- Drew Gasaway
- a partagé une vidéo en direct.
- Admin
- transscript
- Sermon:Scripture is Revelation, not Genesis!
It is tragic that we think of origins instead of looking at the ends of things and the ever coming new and everlasting wineskins (living ones). We go to the wines that went beyond their prime period instead. We stop living trying to lean on dead fundamentals that over the millennia become fictions or alternate realities of even what was.
Sorry Chicken little the actual end is not near but the new is just getting started. We are lambs but he is a roaring lion who completed all the prior prophecy saying, "it is finished." What was written is a result of what was unsealed when he was raised because it is about life, not death.
We have died in the world, not to it, and don't live because we can't see God as living, the faith as living, the church as living, and the application of scripture as living. We're supposed to believe the church can't die and that we will live forever but we don't act like it, talk like or think like it. This subversion trying to hinder the future is a web of foolish conspiracies (controversies [a genesis mindset], genealogies, and quarrels).
These grifts for influence and money only separate fools from their money giving it to Judas in stripped lamb pelts at his money table at your temple that sits upfront by where the other table is. It has kept you from living and your church from fully living in the community, however, and wherever that may be.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I am very sorry that you imagine you can contrast Apocalypse with Genesis. Arguably Voluspa is Odin's pagan version of both and he arguably was a Hebrew (like part of Talmudic references to Yeshu).
Both Apocalypse 11 and Genesis 11 are history, difference, the one is history that has happened and we can expect to find traces of (Göbekli Tepe) and the other is history which has not yet happened but which even so we are certain of because God testified to it to St. John on Patmos.
If there is a real Judas, it is you, but you could also be a useful idiot to someone who cares less about theology than you.
- Drew Gasaway
- Admin
- Hans-Georg Lundahl it is pretty obvious. If you had in a beginning in Bereishit and a new beginning in apokalyptein. You had the trinity being revealed for the incarnation or formation of life in the very first verses just as John shows.
Then 7 days and 7 covenants follow. You have 7 seals in the Revelation. The 7th day is the everlasting covenant. You then have Eve coming out of his side the Chava or life-giver. Then you have a tree or a cross for the Eucharist.
When they lose the cross and its fruit another man or new Adam has another life-giver the theotokos who crushes the snake's head on Golgotha or skull (Genesis 3:15. You have the Summerian hydra or Leviathan spoken of also in Psalm 74:14 (heads) and Isaiah 27 being slain. It is our sins in our life when we follow the adversary or HaSatan. There is much more.
I am sorry but this is just Catholic theology 101.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Drew Gasaway Your Catholic theology 101 should be updated to Catholic theology 102 - the allegoric sense does not cancel the literal one (except for the kashrut).
As for Leviathan in psalms ...
[13] Thou by thy strength didst make the sea firm: thou didst crush the heads of the dragons in the waters. [14] Thou hast broken the heads of the dragon: thou hast given him to be meat for the people of the Ethiopians.
Wait, while verse 13 fits very neatly with Flood geology, 14 looks like a two headed creature or King David making a reference to Satan (whose apparent heads on earth are obviously very many)
Note, while 13 confirms Flood geology, I am not the least denying that King David spoke about the Exodus, comparing Egyptian charioteers to dragons, and forward about baptism, comparing sins and demons washed away and chased away by baptism to dragons.
As you mentioned Genesis 3:15 ...
Fr George Leo Haydock to Genesis 3.
// Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H. //
Genesis 3, Haydock comment
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-05.shtml
If we have c. 1 million years from Adam to Moses, supposing Adam was a Homo erectus and modern dating of these is correct, there is no chance the tradition would have arrived untampered to Moses.
If on the other hand Adam was c. 5000 BC (between 5500 and 4004, most probably 5200) at his creation, there is sth like 2513 or 3689 years from Genesis 3 to Exodus event, and earlier parts of these covered by very longlived generations, and therefore the historical accuracy is not highly doubtful apart from divine inspiration.
However, if Homo erectus lived a million years before Adam or Neanderthals 50000 years before him, you have a scenario like Ku Klux Klan, he wasn't the first man, just the first Jew or White ... which racialist theories the Catholic Church has very seriously condemned.
Or if you like to go with a possibility theoretically opened by Pius XII, Adam having non-human ancestors, the Catholic scholasticism, both Thomist and Scotist uses evidence of thought and language to prove man is God's image, and we do have evidence of thought and language from both Neanderthals and Homo erectus. Evidence which he was not aware of but which most YEC now are very well aware of.
How many options do you have left for defending old earth now? Non-historic Genesis 3? Human non-Adamites and racism? Speaking creatures not created in God's image? What's next on your palette?
- Drew Gasaway
- Admin
- Hans-Georg Lundahl I would ask you which council states your opinion? Otherwise, this is just some priests' subjective view.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Trent.
Plus Vatican, 1869 to 1870.
Plus your question is lopsided, since you forget that your view is not that of any council - including if you presume "Vatican II" to be one.
Plus, there is a very clear difference between "not dogma of a Council" and "just NN's subjective view".
Plus, given Haydock's view, it solves the historic reliability of Genesis 3 but contradicting it, you have a conundrum which I lined out and you have not bothered to try to solve.
I will repeat it for you in case you missed it.
How many options do you have left for defending old earth now? Non-historic Genesis 3? Human non-Adamites and racism? Speaking creatures not created in God's image? What's next on your palette?
I don't think he gave a straight answer to that one.
