- Commenting on:
- TheMistAnchorite : Ecumenism The Orthodox Church is in Danger New Schismatic churches
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFfQmFjz78E - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Have you one Nicolas Kabasilas or Kavasilas (Greeks pronounce older beta as vita now) in your calendar as a saint? The Greeks do.
He was as much a Cathodox biritualist as Vlad Tepec.
One of his books was by the Catholic Church put on index of forbidden books. However, it seems (from those who did read it) he counts the prayer before anamnesis in Roman Canon Missae as the necessary epiklesis.
Then check out Trent with Jerusalem and Iasi, Constantinople V with Vatican I. Councils.
Did you know that Constantinople V met with a limited condemnation by the Pope or Cardinals of the Old Rome?
"even the saints in heaven do not see God in his nature but only in his energies" - that one was condemned by Rome.
The errors of Varlaam saying God was not knowable were not supported when Rome condemned part of Constantinople V, and were condemned by Vatican I.
I am first and foremost a Catholic. I did a Kabasilas move for some years, with Neohimerite Roumanians. I returned.
I do not agree with your take on Greek Catholic Church.
I have a piety towards Monsignor Ghica. The Orthodox priest who became Uniate priest.
If you wish to know where Catholics and Orthodox differ, and where they agree, look at my side by side of the Catechism of Trent with that of Philaret of Moscow.
Google "trentophilaret". One blog of mine. It is incomplete, I only finished the commandments about God so far. I added two pages about Immaculate Conception and about filioque. - TheMistAnchorite
- Motto: “From the day the Catholics became the accomplice of an action aimed against the Romanian nation, they lost all rights to our sympathies; for us, they are the same as pagans and the evildoers.” Mihai Eminescu NATIONAL POET OF ROMANIA ( in “Timpul” 1883 – L.R. 1936, page 65). [His reply continues, I give the first part here, as the second part is more historical and deserves another answer more about history.]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- A nation has rights, but the rights of the Church come first.
Visarion Sarai tried to defend what he considered as the correct rights of the correct Church.
Mihai Eminescu seems to have put nation above Church.
Hitler did the same later. With disastrous results. Agreed, he did it in a worse fashion than Eminescu.
But Pope Pius XI was right to recall, in defense of Church and of innocent lives, what he recalled in Mit brennender Sorge.
"7. Take care, Venerable Brethren, that above all, faith in God, the first and irreplaceable foundation of all religion, be preserved in Germany pure and unstained. The believer in God is not he who utters the name in his speech, but he for whom this sacred word stands for a true and worthy concept of the Divinity. Whoever identifies, by pantheistic confusion, God and the universe, by either lowering God to the dimensions of the world, or raising the world to the dimensions of God, is not a believer in God. Whoever follows that so-called pre-Christian Germanic conception of substituting a dark and impersonal destiny for the personal God, denies thereby the Wisdom and Providence of God who "Reacheth from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly" (Wisdom viii. 1). Neither is he a believer in God. 8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or ... any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds."
source
Part of Catholic clergy have been involved in a conflict where one Catholic nation protecting Catholic and Uniate clergy came in conflict with Orthodox clergy of that nation.
I do not see how this can be construed as the whole Catholic Church attacking the Romanian nation. Except perhaps by one who tends to idolise the same and forget what Holy Church is about. - TheMistAnchorite [continued from above]
- Attempts of Magyarization of the Transylvanian Romanians By the Greek-Catholic Church. read it on google. General Bukow on the order of the pope, destroied more than 300 very old romanian churches to the ground because we refused to become catholics, do not hurt us again
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Prislop Monastery, a short day's walk from Haţeg?
In 1762 there is no possibility that generals of Catholic nations acted on orders of the Pope.
I have no clue about what happened between Romanian Orthodox and Greek Catholics leading up to general Bukow, nor whether he was Catholic or Protestant.
I do know that in his time Papacy was not ordering the Catholic nations but rather suffering persecution from them, due to Masonry and Enlightenment. About same time when Jesuits were dissolved.
[I looked up Bukow and finally found something:]
"In fact, from 1761-1762, most of the monasteries and sketes present in Transylvania at the time (more than 150) were destroyed by cannons or set on fire, by order of general Nicolai Adolf Bukow, the envoy of Maria Tereza, empress of Austria. Practically, any trace of monastic life disappeared in Transylvania after that period." (source)
Maria Teresia and her Mason son Joseph II did that to Benedictines too. He hated "contemplative orders".
"As soon as Transylvania came under the Habsburgs’ rule (1688-1918), a little part of the Romanian clergy and faithful were obliged, through pressure and deceit, to accept the “union” with the Church of Rome (1698-1701), at the time of metropolitan Atanasie Anghel." (same source)
Pressure and deceit is your version.
I am not sure Monsignor Ghica agreed with you on that part.
I found more in Romanian than in English about Visarion Sarai.
[Found this in English though]
I do know that Catholics have paid in the same suffering since.
The Clergy who had sworn an oath to the French Constitution were quite as unwanted by faithful Catholics as Uniate Priests a few decades earlier [by Orthodox in Transsylvania].
Thursday, July 18, 2013
... on Catholic and Orthodox Conflict in Transsylvania.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
... 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?
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
- 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
... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise
Series on Discovering Religion:
... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters
It is through above that I know the channel Discovering Religion.
... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more
(on Ep 01)
... on Young Earth
(on Ep 02)
... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise
(on Ep 03, 04 1/2, 04 2/2)
... on Copy Right issues, Scientific Theories and Adam's children's sibling marriages, not forgetting bananas
(on Ep 05, 06)
... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters
It is through above that I know the channel Discovering Religion.
... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more
(on Ep 01)
... on Young Earth
(on Ep 02)
... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise
(on Ep 03, 04 1/2, 04 2/2)
... on Copy Right issues, Scientific Theories and Adam's children's sibling marriages, not forgetting bananas
(on Ep 05, 06)
- commenting on
-
Discovering Religion: Ep 03 - Purpose of Christ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dsz9erURvo - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
1) Yes, we hold that Christ is Risen - Happy Eastertide - and founded a Church, and that He and His Church have both spoken unequivocally for Genesis, and that Genesis does therefore not only have the human credibility it shares with other creation stories and flood stories, and not only the further human credibility it has by providing a credible geneaology between creation and known Jewish History, but divine credibility as well.
2) You lean heavily on the "proven" and "scientifically proven" old ages of say trilobites (which are partly forged for tourists in Morocco) or triceratops.
a) you do not here provide the scientific proof but assume it, except for ...
b) contrasting from beginning to end modern science with early Jewish bronze age tribes, as if it were a given conclusion which of them was more likely to be right, and ...
c) assuming the geological column. Wr has Tertiary Fauna bn found above Triassic on earth?
d) Just forgot about creation of petrol.
How can scientists prove or have proven that the ONLY way for it to have formed is by a million year perduring process, when they cannot even have tested it if it works at all?
And how can they have proven that it cannot be an original part of creation (ok, it's sticky, so perhaps it is not "very good" but it was very well hidden back then, so in no direct conflict with all was very good either).
3) We Catholics do not believe that wishing for Salvation and believing Christ died to give it is enough on our part to get Salvation. This means we are not Evangelicals, it does not mean we are no Creationists.
Council of Trent condemned the proposition that confidence in Christ's Sacrifice is enough, it did certainly not condemn the literal existence of the first two men who were the first sinners, Adam and Eve, man and woman, also first married couple.
- xamarmm
- So you believe in a deceitful god who tricks us into believing the world is 4500 milllion years old when it really is only 6000 years old just to test how far we are willing to ignore the evidence just to become saved? You worship a lying deceitful god? I feel sad for you.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- There is no active deceit in allowing scientists to deceive themselves by evaluating evidence with methods which really presuppose that God is left out from any explanation they are willing to accept.
- xamarmm
- You got it all backwards. It is not like scientists say "Let's assume there is no god and see where the evidence leads us". They say "let's see where the evidence leads us", they make no assumption of a god bu they also make no assumption there is no god. If evidence for god were to pop up scientists would announce "Proof of god found" and those presenting the evidence for god would probably get a nobel prize.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
That is the official program as officially stated.
I have caught arguments redhandedly in un-stated atheist assumptions, like - latest example when discussing small and young universe - stars supposedly needing to self ignite and therefore have a greater mass than Jupiter that has not self ignited. - RFIDeez
- that preacher is hilarious, did he really say a retarded god who couldnt get it right the first time he wouldnt want to worship ?? isnt that EXACTLY why in the bible he summoned the so called flood? to fix what he messed up and regreted making man?? this is crazy, he dismissed his own beliefs himself, arggggghhh, religion makes me wanna puke sometimes
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- No, the flood was not because God had bungled the previous creation, but because man had made him "regret it" by bungling himself.
- and commenting on:
- Discovering Religion: Ep 04 -The Flood (1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wzD-4R2Ks - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
First of all, I plead stumped for one. Extinction of Aquatic Reptiles.
Second, I claim you got one very wrong.
There have never been fossiles of vegetarian lions, they became carnivores just after the fall. Even man would obviously have eaten meat:
a) as a ritual part of sacrifice (like Abel who sacrificed a lamb),
b) as part of Nodian debauchery
It is only righteous man in ordinary circumstances (i e outside sacrifice) who started eating meat after the Flood.
Carnivores wr carnivores just as thorns wr thorns straight after the fall of Adam. By his sin death...
Third, if men and dinosaurs coexisted at the same time, it does not absolutely mean same places also.
One of the best fossile records for any one dinosaur is for T Rex - a magnificent total of 30 fossiles.
My theory is it may even have been not a created kind as such, but a Genetically Modified Organism - due to Nodian Scientists abusing their knowledge of Genetics. And that similar experiments were conducted on other kinds resulting in other dinos.
Fourth, timeline according to geological column.
Do we have one?
As far as I have verified for fauna at least, the Lagerstätten of such an era are not under or over those of such another era.
At a place, Triassic fossiles may need some diggng for, as far as I know you do not find Tertiary fossiles less in need of digging just above them. Anywhere on earth where paleos are looking for dinos and such. - no answers
- were given me so far
- and commenting on:
- Discovering Religion: Ep 04 -The Flood (2 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLdIJACeva4 - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
Distant starlight first. As already said, I challenge the distance measuring techniques for obtaining those distances, since I am Geocentric.
However, the "God stretched out" theory is not totally absurd. If stars were much closer when created and stretched out under such circumstances that light beams always continued to reach earth?
I think it may brake down, which is one reason I prefer Geocentrism - and discarding the distances offered by current scientists, "outside solar system".
Meaning of course, that I usually accept distances as given "within solar system" but that is far less than even one light year.
Next, dates of Flood and Cultures:
Roman Martyrologium for Dec 25 gives the birth year for Jesus Christ as:
"Anno a creatione mundi, ... quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono; a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo; a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo; a Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo"
Flood was in year 2242 after Creation and 2957 BC. Moses is about 1 C. earlier than in Protestant chrono.
And, point has been made by Creationists before, I am making it again: these cultures may very well be dated wrong, and too old by some centuries.
Like due to lower C14 content of athmosphere back when woods and bones etc. come from, making for apparent older age. One of the simplest answers, basically (though details may entail complexities) for a YEC.
Third, tectonics of new continents and Himalaya: Creationists generally believe these were created during flood, very fast, before Tower of Babel and thus before these post-Babel cultures you mentioned (some wrongly dated) and that tectonic movements have considerably slowed down since.
Hovind whom you love to hate so much has actually been very pushing about earth not having as high mountains before and during flood as afterwards.
Fourth, how did marsupial species get to Australia/(Ulimaroa and Tasmania) and South America (one or two live there too, I seem to recall) after flood? Can have been on floating vegetation drifting across the sea, by action of angels, and all under the ultimate providence of God, of course.
And fifth - I nearly forgot - how come the rivers of paradise stay in place after the flood?
I quote Haydock for Genesis ch. 2:
"Paradise lay probably to the east of Palestine, or of that country where Moses wrote. The precise situation cannot be ascertained. Calmet places it in Armenia, others near Babylon, &c. Some assert that this beautiful garden is still in being, the residence of Henoch and Elias. But God will not permit the curiosity of man to be gratified by the discovery of it, chap. iii. 24. How great might be its extent we do not know. If the sources of the Ganges, Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates, be not now changed, and if these be the rivers which sprung from the fountains of Paradise, (both which are points undecided) the garden must have comprised a great part of the world, (Haydock), as the Ganges rises in India, and the Nile about the middle of Africa. (Tirinus)"
So, we do not know that all of Paradisal Tigris and Euphrates are all of present such, nor that all of Phison and Gehon are all of Ganges and Nile.
They may have continued outside Paradise.
If certain flat countries got little sediment during flood, river beds before and after flood may be near identical, due to preserved geodesics.
The Gehon which corresponds to Nile may have been both Nile and early narrow version of Mediterranean. And so on. - no answers
- were given me so far
Sunday, July 14, 2013
... on Young Earth
Series on Discovering Religion:
... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters
It is through above that I know the channel Discovering Religion.
... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more
(on Ep 01)
... on Young Earth
(on Ep 02)
... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise
(on Ep 03, 04 1/2, 04 2/2)
... on Copy Right issues, Scientific Theories and Adam's children's sibling marriages, not forgetting bananas
(on Ep 05, 06)
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?threaded=1&v=P9Vx_KLRUpE
... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters
It is through above that I know the channel Discovering Religion.
... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more
(on Ep 01)
... on Young Earth
(on Ep 02)
... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise
(on Ep 03, 04 1/2, 04 2/2)
... on Copy Right issues, Scientific Theories and Adam's children's sibling marriages, not forgetting bananas
(on Ep 05, 06)
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?threaded=1&v=P9Vx_KLRUpE
- Hans-Georg Lundahl [3 months ago]
-
1) Yes we YEC do reject some radiometric datings. They are not historical documentary proof.
2) U failed 2 mention we find sediments probably due mostly to world wide flood. In these cases we YEC - all of us - find your presuppositions faulty.
3) Star light reaches us "from distant galaxies" at a constant speed ... my own solution is radical: the galaxies may be not at all so far away. Not showing parallax may not mean being far away. Showing it may not mean being close. Heliocentrism is wrong.
An aside which is really not about the issue here. I tried to post this at a library in Paris yesterday. The combox kept not getting free for text, or not accepting text when free. And it kept not accepting mouse click on publish button, or even closing down the session (I reopened more than once) when I pushed repeatedly.
Some old earth non creationists are jerks, not meaning you have to be that. - xamarmm
- Yeah, when the evidence proves us wrong, we reject the evidence. Go back to watch your soap operas and other shows of similar intellectual level and block out everything that those atheist scientists tells us - btw, many scientists are not atheists but I guess that is also a fact that you choose to ignore, you don't seem to be a person who allow facts to disturb your beliefs.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
Soap operas? Was allergic to them even before throwing out TV soon after inheriting it from granny.
Btw, my saying SOME radiometric datingS are rejectable was n ot directed exclusively against atheist scientists, I would insist and have insisted thereon as much in face of scientists who are my Catholic coreligionists. - xamarmm
- Good you are not watching soap operas, but you really should stop watching that creationist propaganda also, they really don't know what they are talking about. Learn some of the theory of the physics of the atomic nucleus, it wouldn't hurt :)
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
"Learn some of the theory of the physics of the atomic nucleus, it wouldn't hurt :)"
I have. That is why I do not trust age datings when there is no way to tell whether C14 level in atmosphere when sth was alive in it was present level or 64 times less (5 half lives or 25000 - 30000 years older in "measuring" than in reality). - Zan0s
- That's because carbon dating only applies to recently deceased plant-based life forms. Carbon dating is only good for at best, samples from 65,000 years ago. Read up more on radiometric dating before you start going on about bullshit reasons as to why you don't trust something. If you think you are right, then I put it to you to submit a paper to be peer reviewed which explains why radiometric dating is wrong and why all the geologists and palaeontologists have it all wrong.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
ALL the geologists?
Meaning Flood Geologist and YEC Tas Walker is not one?
Tell that to peer reviewed CMI where his essays are in part published!
"older than C14-dating" = usually "geological dating" = other presupposition that may well be wrong (like how fast sediments form or whether fossile faunas found side by side could be considered "virtually lying on top of each other" or not). - Zan0s
-
"Part published"
Well then, the majority of geologists. Intelligent Design is not science, and pseudo-scientists such as Tas Walker and whoever the fuck CMI is who try to undermine actual scientific work are doing an injustice to the scientific method and those who put in real scientific, unbiased work. Look up Kitzmiller v Dover area school district (2005) - ID was ruled out of court as science by an extremely conservative judge. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
"unbiased"
If P Z Myers is "unbiased" how come he hid or deleted the latter part of comment thread under his blog post on augmenting chromosome numbers?
[Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html]
"Look up Kitzmiller v Dover area school district (2005) - ID was ruled out of court as science by an extremely conservative judge."
Extremely conservative, but biassed evolutionist.
"try to undermine actual scientific work"
Criticism is undermining, is it? - Zan0s
-
I'm not talking about PZ Myers, that's just one person - which is typical of theists, focussing their efforts on individuals rather than addressing the issues at hand. Evolution is not the polar opposite of intelligent design "theory", it does not matter whether or he is biased. And he's a judge, JUDGE, not an 'evolutionist'. Again, focussing on individuals and appealing to authority. Criticism is welcome, so long as it actually has some basis and is beyond the critical thinking of high school.
Secondly, why are there literally 10's of thousands of peer reviewed papers on evolution, and not a single one that actually supports intelligent design "theory"? - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
"I'm not talking about PZ Myers, that's just one person"
The one who:
- a) offered an attempt of solution at a problem posed not just by me but also by an evolutionist back in february 1999
- b) when I criticised that ONE evolutionist attempt after a few weeks or months hid the part of comments where my criticism was.
Issue is increasing chromosome numbers, in mammals, not plants. PZM came in because he dealt with that precise problem. No other evolutionist does, and he does it dishonestly. - Zan0s
- Now we're appealing to our own authority, are we? And you're certain not a single biologist besides you and PZ Myers have thought about your 'issue'? And if you 'win' (for want of a better word) this particular 'issue', then God is real and we're all doomed simply not for believing? And what authority could you possibly have when you claim that "heliocentrism is wrong"? Really? You're seriously a geocentrist? You don't belong in this century, you belong in or before the 16th century.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
"You're seriously a geocentrist? You don't belong in this century, you belong in or before the 16th century."
I take that as a compliment.
"And what authority could you possibly have when you claim that 'heliocentrism is wrong'?"
My senses, like eyes witnessing movement of sun and of moon and of stars, or like inner ears witnessing stability of earth. That is preliminary.
My logic says this has not been disproven by those who offered to do so.
"And if you 'win' (for want of a better word) this particular 'issue', then God is real and we're all doomed simply not for believing?"
That might have been PZM's motive for hiding the parts of comment thread that started after 2009 with my commenting on the problem of his solution. - postoergopostum
-
Satnav makes it difficult to not laugh at you.
The phases of Venus, and particle physics make it difficult not to cry.
I understand the rationalisations you use to maintain your perspective, and why you believe modern science fails to make it's case. I do, however wonder why it matters to you?
You seem comfortable with a computer, it's not technology that scares you, so why astronomy? - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
Your exact point about Satnav eludes me. Please clarify.
Phases of Venus are as much accounted for by Tychonian system as by Heliocentrism.
Google: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere ... on Young Earth Creationism Denying Gravity (with a certain levity towards the matter, thank God!)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-young-earth-creationism-denying.html
Google: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere ... on "Science Works" quote (c/o Dawkins)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-science-works-quote-co-dawkins.html
There are my answers to your other points. - branch off
- from earlier
- xamarmm
- Rejecting radiometric dating shows an utter ignorance on how the physics of the atoms work and operate and ultimately is a rejection of how the reality works - a reaity which you claim was created by god - in other words, you have to reject the god you believe in in order to reject radiometric dating. This is complete and utter FAIL.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
No, I was not rejecting radiometric dating as such, I was contesting SOME radiometric datingS.
Kind of C14 from times when it becomes hard to check with independently datable objects that atmosphere had same level of C14 as now. Since that is a presumption that would falsify the dating of say a pre-flood dino with no traces of C14, if it happened to live in an atmosphere of very much lower levels of C14. - xamarmm
- Then you have no argument. Biologists do not use ONLY C-14 radiometric dating, they use a battery of different tests and when they all converge to an answer that is when they make a claim as to the age of something. Indeed the C-14 radiometric dating is then used as evidence because it collaborates with other evidence, so disputing C-14 makes no sense.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
"I took C14 as an example, because it is the most commonly used dating method with reliable double checking in terms of cultrually and historically datable artefacts" - as I said in continuation post.
In such young things, C14 and dendro are basically only things used, excepting cultural dating.
In "much older" things there is hardly any C14 and I do not trust calibration of U-Pb or Th-Pb. Half life being too slow to check, results contradicting. - xamarmm
- You are aware that there is a continuous record going back at least 10000 years just counting rings on trees - first living trees today which oerlaps with preserved dead trees etc. Aso, rings in antarctic Ice allow us to go even further back - so the young earth is solidly disproven - the earth is simply is older than 6000 or 12000 years or whatever you want to say. Finally, we wouldn't be able to see any galaxies if the universe was young, nearest galaxy is the andromeda galaxy which is 2 million light years way, we see that galaxy as it was 2 millon years ago so the universe is at least older than 2 million years just from that single fact alone. The galaxy that is furthest away that we can see is 13 billion light years away proving that the universe is at least 13 billion years old.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
All these distance measurings ultimately depend on:
- heliocentric view of the phenomenon known as "annual parallax of a star"
- a non-theistic causality of how stars ignite, i e self ignite at a sufficient mass, from which is concluded a minimum size/mass of a star, from which is concluded that smallness and closeness of stars would be physically impossible, as well as supposedly (see previous) optically disproven. - xamarmm
- First off, the "annual parallax of a star" doesn't actally depend on a helioentric view. You are aware that th sun an th earth both rotate around each other around a common center of mass - it's just that because the sun is so huge and the earth is so small so that common center is somewhere near the center of the sun and the sun also moves in similar fashion around all the other planets and so in sum the sun remains relatively speaking at rest at the center of the solar system while the planets move around the sun. However,considering only earth and sun, as the earth moves around the sun in an elipsish. The annual parallax of star therefore depend on the sun being relatively at rest - which is obvious when you consider the mass of the sun relative to the earth. Claiming that the huge sun moves in an orbit around the small earth is frankly ridiculous. Also, this form of measurement only works for stars fairly close to us, the further out you go, the more planets move around the sun. However,considering only earth and sun, as the earth moves around the sun in an elipsish. The annual parallax of star therefore depend on the sun being relatively at rest - which is obvious when you consider the mass of the sun relative to the earth. Claiming that the huge sun moves in an orbit around the small earth is frankly ridiculous. Also, this form of measurement only works for stars fairly close to us, the further out you go, the more useless this method becomes and other methods are used instead. In particular when considering galaxies that are million of light years away from us, that method you speak of is not used. Secondly, whlle a star have to have a certain minimal mass to ignite, thus giving a minimumsize of a hydrogen star, say, it is quite possible to find smaller stars - they are simply made up of mostly other materials. So, how exactly have astronomy been disproven you say?
- [not answered here but see
- ... on Young Earth Creationism Denying Gravity (with a certain levity towards the matter, thank God!)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-young-earth-creationism-denying.html] - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
"You are aware that there is a continuous record going back at least 10000 years just counting rings on trees - first living trees today which oerlaps with preserved dead trees etc."
I was aware of that factoid. It involves seeing patterns of thickness and thinness repeated identically at different levels in different trees. I have seen a diagram over some near gaps with few trees to bridge them and the identity of pattern is too loose to prove anything.
Usually there is no C14 in T Rex bones. Recently remains of a T Rex were found with both preserved soft tissue and preserved measurable level of C14. That level has not been used in dating it, since a measureable level of C14 is incompatible with the ages assigned to T Rex as died off some 60 mill. years ago.
I took C14 as an example, because it is the most commonly used dating method with reliable double checking in terms of cultrually and historically datable artefacts.
... on diverse matters, some of which make you want to pray "oremus et pro perfidis judaeis" while others indicate translatio sacerdotii
video is:
scishow : Facts about Human Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwKq3kxPEA
Debate continued from here:
... on Arc of Noah and Lineage of Our Lord
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-arc-of-noah-and-lineage-of-our-lord.html
scishow : Facts about Human Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwKq3kxPEA
Debate continued from here:
... on Arc of Noah and Lineage of Our Lord
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-arc-of-noah-and-lineage-of-our-lord.html
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
It very clearly says daughters can in some cases inherit - but not dispose of their heritage themselves, it is for their husbands to pass it on to their sons.
[Numbers 36 with Haydock comment
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id483.html
And where earlier blogpost left off:
] - Sophie Doon
- Inheriting possessions is not the same as inheriting a family line. [!]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Might very well be. [Did I really concede that? I was tired!] But it is not totally unrelated either. [I got something right even so!] And if you had read Numbers 36 instead of trusting your husbands or your father's rabbi on it, you would have known that.
- Sophie Doon
-
They are not the same.
Firstly, i’m not married and i didn’t rely on my Rabbi. This is a subject i have studied when i was younger and have also spent time in this region. For example, that picture on the left is me on Mount Sinai.
You can trace if you are Jewish through your mother, you can only trace your tribe through your father; this is Halacha, ‘Jewish Law’. Any child born to Mary, that wasn’t Josephs, is a ‘mamzer’ and had no tribal status. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
A child born from adultery or fornication is a mamzer and has no tribal status.
As for "tracing if one is Jewish" through one's mother - is that even in the law or is it the Talmud? I think it is the Talmud.
Now, Mishna is younger than any book of NT, Gemarah is younger than many known Church Fathers.
We need not trust your Talmudic interpretations of the law for what the law was when the Temple stood and when Christ was born. And never again call Christ a mamzer in my presence, will you! - Sophie Doon
-
Yes it is in the Talmud, but the Talmudic explanation is of Deuteronomy 7:3-4.
Jesus was not Josephs child, in the eyes of Jewish Law, he is a mamzer. I’m sorry if that upsets you, but Mary had a baby that wasn’t her husband’s.
Having no Human father meant Jesus had no tribal line, could never be a Priest and could never be a King.
These are the Laws of God. For Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to break them. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
"I’m sorry if that upsets you, but Mary had a baby that wasn’t her husband’s."
Any male child begotten of levirate is son of a mother who has a child that is not her husband's, since it is legally the child of her husband's late relative, her former husband.
That alone does not make a mamzer. - Sophie Doon
- Irrelevant; God was neither Marys former husband or dead.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
But God is not an adulterer either. He is Creator. He creates each human being.
Once without any human origin: Adam.
Once without any mother, originating only from a man: Eve.
Once without any human physical father, originating only from a Mother: Our Lord.
Every other time than those, originating both from a father and from a mother. And (excepting demonic and medical art. insem.) always by sex, only category where mamzer's can be made out of wedlock. - Sophie Doon
-
The terms of the conception aren’t listed to what does and doesn’t make a baby a mamzer or not.
In the story, Mary gave birth to a baby that wasn’t fathered by her husband. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
"The terms of the conception aren’t listed"
There is no such list in the Law. It may be derived from the law, but it is not in the law.
Jesus was legally the son of St Joseph, since he received him as such. - Sophie Doon
-
You mean because he was adopted? Two problems.
Firstly, Joseph would have to explain how Mary (his wife) baby wasn’t his. Best case scenario, he would be thought Mad; worst case, he would be executed for blasphemy, like Jesus was.
Secondly, you still can’t trace Jesus’ line through Joseph. You can only trace your line through your natural father. Jesus didn’t have a ‘natural’ father.
He had no human father, no line and so could not be a descendent of King David. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
Firstly: Joseph would have to explain ... to whom?
To his adopted son? Yes. Even if as God He certainly knew that already.
To some Cohen Gadol, like the one who had designed him as husband for Mary after she left the Temple? Possibly.
To anyone else? No. We know it through Jesus and Mary, and we know their holy veracity by miracles.
Secondly: that reasoning I have already debunked as pilpul rather than Law. You have given no reason to credit it better this time you state it. - Sophie Doon
-
Well, the Roman authorities for one. They were supposedly travelling to Bethlehem for a census (6 years before there was one, but that’s not important), weren’t they? Do you think Joseph said God was the father, or lie and say he was? I’d say the latter.
You haven’t debunked anything. I gave you chapter and verse where the Torah clearly states that you can only trace your Tribal, Kinship and Priestly line through your father. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
You gave more than once chapter and verse for things not saying what you claimed them to say. Now to census:
If Jesus was not born while Joseph came, the question does not arise.
If he was it would still probably not have arisen, since Roman census was concerned with housholds or larger, not with mere individuals.
If it did arise, "Jesus is my Son" would not have been a lie, since St Joseph was His step-father. And legal husband of His Blessed Mother. - Sophie Doon
-
LOL, please, they all say exactly what i said they say.
Well, we are talking about a story here that is impossible to have happened. Until Judea was annexed as part of the Roman Province of Syria in the year 6, Judea was a Client Kingdom or Rome.
Client Kingdoms had to supply military assistance to Rome; they didn’t pay Tax, so no need for a census.
The Census of Quirinius was the very first Roman census in Judea. Nor did you need to travel anywhere. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
Your quotes of the law were inappropriate for proving God's Eternal Son inacceptable as heir of King David or inacceptable as the ultimate High Priest.
Your argument from Roman History is considerably weaker, since merely human. It may also include a misunderstanding.
I have heard one explanation it was not a tax census but a loyalty census on part of all royalty and nobility. St Joseph was that. Only, he was not living in the royal domain, since Herod was living there. Hence Bethlehem. - Sophie Doon
-
They are 100% appropriate. Also, Jesus needed to be a Priest of the line of Aaron to be able to atone Sin and perform the Sin Sacrifice. He wasn’t, and never could be.
So why does Luke say it was the Census of Quirinius, are you saying the Bible is completely wrong? - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
I said I hear that explanation. Not that I bought it.
As to other, you mix around divine order between His priesthoods. Christ = according to Melchisedec (not Aaron) - Sophie Doon
-
Well then you either have to agree with me or accept the Bible is wrong.
Jesus’ death, according to the Bible, was so that he could atone all our sins. The only person who can atone sin is a Priest of Aaron. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
Under the Law of Moses which ceased to apply according to the letter when God was crucified. Probable reason why he was condemned by a priest of Aaron, though.
I have heard false alternatives like "stimmts oder hab ich recht before". Now, I can assume the real census under Quirinius (whether tax or loyalty) happened as Bible told, but after Herod's child murder he backed out of responsibility and said his term started years later. Everyone agreeing because that responsibility was so awkward. - Sophie Doon
-
If you know the Bible then you will know that Gods Laws are eternal. If the Laws given to Moses by God ended when Jesus was crucified, then this means God was wrong and they weren’t eternal. Therefore you are saying the Christian God is fallible.
There was no slaughter of the innocents. Matthew claims Herod's slaughter of the innocents is a fulfilment of Jeremiah 31:15. This is not a prophecy and has nothing to do with Herod. It’s about the Babylonian Captivity. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
You are doubly wrong.
First of all, the Old Law was already the eternal law according to its essence, but not according to each visible sign. At the Crucifixion there was a change in the priesthood. Jews may deny it, but in that case there would have been no sacrifice for nearly two thousand years.
And yes, there was a slaughter of the innocents. Haydock on Jeremiah 31:15, here:
Ver. 15. High. Literally, "high places." Hebrew Rama. (Haydock) --- There was a city of this name near Bethlehem, where Rachel was buried. Benjamin was her son, and was conducted by this road to Babylon. (Chaldean) (Grotius) (Tirinus) --- Ephraim and Manasses were also her grandchildren, and she may bewail their captivity by personification. St. Matthew (ii. 18.) shews that this prediction was more fully accomplished when the innocents were slain. The same passage may allude to different events. (Calmet) --- All the people of God, both of the ten and of the two tribes, bewailed their captivity, and the mothers lamented for those slain near Bethlehem. (Worthington)
[One comment by Sophie Doon was noticed and answered later, see below] - Sophie Doon
-
Jeremiah is not prophesising about the ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’ this is in reference to the Babylon Captivity and has nothing to do with Jesus.
Also, the prophesy that the Messiah will come from ‘town’ of Bethlehem is wrong. The literal translation of the Hebrew is that he will come from the House of Lehem. Lehem being a tribal name, not that of a town. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You do not understand prophecy, so you do not understand its fulfilment.
- Sophie Doon
-
I certainly do, it’s Christianity that wrongly associates completely unconnected verses with Jesus.
The Jewish Bible actually speaks very little of the Messiah. In fact, the word for a future Messiah is ‘haMashiach’, and this never appears once in the Jewish Bible. The prophesies associated with the Messiah, Jesus didn’t fulfil. A big no-no was dying.
In Judaism, the most important part is achieving the Age of Perfection. The Messiah is simply the anointed King who oversees this Age. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
"In Judaism, the most important part is achieving the Age of Perfection. The Messiah is simply the anointed King who oversees this Age."
He does. Age of Perfection, Reign of Thousand Years = Catholic Church.
"A big no-no was dying."
Not acc. Isaiah 11, "And his sepulchre shall be glorious". Uniting Judah and Ephraim, conquering Edom Moab and Ammon came after that verse. And so did the Church History after Pentecost. After Ascension, after Resurrection from Glorious Tomb. - Sophie Doon
-
“He does”
Does what? I don’t know what you mean.
“Not acc. Isaiah 11, "And his sepulchre shall be glorious".”
That’s not in the Jewish version of Isaiah 11? - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
You said the Messiah is he who oversees the age of perfection, I said about Jesus Christ "he does" namely oversee the age of perfection which is the Roman Catholic Church (by itself or with Orthodox possibly).
Check Hebrew for Isaiah ch 11 verse 10, here is Douay-Rheims:
In that day the root of Jesse, who standeth for an ensign of the people, him the Gentiles shall beseech, and his sepulchre shall be glorious. - Sophie Doon
-
The Age of Perfection is a time when there will be no sin, no death, the world will be perfect. Is the world perfect?
Exact translation of Isaiah 11:10
י וְהָיָה, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, שֹׁרֶשׁ יִשַׁי אֲשֶׁר עֹמֵד לְנֵס עַמִּים, אֵלָיו גּוֹיִם יִדְרֹשׁוּ; וְהָיְתָה מְנֻחָתוֹ, כָּבוֹד. {פ}
IN THAT DAY THE ROOT OF JESSE SHALL STAND AS AN ENSIGN TO THE PEOPLES; HIM SHALL THE NATIONS SEEK, AND HIS DWELLINGS SHALL BE GLORIOUS. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
You can hardly deny that the nations have been seeking Jesus Christ for two thousand years now. Or close to.
I suppose leaving "grave" would have pointed too much to the resurrection, but even for the Tabernacle this version is true about Christ. [It is true about His throne in Heaven too, His ascension being witnessed by the eleven and His being there by a vision of Proto-Martyr St Stephen]
Catholic Church is a society in which sins are readily forgiven and in which death becomes the door to eternal life. It is perfect. - [Noticed and answered later this by:] Sophie Doon
-
Firstly, there is no ‘Old’ Law, there is only the Law. Secondly, ‘but not according to each visible sign’ i don’t know what that’s supposed means?
There was no change in priesthood. Also, there didn’t need to any sacrifices, as the Sin Sacrifice is the least effective way of atoning sin, (after Prayer and Charity) because it only atones sins committed unintentionally.
In fact, God himself says that he doesn’t want sacrifices, he wants Prayer and sincere repentance. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
There is only THE law?
The law God gave to Adam or to Noah was no law then? And Abraham knew no law?
Aaronite priests were bringing forth bread and wine when Abraham came to Jerusalem?
Aaronite priests were first tying Isaac to the altar and then releasing him, when an angel from God held their hand back?
No change in priesthood, is that what you are saying? So destruction of Temple 40 years after Jesus Christ came was a bed time story? You could have fooled me! - Sophie Doon
- Yes, there is only THE Law. The Torah was only written down at Sinai, that’s not when it came into existence though; it has always existed. There’s the Written Torah and there’s the Oral Torah, spoken by God. For example, Gen. 26:5 "Because Abraham obeyed My voice, and observed My safeguards, My commandments, My decrees, and My Torahs". Moses only wrote down the Law, the Laws already existed, they are eternal.
Destruction of the Temple...and? - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Noah and Abraham did not feel obliged to abstain from shrimps or porc meat.
Destruction of Temple means end of the Aaronite sacrifices up to and including present. Not 70 years, but 1900 years. That either means sins are no longer remitted, or that priesthood has been transferred. There are OT prophecies of this transfer and they fit the Eucharist perfectly.
Psalms 109:4
The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.
(Continued about New Covenant prophecy, but not posted yet due to "youtube bug":)
Who was this Melchisedech? He did not descend from Aaron, since he was contemporary with Abraham. And his sacrifice was - bread and wine. The starting points for the Sacrifice of the New Covenant, in its unbloody form.
Genesis 14:18
But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God,
So much for your claim "Jesus cannot have been priest, he did not descend from Aaron".
Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts. - Sophie Doon
-
Sorry, i also remembered; Noah was a Gentile and so wasn't required to adhere to the Laws of the Torah.
Just waiting for the references to Abraham eating Pork and Shrimp now.
I'm not aware of any, so would need you to show me where. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
Noah a Gentile? Or common origin of Hebrews and Gentiles (Nimrod being origin of gentile diversity indirectly and idolatry directly)?
Abraham came after the directives given to Noah and before those given to Moses. Check out what was kosher food just after the Flood.
I am not saying Abraham ever actually ate shrimps or porc or, if he did, that he ate much of it. I can only see no evidence he felt obliged to totally avoid it. - Sophie Doon
-
So, i’m not sure what your point is?
You said that Noah and Abraham didn’t follow the Torah by eating shrimp and pork.
Then you contradict yourself by agree that Noah didn’t need to follow the Torah, and also that there is no evidence in the Bible that Abraham ate shrimp or pork.
Doesn’t make sense. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
I said that eating shrimp and porc after the Flood but before Moses was not yet against the Torah.
I did not contradict myself at all.
I thereby argue that the ceremonial preceps of the Torah (as in Exodus/Leviticus) are not identic to or integral part of the unique Law. They were just applications of it back between Aaron/Moses and Jesus who with His disciples kept them as long as there was a need.
Jesus also instituted the priesthood of the new covenant. Aaronite one was not eternal. - Sophie Doon
- Well, clearly the Laws of the Torah did exist before Moses, as i already pointed out to you the verse in Genesis where Abraham obeys Gods Torahs.
I never said you contradicted yourself, only that what you said didn’t make sense.
All the Laws in Oral and Written Torah are eternal, they are the same Laws; that includes Aaranite Law. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- If it includes Aaronite law, how come then that:
- Sacrifices were made before Aaron was even born?
- Genesis and Psalms both note the excellency of the priesthood of Melchisedech who was clearly no Aaronite but on top of that sacrificed according to a ritual involving, like Holy Mass later on, bread and wine?
- the Name of God is Holy among the Gentiles and a pure offering is born forth among them, outside Aaronite priesthood, outside the Temple (see Malachi 1:11)?
- Sophie Doon
- OK, firstly, just to confirm you understand that Gentiles weren’t required to obey the Torah; and that Jesus, as a Jew, was?
So, what sacrifices are you talking about before Aaron and also, when you mention what the Psalms say about Melchizedek do you mean Psalm 110?
This one is a wrong translation into English by KJV. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sacrifices before Aaron: Abel's, Noah's, Abraham's, Melchisedec's, Moses Father-In-Law's.
I mean the psalm we number as 109:
"Juravit Dominus, et non poenitebit eum: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech."
And I am not buying that Catholic Church translated rather than perhaps Masoretic transmitted it wrong.
Ergo: Aaron's priesthood was not the eternal one, was not the perfect fulfilment of the Torah's given to the patriarch's.
"just to confirm you understand that Gentiles weren’t required to obey the Torah; and that Jesus, as a Jew, was?"
1) The Eternal Son of the Eternal Father was God before He was a Jew. Nevertheless He obeyed the Law as long as that was required.
2) You can call Melchisedec a Gentile after nationhood, but not after Paganism.
This lands you with Melchisedec's sacrifice being the one also prophecied in Malachi 1:11.
I e Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Transferred priesthood, as per Hebrews. - Sophie Doon
-
Doesn’t matter; Jesus’ mother, Mary, was a Jew and so by Jewish Law, he was also a Jew.
Malachi 1:11 doesn’t mean what you think it means, you are cherry picking one verse. Malachi 1:6-14 is condemnation of Jews for not rebuilding the Temple, to resume Temple services and have instead performed atonement sacrifices not in accordance with Jewish (Gods) Law. So, the Temple must be rebuilt. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
For not rebuilding the Temple?
Does not say that anywhere.
For sacrificing in the wrong spirit, yes.
And at same time is recommended the unpolluted sacrifice by which God is honoured among the Gentiles - Holy Mass later to be instituted by Jesus Christ.
If He was a Jew by His Blessed Mother, He was from Eternity God by His Father. Of Him Moses spoke. If you believed Moses and the Prophets, maybe you would believe Him as well. - Malachias:
- Chapter 1 as per Douay Rheims
http://drbo.org/chapter/44001.htm - Sophie Doon
-
Sorry, you have lost me, your descriptions are too deep for me to understand your point?
What exactly are you suggesting Malachi 1:11 is describing without being to flowery with your explanation? - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
Malachi 1:11 describes Holy Mass.
- A sacrifice.
- Which is immaculate.
- Which takes place among the Gentiles. From East to West all over the world.
- A food offering:
"Clean oblation. The precious body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice. (Challoner) --- This is denoted by the very word mincha, the offering of flour and wine. (Calmet)"
[source]
I am finding the "I don't understand what you mean" and "you have lost me" tiresome, possibly hypocritic.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
... on Girls in Roman Empire, before and after Christianity
Video Commented on (started commenting before seeing it through, at the point where it is said that four "Domitia" daughters became confusing):
TEDEducation : Four sisters in Ancient Rome - Ray Laurence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQMgLxVxsrw
Two points more:
Gynaecologically speaking the ideal age for a first childbirth is neither 13 nor 30 (nec XIII nec XXX) but between, furthermore narrowed down to between 17 and 25. However, stiff hips at 30 are even worse than small hips at 13. I have this information from my mother as a medical student, and in theory gynaecology would have been her favourite subject. In practise she could not have her practicum in gynaecology, since in Sweden that would have meant collaborating with abortions.
Canonically speaking the nether limit of 14/12 remained in force as Roman Catholic Church law up till in the XXth C. It has been raised to 16/14 with an added comment about obeying the state laws in that respect. However, 12 being legally acceptable for a girl all through the Middle Ages does not mean they were always married at that age. In Medieval cities in France for which "civil registers" (or parish registers, more probably) have been recovered, 25 seems to have been much more typical than 12. However, it may well have been somewhat younger in the countryside, and I have no problem with that. "Respect the farmer" was the best aspect of the Swedish Bonnet Party against the Hat Party, "respect the farmer, he's the daddy of the rest of us, it's his bread we all eat". In 1900 there were Catholic States that had a higher marital age limit even so: in France I think it had been 18/15 since Code Napoléon (and remained so to 2006, when it became 18/18), not just in the anticlerical Third Republic, but even during pro-Church periods (like start of Third Republic, 1870-78), in Austrian Empire it was 21 for a girl to marry without parental consent and 14 with parental consent. Church Law in theory did not require, but sttrongly recommend parental consent. "It is usually a sin to marry against the will of one's parents," not meaning it was always the case, nor meaning such a marriage would be invalid. But Spain still had the 14/12 limit without parental consent as requirement./HGL
PS, one thing more:
Most of the time when girls married as late as 25 while 12 was quite legal, they were not educated with boys not of their family, they did not listen to rock music, they did not stress for exams or for getting a work. They had far less sexual pressure in the flesh than avarage girls not married those ages have nowadays. And though less true about boys, it is rather true about them too. Coeducation, rock music, stress of industrial and post industrial society are making it harder to remain chaste up to marriage./HGL
TEDEducation : Four sisters in Ancient Rome - Ray Laurence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQMgLxVxsrw
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
Now, in Pagan times a daughter of Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus would have obviously been Domitia, or possibly, one Domitia and one Domitilla. There being four daughters to one rich Roman back then is to my mind utopic.
The reason why a system of "Domitia" actually worked is that one usually had just one daughter - the rest killed off or set out to die or become slaves.
Christianity changed the killing, and also (through saint's names) the naming custom. - awsomeaaron1able
- A girl that is going to [marry] at 12 and this is normal?
- Battleguild
- You must understand that in the time of Ancient Rome, human lifespans were much much shorter than today, with their average lifespans around 30 - 40 and if you're lucky 50. So in that respect, a girl of 12 years then would be comparable to a girl of 19 - 20 years today.
- KrioGnosz
- That's a misconception. It's technically true that the average lifespan was about that, but it's the high infant mortality that skews that statistic. If you did survive past age five or so, you had pretty good odds of making it to 60 or 70.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I quite second that.
- awsomeaaron1able
- A girl that is going to at 12 and this is normal?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
The legal age was 14 for boys and 12 for girls.
In actual practise Pagan Romans sometimes married daughters off as early as age ten or eleven. Since Christianity was introduced that was stopped.
Twelve or at very earliest eleven and a half became strict miminum.
Two points more:
Gynaecologically speaking the ideal age for a first childbirth is neither 13 nor 30 (nec XIII nec XXX) but between, furthermore narrowed down to between 17 and 25. However, stiff hips at 30 are even worse than small hips at 13. I have this information from my mother as a medical student, and in theory gynaecology would have been her favourite subject. In practise she could not have her practicum in gynaecology, since in Sweden that would have meant collaborating with abortions.
Canonically speaking the nether limit of 14/12 remained in force as Roman Catholic Church law up till in the XXth C. It has been raised to 16/14 with an added comment about obeying the state laws in that respect. However, 12 being legally acceptable for a girl all through the Middle Ages does not mean they were always married at that age. In Medieval cities in France for which "civil registers" (or parish registers, more probably) have been recovered, 25 seems to have been much more typical than 12. However, it may well have been somewhat younger in the countryside, and I have no problem with that. "Respect the farmer" was the best aspect of the Swedish Bonnet Party against the Hat Party, "respect the farmer, he's the daddy of the rest of us, it's his bread we all eat". In 1900 there were Catholic States that had a higher marital age limit even so: in France I think it had been 18/15 since Code Napoléon (and remained so to 2006, when it became 18/18), not just in the anticlerical Third Republic, but even during pro-Church periods (like start of Third Republic, 1870-78), in Austrian Empire it was 21 for a girl to marry without parental consent and 14 with parental consent. Church Law in theory did not require, but sttrongly recommend parental consent. "It is usually a sin to marry against the will of one's parents," not meaning it was always the case, nor meaning such a marriage would be invalid. But Spain still had the 14/12 limit without parental consent as requirement./HGL
PS, one thing more:
Most of the time when girls married as late as 25 while 12 was quite legal, they were not educated with boys not of their family, they did not listen to rock music, they did not stress for exams or for getting a work. They had far less sexual pressure in the flesh than avarage girls not married those ages have nowadays. And though less true about boys, it is rather true about them too. Coeducation, rock music, stress of industrial and post industrial society are making it harder to remain chaste up to marriage./HGL
Saturday, July 6, 2013
... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters
Series on Discovering Religion:
... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters
It is through above that I know the channel Discovering Religion.
... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more
(on Ep 01)
... on Young Earth
(on Ep 02)
... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise
(on Ep 03, 04 1/2, 04 2/2)
... on Copy Right issues, Scientific Theories and Adam's children's sibling marriages, not forgetting bananas
(on Ep 05, 06)
The video by which I ran into "Discoveringreligion":
Autumn Lauber : Why I am an atheist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lttw4vxRfI
... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters
It is through above that I know the channel Discovering Religion.
... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more
(on Ep 01)
... on Young Earth
(on Ep 02)
... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise
(on Ep 03, 04 1/2, 04 2/2)
... on Copy Right issues, Scientific Theories and Adam's children's sibling marriages, not forgetting bananas
(on Ep 05, 06)
The video by which I ran into "Discoveringreligion":
Autumn Lauber : Why I am an atheist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lttw4vxRfI
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
[to the young lady on the video]: - Autumn, was watching first six or seven of Discovering Religion a while ago.
My comments and ensuing debates on those upcoming on my blog assortedretorts (google or add blogspot domain).
[Instead of linking to this blog, I link to the previous message where I started keeping that promise:
... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/07/on-apocalyptic-fears-of-atheists-and.html - I also saw and answered:
jehovahuponyou - ACTUALLY YOU ARE A SPOILED LITTLE GIRL WITHOUT THE LIFE EXPERIENCES TO MAKE ANY DECISION ABOUT ANY THING DEEP OR MAJOR.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- If she is spoiled or not is not up to you. You are not her father.
She is no longer a little girl, and she has been mature enough to for instance marry since the age she decided to call herself an atheist, i e twelve. That was four years ago when she made the video and is five years ago now.
Yesterday was fourth of July. RCC celebrated St Isabel of Aragon, Queen of Portugal. She married at age 12.
*Christian* tradition has it a girl is mature enough for important decisions at age twelve. - jehovahuponyou
- I HAVE AN OPINION, I SPOKE THAT OPINION - I AM NOT ADOLF HITLER'S DADDY, BUT I STILL KNOW HE WAS A SON-OF-A-BITCH.
MARYING AT 16, HMMM, YOU MUST RAISE HOGS AND DRINK MOONSHINE.
POPE POTLICKER MARRIED A CHOIR BOY WHO WAS ONLY EIGHT - SO WHAT.
I CAN TELL YOUR DAUGHTERS (IF ANY LIL LADIES ARE UNLUCKY ENOUGH TO EVER BORN TO YOU) ARE ALL HEADED STRAIGHT TO WHITE SLAVERY. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- White slavery?
You do not know what you are talking about.
Might have had a dad or grandpa who raised hogs and drank moonshine yourself, and you are ashamed of it.
Now, St Isabel of Aragon, Queen of Portugal married at twelve. She died in 1336 in Estremoz on a journey to reconcile two of her quarrelling sons.
Does not sound like white slavery to me, no.
Oh, one more thing, if you had a dad or granddad who raised hogs and drank moonshine, I do not consider that shameful in you.
Being excessively ashamed of it would be shameful in you. Just like it would be shameful to drink excessively much of the moonshine.
Hope home distillers learn how to filtrate after destillation, my own grandpa was an official monopoly distiller in Sweden. - jehovahuponyou
- [Insult involving my mouth]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Are you a magician?
I had toothache this night.
Either way, if you are or are not, you are a prejudiced and unpolite man.
[I might have been wrong, I might have fallen asleep while he posted the insult and the toothache may have had no supernatural cause at all or quite a distinct one - apart from natural causes like caries bacteria] - I also saw and answered:
Narania234 - Christianity
The belief that a cosmic Middle Eastern Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... yeah, makes perfect sense.
Christianity is a ''highly legitimate'' and ''intelligent'' set of beliefs according to neocons. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You are prejudiced against cosmos, Middle East, Resurrection, Trinity, Eternal Life, Holy Eucharist, Prayer, Original Sin, existence of the Devil, and probably trees as well, at least those in Eden.
Not neocon prejudice, perhaps, but prejudice nonetheless! - Narania234
-
It's all made up bullshit.
Hebrew Bible is the original one, while chrisitan bible is a FALSIFICATION.
There are FOUR CROWN PRINCES of Hell, not onel.
Their names are Belial, Lucifer, haSatan and Leviathan.
The evil catholic church exterminated many millions of inncocent people with their Inquisition, Knightly Orders and witch-hunters.
Judaism was opressed for 1900 years.
christianity is nothing more than a renegade Middle Eastern sect, a heresy of Judaism and never 'll be anything else. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
As for oppression and heresy:
Jews defected from God by rejecting Christ, as Samaritans had done about a thousand years later by rejecting Rohoboam the son of Solomon.
Oppression of Judaism was a divine punishment for that defection.
Christianity was the true covenant, as through it idolaters have been converted to the one true God.
Now, the Old Testament has come down to us in certain variants.
Hebrew Masoretic text - and Masoretic seems to mean "compromise" or "peace" (as between divergent readings).
It is the latest known among Hebrews.
Before that we had at one time Septuaginta and Samarian text, of which the Septuaginta was a miraculously accurate translation to Greek of oldest Jewish - non-Samaritan - variant.
Between original of Septuaginta and Masoretic text, you have original of Vulgate's OT.
Lucifer and Satan are one and the same. He guided the morning star around the sun before falling down to the mean office of being an accuser.
The Catholic Church is not evil, did not exterminate millions, did no war on innocents, Inquisition was a response to Albigensian evil (there were similar responses to Baal worship under OT), Knightly Orders were not always faithful to the Church. Worst witchhunts were Protestant. - Narania234
-
Isaiah 43:10-13, haShem himself says there is no savior and all men must contact haShem directly. Ergo, your Jesus was a false prophet.
Jesus was the enemy of Judaism, he claimed that Old Testament ''should be ignored'', therefore he was a heretic.
According to the witnesses your Jesus insulted the Roman emperor Tiberius.
Insulting the Roman emperor, consuls and senate was puunishable by death.
According to the Roman law your Jesus was justly executed. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
Isaiah 43:10 says there is no God after or before Holy Trinity. Same verse specifically mentions the chosen servant, the Son made Man.
43:11 says there is no saviour beside Holy Trinity, but the Son made Man is not beside, but within.
43:13 says none shall deliver Israel out of the Hand of Holy Trinity. Now, it is precisely in incarnation of the Son that God gets hands.
"Jesus [...] claimed that Old Testament ''should be ignored'' " - says who? Your false witnesses? - Narania234
- Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism are false religions, so is the fake religion of the Druids, and the fake religion of Odin (not sure whether he was a Druid or a lapsed Samarian Cohen), and as for the Greco-Roman religion, the Maccabees considered it the Abomination of Desolation.
Between Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism on the one hand and Islam on the other hand, One God in Three Persons is the golden mean.
So it is between Talmudic monopersonalism and kabbalistic doctrine of 11 or 22 sephiroth.
"Even the protestants reject it."
Protestantism started 1517, one and a half millennia after Christianity. Unlike Orthodox and Catholics.
Even so, most Protestant sects (exceptions: Socinianism, Deism, Atheism, Transcendental Philosophy, Russellianism) accept Holy Trinity same as Catholics and Orthodox.
"The actual god from Hebrew Bible, haShem has NO SON."
Oh yeah?
Psalm 109: "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. "
If the Son of David is only son of David and not of God, why does David call Him my Lord?
"With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee."
Father speaking to Son.
"It was true that your jesus claimed that there is a greater power and authority than the Roman emperor, consules and senate and it was indeed punishable by death."
Why after hearing that claim did then Pilate say "I find no guilt in him?"
The Jews who protested became idolaters and apostates by saying on that occasion: "we have no king but Caesar".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)