HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Drew Gasaway Attacking QAnon - and Himself · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Art of Interpretation
- Drew Gasaway
- I had to delete a political video oddly posted by a church.
I hope you people know that Qanon is politics. It is also such a badly produced hoax that no matter what side you're on it sounds like a kids cartoon.
Q is a Department of Energy clearance and your "Q" started it on 4chan stating it was a Department of Defense clearance. That clearance mostly pertains to nuclear reactor information and has limited nuclear weapons applications. I had a Q certificate and you know it is DOE, not DOD.
People are so gullible believing what they want to these days that they don't even Google basic words and terms before believing in them. They don't research platforms something was put on or the background of the people who them. This goes for both sides in the US and to people around the world.
Our churches are like this church A will say church B is the good guys but B is the bad guys. It won't matter if one said is right on the issue tribalism will lead them to back it. We see this in the history posts in the group. Some spend all their time attacking the other group instead of being productive.
Jesus warned about people who spend all their time accusing people and at one point spoke about them have a log in their own eye. Nothing is perfect and at this point everyone sucks. They all accuse the other side of doing what they do or plan to do.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "It is also so such a badly produced hoax that no matter what side you're on it sounds like a kids cartoon."
Ah?
"Q is a Department of Energy clearance and your "Q" started it on 4chan stating it was Department of Defense clearance. That clearance mostly pertains to nuclear reactor information and has limited nuclear weapons applications."
Sure that was hoax rather than tongue in cheek?
- Drew Gasaway
- Hans-Georg Lundahl I just got up but the whole hoax is rather to build a persona around being a part of the CIA. Overtime the spin has reduced to nonsense, not just lies. So many predictions like setting a point and time when someone was going to be arrested and it never took place. I think this was designed to hurt the person they think it backs just like all the other activist stuff.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- QAnon pretended to be part of CIA?
I have not been on 4chan, I have only seen William Tapley give QAnon credits ...
What if, ironically, he was and was an agent to lead conservatives on into ridiculous positions (about my assessment of John Todd)?
(Like, whatever credit one may give to John Todd's general description of Illuminati, pretending ALL record companies by the fact of being so are dependent on Druids or that JT had time to give payments to CSL before the latter died fairly clearly is ridiculous).
- Drew Gasaway
- Hans-Georg Lundahl Q sold itself as a senior national security official. The NSA doesn't some of the stuff they talked about but honestly, none of it matched how things worked. I would be shocked if it was an American or even one person.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Q sold itself as a senior national security official."
You have that from exactly where?
"I would be shocked if it was an American or even one person."
What about an American teen or tween out of work, or in studies, and with parents as conservative but less into internet than he?
William Tapley appreciated Q Anon, so, if Q Anon had (at least consistently) made such a claim, I think William Tapley would have known.
- Drew Gasaway
- Hans-Georg Lundahl it was on 4chan and then on FB. I saw but I believe it has been removed. The content of the posts still sell the idea mentioned.
The style of posts in Qanon is the kind fed by a government to cause issues. Governments do use proxies as they did with PACs and in the lockdown, protests to stir people up. Boy they went silent after the election fast the cash all stopped coming in. They wanted to defeat the person they that was being helped by making them like bad.
Qanon folks don't share all of it but there are different phases and there is a lot of inconsistency.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Wasn't his general style posing questions?
Was he ever affirming with full stop rather than asking with Q[uestion] M[ark]?
- Drew Gasaway
- Hans-Georg Lundahl that is not all he did. He made a lot of predictions like he promised that Hillary was going to be arrested for running a pedo ring and set a date. That never occurred. Q also said that COVID 19 was a hoax and there was no virus. Note that since the polls closed in the US our misinformation ceased. Some of these things were run through a Russian money train in Europe. I think they liked the orange one's ideas but wanted to use his implosion to their advantage. They want chaos either way after the election and for their movement to believe the "deep state" robbed them. Hitler used this kind of tactic first by burning down parliament and then stage fake crimes that his brown shirts came to the rescue for.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- A bit like Guy Fawkes' background.
" I had a Q certificate and you know it is DOE, not DOD. "
I suppose this was before getting into theology?
You have just basically admitted that your competence in theology is that of an amateur (to which I count also those doing a new line of study when already settled adults).
Plus, D and E are close on a keyboard and DOD could be a typo.
"Some of these things were run through a Russian money train in Europe."
Possible - but do you have evidence, or do you like throwing around allegations about as much as QAnon did?
"They want chaos either way after the election and for their movement to believe the "deep state" robbed them."
I saw allegations that sacks of mail had not been opened strategically as they came from "circumscriptions" (not sure English uses this word) previously clearly pro-Trump - can that be traced to him?
- Drew Gasaway
- Hans-Georg Lundahl I was in the military for a couple of years. I have a blacked-out DD214 if you if you would like to see it. I went to undergraduate school and after college, I went into the military but didn't do ROTC. I then went back to school toward the end and finished after. I got tired of doing adjunct bible college classes and went back to school. I was sick of lying for a living.
Hans-Georg Lundahl if just want to argue okay but he said Department of Defense. Q has nothing to do with the stuff they talks about.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- OK, in other words, you are not a competent theologian.
Intro to Raqia debate with Drew Gasaway
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2020/01/intro-to-raqia-debate-with-drew-gasaway.html
Your opinion on raqia is in fact as little worth as anyone else's, you are an amateur.
- Drew Gasaway
- Hans-Georg Lundahl a theologian is someone who has a doctorate in theology and has made a new contribution to the field. However, your own tribalism from a traditionalist point of view has jaded your perspective on this. There is no ancient source to justify your position and it can only be reasoned using anachronistic thinking. It like most things from its sphere is a product of polarization. My view is the consensus of mainstream academic thought. That by itself is a fallacy but with the support we have is well-founded.
Hans-Georg Lundahl I should note that your position on "raqia" began with people who basically have no education in either science or Hebrew. Their arguments formed mainly out of it the whole it can't be and then developed from there eventually getting some traction from ideologues.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I did not claim I was an expert myself.
"There is no ancient source to justify your position"
Neither one that actually justifies yours, as pointed out.
Science education is in fact not a requisite for giving a witness on the tradition on what translations of raqia mean.
It is however a rival in attention to paying attention to fine shades in written and therefore languaged sources.
The point I am now making is, you have paid so much attention to this rival, your position on original meaning of raqia is not worth more than mine, rather somewhat less. I did not do Hebrew, but I did do some other ancient languages, like Latin and Greek.
LIke Latin and GReek = actually only those ...
If by "your position" you mean my full position, namely raqia being aether, this is in part making a harmonisation between my view on science and my respect for the text (like "waters above the raqia" = H2 throughout the universe, including in stars going toward He by way of D, by now, since day 4).
- Drew Gasaway
- Hans-Georg Lundahl the Septuagint doesn't actually help but if you want to go there it is a translation and no text today is perfect. As for the Latin most modern Catholic theologians don't claim the Vulgate is perfect.
Hans-Georg Lundahl why didn't he say that it was a universe? This is double talk God gave perfect science in one sense and another he didn't. Remember that Philo who Jerome often revered said the firmament was a hard surface in Greek texts that qouted the LXX>
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- My point is, regardless of your arguments, you have forfeited authority of expert status in the question.
You are a military, not a theologian, and the tone you sometimes took was more appropriate to a recrute than to a discussion partner on an internet forum.
If you want to resume the discussion, I'm fine with that, but in that case I'd like you to invite someone, if he has time. He will be soon, if nothing unexpected happens, "dekan" - I think dean is not just same Latin word but also used same way - of the Faculty of Theology at Lund University.
He definitely did contribute, not just to theology in general, but to Christian History and in some sense even archaeology. He made an assessment of antiquity of now preserved texts about St. Helen's archaeology on Calvary.
Would you like?
- Drew Gasaway
- Hans-Georg Lundahl theologians study God. Linguistics is a side issue. However, I do have an MDiv. and I have studied Greek since I was in middle school and Hebrew since I was in High School. You really have no argument here other than the feelings from my background convict me. Philo was an ancient Jew who read both the Greek and the Hebrew.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Yeah and Philo lived c. 1500 years after Moses.
In fact, his comment in itself doesn't support you.
He was content with raqia being a threedimensional body to call it firm.
- Drew Gasaway
- Hans-Georg Lundahl wrong! Philo of Alexandria said, "The incorporeal world then was already completed, having its seat in the Divine Reason; and the world, perceptible by the external senses, was made on the model of it; and the first portion of it, being also the most excellent of all made by the Creator, was the heaven, which he truly called the firmament, as being corporeal; for the body is by nature firm, inasmuch as it is divisible into three parts; and what other idea of solidity and of body can there be, except that it is something which may be measured in every direction? therefore he, very naturally contrasting that which was perceptible to the external senses, and corporeal with that which was perceptible only by the intellect and incorporeal, called this the firmament." (On The Creation, chapter 10 [A.D. 50])
Hans-Georg Lundahl the fact is all we have is Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud to understand Hebrew here. Not a shred of evidence there supports your idea.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You really don't like parsing sentences, do you?
"which he truly called the firmament, as being corporeal;"
Opposite : pure spirit.
"for the body is by nature firm, inasmuch as it is divisible into three parts;"
He clearly means three dimensions. To his view here, water and air are "firm" since bodies and such since threedimensional.
Since my aether is threedimensional (a globe, stretching up to the stars one light day up and involving them), he would count it as a body and hence firm.
"and what other idea of solidity and of body can there be, except that it is something which may be measured in every direction?"
Where he confirms what I just attributed to him.
Linguistics may be a sideline, but it gives more important methodological habits than dealing with nuclear stuff. Especially the linguistics of old languages known by old texts, the one called philology.
"all we have is Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud to understand Hebrew here."
Philo, Josephus and their contemporaries were c. 1500 years after Moses, contemporary to NT writings and c. 500 years before completion of Talmud - why would they be our only clue to exclusion of Christian Fathers?
Even if they could read the word "raqia" - what does that change? Words can change meaning over time.
- Drew Gasaway
- Hans-Georg Lundahl okay who do you have writing from then to demonstrate the language then? We don't even have the text in the style it is in. In the DSS alone there are 3 versions of Genesis. We know Hebrew solely because of the sources mentioned. You just don't seem to know how this works or care it is all "we are right" or war. It is people like you who make anachronisms commonplace and your investment in them. Culture and language change greatly.
Hans-Georg Lundahl the mix of proto-sinaitic and Hebrew in our current texts shows they were updated to Hebrew just like parts in the Hebrew were Aramaic. This language bridge is kind of a myth.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- My point is, from back then you do NOT have any extra-Biblical sources like Philo.
The fact that you know (if so) the language to be a mix of Proto-Sinaic and Hebrew in our current sense, the fact you know language was updated, fine, I can buy that. B U T it does not give you one single extra-Biblical text from back in Moses' time to prove raqia means a solid object.
Once you get extra-Biblical writers like Josephus (influenced by Ptolemy's solid spheres) and Philo, you also get, well before Talmud, early Church Fathers.
Why exclude them, and why impose the least probable reading possible on Philo?
- Drew Gasaway
- Hans-Georg Lundahl okay I guess we don't have a Bible then because we can't read it with any certainty. However, we do have related languages like Ugaritic Hittite and we know all the views of civilizations around the Israelites to the said word.
The use of extra-Biblical sources is how we can read a single word in the Bible or know what things even were. This is one of many reasons why the Bible alone is an indefensible position. Unless you concede so kind of extra-Biblical source even your English reading is invalid.
This is the most probable reading because there is no source until you get very late otherwise. The original sources with your view were the least learned sources on Hebrew. You can show many examples beyond their background in their writings of mistakes in this area.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "okay I guess we don't have a Bible then because we can't read it with any certainty."
You omit the Catholic criterium of certainty. Tradition.
"However, we do have related languages like Ugaritic Hittite"
First, Hittite is normally used for Nesili, like Hattic for Hattili, while these parts of Syria spoke yet another language, under Hittite rule, so you would be better off to say Ugaritic in Hittite empire. Then we have when it is from:
"xve au xiie siècle av. J.-C."
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ougaritique
Probably spoken by some not yet enemies of Israel who lived by modern car routes 648 km north of, not Jerusalem, but Dan (I took Lattakie to Tel Aviv, since Lattakie is 11 km from Ras Shamra).
Note, these centuries are probably carbon dated, and carbon date for XVth C. carbon dated is probably still inflated.
In other words, Ugaritic is after Moses wrote Genesis around and Exodus starting with 1510 BC, the real time date for the Exodus from Egypt.
"and we know all the views of civilizations around the Israelites to the said word."
Probably not. You can know what Danes, Swedes, Germans, Russians, Poles, Italians, Spaniards of 19th C. meant by "civilisation" (the cognate exists in all of these languages), but you have a L O T more literature from Danes and Poles, Italians and Germans of the 19th C. left than you have of Ras Shamra speakers of Ugaritic or Pharaonic speakers of "very early Coptic" or indigenous speakers of eme-g̃ir (aka Sumerian). Also, I very much doubt you have any straight off cosmological works in Ugaritic, and Baal Cyclus in Ugaritic would typically make only passing mention of anything like "raqia" if it occurs at all. Unless Baal - like Hercules according to his bragging on eleventh and also twelfth work - is supposed to have held heaven like a physical burden on his shoulder, you cannot prove Ugaritic writers considered it as a solid.
But supposing you did, this does not mean you know the Hebrew meaning - as encyclopedic, not just roughly lexical meaning - from sources outside the tradition. Note very well, I consider Church Fathers to represent the tradition better, not less, than Talmud.
"The use of extra-Biblical sources is how we can read a single word in the Bible or know what things even were."
Not universally, unless by extra-Biblical you mean simple lexica or grammars.
You want to know what exactly a word means in LXX OT or in NT? Perhaps you go to Suidas. Now, the problem is, Suidas might consider that "artos" means leavened bread and that unleavened things are called "azymoi" without any other qualification, least of all bread. That is at least what Michael Caerularius considered about 1 Corinthians 11:23. He may have had encylopedic support in entries of Suidas, who lived before his time. In other words, unless you go to sources of the tradition - the Latin part of which is very solidly pro-azymite - and go just to any sources outside both Bible and tradition, simply secular, you can be wrong on what the full understandable meaning of a word is. But using Suidas for NT is a thousand times better than using Baal Cyclus of Ugarit for raqia.
The thing is, neither Hebrew, nor Aramaic, nor Koiné Greek were ever lost. The kind of check you mean (and it is not a simple check with your teacher in Greek or Hebrew and the grammar) is NOT how we learn these languages in the first place. You are wrong about methodology.
It is true that double checks with such indirect methods have their uses, but it is definitely a thing which is a side issue to understanding either words or meaning of the Bible.
"This is one of many reasons why the Bible alone is an indefensible position."
We have opposite reasons to reject it. I stand with Bible, Tradition, Magisterium.
"Unless you concede so kind of extra-Biblical source even your English reading is invalid."
Yes, some kind of. But this does not mean I look up in New York Times what "mankind" means in relation to 1 Corinthians 6:10. "Liers with mankind? You mean only bestiality is allowed or you mean the guys who have sex with all 7 billions alive - how do you do that?" Any priest or even Protestant clergy can tell you from TRADITION that "mankind" in this context means sth else, namely the male gender, and "lier" is (obviously not liar or lyre) in the Greek in the masculine, so it means someone committing the sin of sodomy. And I think that's a fair parallel for going to Ras Shamra Baal Cycle instead of to Patristic tradition to look up what raqia means ...
"This is the most probable reading because there is no source until you get very late otherwise."
It's a very improbable reading, since it makes the text a lie about the physical world. Sure, God did not intend to make lessons about the physical world, but neither did he allow hagiographers to lie about it by a slip of the tongue. Just as a definition of Nicaea cannot lie about the metaphysics of Trinity and Christology. Or those of Trent about the metaphysics of the Eucharist and some other subjects.
I don't mind getting late within tradition. I feel no need to get a confirmation as early as possible even outside tradition. Why? Bc I don't think God would allow the tradition of revealed truth to die out. Check Matthew 28:16-20 on that issue. And use the Greek : "pasais tais hemerais" or "pasas tas hemeras" (forget if it is accusative or dative of time) is not a vague "always" since that is "aei".
"The original sources with your view were the least learned sources on Hebrew."
Do you take that from the Tamud or from a normal Hebrew lexicon?
- Drew Gasaway
- Hans-Georg Lundahl that is the description in my textbooks but it is actually Amorite.
Hans-Georg Lundahl the patristics were not experts on the ancient near east or science they were experts on spirituality. All the patristics agreed that the periodic table was just earth, air, fire, and water. Do we see those as a dogma?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "All the patristics agreed that the periodic table was just earth, air, fire, and water."
Do they?
All nations? Not just Greek and Latin but also Syriac and Coptic?
More to the point : are they all actively using this in exposing the Bible?
Bc some Father may have agreed with your assessment (not sure it is really all that correct a rendering of "four elements") in private but may have thought it totally irrelevant to exposing for instance Genesis 1 - or Genesis 2:7.
My point is, we don't have all fathers agreeing the firmament is a solid body. Indeed, Philo as being pre-Talmudic is sometimes counted with Josephus as honorary father, and you don't get to tie down Philo to "solid body" notion, unless three dimensions are enough for solidity.
Point on your textbook / wiki, noted.
- Drew Gasaway
- Hans-Georg Lundahl that is a dumb argument against mine. You're asking a lot citations. A textbook in the sense of what you want wouldn't be valid since they can't source that many in one book. This is how the world was seen and is alluded to in my places.
Hans-Georg Lundahl we show it over and over with Basil and others. Even Luther using the common Catholic belief then said it was in his day. Telescopes changed this thought.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I note you did not say "Basil and ALL others".
"This is how the world was seen and is alluded to in m[an]y places."
It is how the world was seen by some.
Among Church Fathers it seems many (including St. Basil) were round earth but not all.
St. Basil indeed endorsed Ptolemaic chrystalline spheres astronomy - the standard in Greek / Western up to Tycho Brahe. As you mention, observations changed this, not sure if Tycho needed a telescope to verify that the comet was indeed passing through where a chrystalline sphere would otherwise presumably have blocked it.
However, not being obliged to chrystalline spheres, I thank Fathers of a less Western / Hellenistic bent. This means, whether Round Earth, chrystalline spheres, solid-body-nature of raqia, some views were common but not universal. Your citing Philo shows a clear reserve with directly and without qualification calling raqia a solid. "Yes ... it definitely is f i r m, since f i r m doesn't mean anything else than it being measurable in three dimensions". But as you are a military and not a theologian in your basic outline of thought and method, you miss it.
Luther is highly irrelevant.
Your overall view is too bent on seing past views of nature as being equally uniform as you would like heliocentrism and evolutionism to be. Back in those days, there was no compulsory school to push single views to the masses.
- Drew Gasaway
- Hans-Georg Lundahl there were few people who didn't see the earth as having a hard dome above. It was how the world looked and it is how the authors of the Bible saw it. Basil didn't think it was a sphere btw. A number of the fathers were flat earthers because they saw Greek philosophy in some areas diminishing God. The fathers didn't know all things. The timeline in the fathers for the return of Christ would have already occurred.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "there were few people who didn't see the earth as having a hard dome above."
You get your Gallup polls from back then from?
"Basil didn't think it was a sphere btw"
I seem to recall a passage where he says he didn't care less. He was not a flat earther either.
"A number of the fathers were flat earthers because they saw Greek philosophy in some areas diminishing God."
Exactly, so they didn't believe Ptolemy's chrystalline spheres. Prove *those* specific fathers believed the raqia to be strictly a solid!
"The timeline in the fathers for the return of Christ would have already occurred."
I think St. Augustine entered an escape clause in commenting on Apocalypse 20 in De Civitate ...
