samedi 25 septembre 2010

Debate on credibility, as with tradition and revelation, of Genesis and Gospels

MMcGr: Adam and Eve is a myth, a story, not actual history. Nothing we experience now as a part of life is the result of their actions.

BR: M. J. McGr., Adam and Eve are not only real, they're pivotal to understanding the nature of humanity.

MMcGr: B., they weren't real. A lot of ppl may believe they were, but that doesn't make it any more true. There's no evidence --zip, zilch, nada-- to support their existence and every reason in the world to understand them as the protagonists of a primitive, yet re-worked, creation myth.

S. W.: McGr.---there is no evidence that YOU would accept---which means absolutely nothing. We have the Word of God and His Church.

MMcGr: S., there's no evidence. Period. With all due respect, it's a preposterous idea, as is the Bible being the Word of God, that only an indoctrinated person would believe. [I came out of that background myself. And saying that I would "believe nothing" is both incorrect and a diversionary tactic to deflect attention away from an utterly unsupportable assertion.]


Genesis story is backed up by dozens if not hundreds of para...llels in pagan mythology. It is grosso modo credible, as history, even if it were not the word of God.

I was an evolutionist before being a Bible believer.

After reading the message, read the others on same blog, they go into more detail.
MMcGr: Hans, I never said Genesis wasn't a ripoff of Pagan myths; it is. But, they're not actual history, either.

Ah: you have two testimonies, not as by two different eye-witnesses, but as by two different cultures.

They are divergent on some things but clearly convergent on others.

And that sort of *proves* to you one is a rip-off on the other?

And even when we go beyond Babylon and Israel and get to dozens other paleontologic tales, converging on same things and diverging even more in detail, it does not still strike you as even a remote possibility they could all be more or less mangled memories of real events?
B. R.: Mr. McGr., even a quick reading of the stories is enough to show that the authors not need worry about charges of derivative work. That the pagans have corrupted memories of the true beginning is not surprising, nor is it that they get all the key plot points wrong.

But they do not.
Creation - yes (though not quite ex nihilo in their versions)
Recent such - yes (well, Egyptian bragging made it less recent, like 40.000 ys ago)
Original bliss and immortality of man - yes.
A deceiver involved in the change for the worse - yes.
BR: Ex nihilo (from before anything God, the world of nothing key plot point)
Man sinned of own knowledge and choice. (Adam was not deceived! key plot point)
Most pagan creation myths don't have human immortals (key plot point)
How long ago, isn't a 'plot point'.

"Ex nihilo (from before anything God, the world of nothing key plot point)

Man sinned of own knowledge and choice. (Adam was not deceived! key plot point)"

Two plot points wrong, not all of them.

"...Most pagan creation myths don't have human immortals (key plot point)"

Some do.

"...How long ago, isn't a 'plot point'."

If it is within human memory or absolutely not is.
BR: Mr Lundahl, 'how long ago' may be important, but it is not a plot point.

"Most pagan creation myths don't have human immortals (key plot point)
Some do." - Duh, why do you think I said 'Most'?

The Pagan stories appear to be attempts to retell the 'fact' while avoiding the 'reasons'. Gilgemesh has a Flood, well enough, but it has no preacher urging repentance while building an ark for example.

Well, the thing is, if some DO have that plot point it is not true that all are wrong on EVERY plot point.

The exact time distance between us and creation may not be a plot point, but the possibility of a tradition surviving is.
BR: Mr Lundahl,
I didn't say that they all got 'every plot point wrong' - I said they got the key plot points wrong. Please, argue with what I say, not what you wish I said.

"The exact time distance between us and creation may not be a plot point, but the possibility of a tradition surviving is." I'm not sure what you mean by that. Moses writes a story that was revealed to him. Not one simply 'handed down' to him so there is a distance between the Genesis story and the other epics in 'source material' that is rather large. But yes, our knowledge of the stories (today) does depend on the survival of writing materials, so in that they are alike....

The six days, Moses writes what was revealed. From creation of Adam on, he writes what he knew by tradition, whether it was also revealed or not.

THE points means EVERY point, just as much as pointS means SOME of them. Grammar.
Of course, if you want to correct THE to SOME, you are more than welcome, and I admit having argued not against your position, only against a sloppy grammar.

Mr Lundahl, ALL scripture is given by inspiration. (St. Paul) Moses had no need to refer to 'tradition', he had God the Author for his source. We do not know what the tradition of the Jews/Hebrews was when Moses set down the account. It may have been as far wrong as those of the heathen.

Again you argue with what you wish I had written.

I did not write 'the points'. I wrote 'they KEY points', well, the key plot points.
Note, though if you will, that you've again ignored the little word 'key'. The is a particular determiner, key is the adjective modifying points, points is indeed in the plural. Syntax and grammar.

There are many places where the pagan misses the point (in the singular for the point that is missed is single, at most turns of the plot, even though by the time the story is done many points have been in error). The key points are those which mark the relationship between God and Man.

I've no need of an apology, refraining from further unmerited attack will be more than sufficient.


Revelation and inspiration is not same thing.

And saying the plot points where pagans differ from Genesis are more key than those both differ from evolutionism is merda tauri.
BR: Who said they were? Nonetheless, the inspired scriptures reveal to us the true story of the origin.

Why do you insist on arguing against things not written?

I never said that the differences in plot between evolutionism and pagan myth were less key than between pagan myth and the Word of God. Both however do get their theology wrong

They [=sacred scriptures] do. THey also reveal to us the true story of King David. Obviously by human eyewitnesses being applied for Paralipomena and Kings. Not by writers knowing everything by revelations, but by inspiration guiding them from error in transmitting the witnesses.

Same applies to Gospels and - to Genesis from creation of Adam on. Which is why the possibility of transmission by tradition without error is one KEY point of the plot. And by erroneous, but not necessarily so traditions, pagans also got some KEY points of the plot right.
BR: The witnesses could not know the heart of the Kings, as is revealed in the text. Even when there are human witnessess, they've less information than the Author. The Scripture is not simply some 'eye witness account' it is far more than that, it is the more sure word of the prophets.

The 'possiblity' of the transmission of the story is not a key plot point in the story. In fact, one of the key points is that the story, as we have it in Scripture, actually IS the true story, written by the prophets and apostles and pen-men of Scripture under the inspiration of God.

Being an inspired writer sometimes meant being precisely a pen-man of God: Moses in taking down the law "and the LOrd spoke o Moses and said", dito for St John when writing the Gospel (according to tradition both hands wrote in automatic writing) or when seing the Apocalypse. But St Luke too was an inspired writer who wrote without error ACCORDING TO HUMAN TESTIMONY. As is said in prologue to his Gospel. I argue we know the story of Genesis mainly through Moses, who knew it mainly as St Luke knew what he wrote about. The Six days, the law, these are other matters, known by revelation only, obviously.

In both cases their are Pagan parallels. Flood is known by Pagan tradition, in a somewhat distorted way, pre-human events totally MIS-known by a false revelation given to Hesiod, known as Theogony.

"I never said that the differences in plot between evolutionism and pagan myth were less key than between pagan myth and the Word of God. Both however do get their theology wrong."

Ah, but there are plot elements that are other than theology. It makes sense the war of Troy happened, and the voyage of Odysseus, only the theology was gotten wrong by Homer.

Which implies that Pagans get some key points of plot right along with Genesis getting it right, but when Darwinism gets it wrong, because it is not tradition but reconstruction.
Mr. Lundahl, The beloved physician edited out that which was not true in the human witness (if any were error existed in that testamony). Genesis likewise had any errors corrected, (hence the differences in the key points of theological difference)

"if any were error existed in that testamony" - none did. St Mary and Christians before St Luke were not in any kind of error. He had nothing to correct in his material.

Genesis has no errors to correct either, since Hebrew tradition was not mangled after the tower of Babel.

Whether six days are:
- revelation to Moses
- tradition to Moses revealed already to Henoch
- tradition to Henoch and Moses revealed already to Adam
is not clear from the story.

It is clear they supplement information human witnesses had no direct access to.
BR: Mr. Lundahl,
You expect me to believe that the people who while Moses was on the mount had a golden calf to be their God had no errors in their creation story that needed correction?

Not in the family Moses came from.

Besides, Moses had already received the tradition when they apostasised to golden calf worship.

They did so being discouraged in the desert.

M.McGr. left the discussion between me and BR early with the words:
Guys, again, believe what you like. It has no basis in reality, but I'm all for freedom of religion, speech, etc.

I looked up the link. But before we get there:

G.Fr: Mr. McGr., absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

M.McGr.: G., in some instances it is.

But, the more salient question is, why would you believe in something completely outlandish given NO evidence?

If there were no witnesses to Christ rising, no Church speaking from fifty days later and getting persecuted and working miracles up to our own days, there would have been absence of evidence and evidence of absense as well. As it is there is neither. There is plenty of evidence, it is simply contested.

Similarily with the plot points I mentioned as common to Genesis and Pagans as opposed to evolutionism.

Diverging versions do not diverge all that much and the divergences there are point to tower of Babel.

Now to my appraisal of M.McGr:s link:

Dishonest misconstruing:

"The denial of "Christ come in the flesh" is an early "heresy" called "Docetism," whose proponents not only abounded during the first centuries of the Christian era but were the original "Christians," i.e., Gnostics...."

Not so. They did not deny people saw Christ, they said a spirit arranged a series of hallucinations over very long time in order to teach and that the people claiming he had a real body had simply not learned as much from that spirit as they.

Ludicrous anachronism:

"Longinus was the name of the Roman soldier who stuck Jesus in the side with a spear. Legend held that Longinus was blind and was subsequently cured by Jesus's blood. Again, this is not a historical event but part of the mythos and sacred king ritual, as Walker relates:

"The true prototype of the legend seems to have been the blind god Hod, who slew the Norse savior Balder with the thrust of a spear of mistletoe. March 15, the "Ides of March" when most pagan saviors died, was the day devoted to Hod by the heathens, and later Christianized as the feast day of the Blessed Longinus."

Ther was no cult of Hod or Balder until very much later, and the Vikings who did worship them (or at least Balder) knew nothing about Ides of March until they became Christians and used Julian calendar.

Abuse of generous admissions:

"Writings regarding Pilate and Jesus, such as the obviously fictitious "Acts of Pilate," are well-known forgeries, admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia. The Jewish historian Philo wrote about Pilate, mentioning... his abuses, but not a single word about anyone remotely resembling Jesus Christ being crucified under his procuratorship.

These "letters" are KNOWN FORGERIES, which is why they are apocryphal."

They - the letters - were non-canonic all the time, because accepted and known only by part of Church. Not because they were in any sense "known" to be forgeries until very much later when renaissance men got an itch for proving this and that a forgery. If the Acts of Pilate are "well known" as forgeries, that only happened so much later. Catholic Encyclopedia is no Church Father.

25 commentaires:

  1. The over all occasion was G.F. posting a link about Christine O'Donnell.

  2. From that link:

    Nor is there anywhere right now to get information on O'Donnell from O'Donnell, because her website has vanished except for a funds solicitation. Like Sharron Angle's site, which also disappeared for a while after Angle won an unexpected Senate primary victory in Nevada, it is presumably being scrubbed of O'Donnell's more controversial positions.

    It might not be a case of it being made on a server that was hacked by opponents so as to give that impression?

    The motif attributed to her implies consciousness of media things, and leaving only a funds sollicitation implies opposite if done by her.

    Or she might be rebrushing and adding controversial points.

  3. Resuming debate with BR who said:

    Mr Lundahl,
    Aaron was Moses' brother.
    You would have me believe that you think and the 'tradition' was corrupted in the few weeks between Egypt and the Mount, but wasn't hindered by 400 years in Egypt, including living as slaves?

    The 'livin...g memory' of Mary, nor any other Christian Jew of the time wouldn't have given Luke insight into the hearts of men, there no single witness for all the events, nor is there evidence that any such witness for the events of the interrogation of the wise men by Herod. Even Luke, set down when living witnesses were around, requires Divine intervention to record the whole of the story, some parts of which are 'key plot points'.

  4. What happened in the desert was not corruption of tradition but apostasy from it. Temporary such. Their slavery was not a Carthaginian Roman slavery with no family life, and did not happen at once in Egypt anyway. It came about under Ramses... or so as a repressive measure.

    The few insights into the hearts of men were by Christ and were then put to memory. Also having such insight may well have been a prophetic gift to Christians beyond Gospel writers.

    St Peter preached inspired by the Holy Ghost. His sermon was memorised (orally or by now anonymous writers) so St Luke could put it down.

    "nor is there evidence that any such witness for the events of the interrogation of the wise men by Herod."

    Except of course the three wise men. And Herodians, some of whom may have had relatives among kohanim of whom some were in family with Our Lord (St John the Baptist was his second cousin).

  5. Apostasy and corruption are both turning from that which is true. A few weeks in the dessert compared to the death of sons (by Pharaoh 's command), tell me which is the more discouraging?

    The fact that Herod knew whom to turn to (God) when consulting the scribes, and yet refused to believe in His messiah is an insight unto the hearts of men as well, and one not given by Christ.

    Not just memorized, but the memory protected by the same Holy Ghost, one pagans would have no access to.

  6. Ah, I agree memory in tradition was indeed especially protected by Holy Ghost, and indeed not given in such a manner to Pagans.

    Even so, the Pagan traditions of first human history are not just a question of not being protected, but of indeed getting punished by confusion - of tongues as of traditions.

    Corrupting a tradition is turning it away from its true background. Apostasy is turning onself away from it.

    The facts about Herod were prophetically apparent to Holy Family in so far as they were not obvious to anyone seing him.

  7. BR: Mr. Lundahl,
    I think we've worked ourselves into agreement on what was to me the 'main thing' the Pagans have only corrupted 'half-memories', while we have the protected truth.

    Yes, but corrupted half memories are still very close to the truth.

    Take the Greek flood myth. Take its divergences from the real account

    a) Noah, wife, three sons, wives are replaced by: Old couple, childless, showing hospitality to three visitors ... does it recall Abraham and Sarah, whom three angels visited before going on to destroy Sodom?

    b) and being still childless after flood they despair about repopulating humanity ... does it recall what Lot's daughters thought after destruction of Sodom?

    c) THEIR cure for it is "throwing their mother's bones behind them" - Earth being that mother (and stones being "her bones") ... does it recall "from earth art thou taken, to earth thou shalt return"?

    EVERY discrepancy from Genesis flood account ON THE HUMAN SIDE (i e not in theology) is a partial concordance with some other Genesis story apparently gotten confused with it.

  8. BR: A) Noah's line is preserved, those 'in him' (as Levi was in Abraham, and we in Adam) saved, the Greeks miss that completely, as well as the preaching.
    B) Degenerate human attempts liberally laced with sin, yeah, maybe.
    C) No, it misses the external who formed us, confuses human action with the Divine, and makes Earth the source rather than the Creator.
    D) Missing the importance, and confusing the facts.

    D) Confusing the facts is not hard to explain with an apostasy to paganism. I mean look how quick the Christian tradition has been challenged by people claiming:
    - he was a guru
    - he was a hippie
    and now:
    - he was a royal ancestor.
    As to other points I never said they god all key points, I said they did not miss all key plot points.

  9. BR: Notice those confusing the facts are those who wish a different theology - to deny His deity.

    That is also why the pagans do miss all the key points, for all the key points are those which show man and nature in relation to the true God, one they, as pagans, neither know nor understand.

    Ah, you meant key THEOLOGICAL points above.

    I thought we were talking about key PLOT points. Such as define a story even when actors are replaced by others, like true God replaced by false gods.

    Some key theological points even Pagans got right. Like hospitality being part of the virtue of those saved from disaster (like Lot) and inhospitality being part of the sin of those overcome by disaster (the other inhabitants of Sodom). That comes in the myth of Deucalion.

    THere is also a reason why the real solution to Abraham's and Sara's childlesness was hidden from Pagans: the births of women sterile before is one miracle that God reserved for Israel, preparing for the Virgin birth.

    Non fecit taliter in omni natione - he did not do likewise in every (other) nation.

  10. There is of course a sadder reason why the story of the destruction of Sodom should be in Greek myth only partly surfaced in the flood story. That one omits the final iniquity of Sodom - one which parts of Greece, at least by the time the story was written down, were repeating: "abomination before the Lord" a k a sin against nature.

  11. BR: Yes, of course. In origins stories, the theology is the key. All key points are theological. Origin stories exist to explain 'why are we here and who are we anyway'.

    The stories of Lot, and Deucalion don't seem to 'match up' do you mean ...Noah rather than lot?

    Even with that, mother earth, men from rocks in the post deliverance age, (indeed non procreative means, and same sex reproduction!) and warning coming from some one other than the one bringing the punishment are rather significant differences in the story. They don't save any animals, the flood is local, no preaching of repentance and grace, well, you get the idea....

    Both 1984 and Brave New World describe a dystopian future and no one suggests they're all that much alike, saying that the Greek and other pagan stories are like those of Genesis is comparing stories with more fundamental differences than 1984 and BNW.

    Answer: As I just explained above:

    Deucalion departs from Noah exactly where matching Abraham and Lot. And God's words to Adam after fall.

    Brave New World, 1984, Sex Misja (Polish film), Kallocain (Swedish novel) agree about a one state or two state ...totalitarian future, which is a key plot point. They also agree on another plot point in centering about someone being or getting unhappy with it. Kallocain and 1984 furthermore agree (Sex Misja does not, BNW I have not read) in these unhappy ones getting beaten by the state. That is two plot points in common to all four, a third common to two or three of them. That is exactly the level I was talking about.

  12. Noa did not preach repentance in Genesis. Maybe in some tradition, but as far as I can read, God had already given up the general population as lost, Noa was commanded to save animals but not men beyond his own family.

    Moslems do think he was preaching and deluge was a punishment for them not repenting. I do not know if Patristic Tradition has some information supplementing Genesis to same effect.

  13. BR: I understand that Noah 'preached' from 1 Peter 3 as do some of the ECF. I stated it too forcefully before.

    Your stretch of agreement on plot points, it seems to me, would have us saying that Robin Hood and Cinderella are the same story, told by different pagans...(Which, I guess they might actually be...)

    I said plot points, not entire story.

    [1 Peter 3] ‎"[18] Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, [19] In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: [20] Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water."

    It says CHRIST preached to them, when he came down to the netherworld. That is traditionally known as HARROWING OF HELL. It says they had been incredulous, but that may well have been against TRADITION (we are talking like 2000 years from creation and fall, same time span as between Christ and us).

  14. BR: Where I'm from a story is a sequence of plot points. Give them in different order, or differently, and you have a different story. Give them radically different and you have a radically different story.

    Christ preached through the prophets of old, In the Spirit. Through Noah, in the Spirit (rather than a pre-incarnation manifestation of Himself) is the understanding of the passage I'm using. Yes, He preaches to those in hell in the Spirit as well. But the harrowing of hell, doesn't match to the time frame 'in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building'. But preaching 'in the Spirit' through Noe, (just as he did through Enoch) fits the text.

    The harrowing of hell would be for those who lived by what light they had (the 'Noble Pagans', and the 'saints of old'). There is no indication that those who refused the light available are given this 'second chance' indeed, the story of the rich man and Lazarus argues against it.

    You mean the time between creation and the flood, right?

    Answer: The harrowing of hell took place between good friday and resurrection. He preached while his soul was separated from his body. Not to people that WERE THEN incredulous, but to people who HAD BEEN so before the flood. Look up the tenses in that passage from Peter.

    Noah was not a prophet, as far as Bible tells, but a patriarch. The first of the prophets sent to preach was Moses. The later patriarch Abraham did not preach either. Lot was seen as "preaching" only by answering back.

    I agree a story is made out of plot points. I also see concordance of plot points significant, even if the story as story (without reality reference) is different. One can make two different stories out of same real life story, as in Gospels of St Mark and St John. One can even make two stories one or more of which bungle the real life story, as pseudo-gospels and talmudic antichristian Jesus-biographies differ from the canonic Gospels.

    BUT the point is, such non-true Gospel versions of Jesus' Christ's life are, by plot points coinciding with Gospels (such as crucifixion in talmudic literature) or alluding to their story (such as crucifixion of Judas bearing Christ's features in one Gnostic pseudo-gospel) independent confirmation of Gospel story.

    AND likewise Pagan versions of Creation and Flood are independent confirmation of Genesis.

  15. Rich man and Lazarus both had Moses and the Prophet's, i e preaching they had known of, to be guided by when alive.

    Pre-flood seems to have had tradition from Adam through Seth.

  16. BR: Exactly, God was not waiting patiently while they were preached to in he harrowing of hell while the boat was a building. Look at the passage!

    We know that judgement was prophesied by Enoch, the seventh from Adam (St. Jude), so we know that there were prophets known to men before the flood. The 'supposition' is that Christ prophesied in the Spirit through Noe just as He did through Enoch, rather than making a pre-incarnate appearance to those whom he waited with patience on while the boat was a building.

    Noah or pre-incarnate Christ, I'll take Noah for the win.

    The pagan stories are confirmation of what, exactly?

    Man made of dust and given life by the breath(Spirit) of God?

    Woman from his rib?

    The first man (not woman) brining death into the world?

    The pagans confirm paradise lost - nothing more. Existing nature does more to confirm Genesis than pagan myths.

    Answers: The alternatives were never Noah and "PREINCARNATE CHRIST", stop ignoring the text!

    Harrowing of hell was done by the SOUL OF CHRIST CRUCIFIED BEFORE RESURRECTION.

    It was adressed to Noah's contemporaries who were spirits in bondage up till the Crucifixion.

    Pagan stories confirm what in Genesis? Obviously not the info you are deliberately chosing for not being there in them. As obviously the points I enumerated previously, of which paradise lost was one equalling numbers 3 and 4:

    1 - Creation - yes (though not quite ex nihilo in their versions, still intelligent design)
    2 - Recent such - yes (well, Egyptian bragging made it less recent, like 40.000 ys ago)
    3 - Original bliss and immortality of man - yes.
    4 - A deceiver involved in the change for the worse - yes.
    5 - Add a flood to them.
    6 - Add an original linguistic unity to them.

    "God was not waiting patiently while they were preached to in he harrowing of hell while the boat was a building"

    The harrowing of hell was NOT while the boat was built. It was adressed to souls of those who HAD BEEN incredulous back then.

    Epistle of st Jude, link

    Indeed, Henoch, the seventh from Adam, prophecied. It does not say whether he did so before the masses like Jeremiah or before a ruler like Daniel. Two events are referred to not known by canonic scriptures of OT, the prophecy of Henoch and the dispute about the body of Moses, both known by extrascriptural tradition then.

    But even if the incredulity of the spirits in bondage was to Henoch's prophecy, Christ preaching in spririt - i e soul without body - to them, that was still between Crucifixion and Resurrection so much later.

  17. Of the six points above, in which pagan stories confirm Genesis, only intelligent design and flood can be confirmed by study of nature. Both with less unanimous interpretation, as evolutionists and old earth geologists prove.

    Because the only interpretation of Pagan myth that does not confirm Genesis is the one calling the myths untruths and totally free invention, i e a total denial of their historicity.

  18. BR: The point of difference isn't about the harrowing, nor even of those who had been incredulous. Who was preaching while He waited patiently while the boat was a building? Christ was in the spirit doing just that. Now was it in His own bod...y, or through another?

    Both known by divine Inspiration, the disputation over the body isn't on pint - the prophesy is.

    1) Creation, not by 'gods' who were overcome by their children, nor of things extant, but ex nihlo. Pagans have 'redevelopment' not creation.

    2) Recent? How long was Adam in the garden before the fall? No way to know, age of the creation isn't even a plot point. Age is it best part of setting...

    3) Original loneliness of Man, not original bliss.

    4) Actually, you do err. Adam was not deceived. The fall was not caused by one deceived. The deception went only as far as Eve.

    5) The Flood is not 'Origins', but even if so, where the cause, results, boat and cargo are all different.

    6) Lingusitic unity, in the Pagan creation mythos? It is presumed in the true story, and current diversity explained (hubris) in the later history. In Pagan mythos I've not seen it discussed...

    Pagans have gods defeated by there offspring, a God that calls for the universe isn't one that would fall before his children. As for the Pagan,

    "Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

  19. Answers: "Who was preaching while He waited patiently while the boat was a building?"

    It does not say anyone was preaching THEN. It says Christ preached in the spirit just after telling of death and resurrection. And neither in his body nor in someone else's, but precisely in spirit separated from body.

    And I never said anything about Adam being deceived or not. I said something about there being a deciever.

    Nor did I say anything about Pagans in Greek or Roman empire being excused by the fact of guarding knowledge confirming Genesis.

    Other points, I will not now go into. What is the use of translating the Bible to English, when you who speak that as your mother tongue are unable to read it?

  20. It may interest readers of this blog that "BR" on FB registered:

    Political Views: Monarchist (Traditional British Tricameral, Sovereign, Lords and Commons)
    Religious views: High Church Baptist

  21. Here he goes again: "Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water."
    What words follow 'when'?

    But the deceiver did not ...produce the fall! (You said the deception was in involved in the fall, it had no involvement in the fall) Free, knowing choice did. To blame deception is as bad as Adam's attempt to blame Eve and God.

    Never said you did say anything about pagans being excused. The verse from Romans was to show that knowledge is sure from the creation.

    I read it rather well, actually. I'm not the one who skips key words in sentences... ;-)

  22. And I answer: what words precede "when"? words like "HAD BEEN some time incredulous"

    had been is past perfect also known as pluperfect and refers to a previous action/state

    previous to what?
    what words precede "had been some time incredulous"?

    "preached in his spirit"

    That means that the preaching in his spirit occurred AFTER their incredulity, as indeed the time when Our Lord was in the grave by body and preaching to them in his spirit occurred some thousands of years after their incredulity.

    I did mention, I think, that creation was confirmed not only by Pagan stories but also by nature.

  23. The point about 1 Peter 3 was never missed in Tradition.

    The ploughman answered then the preste:
    Sir I beleue in Ihesu Christe
    Who suffred death and harwed hell
    As I haue heard mine elders tell.

    Piers Ploughman.


    BR: Tradition agrees that Noe preached

    Answer: What Church Father? What book? What prayer in what liturgy?

    BR: Clement
    1st Epistle to the Corinthians
    I'm not sure of the liturgy where it would be used.

    Clement, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 7: " ...Let us turn to every age that has passed, and learn that, from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all such as would be converted unto Him. Noah preached repentance, and as many as listened to him were saved. Jonah proclaimed destruction to the Ninevites; but they, repenting of their sins, propitiated God by prayer, and obtained salvation, although they were aliens [to the covenant] of God.", and again in Chapter 9 "...Noah, being found faithful, preached regeneration to the world through his ministry; and the Lord saved by him the animals which, with one accord, entered into the ark...."

    So we have from the fathers the tradition that Noah preached by word and action.
    Now, whom have you to say that Noah preached not?

    Answer: Thank you.

    That was another matter. A clear direct statement in a Church Father.

    BR: You/re welcome.
    And thanks to you as well, had to blow the dust of my ECF, Clement is not one I reference often, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr and John the Golden Tongued are my usual ECF 'sources'.