about avoiding and confessing mortal sins, he got suspect of being an Alumbrado - a near Catholic version of Quakerism - and of putting the Inner Light in the p^lace of external objective factors like Bible, Tradition and visible Church. He was before the Inquisition three times, he got acquitted three times, which would not have been possible if he had made a false confession. The third time he was told: "you cannot give spiritual guidance and differentiate between venial and mortal sins, unless you study theology first", and in obedience to Inquisitors he went to Sorbonne to study Theology. It was in Paris that he met St Francis Xavier and a few other of the original Jesuits.

This would not have been possible if the Spanish Inquisition had been ruthless and condemning suspects more harshly if they refused to confess at all.

But does Kamen actually say that? Maybe about the witches, though what the Inquisitor now known as their advocate found was false confessions of witchcraft for another motive, a hysteric belief - which he combatted - that such and such a sin or temptation against purity could only be forgiven if they were burnt at the stake as witches. This is at least what Gustav Henningsen concludes in this book:

The Witches' Advocate: Basque Witchcraft and the Spanish Inquisition, 1609-1614
http://www.amazon.fr/The-Witches-Advocate-Witchcraft-Inquisition/dp/0874170567

After that the standard penance for a confessed witch was a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela, to St James in Galicia. After abjuring the Devil, of course.



Now, it seems Henry Charles Lea was or may have been vastly inaccurate on Spanish Inquisition - a book I have not read - in matters where Kamen corrects him. Commparing heretics to terrorists rather than, say, Satanists, makes more sense in a Spanish than in a Languedocian context too. The book I had read of HC Lea was on the Medieval Inquisition. This was also the matter where I was using Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique. Kamen's book would hardly deny what I said about Medieval non-English and English Inquisitions as vastly different. Since Spanish Inquisition, which he is dealing with, started after what is commenly called "the Middle Ages".

other video commented on:

tektontv : Miss Dusters 4: Galileo Fables
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJO6I4W8PpQ

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I got it like: "Galileo was not in trouble for Heliocentrism, but for being a pest" ... did I get it wrong?

Now, that would have been a major no no for the Inquisition. The occasion which got Galileo in trouble in 1633 might have been lampooning the Pope in Dialogo, but occasion and given, stated reason are two different things.

Lampooning the pope is not heresy to be abjured, being a pest is not heresy to be abjured, heliocentrism was considered so, specifically against Joshua chapter 10.

tektontv

No, you got it right. That's essentially what all the historians say.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don't know whom you call "all", but you forgot Robert Sungenis there.

One of them you hand on the opinion of seems to have been a Jesuit, and he seems to have been popular with Benedict XVI.

Now, the thesis "Galileo got condemned BY being a pest" is tenable, but the thesis "was condemned FOR being a pest" is not.

Condemned theses 1633: 1) sun is center and does not move as observed, 2) earth is not center but is in third heaven above the sun. = is third planet from sun.

1:st now abandoned.

[Except for the part "and does not move as observed" if Sungenis got that quote right]

tektontv

Sungenis' credentials are not as a historian. I refer only to those who have doctorates in history.

Don't promote nutty ideas about geocentrism here or I will ban you as a troll.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You seem to think that today's universities are the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

St Paul says that the Church is.

Geocentrism = believing your eyes = nutty? C'mon!

Robert Sungenis made a good research on either field, I even think he did better as historian than as natural philosopher.

tektontv

You seem to think people should give a nut credence just because you're paranoid, uncritical, and ignorant.

Well, you were warned. Bye, troll.

argument not given to tektontv, since blocked to soon

See link:

... on Young Earth Creationism Denying Gravity (with a certain levity towards the matter, thank God!)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2013/05/on-young-earth-creationism-denying.html

By dealing with angelic causality of movements of singular heavenly bodies (but not of Heaven as a whole, that only God can move at will), I did one better than Sungenis as natural philosopher.

Of course, "tektontv" would possibly have called me either ignorant or paranoid or Pagan for saying so too, but blocking me was a more sure way of not coming through as somewhat ignorant and prejudiced himself than letting me argue.

video not commented on, since good:

tektontv : Miss Dusters 5: Constantine Fables
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tQk72ahCQ

... on Jephthah's daughter

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Jephthah's daughter, 2) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Ever Heard of Claudian Famine in Corinth, and Dinippus?

One response:

Lazar Puhalo : Jephtha's Vow and Sacrifice (Judges.Ch.11)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvJhKI6-ZvM

And Catholics agree.

panthersfly

This guy is either a bold face liar or he does not know the bible, I will quote the verse here.

Judges 11:39 "When she returned home, her father kept the vow he had made, and she died a virgin."

You clearly say at 2m54s that it does not say that she was killed. You are wrong.

Orthodoxy4Life

No, you are wrong. Even world famous Old Testament scholars follow his view on this. Keil and Delitzsch, for example, have pointed out that the term "burnt offering" (Hebrew, ola) show that it does not mean a literal human sacrifice in this context. Jeptha's daughter did not bewail her impending death, but her virginity (btulim), Judges 11:37-38. He and she bewailed her virginity. There was no human sacrifice here. [Kein and Delitzsch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, pp.388-95]. God never would allow it.

Lazar Puhalo

You translation/version does not match several others. When you say you "know the Bible," you should specify which version you know, since not all of them match. In any case, I offered an "possibility" and made it clear that it was merely that, and not a statement proferred as fact.

I do realise that you Atheists are always anxious to indict God for cruelty, inconsistency and vindictiveness. However, I wonder if sometimes you might not take a broader look at your highly negative vision of God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

She died like a virgin can mean two different things:

1) she was killed and this was while she was still a virgin;

2) she never married, so when she died, later, she was still a virgin.

That was the interpretation the jumped to my attention when I reread the story.

St Augustine may have thought otherwise (not knowing exact etymology of 'olah) but he was very hesitating about all of it.

Lazar Puhalo

Not trying to softsell the matter of Jephtha's daughter. There might have been a human sacrifice, although it is forbidden by the Law. In fact, I suspect that God gave very little of the law. In the first place, there is too much in common with Hammurabi's Code to be mere coincidence, and too much of it is rather general

Orthodoxy4Life

The contrasts between the two are even more significant than the similarities. For example, the Babylonian code makes a sharp class distinction between the free man and the semifree, as well as the slave. In Deuteronomy there is virtually no class distinction. More significant, Mosaic legislation had a deeply religious tone. In the Hammurabi code, we find a strictly impersonal style such as would be usual for a sophisticated legal system pertaining to a more urbanized society.

panthersfly

I was wondering....which translation were you referring to?

Lazar Puhalo

One of the versions of the Septuagint. However, "she ended as a virgin." I did not dispute your renditions either; as I mentioned, I offered a possible interpretations, but never asserted that it was correct, only a possible understanding. All Atheists use the story to substantiate atheism. No reason that you should be different than the others.

Other response:

tektontv : The Tale of Jephthah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpPk4WLBcTM

He practically argues for same conclusion about the story, with less hesitation as to fact. There is also present an element of parody in the way arguments are put. I might have not approved that but seen that as less essential to argue about.

However, he also argues that it was a tragedy that Jephthah's daughter schemingly chose this for fear of childbirth or domestic chores. I replied that Jephthah's daughter was a promise of things to come.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In the video you find it really tragic that Jepthah had a daughter who could come up with such a thing, but would it not occur to you that St Paul agrees (assuming you are right on the facts):

"who marries his daughter does well, who does not marry his daughter does even better"

[Quoted from memory. St Paul says "his virgin" which might be daughter or stepdaughter or sister or niece etc.]

I tend to agree with you on facts (though I have forgotten what Church Father supports me), but you miss out on her being a promise of things to come: Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin, and nuns.

tektontv

That's a creative point, but really rather unnecessary. Particularly since Paul's directive was made under conditions of famine in the Corinth area.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not really.

Whether there was a famine or not (Corinth is rather infertile and depends on trade anyway) the words of St Paul are there for all of the Church for all ages up to the Second Coming.

Meaning Catholics and Orthodox have got it right, and Protestants (over last five hundred years where they have been) wrong.

tektontv

The context was there in the first first century. That means adding your own is illicit, regardless of which church you are with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The context in first century includes verses 32 - 40. Of chapter 7 of I Cor.

They speak of excellency of non-married state in general.

Detracting that context to substitute for it an archaeological or fake archaeological one is illicit, regardless of which confession you have.

Care to defend the famine theory from the Bible or is it just hearsay from expertise? Famine in Corinth back then is like "famine in New York". Not a question of farms in the backland, but of trade.

tektontv

No, it doesn't speak of the "excellency" of it. It relates particular advantages of it.

You want to deal with the famine idea, try Winter's After Paul Left Corinth. It will be amusing to see you take on a real scholar.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Quoting book review:

"Severe grain shortages, the relocation of the Isthmian Games, the introduction of a new federal imperial cult, the withdrawal of kosher meat from the official market-all of these cultural events had a substantial impact on the life of the emerging Christian community."

Temporary severe grain shortages - granted as possible. Chronically so? I find that hard to believe, as I have not the book here, can you tell me what he based it on?

tektontv

Evidence. Go read it all, not just a preview. And Paul doesn't tell other people to be celibate for life. Also, 1 Cor. 7:1 is a Corinthian slogan he quotes back.

I don't allow multi-comments. Other 2 deleted. And don't just make up lame excuse-questions like "how lasting" as a way to get around the point. That's based on you wanting to reach your conclusion, not on evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[my answer not yet allowed to appear, but repeats a point given in one deleted answer, that 3 grain shortages attested throught ten inscriptions actually praising the official responsible for grain imports are hardly evidence that grain shortage was so severe in Corinth as to warrant by itself perpetual virginity. As to "And Paul doesn't tell other people to be celibate for life" I answered that by fact he was so himself and by his preference stated in verse 7.

Grain shortage would have been more often occurring more severely in 16th C Germany of Luthre or Switzerland of Zwingli and Oecolampadius than in 1st C Corinth.

Above all since there is an apologetic parallel between Jephthah's daughter and Isaac, he should be prepared there is also a typological one - understood as if Isaac points to Jesus, then Jephthah's daughter to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to the Nuns and the Virgin Martyrs.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"And Paul doesn't tell other people to be celibate for life."

Verse 7 he does. He never married.

I did not "get around" the point. You did. Lasting grainj shortages were far likelier in 16th C Germany and Switzerland than in 1st C Corinth.

There is an apologetic parallel between Isaac and Jephthah's daughter.

Should warn you there is a typological too.

Look for parallel words between Judges and Corinthians or betw Corinthians and your explanaition on video.

tektontv

Please, spare me. His own experience (v. 7) is not an instruction to others. And what he wishes for others to have is his self-control (v 5) not his celibacy, Stop mangling the text to serve your purposes. Yes, you're evading the point, and don't give me any lame claims of "typology" (which are likely forced on your part) or of "words" (since they are 2 different languages).

That will be all. I have a rule here about off topic comments, and have allowed you more than enough.

not under his video (since he requested so), only here:

Disingenious. But what can one expect from a Protestant. The factual points in video are still good.

I Corinthians chapter 7:

Link to Douay Rheims version with Haydock comment
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id168.html

Winter's book, link

After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change, Mr. Bruce W. Winter
http://www.amazon.com/After-Paul-Left-Corinth-Influence/dp/0802848982

Quote from index page:

11. The Present Crisis and the Consummation of Marriage
(1. Corinthians 7:25-38) 241
'He Who Marries ... He Who Does Not Marry' (7:38)
I. Personal Dilemmas Aggravated by the Present Dislocation 241
II. Eschatology and Youth's EXpectations of This Life 253
III. Christian Obligations for Singles and Marrieds 263.

My comment:

We see then that there is a certain moral context rather than a merely topical one for the advice.

Quote about grain:

Page 6: There is also evidence that three severe grain shortages occurred in Corinth during the early days of the Church.

Plate 7 The inscription of Tiberius Claudius Dinippus, who was in charge of the grain supply for famine relief on three separate occasions in Corinth during the early years of the Christian community. For inscriptions to him which mentioned his role three times as curator annonae see, e.g., Kent, Corinth, 8.3, nos. 158-63 (Reproduced by permission of the American School of Archaeology in Corinth.) See pp. 216-18.

My comment:

Here he takes curator annonae as an official dealing with famine relief. What I have learned from Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, the Annona was not for famines but for paupers. Anyone who was not ashamed to do so could get his part in the annona. If you could afford grain yourself, maybe you did not. My point about "famine in New York" stands. The three severe grain shortages are only three occasions on which Tiberius Claudius Dinippus was having the honorary office of heading a kind of Caesarian socialism. One that was still going on in the times of St Genevieve's father (the Medieval legend she "herded sheep" as a child comes from her real involvement in the food handouts that had been going on since Julius Caesar).

Even if you took the annona, that did not mean you were "too poor to marry".

But even if there had been a kind of argument, the traditional reading of I Corinthians 7 cannot be overthrown by some archeological find, 2000 years after the text, since a Church having been in the meantime misunderstanding is against end of St Matthew or against "Pillar and Foundation of Truth" claim for the Church.

Paul and Empire edited by Richard A. Horsley does mention Dinippus. Now, the footnotes they give as evidence for famine under Clau-Clau-Clau-Claudius "in Corinth" (their conclusion) are Tacitus Annales 12:43 as well as Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Claudius 18. Neither of these speak of grain shortage in Corinth more than anywhere else, both of grain shortage in Rome. Perhaps a question of bad logistics about a city getting more and more overdimensioned? Hardly a parallel for Corinth. Refounded in 44 by Caesar, therefore close enough to its recent planners. However, the grain shortage in Rome was seen as a prodigy, as supernatural. The grain shortage can very well return tomorrow if God is enough provoked. If Dinippus was no more use in Corinth than Claudius in Rome, well, then these situations may soon return to the world.

Here is Haydock Bible Commentary on 11:31

Ver. 31. Whosoever, &c. Some are of opinion, that the meaning of this vow of Jephte, was to consecrate to God whatsoever should first meet him, according to the condition of the thing; so as to offer it up as a holocaust, if it were such a thing as might be so offered by the law; or to devote it otherwise to God, if it were not such as the law allowed to be offered in sacrifice. And therefore they think the daughter of Jephte was not slain by her father, but only consecrated to perpetual virginity. But the common opinion followed by the generality of the holy fathers and divines is, that she was offered as a holocaust, in consequence of her father's vow: and that Jephte did not sin, at least not mortally, neither in making nor in keeping his vow; since he is no ways blamed for it in scripture; and was even inspired by God himself to make the vow, (as appears from ver. 29, 30.) in consequence of which he obtained the victory; and therefore he reasonably concluded that God, who is the master of life and death, was pleased, on this occasion, to dispense with his own law; and that it was the divine will he should fulfil his vow. (Challoner)

St. Thomas [Aquinas] (2. 2. q. 88. a. 2.) acknowledges that Jephte was inspired to make a vow, and his devotion herein is praised by the apostle, Hebrews xi. 32. But he afterwards followed his own spirit, in delivering himself, without mature deliberation, and in executing what he had so ill engaged himself to perform. This decision seems to be the most agreeable to the Scripture, and to the holy fathers. St. Jerome (in Jer. vii.) says, non sacrificium placet, sed animus offerentis. "If Jephte offered his virgin daughter, it was not the sacrifice, but the good will of the offerer which deserves applause." Almost all the ancients seem to agree that the virgin was really burnt to death; and the versions have whosoever, which intimates that Jephte intended to offer a human victim; particularly as he could not expect a beast fit for such a purpose, would come out of the doors of his house to meet him. (Calmet)

Yet many of the moderns, considering how much such things are forbidden by God, cannot persuade themselves that Jephte should be so ignorant of the law, or that the priests and people of Israel should suffer him to transgress it. The original may be rendered as well, "whatsoever proceedeth....shall surely be the Lord's, and (Protestants) or I will offer it up for a holocaust." (Pagnin. &c.)

The version of Houbigant is very favourable to this opinion. See Hook's Principia.

It is supposed that the sacrifice of Iphigenia, which took place about this time, (Aulis. v. 26,) was only in imitation of this of Jephte's daughter. But the poets say, that Diana saved her life, and substituted a doe in her place; (Ovid, Met. xii.) which, if true, would make the conformity more striking, if we admit that the sacrifice of Jephte's daughter was not carried into effect. Iphigenia was made a priestess of Diana, to whom human victims were immolated. The daughter of Jephte, whom the false Philo calls Seila, was consecrated to the Lord, and shut up (Haydock) to lead a kind of monastic life; as the wives of David, (2 Kings xx. 3.; Grotius) after they had been dishonoured, were obliged to live in a state of continency. Although (Haydock) forced chastity be not a virtue, (Calmet) yet Jephte had no reason to believe that his daughter would not enter into the spirit of his vow, and embrace that state for God's honour and service. We know that she gave her entire consent to whatever might be the nature of his vow; and surely she would be as ready to refrain from marriage, however desirable at that time, as to be burnt alive, which would effectually prevent her from becoming a mother, ver. 37. To require this of her, was not, at least, more cruel in her father than to offer her in sacrifice. The Chaldean paraphrast says, "Jephte did not consult Phinees, the priest, or he might have redeemed her;" and Kimchi gives us a very mean idea, both of Jephte and of the high priest, the great Phinees, whom the Rabbins foolishly suppose was still living, and of course above 300 years old, ver. 26.

"Phinees said, He wants me, let him come to me. But Jephte, the head of the princes of Israel, shall I go to him? During this contest the girl perished." To such straits are those reduced who wish to account for the neglect of Jephte in redeeming his daughter, as the Targum observes, was lawful for a sum of money, Leviticus xxvii. 2, 3, 28.

But (Haydock) his vow was of the nature of the cherom, which allowed of no redemption, and required death. (Calmet)

On this point, however, interpreters are not agreed, and this manner of devoting to death, probably, regarded only the enemies of God, or such things as were under a person's absolute dominion. (Haydock)

If a dog had first come out to meet Jephte, could he have offered it up for a holocaust? Certainly not, (Grotius) because it was prohibited, (Deuteronomy xxiii. 18,) to offer even its price, (Haydock) and only oxen, sheep, goats, turtles and doves, were the proper victims. If, therefore, a person made a vow, of a man, he was to be consecrated to the Lord, (Grotius) like Samuel, and he might marry. But a woman could not, as she was already declared the servant of the Lord, and was not at liberty to follow her husband. (Amama)

We need not herein labour to defend the conduct of Jephte. The Scripture does not canonize him on this account. If he did wrong, his repentance, and other heroic acts of virtue, might justly entitle him to be ranked among the saints of the old law. (St. Augustine, q. 49)

"Shew me the man who has not fallen into sin....Jephte returned victorious from the enemy, but in the midst of his triumph, he was overcome by his own vow, so that he thought it proper to requite the piety of his daughter, who came out to meet him, by parricide. In the first place, what need was there of making a vow so hastily, to promise things uncertain, the event of which he knew not, instead of what was certain? Then why did he perform so sorrowful a vow to the Lord God, by shedding blood?" (St. Ambrose, Apol. Dav. i. 4.)

This saint adopts the common opinion that Jephte really immolated his daughter. But he is far from thinking that he was influenced by the holy spirit to make the vow, otherwise he would never represent it in such odious colours. If God had required the life of Jephte's daughter, as he did formerly command Abraham to sacrifice his son, the obedience and faith of the former would have been equally applauded, as the good will of the latter. But most of those who embrace the opinion that Jephte sacrificed his daughter, are forced to excuse or to condemn the action. They suppose that he was permitted to fulfil his vow, that others might be deterred from making similar promises, without the divine authority. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xiv. ad pop. Ant.; St. Jerome, contra Jov. i.) "I shall never, says St. Ambrose (Off. iii. 12,) be induced to believe that Jephte, the prince, did not promise incautiously that he would immolate whatever should meet him,...since he repented of his vow," &c. We may observe that this great Doctor supposes, that Jepthe promised to sacrifice the first thing that should meet him "at the door of his own house;" whence he seems to take whosoever in the same latitude as we have given in the Hebrew. He concludes, "I cannot accuse the man who was obliged to fulfil his vow," &c. We may imitate his moderation, (Haydock) rather than adopt the bold language of one who has written notes on the Protestant Bible, (1603) who says, without scruple, that by this rash vow and wicked performance, his victory was defaced; and again, that he was overcome with blind zeal, not considering whether the vow was lawful or not. (Worthington).

If Jephte was under the immediate influence of the Holy Ghost in what he did, as Salien believes, and the context by no means disproves, we ought to admire the faith of this victorious judge, though he gave way to the feelings of human nature, ver. 35. We should praise his fidelity either in sacrificing or in consecrating his daughter to God's service in perpetual virginity: but if he followed his own spirit, we cannot think that he was so ill-informed or so barbarous as to murder his daughter, nor that she would consent to an impiety which so often disgraced the pagan superstition, though she might very well agree to embrace that better part, which her father and God himself, by a glorious victory, seemed to have marked out for her. Amid the variety of opinions which have divided the learned on this subject, infidels can derive no advantage or solid proof against the divine authority of the Scripture, and of our holy religion. The fact is simply recorded. People are at liberty to form what judgment of it they think most rational. If they decide that Jepthe was guilty of an oversight, or of a downright impiety, it will in the first place be difficult for them to prove it to the general satisfaction; and when they have done so, they will only evince that he was once a sinner, and under this idea the word of God gives him no praise. But if he did wrong in promising, as many of the Fathers believe, he might be justified in fulfilling his vow, as God might intimate to him both interiorly, and by granting him the victory, that he dispensed with his own law, and required this sort of victim in order to foreshew the bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins, (Serarius and Salien, in the year of the world 2850) or the state of virginity which his blessed Mother and so many nuns and others in the Christian Church embrace with fervour.

Peace, with victory.

Same. Hebrew, "it shall be the Lord's, and (or) I will make it ascend a whole burnt-offering." (Haydock)

The particle ve often signifies or as well as and, and it is explained in this sense here by the two Kimchis, by Junius, &c. See Exodus xxi. 17. Piscator says, the first part of the sentence determines that whatever the thing was it should be consecrated to the Lord, with the privilege of being redeemed, (Leviticus xxvii. 11,) and the second shews that it should be immolated, if it were a suitable victim. (Amama)

source

St Thomas on Jephthah and generally vows and what they should be about:

...

Objection 2. Further, Jephte is included among the saints (Hebrews 11:32). Yet he killed his innocent daughter on account of his vow (Judges 11). Since, then, the slaying of an innocent person is not a better good, but is in itself unlawful, it seems that a vow may be made not only about a better good, but also about something unlawful.

...

On the contrary, It is written (Deuteronomy 23:22): "If thou wilt not promise thou shalt be without sin."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), a vow is a promise made to God. Now a promise is about something that one does voluntarily for someone else: since it would be not a promise but a threat to say that one would do something against someone. On like manner it would be futile to promise anyone something unacceptable to him. Wherefore, as every sin is against God, and since no work is acceptable to God unless it be virtuous, it follows that nothing unlawful or indifferent, but only some act of virtue, should be the matter of a vow. But as a vow denotes a voluntary promise, while necessity excludes voluntariness, whatever is absolutely necessary, whether to be or not to be, can nowise be the matter of a vow. For it would be foolish to vow that one would die or that one would not fly.

On the other hand, if a thing be necessary. not absolutely but on the supposition of an end--for instance if salvation be unattainable without it--it may be the matter of a vow in so far as it is done voluntarily, but not in so far as there is a necessity for doing it. But that which is not necessary, neither absolutely, nor on the supposition of an end, is altogether voluntary, and therefore is most properly the matter of a vow. And this is said to be a greater good in comparison with that which is universally necessary for salvation. Therefore, properly speaking, a vow is said to be about a better good.

...

Reply to Objection 2. Certain things are good, whatever be their result; such are acts of virtue, and these can be, absolutely speaking, the matter of a vow: some are evil, whatever their result may be; as those things which are sins in themselves, and these can nowise be the matter of a vow: while some, considered in themselves, are good, and as such may be the matter of a vow, yet they may have an evil result, in which case the vow must not be kept. It was thus with the vow of Jephte, who as related in Judges 11:30-31, "made a vow to the Lord, saying: If Thou wilt deliver the children of Ammon into my hands, whosoever shall first come forth out of the doors of my house, and shall meet me when I return in peace . . . the same will I offer a holocaust to the Lord." For this could have an evil result if, as indeed happened, he were to be met by some animal which it would be unlawful to sacrifice, such as an ass or a human being. Hence Jerome says [Implicitly 1 Contra Jovin.: Comment. in Micheam vi, viii: Comment. in Jerem. vii. The quotation is from Peter Comestor, Hist. Scholast.]: "In vowing he was foolish, through lack of discretion, and in keeping his vow he was wicked." Yet it is premised (Judges 11:29) that "the Spirit of the Lord came upon him," because his faith and devotion, which moved him to make that vow, were from the Holy Ghost; and for this reason he is reckoned among the saints, as also by reason of the victory which he obtained, and because it is probable that he repented of his sinful deed, which nevertheless foreshadowed something good.

...

source

As to St Augustine's view, I will look up the 28 paragraph's of Quaestiones in Heptatechum, Book 7, chapter 49, which deals with Jephthah's daughter, but not here. Will update with a link when ready./HGL