On Helios in Christian Geocentrism

1) Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four, 2) Mark Shea Recommended David Palm Who Misconstrues Bible Commission of 1909, 3) Would GKC have Agreed with MkSh that KH was a Bible Idolater?, 4) Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : With Jonathan Sarfati PhD on Fall and Inquisition, 5) New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term, 5b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering Bill Nye, the Science Guy on a few points, 5c) New blog on the kid : Phil Provaznik/Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...), 6) [Back to Creation vs. Evolution :] Scenario impossible, 7) Karl Keating Out of His Depth?, 8) Three Kinds of Proposition, 9) Is Flat Earth Belief Heretical?, 10) HGL's F.B. writings : Between Palm and Sungenis, 11a) HGL's F.B. writings : On Helios in Christian Geocentrism, 11b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Rivers Clapping Hands, Anaximander, Greek Philosophy at time of Ecclesiasticus ... , 12) Assorted retorts : ... on Geocentrism with Raymond Doetjes and "Imdor"

CS (not Lewis), posting in group

Bob's rebuttal to the offensive video portrayals of geocentrists by Cool Hard Logic.

Rebuttal to “Cool Hard Logic’s” Youtube Video on Geocentrism
Robert Sungenis responds to “Cool Hard Logic’s” attack on Geocentrism
http://galileowaswrong.com/rebuttal-to-cool-hard-logics-youtube-video-on-geocentrism/

AN

I got banned from Mark Shea's blog for just posting this in response to someone who posted the CHL video. That's how good it is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"4:31 CHL says the geocentric position “has no laws, no math, no physics.”

Obviously CHL has not read most of the treatises on geocentrism produced by qualified scientists, and CHL does not understand the logical conclusions of either Newtonian, Machian or Einsteinian physics, since each of them make the geocentric universe viable."

As I recall the video, CHL is referring to Helios as an explanation. Very obviously a Christian cannot believe the Sun is being manned by a cousin of the Most High or by a son of a Titan preceding him in the role and now in the Tartaros.

But with equal obviousness, a Christian can very well believe Sun and Moon and Planets and Stars are manned by angelic beings. Baruch chapter 3. Job 38. The Song of the Three Young Men in the complete version of Daniel Chapter 3. And Summa Theologica I, Q 70 (A3?)

Note very well, since I was just reading up on St Hippolytus' commentary of Daniel (book II chapters 29 - 34) that the Song of the Three Young Men very definitely excludes any spirits dominating any part of cosmos independently of God. But "independently of God" is precisely what I am not saying. A Helios that is a creature and servant and adorer of the Most High is not the same thing as a "Helios, son of Hyperion who was brother of Kronos of the Crooked Thoughts" whom they considered father of "the most high" after coming to believe Hesiods false private revelation.

Note that St Hippolytus considers that the fire which spared the young men and burnt the guilty executioners was "phronimos", wise.

Note also the fact that Nabuchodonosor well before Pilate and Longinus identified Our Lord (but could not name him, since he had not yet been born of the Virgin and named Jesus) in the fourth young man who did not come out.