Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Monday, April 26, 2021

I don't take Francis Marsden for a Catholic

Mike Hartigan took me for a Protestant · I don't take Francis Marsden for a Catholic · Mutually Small Respect with Susan Kelly · Mikey Clarke Thinks YEC is American Protestants Only, Austin Middleton That Heliocentrism was Proven by Parallax (or he thought so, at least) · Own Answer, Same Question

Francis Marsden
April 20: 36 years a priest. Lived and studied six years in Rome.
The pope now accepts evolution. What consequences will follow? I see the universe and us created in 6 days will now come under question and the consequences from this acceptance being the collapse of faith?: Pope John Paul II said in one address “l’evoluzione è più que una teoria.” The Press translated this as “Evolution is more than a theory” i.e. it is a fact.

However he may equally have meant: “Evolution is more than one theory.” There is neo-Darwinian theory of random mutations as the motor for evolutionary progress. Or there are theories of guided or theistic evolution.

The Church rejects the idea that human beings are just a random accidental outcome of meaningless physical processes. It insists that God has willed humanity into existence, whether by evolutionary pathways or by direct creation.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sun: Do you accept the timeline of millions and billions of years or of 6000 / 7200 / 7500 years?

If the latter*, how long ago was Adam created?
Francis Marsden
23h ago: 13.8 billion years since the Big Bang. Sure. No problem.

4.5 billion years since the formation of Planet Earth. No problem.

Since the emergence of homo sapiens - whatever the anthropologists say, but it is rather uncertain.

Since God breathed a living spirit (nefesh) into our ancestors, giving them self-awareness, self-consciousness, language, moral conscience etc. - I just don’t know.

Adam in Genesis is not a personal name, by the way. It means “man made from earth” (adamah), just as Hawwah (Eve) means “mother of all the living.” Are they symbolic, or collective personalities, or single individuals? Who knows?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now: You are overstepping the limits posed by Humani Generis in doubting a personal Adam and a personal Eve.

You are also making a joke of Catholic metaphysics by pretending God could have breathed a living spirit into our ancestors way after Homo sapiens emerged, especially as new evidence supports Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo erectus being certainly endowed with language.

If you put Adam at 90 000 years ago, or earlier, you make historicity of Genesis 3 a joke. If you put him at 7500 years ago or more recently, you are making the common descent from him of all men a joke.

* I meant former.

Epilogue, next day:

Francis Marsden
20h ago: Hans-Georg, you’d better go and tell the exegetes at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome that they are overstepping the limits of Humanae Generis too! And making the historicity of Genesis a joke!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now: I think you have better contacts to them than I.

If you’d invite them to take on the debate with me, I’d be game, not sure that they would be.

Plus, as to their authority, I don’t think they are since 1958 any such thing. As Pontifical, that is.

Mike Hartigan took me for a Protestant

Mike Hartigan
Fri: Code Monkey (1979–present)
The pope now accepts evolution. What consequences will follow? I see the universe and us created in 6 days will now come under question and the consequences from this acceptance being the collapse of faith?: The Pope now accepts evolution.

Given that evolution is not inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, I fail to see why you think there will be consequences or a ‘collapse of faith.’ Genesis spoke of evolution thousands of years before Darwin was born. This isn’t new.

FYI, the Catholic Church doesn’t subscribe to a literal interpretation of the 6 day thing. You may try reading a little more.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sun: “the Catholic Church doesn’t subscribe to a literal interpretation of the 6 day thing”

Since when?
Mike Hartigan
22h ago: Since forever. Keep in mind we're talking specifically about the Catholic Church (the largest Christian denomination in the world, FWIW). I can't speak for other Christian denominations. Catholics are not fundamentalists. We teach that much of the Old Testament is allegorical — the 6 day thing, for example.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now: “Since forever.”

Forever meaning since you went to catechism after Vatican II?

“Catholics are not fundamentalists.”

Someone forgot to hand Sts Robert Bellarmine and Thomas Aquinas, not to mention Augustine of Hippo that memo?

“We teach that much of the Old Testament is allegorical”

St Thomas taught all of OT history was literal truth and all of it was allegorical.

Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria
Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.

Not his words, but a seminary saying from his time.
Mike Hartigan
2m ago: If you need to mischaracterize the teachings of the Catholic Church to make a point, then it's probably not a point worth making.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now: I’d say you are mischaracterising the historical teachings of the Catholic Church by believing they are identic to your modernist catechist’s teaching.
Update: next day.
Mike Hartigan
21h ago: As you wish to believe. I'm not inclined to defend a position l that I didn't take* — specifically, the fundamentalism thing. If you want to debate that issue, you'll need to find someone who doesn't understand the Catholic Church's teachings on that. There are plenty of atheists on Quora who will be more than happy to engage.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now: You are the one not understanding the Catholic Church’s teaching on that. Unless you mischaracterise the Vatican II Sect as the Catholic Church. AND it was not “condemning” Fundamentalism up to the early 90’s. When I converted in 88, I had been told I didn’t need to be a Fundie, not that I couldn’t be.

* Did he imagine I attributed to him the statement that the proper Catholic understanding is Fundamentalist? I never stated I took him for St Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas! Ah, he did. Here is an update the day after above:

Mike Hartigan
21h ago: I'm not going to defend a fundamentalist position, since, as a Catholic, I'm not a fundamentalist. You can believe in a 6,000 year old earth and a universe that was built in 6 days, if you like. I'm not going to change your mind, nor have I been trying to. I only ask that you show me the same courtesy.

Bottom line is that the teachings of the Catholic Church don't contradict Darwin, and vice-versa, so there's no crisis of faith resulting from the Pope's words on that subject.

With that, this conversation is over.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1:28 pm: From your side.

“I'm not going to defend a fundamentalist position”

I wasn’t asking you to.

“as a Catholic, I'm not a fundamentalist.”

That’s what I am challenging you to defend from Catholic magisterium prior to 1990’s.

“Bottom line is that the teachings of the Catholic Church don't contradict Darwin,”

That so called bottom line is also what I am attacking and by implication asking you to defend if you like.

Neither need to “try to change” the other’s “mind” - more like sparring.

It is distinctly discourteous of you to pretend I challenged you to something I didn’t and pretend to represent the Catholic position when I am pretending to be precisely Catholic. It is distinctly discourteous of you to ask me to take that as a final statement which I can’t contradict.

And it’s a bit stupid to think you know the history of the Catholic Church better than a Latinist, with plenty of opportunities to read both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. At least if your profile qualifications are not hiding things.

Saranga Saikia came in under a video by AronRa (a long thread of 185 msg)

Saranga Saikia: @Hans-Georg Lundahl the Indian age of Kaliyuga and Krishna.... they're all mythology......not history....get your facts straight
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Saranga Saikia How much "mythology" can be history and how much can't? How do you tell the difference?
Saranga Saikia: @Hans-Georg Lundahl the historicity of Vasudeva Krishna in the Mathura region of Uttar Pradesh is to this extent- a local hero called Vasudeva elevated to a central status under the greater tradition or Cult of Vishnu in the greater Brahmamical pantheon under the aegis of Puranic Hinduism- a hero whose historicity can be at best pushed to the 1st- 2nd century BCE

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ok... so let's say that the idea of Kaliyuga actually has historical merit to it. But, the end of it's predecessor, the Dvapara yuga doesn't meet it's end by a flood. Nor does the beginning of the Kaliyuga represent the actual reset of the whole human race. It was just the end of the Kurukshetra war or more accurately, death of Krishna.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Saranga Saikia "Nor does the beginning of the Kaliyuga represent the actual reset of the whole human race."

I think Hinduism started among people who wanted to ignore there had recently been a flood. Nod nostalgics.
Saranga Saikia: @Hans-Georg Lundahl you think? What you think doesn't mean shit. And it's not Hindu, rather Vedic. The Puranas actually have references to a Flood, and a so called Manu building a huge Boat and Vishnu in his first incarnation as Matsya- a giant fish, saves him. But that happens in the Treta yuga, the age of the first Manu...or ancestral man. In the Puranic understanding of time...the age your Judeo- Christian tradition refers has no equivalence of any sort of population wiping. And don't say Brahmanism got it all wrong. Either all of this batshit is true or none is.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Saranga Saikia No, for a true religion, all of it is true, but for any false religion it is not true that "none of it is".

I don't have a habit of making a difference between Hindu and Vedic religions, though I see what you mean.

I am here talking of early post-Flood, perhaps not even post-Babel origins of both. And these obviously prior to both.

I think Rama was an early post-Flood and pre-Babel hero, and Nimrod would have been "Hanuman", and I think both this and the Flood were pre-posed to much earlier in order to leave a "continuity" between world wars of Nod East of Eden and the world of early post-Flood India - because the civilisation is in some ways built on nostalgia for Nod.

Later on specific wars and heros added an aura around the pre-Flood memories, like Kurukshetra and your view of "Krishna's" origin.
Saranga Saikia: @Hans-Georg Lundahl No, if we subject the myths to a chronological reading, as proposed by the Puranas, the Kurukshetra episode is placed after the events of the Ramayana.

And your claim of your religion being the one true and all of the rest being false just reeks of arrogance and haughtiness. FYI... though not saying they are in anyway true or hold scientific goodness, the Indian philosophical schools are characterised by far greater complexity of ideas and concepts about the Atman and Brahman and purush and prakriti, things that actually follow reason, than your Judeo-Christian traditions could ever grasp.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Saranga Saikia "No, if we subject the myths to a chronological reading, as proposed by the Puranas, the Kurukshetra episode is placed after the events of the Ramayana."

We would agree both Mahabharata, Ramayana and Puranas too were written way after events?

One of the things that oral tradition has a way of muddling up is, chronology. The Bible, even on purely human grounds, has a safeguard : from Genesis 2 to 11, the oral tradition later taken down by Moses and perhaps already by Abraham involved full genealogies from Adam to Flood, from Flood to Abraham (Genesis 5 and 11), and from Genesis 12 on, one can count on some kind of writing being used and also kept in the beduin tribe that would later resettle in Egypt.

Without such safeguards, one thing that can happen is chronological rearrangements. For instance, Germanic legend about the battle of Ravenna pits Ermaneric against Theoderic. When we go to written sources made by Romans (both Latin and Greek speaking, and including Romanised Germanics) we can however see that Ermaneric lived about a century before Theoderic.

The traditions about early kings in Denmark and Sweden come in two versions contradicting each other on the exact topic of chronology: both Saxo and Snorri agree Odin came to Sweden before Frothi Haddingson was king of Denmark. However, to Snorri, Frothi Haddingson was identic to Peace-Frothi, contemporary of Augustus, but to Saxo, they were Frothi I and Frothi II.

Whether one or the other manipulated or both took the tradition as heard from oral tradition bearers, chronology has been manipulated on at least one side.

When it comes to Snorri and Saxo, I think Peace-Frothi and Frothi Haddingson are one and the same, Saxo abusively divided him into two several centuries apart, and when it comes to chronology of Flood, Rama, death of Krishna, I think your tradition has abusively pre-posed Flood and Rama to before the death of Krishna.

"And your claim of your religion being the one true and all of the rest being false just reeks of arrogance and haughtiness."

I think I had already got that you are not a Christian, and I am well aware of that value being one of your errors ... thank you. But though I actually do claim that, and though I worded my expression accordingly, the gist of what I said is, a false religion or a religion not the true one will contain some error, but you cannot take any single statement from it and conclude it is erroneous just because of that.

"FYI... though not saying they are in anyway true or hold scientific goodness, the Indian philosophical schools are characterised by far greater complexity of ideas and concepts about the Atman and Brahman and purush and prakriti, things that actually follow reason, than your Judeo-Christian traditions could ever grasp."

For your information, I think St. Thomas Aquinas has both grasped that complexity and refuted it.

And as to your saying " though not saying they are in anyway true or hold scientific goodness," I think I respect Mahabharata and Ramayana more than you do. As sources for history.
Saranga Saikia: @Hans-Georg Lundahl there are a lot to say about everything that you blurted out. How most of what you said was garbage. But that's the whole point. It's garbage. The best I can achieve is losing my mental peace and balance. It's because you so blindly believe what you view is correct, so dogmatic has your upbringing been, it'll be easier proving that the earth is flat than showing somehow that something doesn't hold good chronologically, or asking you to take up an unbiased study of anything. The same thing holds true of all of these pastors that you flock to. They would scoff at anything that isn't their belief, ridicule the fact that anyone is having a world view that isn't centred on Israel. Well, I should have read the rest of your comments.

As for the treatment of Ramayana and Mahabharata, what you mean by valuing it more than is that you see it as a tool to confirm your history. You try to draw parallels between events in them and the Biblical narrative, to the extent that would increase the historicity of your story. Other than that, you don't care if anything else has any historicity, for all you care, it'll be better if they don't have any, something I can gauge from your comments, since in most of the cases, you argue that the other things are wrong. Anyway, you try to see the source as an actual, chronologically, correct, depiction of events. You see the depiction of a certain event, and you shout out, that is just as it happened (because it supports what you believe), and arbitrarily leave out or discredit other details. How I use it is corroborate it with other available evidence, archaeological and literary before ranking them on the basis of authenticity.We have sought, there have been multiple attempts to establish the historicity of the two stories in the time frame mentioned in the books themselves. We have failed miserably. The most blatant obstacle is, obviously, the Harappan civilisation. I can go into details about doubtfulness about authorship and other contradictions and missing plots and stuff. But that's not the main focus of our study. We try to see the events as being representative of the social, political, economic and cultural reality of the times, and by that I mean 5th century BCE- 5th century CE. In this exercise as well, corroboration with other and contesting sources, such as the Buddist texts and archaeological records is crucial for a balanced study and for yielding the best results. The didatic portions are very useful for the study of changing social norms and ideas about dhamma, complex relationships regarding authority as far as interpretation of law is concerned. There are different versions of the texts as well. Studying the variations helps us understand cultural contestations and contradictory socio- cultural norms. It is a beautiful exercise to use these two epics in understanding history of the early historic period of Indian history.

Thus, we can clearly see who respects the sources more and who is honest in their efforts.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Saranga Saikia I'm not commenting on some of your simple abuse. But you had some other things to say between a beginning and an end that were calculated to disparage me.

"It's because you so blindly believe what you view is correct,"

I believe my view is correct, so do you. Do you believe that blindly?

"so dogmatic has your upbringing been,"

Well, yes I was taught chemistry and round earth and how machines work ... lots of scientific dogmas ... you meant religious ones?

"it'll be easier proving that the earth is flat than showing somehow that something doesn't hold good chronologically,"

It so happens, I perfectly understand that if Puranas are correct, my chronology doesn't work, precisely as if the Bible is correct the one you attribute to Puranas as well as the one you hold as Evolutionist is not correct. I pointed out, before anything was written down in India you had some millennia even into the Kali Yuga - way after all of Flood and Rama, Krishna and his Kurukshetra war would have been finished.

"or asking you to take up an unbiased study of anything."

In history, one is usually not unbiassed.

"The same thing holds true of all of these pastors that you flock to."

Like, I haven't been to Church since 2012 ...

"They would scoff at anything that isn't their belief,"

Well, I didn't.

"ridicule the fact that anyone is having a world view that isn't centred on Israel."

I find it fairly respectable to have a world view at least somewhat centred on pre-Flood and early post-Flood world, as I take hinduism (with predecessors) to be.

"As for the treatment of Ramayana and Mahabharata, what you mean by valuing it more than is that you see it as a tool to confirm your history."

And in the process learning more of it. Josephus says Nimrod defended his brothers, one of whom was called Regma or Rama ... and Ramayana gives me context, I only weed out what is rooted in idolatry, like Rama being an incarnation (among several) of Vishnu or Sugriva or Hanuman being both gods and monkeys. The Protestant pastors you think of would, most of them, throw out all of Ramayana.

Genesis says the earth was full of violence or injustice - Duryodhana both abetting Yudhishthira to gamble and faking the game and when winning Draupadi humiliating her gives me one key of what that could be about (I get other keys from archaeology too), and some vague hints about nuclear bombs or pollutions gives me even more such.

"You try to draw parallels between events in them and the Biblical narrative, to the extent that would increase the historicity of your story."

I think I don't quite need to increase it, but a confirmation is not quite bad anyway.

"Other than that, you don't care if anything else has any historicity,"

On the contrary, the only things I clearly and definitely disagree about historicity with these is where they either contradict theology (Krishna being a god) or Biblical history (sequence of events, timeline).

"for all you care, it'll be better if they don't have any,"

Not the least. I actually went out of my way to mention that Odin came to Uppland region in Sweden ... while I think he was a man, not a god, the pagans before Christianity came to us counted him as the supreme god. I am very well comfortable with maximal historicity of non-Christian sources, within the proviso that they cannot be historically accurate where actually directly contradicting the Bible.

"since in most of the cases, you argue that the other things are wrong."

How about taking a look at in what aspects I thought them wrong?

"Anyway, you try to see the source as an actual, chronologically, correct, depiction of events."

Actual, yes, chronologically, no. Correct, mixed.

"You see the depiction of a certain event, and you shout out, that is just as it happened (because it supports what you believe), and arbitrarily leave out or discredit other details."

I discredit only what my faith cannot accept, and accept most of the rest.

"How I use it is corroborate it with other available evidence, archaeological and literary before ranking them on the basis of authenticity."

Archaeological evidence doesn't speak for itself. It is therefore weaker than narrative. Narrative evidence is obviously of various accuracy, varying between 50 and 100 %, most sources falling in between, and I am taking optimistic views of all sources, until I find evidence to the contrary of something, like my faith does require rejection of certain timelines or attributions of godhood.

"We have sought, there have been multiple attempts to establish the historicity of the two stories in the time frame mentioned in the books themselves. We have failed miserably."

Well, the problem is, you take carbon dates as literal truth. I don't. A pre-Flood event, like Mahabharata, would date before 40 000 BP in carbon dates. A post-Flood but pre-Babel event would date between 40 000 BP and 9600 BC. Harappan civilisation would have carbon dates younger than Göbekli Tepe, which I take to be Babel.

"I can go into details about doubtfulness about authorship and other contradictions and missing plots and stuff."

I don't believe Vyasa was a relative of Mahabharata characters and back then spoke or wrote anything like Indian languages. Before Babel, all spoke some type of Hebrew. I think Vyasa was put that far back in an attempt to both hide the Flood had happened after that and pretend that these Indians had a very reliable history of all details. You would arguably agree on anything of this except for Hebrew as pre-Flood language and Flood as post-Kali-Yuga-starting event.

"We try to see the events as being representative of the social, political, economic and cultural reality of the times, and by that I mean 5th century BCE- 5th century CE."

I believe you when you say that you see politics and culture of the 1000 years around the birth of Christ as mirrored in Mahabharata. How much of that was really totally new back these times? Obviously, if Homer attributes iron weapons to some, he is living in the Iron Age, while those he wrote of lived in the Bronze Age. Some contamination is to be expected from later conditions.

How much was a repetition of pre-Flood conditions? How much of these repeats would have been provoked by a somewhat detailed tradition of them surviving after the Flood through the descendants of Regma, son of Kush? I don't know. But I am optimistic it is fairly much.

"In this exercise as well, corroboration with other and contesting sources, such as the Buddist texts and archaeological records is crucial for a balanced study and for yielding the best results."

It seems we have different criteria on what makes a historic fact reliable. To me one good source, even if it is a partially bad source, is enough, as long as it isn't discredited by better sources. To you, confirmation by other sources is a must ... I can only say, with that criterium, there is lots of history which can't be treated as such. Did Caesar build a bridge over Lake Geneva when battling Orgetorix? Bellum Gallicum book I is the only text that says so, and the earliest manuscript is from Carolingian times.

"The didatic portions are very useful for the study of changing social norms and ideas about dhamma, complex relationships regarding authority as far as interpretation of law is concerned."

I would say the theology of any written work is the theology of its writer. That involves its moral theology. However, this need not mean the seeds for the Indian ethos were not sown in Nod east of Eden before the Flood.

"There are different versions of the texts as well. Studying the variations helps us understand cultural contestations and contradictory socio- cultural norms."

This is like asking what a Medieval text about Troy has to say about the Middle Ages. But recently someone found that a 15th C. text involved detail found archaeologically to be correct about Troy itself. Like 2500 years earlier, before Homer.
Saranga Saikia: @Hans-Georg Lundahl seems like anachronism is your mojo. If that's the kind of flawed methodology that you wanna pursue to reinforce your beliefs, be my guest. No one can teach a blind goat.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Saranga Saikia I'm leaving you the final word.

https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2021/04/saranga-saikia-came-in-under-video-by.html

Thursday, April 15, 2021

Dimond Brothers on EO

The Real History Of “Orthodoxy”
12th April 2021 | vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCURDSRz6D0

12:04 As far as I gather byzantine ecclesiology:
* the patriarch has jurisdiction over all of his patriarchate (to which Kiev metropoly and by extension Moscow belonged)
* he can give new bishops and even patriarchates in areas where so far no missionaries had come
* but he cannot interfere in a patriarchate already established outside his own
* in these powers he is heir of the popes of Rome from "back when they were Orthodox" ("before filioque and azymes").

It's a bit in politics like British Crown could (or can):
* exercise some jurisdiction over all of the Commonwealth
* and over places where Brits start colonising
* but cannot interfere in a French or Spanish colony, nor in United States where the independence is already given
* and in this respect is heir of the Roman Empire.

In other words, the idea is not contradictory in itself. However, it was contradicted with Bartholomew giving a tomos to Ukraine, recognised by Orthodox to have previously been under Moscow.

It can be added, that the patriarchate of Constantinople exists as a tomos from that of Rome.

It can be added also, in the time of Innocent II, the Pope was not claiming direct immediate jurisdiction in places in the West, notably Holy Roman Empire, he was claiming the right to adjudicate when appeals had been made to him.

13:03 They do not fail to see it's the Pope, they are just declaring a very longstanding sedevacancy since some time after Leo III (whom they honour as a saint) and before or since St. Leo IX (since he "schismatically" or "heretically" interfered in Constantinople for Western clergy celebrating in unleavened bread).

They give the see of Constantinople the role that St. Robert Bellarmine gives to Cardinals : a standin in case of non-occupation of Papal see.

17:45 Good analysis of Matthew 18:18 in relation to Matthew 16:19!

Paul Balaster liked to quote Matthew 16 as if the passage ended in verse 18.

20:46 What do you think of ROCOR?

24:20 Where do you think the Harlot is more probably considering the following:
* the Vatican II Sect is larger;
* but EO has a greater percentage of actual definite apostates.

One could go on with Anglicans, Muslims or Jews too, in each case, except Muslims, smaller than the previous.

27:10 Jeszcze Polska, nie zginiela ... in 2018, Poland had 3 abortions per 1000 live births, Russia 353 ... the least bad four were in order Poland, Croatia, Slovakia and Slovenia, the bad five were Bulgaria, Georgia (not the US state, but where Stalin came from), Moldova, Romania, Russia.

I think I see more and more reasons for coming back from the schismatics ...

As I already did, to make myself clear. First to FSSPX, now to Pope Michael.

Friday, April 9, 2021

Children of Nephelim (quora, Marc Bloemers)

Q: What happened to the children of the Nephilim?
https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-children-of-the-Nephilim/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1
Answer requested by: Marc Bloemers
Hans-Georg Lundahl: none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University
Answered just now: First of all, nephelim were very probably themselves children or specifically sons of angels and women.

And they themselves were very certainly not saved, not in a state of grace, and were damned.

Here are a few verses of Baruch 3 (a book which Jews disowned because a later verse supports the incarnation of the Logos) which sheds a light on this:

[26] There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. [27] The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge: therefore did they perish. [28] And because they had not wisdom, they perished through their folly.

This was about the nephelim themselves, now as to their children … we do not know.

First of all, we do not know if we have in standard archaeology found any nephelim. Neanderthals, Denisovans/Heidelbergians, Homo Erectus would all of them have been stronger than a normal Homo sapiens, but this does not mean all of them or even any of them were nephelim.

My hunch is, the nephelim were something like Denisovans, but half breed children or grand children could still get saved and we know “half breeds” of Denisova and of Neanderthal were on the Ark (OK, not necessarily half and half, could be quarter, could be an eighth and so on). So, some of them would in that case have been diluted to near normal human and would have been able to accept the graces as given in the then covenant. Even Neanderthals have been known to have been vegetarian, while others were not just eating woolly red rhino but also men. This is one reason against singling out Neanderthals as nephelim.

But others could have been bred on purpose to even more muscular and to even less intelligent, and this could be the case with Homo erectus. As basically all Homo erectus are dated, not by carbon, but by potassium argon, all or nearly all are covered by lava and that would mean they were around at the Flood.

Then again, we cannot state that the nephelim themselves were unable to get saved, it just says they weren’t. Even more we can’t say that the children could not get saved.

Tuesday, April 6, 2021

A Dialogue Not Quite on Topic of Video (But Theodicy in Both)

Here is a video with atheistic apologetics:

Christianity's Biggest Problem
8th March 2021 | CosmicSkeptic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KDnnp0sDkI

Here is a dialogue, starting with my on topic answer, but gliding away from it:

Hans-Georg Lundahl: Answered as to Autumn Lauber's hamster's cancer.

It got cancer:
* because Adam sinned
* so Autumn Lauber and her viewers could see there is a problem with sin, it's not hunky dory ... they are the innocent collateral victims most people won't rationalise away, unlike for instance civilians when militaries bomb other things than troops and weapons and a bit more like those. They are the innocent collateral victims that make us see sin hurts.

How many suffer is not relevant for the suffering as such.

It may in many cases be relevant for the guilt of the one inflicting it, but it's not relevant for what the suffering is.

You gave a one sided view of animals' lives, and most of their days are fairly happy, and they do not when seeing predators think "yesterday too, not again!" as we would.
chris sonofpear1: @Hans-Georg Lundahl Why was Adam in a position to make that choice, especially for people not yet born - and not knowing the wider stakes? Or that he could even 'give' Satan anything, still less a world? I have no indication he even knew Satan existed, nor what death was. And sin began even earlier, than that, in heaven. Why too, was Adam trusted with less knowledge than Satan, and why would Satan ever, ever retain powers, post exile... Also, was the lives of many medieval Spanish Jews, say, 'happy'...?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @chris sonofpear1 I'll try to enumerate all.

1a ) Why was Adam in a position to make that choice, especially for people not yet born ...

Because he was the first man. Mankind, unlike angels, are social beings beginning with one family beginning with one man, and his choices count.

1b) - and not knowing the wider stakes?

He did, since God had told him they would die same day as eating of the forbidden tree (same 1000 years, not same 24 hours, or they began to die that same not 24 hours but even same hour).

2) Or that he could even 'give' Satan anything, still less a world?

Because he was the first man, see 1a above.

3) I have no indication he even knew Satan existed, nor what death was.

He knew Who God was Whom he was disobeying and God would have given a sufficient indication of what death was for His warning not to be incomprehensible.

4) And sin began even earlier, than that, in heaven.

Yes, but as man, not angels, were meant to rule the earthly creation, that would have had no impact on any animal, had Adam not sinned.

5) Why too, was Adam trusted with less knowledge than Satan,

Adam was a man, beginning to learn things from God. Satan was an angel, having learnt lots and lots and lots in one single instant - one reason why his sin was unforgiveable, unlike Adam's.

6) and why would Satan ever, ever retain powers, post exile...

Because the powers were part of his nature. Also, God doesn't allow him to use all of them, by far.

7) Also, was the lives of many medieval Spanish Jews, say, 'happy'...?

If you take medieval adequately, I'd say yes, except in times of pogrom like excitements. There was a flourishing community of Marranos, then they got targetted by pogroms by people calling "fake conversion" and then the Inquisition started to protect bona fide Marranos from lynch mobs. Two people of the Turrecremata/Torquemada family, uncle and nephew, got involved, since they were Marranos. Uncle Turrecremata stopped a pogrom. Torquemada started the Inquisition I named since the expulsion of Jews made suspicions of fake conversions even more burning than ever before.
chris sonofpear1: @Hans-Georg Lundahl And does Jesus' choices, count, too? And the LACK OF CHOICES he made about the future, churches, leadership, curses, antisemitism, interpretation, and his pissing off to a cloud after not even spending one YEAR as 'King' of anything? And with no idea of good, or evil, how is obedience conceived or framed as? And with no idea of death, how is a death a deterrent, to Eve or Adam.

And yes, we are VERY unlike angels, who all got to 'chose' at once, with no impairments, no special legalism about a first one of them, and no passed on curse, or sin nature, and no stolen knowledge removed from them, pre birth. And even the rebel ones kept most of that, whilst exercising their free will on our planet. Why not give them their own?

And just worshipping another God is often deemed unforgivable, by many, or detestable - whereas taking no responsibility for competing with other versions of Yourself as a God, and abandoning the Jewish people, and others, is just peachy, I guess.

And you prove to me, what powers Satan cannot use. Specifics - not inferred from the Book. Posing as a being of light on a whole species CRIPPLED form before birth is pretty serious enough. What does 'spiritual death' mean, again? Dead to which, or how many spirits. Or could it be, only, dead, to the 'right' one?

Don't forget the Principalities too, angels, or spirits, that some might interpret, from the older testament, that Jehovah had rivalries with, yet steered or influenced whole nations.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @chris sonofpear1 "And the LACK OF CHOICES he made about the future, churches, leadership, curses, antisemitism, interpretation"

He very much did chose the Catholic Church. He founded it on 12 disciples and first of them Simon Peter.

@chris sonofpear1 "Or could it be, only, dead, to the 'right' one?"

Obviously, yes.

@chris sonofpear1 "abandoning the Jewish people,"

There are Jewish, Samarian and Galilaean Catholics called Palestinians

@chris sonofpear1 "And yes, we are VERY unlike angels, who all got to 'chose' at once, with no impairments, no special legalism about a first one of them, and no passed on curse, or sin nature,"

Meaning, obviously, once they have chosen, they have no chance to repent.

"and no stolen knowledge removed from them, pre birth."

Neither have we.

"And even the rebel ones kept most of that, whilst exercising their free will on our planet."

Globe. Earth is not a planet.

A man also exercises free will while active, which is when alive, before his test is ended.

Angels also do so after their test ended, and that means, we don't just have Satan against us, but also St. Michael for us.

"And you prove to me, what powers Satan cannot use."

Demons are poltergeists on occasion, and when Sor Eusebia Palomino Yenes just prayed 3 Hail Mary's, the poltergeist had to leave before the ordained exorcist arrived (on two separate occasions).

"Specifics - not inferred from the Book."

Why not inferred from the Book? Do you have reasons to doubt what happened in the life of Job, when Satan had to ask for permission before each test and had to leave when God stopped his harrassment after 40 years?

Principalities were given nations as guardian angels. Unfallen ones.

There are also fallen ones, but "principalities" doesn't per se mean that just bec. St. Paul once uses the word referring to those.

Friday, April 2, 2021

Beowulf and other Nordic

Q I: How much of the epic novel “Beowulf” is real? Did ‘Beowulf’ interact with people who existed?
https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-epic-novel-Beowulf-is-real-Did-Beowulf-interact-with-people-who-existed/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1
Hans-Georg Lundahl: none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University
Answered just now: First, it is an “epic” and not an “epic novel”. Novels are supposed to be made up, epics as such aren’t.

His host in Denmark, Hrothgar, seems to have existed, Danish historian Saxo Grammaticus mentions him as Roar, and deals with how his son Rolf was going to oppose Adils. His uncle Hygelac seems to have existed, a Frankish source mentions Chlochilaicus. The potential enemy further inland, the Sweden of Onela and Ohtere and Eadgils seems to have existed, Snorre mentions Ale and Ottar and Adils as Yngling kings.

Chances are Beowulf himself as well as his monsters are real, unless you have a diehard prejudice against monsters and monster killers.
Q II: Can you summarise the plot of Beowulf in five sentences?
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-summarise-the-plot-of-Beowulf-in-five-sentences/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1
Answer requested by: George Ireland
Hans-Georg Lundahl: none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University
Answered 7m ago: Geatish prince Beowulf gets to Denmark to help Hrothgar rid Heorot of a giantlike degraded human cannibal.

He does rid Denmark both of Grendel and of his mother, which involves getting below water for one hour, and his men did not give up hope.

He gets lauded by Hrothgar and by his uncle Hygelac when he’s home.

He becomes a king of Geats and hears of a dragon and he takes along Wigalf to fight it - alone, apart from that, no troops.

He dies and Wiglaf helps to finish the dragon, and Beowulf is cremated, as last king of Geats, without an heir.
Q III: Who was the first king of Sweden?
https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-first-king-of-Sweden-1/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1
Hans-Georg Lundahl: none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University
Answered 20h ago: Gylfi may be fictional, but his successor is agreed on between Snorri and Saxo: Odin. Neither being Pagan, both considered him a real man while a false god. His stepson Frey is also called Yngwe and is the eponym for the Yngling dynasty.

That is is about 1000 years before Erik Segersäll and Olof Skötkonung mentioned by Mats Andersson.

It was in the time between that Adils started conquering a part of Finland, and a few generations later Ingjald was the last Yngling to rule in the Swealand region. His son Olof Tretelgja set up in Wermland (now part of Sweden), and the next generation entered Norway, where Ynglings ruled as late as St. Olaf and his younger brother. These are about contemporary to Erik Segersäll and Olof Skötkonung.