Debating slightly on CSL with Sungenis

1) New blog on the kid : Answering Simcha Fisher, David Palm, Alec Mac Andrew and in part too Sungenis, 2) And CMI also felt a need to "refute Geocentrism" ..., 3) It Seems Keating Wrote a Book, 4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What has that got to do with it?, 5) Were Greek Philosophers Evolutionist? And How Does Geocentrism Conflict with Observation?, 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Debating slightly on CSL with Sungenis, 7) Creation vs. Evolution : Creation Ministries International - a Galileo Fan Club?

Alex Naszados (status links to)

Galileo was Wrong : I couldn’t have done better for Geocentrism than Karl Keating did on Catholic Answers Live!
Copyright © Robert Sungenis February 23, 2015
http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Karl_Keatings_Kosmology_website_version.pdf
via blog: Galileo was Wrong : I couldn’t have done better for Geocentrism than Karl Keating did on Catholic Answers Live.
Karl Keating unknowingly defends Geocentrism.
http://galileowaswrong.com/i-couldnt-have-done-better-for-geocentrism-than-karl-keating-did-on-catholic-answers-live/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Did I see Sungenis describe C. S. Lewis as a "a liberal‐leaning Protestant that did not consider the Fathers of the Church as an authority on anything, much less authorities on biblical cosmology"?

*sigh*

First of all, there are Anglicans and there are Anglicans. Some play at being Modern without fully renouncing Christianity. Some play at being Protestant without fully renouncing the Catholic heritage of the Anglican community. And some play at being Catholic, without fully renouncing the Protestant anti-Roman polemic. CSL quite frankly belonged more and more the later he lived in this last category.

[Confer "Letters to Malcolm, chiefly on prayer" - published posthumously]

And he was shocking the real Liberals of the day by insisting on the miracles of Christ as much as Sungenis is shocking our dear little Heliocentric friends.

Robert Sungenis, how about taking back the mud you slung at CSL?

"Where did these Catholics get the idea that Scripture is only inerrant when it speaks directly about salvation and that its historical accounts (like Genesis) are filled with errors and non‐factual statements? They got it first from the liberal Protestants coming out of Germany in the 1800s, such as the Graf‐Wellhausen school of hermeneutics."

Thanks for info. That has gotten strong support in Swedish "Church" and I was not totally aware of it quite as much when I got involved at age 15 (not wishing to be Pentecostal), but I was very well aware of it before definitely getting out of it, beginning with decision I took at age 16 to be Catholic (conversion was delayed).

I thank CSL for having given me, along with ma, a great distaste for that kind of thinking.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What has that got to do with it?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-has-that-got-to-do-with-it.html

Robert Sungenis

Sorry, Hans, but when Catholics start using CSL as their sole authority (as Keating did in his interview) for calling the Earth the anus of the universe, and at the same time fails to mention even one Catholic Church Father or Thomas Aquinas as holding an opposite view, then it's time to call CSL what he was, a Protestant and a heliocentrist that had no love for the Catholic Church, especially the RCC of Galileo's day. CSL may not have been a full-fledged liberal like many of the mainstream Protestants of his day, but he wasn't exactly a full-fledged conservative either.

Jonathan D'Souza

As much as I love CS Lewis, it would not be wrong to describe him as a 'liberal leaning protestant' even if it does sound harsh even to me, and compared to the sort today, Lewis would seem very orthodox. Lewis did tend to accept tenets of the scientific establishment in his day when it came to origins, though it is said he grew increasingly sceptical of it towards the end of his life, which he concluded not from any scientific arguments, but rather from the attitudes of its adherents. So indeed in his era he had a worldview that didn't take Genesis literally, yet continued to defend the facts of miracles. Today we will find Catholics who'll reject Genesis and the OT while simultaneously defending the facts of Transubstantiation. So on these certain things, Lewis had liberal ideas that Evolution could be true despite that he didn't fully give himself over to it.

Lewis admitted that as far as he was concerned the rift between the Catholics and the Anglicans was simply a matter of authority. And in many ways he did lean Catholic, perhaps thanks to Tolkien. But as far as we know we still remained Anglican, and essentially the Anglican issue is another protestant phenomenon.

But I believe what Rob was passionately getting at is that Karl Keating continually gets his authority on the topic of Geocentrism from anybody other than the actual Catholic Church. Even atheists would do for Mr. Keating. And he'd defer to atheists, anglicans, protestants etc. on this topic while ignoring the large bodies of evidence from Catholic authority while simultaneously accusing Geocentrists like Sungenis of falling prey to Protestant ideas. So Rob in labelling Lewis a liberal leaning protestant is simply highlighting the absurdity of Keating's arguments more so than he is attacking C.S. Lewis.

Robert Sungenis

J., much appreciated. You interpreted my position precisely.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Robert, in Geocentrism we are 6000 km above Hell - and God knows how many times more below Heaven.

CSL used an imagery which conveyed briefly how wrong it was to consider centre of universe a very exalted place and hence Geocentrism as self exaltation. Also, it is a fact that to St Thomas the heavier anf grosser elements gravitate to the centre of the Universe. The lighter and nobler going outward.

"a Protestant and a heliocentrist that had no love for the Catholic Church, especially the RCC of Galileo's day."

Where exactly do you get that from? Where in CSL do you find any support directly of Galileo?

He was a heliocentric by residual conviction, he had been an etheist, it is not as if he was enthusiastic for it per se.

"Lewis did tend to accept tenets of the scientific establishment in his day when it came to origins, though it is said he grew increasingly sceptical of it towards the end of his life"

Exactly - as an ex-Atheist he took some time shedding those ideas. Liberal leaning means leaning towards them, he was leaning from them.

"But I believe what Rob was passionately getting at is that Karl Keating continually gets his authority on the topic of Geocentrism from anybody other than the actual Catholic Church." - "Johnathan, much appreciated. You interpreted my position precisely."

One need not have CSL as ones authority to be either helio or geocentric, but Keating was abusing CSL and Keating's abuse is no reason to attack CSL.

As I linked to my own answer to Palm's little trick of putting CSL in the margin of his blog.

"So Rob in labelling Lewis a liberal leaning protestant is simply highlighting the absurdity of Keating's arguments more so than he is attacking C.S. Lewis."

It would have simply sufficed to say "not a Catholic authority". Which he is not any more than Tertullian the Montanist and a few more. And they are still read, and should be.

Apart from that, the paper is excellent.

It seems that Keating made exactly the same mistake about Geostationary satellites as Tom Trinko ...

Robert Sungenis

Hans, only in the geocentrism of the uneducated is hell in the center of the Earth. In fact, Hildegard placed hell away from the Earth. As for Thomas, he may have had some remnants of Aristotle, but no Church Father had those ideas. Moreover, in the Church's discussions with Galileo, the idea of the Earth being the anus was not promoted or acknowledged, at all.

CSL believed the RCC was wrong for condemning Galileo and heliocentrism as any other person of his day. In fact, Anglicans of his day used the RCC's supposed error with Galileo to claim that the RCC was wrong on many other things, including Henry VIII.

Yes, Palm is also a CSL lover who used the Earth as the anus argument. I wonder who plagiarized who?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"only in the geocentrism of the uneducated is hell in the center of the Earth"

OK, what are your exact sources for that? Hildegard was not exactly the highest authority of the Middle Ages, whatever she may have become since.

"CSL believed the RCC was wrong for condemning Galileo and heliocentrism as any other person of his day."

Where exactly did he state that?

Oh, plagiarism is not the good category.

And this is not an argument against Geocentrism. Saying Geocentrism has the unpleasant effect of making Earth a very ignoble place relative to the Heavens does not argue the ones holding that Geocentrism were wrong in any way.

Robert Sungenis

Hans, thanks for the compliment on the paper. I'm sorry we have a different view of CSL in this instance. In general, I liked the man, and I quote him in my book a few times, so it's not like I have totally rejected him. (A little secret: I would reject KK before I would rejecte CSL. Of the two, CSL was a much better Christian).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The real arguments CSL used against Catholicism was rather things like "going beyond Church Fathers" (a bit like Orthos do), or making the doctrine of Purgatory unpalatable.

Ah - may I quote you on this last (or for that matter this whole little debate)?

Robert Sungenis

Whatever I write here is for public consumption.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Goody goody.

However, I need to qualify my praise a little, since you again missed defending the small universe - you said nothing against Alpha Centauri being actually ... his words you quoted:

"So if you go to Alpha Centauri…26 trillion miles away…if it were to go in a circle around the Earth each night, to revolve around the Earth as these folks think it does, you would have to go 10,000 times the speed of light. And that’s the nearest star. What happens to a star that is 100 or 1000 times further away?"

Very dependent on heliocentrism, these parallax measures.

Robert Sungenis

Hans, re Alpha Centauri, in my books I allow for both a small and large universe, since we haven't yet proven either one yet. As for KK, I merely use his universe and turn it back against him. I'm sure you understand :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, ok.

True, small universe is not proven any more than the large universe. However, there is sth fitting about it.

Did not know, have not read your book so far.

Did you know CSL liked to cite St Juliana of Norwich as quoting a vision in which Christ held all he had created in his hand "and it was not larger than a nut"? Or, perhaps more familiar, Chesterton saying he liked to adress the Universe in diminutive and it had never seemed to mind? Well, that is one thing, for the aesthetically fitting part.

Another is this : if radius of stars from earth is one light day, then circumference covered by each in time of one day is six point 28 (sth, sth) light days - a neat collection of week and day and sabbath rest (not fully seven light days) in one physical reality.

Of course, KK can have his universe back with implications he hadn't looked for. Like Dom Stanley Jaki gave one back to atheists with unlooked for implcations. No problem. Called "argumentum ad homines" not to be confused with "ad hominem".

Under a Note on Decapitation of 21 Copts

EN

This is what is being taught to Muslims :

Putting Trust in Allah and Possessing a Good Opinion of Him
http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/allahtrust.htm

And you really should read it.

RD

As it's good for us catholics to know the teaching of our religion, so it's good to know what the others religions are about, particularly Islam. If we don't, sooner or later we will all die or submit.

HGL

"Having good opinion of Allah Most High is built upon your knowledge of His Mercy, His Pride ..."

Note the last word.

"those who assume about Allah an assumption of evil nature. "

Would that description fit themselves?

There was a little note on hanging ... would that explain Kara Mustafa getting a silk rope from the Sultan after failing to take Vienna?

"and what He decrees before He created the heaves and the earth by 50,000 years."

Sounds more like the Egyptian and Babylonian time scales than the Biblical one. Or is that a mispring and "pride" a mistranslation?

Btw, deep timers are obviously even worse off in chronology. 4.5 billion years for earth and 13.5 billion years for Heavens is way longer than just 50.000 years, which in itself is already too long.

“They were plotting and Allah too was planning, and Allah is the Best of the planners” [8: 30]

“Those before them indeed plotted, but Allah struck at the foundation of their building, and then the roof fell down upon them, from above them, and the torment overtook them from directions they did not perceive.” [16: 26]
“Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is He Who deceives them.” [4:142]

Theology: 1) God knows everything beforehand and has "his plans" made from eternity - can one say God "is planning"?

2) Destroying a building can be done both by God and by Satan if God permits it.

3) One can say God "tricked" Satan in giving him occasion to deceive himself by plotting the crucifixion of the God-Man. But can one say that God "deceives"? I think not - and of course, that too just might be a bad translation. But God did not lie to Satan even, still less to anyone else.

“Whilst we were scripting the hadiths of the Prophet he was asked, ‘Which city will be conquered first Constantinople or Rome?’ the Prophet replied, ‘The city of Hercules* is the first to be conquered.’” (Ahmed) *at that time, Hercules occupied Constantinople, modern day Istanbul.

Here we are probably dealing with a mistranslation of Heraclius - a rough contemporary of Mohammed and East Roman emperor.

"There are many hadiths in which the Prophet informed us that there will be many battles and combats between the Muslims and the Romans in which the Believers will be the victorious ones and the Muslims will have the last say. "

Well, nice to know some Crusaders like Geoffroy and Sobieski "sent them home, to think again" ... (You know, like "proud Edward's army")

"Otherwise, what other religion can be nominated for victory and propagation, what other religion can provide people with the proper remedies and convincing responses to their diseases and doubts?" - Christianity but only if applied.

"Isn’t this nominated religion Islam, the fastest growing religion despite the weakness of its followers today?" - Rather because of the weakness of Christians. Notably in opposing Malthusian errors.

"The disbelievers did not have power until after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. This means only 80 years ago. "

If disbelievers mean Atheists, he's right. But if it means Christians, he's a historical revisionist, about as bad as saying St Patrick was a Southern Baptist and they survived as "Culdees" or as saying St Ambrose was a Calvinist whose teachings survived thanks to Claude of Turin (that guy was really an Iconoclast, a man owing more to his contemporary Eastern tyrants than to his local predecessors in the Alps).

"Today, we say to America and its Allies – You are not the first to have fought Islam. Actually there are many who fought it before you. However, what was the result? Allah destroyed everyone that stood against the path of Islam, and Allah kept the deen of Islam up high, and it shall remain that way as per the promise of Allah and His Messenger ."

Next cup of coffee, I'll think of how the first coffee house in Vienna got its first coffee beans - and how the previous siege of Vienna ended too.

Kalenberg, anyone?

"Beware of having doubt and ill thoughts about Allah. We should accuse ourselves before forming a bad opinion about Allah."

A right attitude - but let's have it to the right God too!

"Turn to Him in repentance and seek His forgiveness."

About the right season for us to do the same - but with the right God. In nomine +Patris+et Filii+et Spiritui Sancti, Amen!

A Status in a Group: St Ignatius of Antioch verified with eye-witnesses

HGL

DC, spell out the full circularity you attribute to me, I'll see if I can break it.

And no, speaking to an eyewitness is not hearsay.

"Anyone rise from the dead since 33 ad?"

Rise from completely on His own, no. God only died once. Get risen from the dead by God, more than one. St Genevieve of Paris raised two drowned boys from the dead, so did the corpse of St Martin of Tours. The Blessed Virgin Mary' tomb was opened by St Thomas and empty. I e, she is also risen.

WF

Hans wanted to use the resurrection as evidence. My question is valid

HGL

The resurrection is evidence of God working. So are the resuscitations afterwards. And the documentation is good.

DC

HGL miracles being proof of the divine, and talking to someone who "says" they were somewhere years earlier, recounting the story is by definition hearsay. Like the fact there are a lot more people who attest they were at the Sex Pistols' first gig at the 100 Club than that little venue could possibly held... People lie, for wishful thinking, notoriety, payment. Which is why hearsay is inadmissable in courts.

WF

Drowned boys... I've seen Pamela Anderson give mouth to mouth

HGL

DC, if saying you had been to Sex Pistol's concert might get you hanged by court of law, there might NOT be as many wishful thinkers.

WF, supposing St Genevieve gave mouth to mouth, how come she was the only one there who knew about it? More logic sth like it had already been tried and failed.

DC

HGL "and the documentation is good"? Really?

HGL

Yes, really. Which of the cases are you in doubt of or if all three, which most interested in?

DC

HGL hearsay is hearsay, and therefore untrustworthy by nature, and certainly not evidence.

Look at evidence that is required in a scientific article, the rigour, detail, the different methods that need to be independently explored. A letter by someone talking to someone who "says" they saw a miracle is just no evidence at all.

HGL I've seen no reasonable evidence for a miracle, ever. We could start there.

HGL

"hearsay is hearsay"

Hearsay is not hearing sth from someone you know to be truthful. Hearsay is accepting sth from a stranger or from someone known not to be always strictly truthful.

"Look at evidence that is required in a scientific article, the rigour, detail, the different methods that need to be independently explored. A letter by someone talking to someone who "says" they saw a miracle is just no evidence at all."

If 500 people are claimed to have seen it and you do a gallup poll among everyone of them you can find and each confirms it, that is evidence they all saw Christ resurrected.

St Ignatius didn't get a letter from a stranger, unlike the case you put forth.

DC

HGL and we have no idea of the veracity of the statement. Which is why second hand accounts are meaningless in any rigorous examination.

HGL wrote a letter after a conversation with someone who "claimed" etc... exactly like my comment regarding the gig. Human psychology is a complex Beastie.

HGL

Sorry, we have on the contrary a very clear idea of the veracity of the statement. St Ignatius laid down his life for the Resurrected, after having witnessed to His glory as Bishop of Antioch.

He was certainly making sure not to be fooled into believing sth stupid before he went onto that venture.

If you say we don't know that either, well, in that case we can't know anything about history, which is absurd.

DC, the letters of St Antioch are NOT comparable to a simple letter in the letterbox of a paper. It was his official correspondence.

DC

HGL why do you not understand where the chain of evidence is broken? It's very simple

HGL

Where exactly?

According to you, that is?

DC

HGL and he may well have believed, almost certainly did. BUT the veracity of the account given to him is not verifiable. Your saint believed what he was told because he wanted to believe, the storyteller cannot be trusted as a first hand (actually being there) account can be trusted. Hence accounts such as these are not accepted in courts. They are too unreliable.

DC

HGL argue if you like, but this is really basic stuff

HGL

"BUT the veracity of the account given to him is not verifiable."

It was very certainly verifiable to him.

"Your saint believed what he was told because he wanted to believe"

Who says he "wanted to believe" by wishful thinking? In that risky situation it was the last thing one would want to believe, just for fun.

"the storyteller cannot be trusted as a first hand (actually being there) account can be trusted."

Who says he could not tell the difference between a "storyteller" and a first hand account?

Common sense kind of started being around with you, or sth?

"Hence accounts such as these are not accepted in courts."

St Ignatius kind of WAS the court, deciding to trust eyewitnesses as eyewitnesses. Many others were too.

Plus the miracles they saw along the way - like St Luke seeing the raising of the boy who broke his neck when St Paul raised him.

God would not vindicate false statements by doing miracles for them.

DC

HGL there is a logical doubt regarding the veracity of the storytellers account to your saint. It is hearsay. Your denial of this is precisely the problem I and other people trained in evidence based disciplines have with this whole religious "evidence" stuff. There is enormous suspension of disbelief on your part. It is gobsmacking that you can't see this as a problem, because you believe, your bias has blinded you to the weakness of this so called evidence.

HGL

DC, calling the men whom St Ignatius talked to "storytellers" and calling their witness to him "hearsay" is tantamount to putting ALL historic knowledge in doubt.

[Is there some glitch? I seem to be missing some parts of the debate in between here?]

DC

HGL no avoidance. As I said, the study of history has it's own challenges. I'm just astounded you claim not to see the difference in quality of evidence between moon landings and the Ignatius story. Are you seriously telling me that you think they are of equal quality???

HGL

I see a difference - in favour of St Ignatius' possibilities to examine the eye-witnesses claims over say mine to interrogate Armstrong.

So, you think the opposite, instead of coming with "are you seriously" etc. rhetoric we all have heard, what about giving the serious thought why you find Armstrong's statement better than St John's or St Ignatius' worse than those on earth whom Armstrong knew

What you call NOT avoiding has so far just been displaying your cultural bias in favour of eyewitness accounts and hearsay from 20th C over eyewitness accounts and hearsay from 1st.

C'mon ... don't tell me you are as stumped as Dawkins when asked to name ONE mutation that was positive in the sense of information gain?

DC

HGL and pictorial evidence, eye witness accounts, other astronaut and mission staff accounts? All verifying the same story with physical evidence to back it up. You really are blind to the inadequacy of the evidence in the Ignatius writing aren't you? so very very disappointing

MC

So his entire account is hearsay, in a book that is nothing but hearsay. Why don't apologists learn what standards of evidence is?

Lundhai [sic] I have several close relatives who work for NASA. I can assure you the moon landing was real.

Besides, I dare you to go talk to buzz aldrin and accuse him of faking his experience.

BR

$10 on Buzz.

MC

"C'mon ... don't tell me you are as stumped as Dawkins when asked to name ONE mutation that was positive in the sense of information gain?"

You think that bogus video is real? No wonder you're a moon landing denier. Reality just escapes you everywhere. You are clearly drawn to the ridiculous.

HGL

Pictorial evidence, as in footages of Armstrong on Moon?

Could have been faked. In other words, it is eye-witness and hearsay - the factors you underestimate for 1:st C Christians - that validate pictorial proof, not other way round.

"eye witness accounts,"

St John in his Gospel.

St Matthew in his Gospel.

"other astronaut"

Buzz Aldrin was a freemason, unreliable people those.

"and mission staff accounts?"

Ah, the guys who verified that Armstrong's eyewitness account was correct?

Like St Ignatius verified the one's he heard.

"All verifying the same story with physical evidence to back it up."

For us on Earth and most of us, we must rely on THEM there was physical evidence to back it up.

And the accounts of Jesus risen also ALL verify the same story.

Unless you would add the account on which the Disciples stole the body while guards were sleeping?

If guards where sleeping they were no eyewitnesses to that explanation.

But it was still around when St Luke checked up on the story.

Among those denying resurrection.

Point is, St Luke did his check-up, St Ignatius his, both came to same conclusion. Antichristians like Celsus did no check up on eye-witness accounts that they told us of.

BR

HGL Do you acknowledge that Buzz Aldrin boarded a rocket in view of many people, including TV cameras and that rocket subsequently blasted off?

[Escape from rocket before it blasted off, could it have been arranged? Better than escape from Cross previous to Resurrection faking, if that had been the case, at any rate!]

HGL

"Lundhai [sic] I have several close relatives who work for NASA. I can assure you the moon landing was real."

OK, how do YOU know St Ignatius knew his witnesses less than you know your relatives?

PLUS, what were their positions? Was one of them seeing Buzz and Armstrong walk into the rocket and then seeing the rocket launched?

"You think that bogus video is real? No wonder you're a moon landing denier. Reality just escapes you everywhere. You are clearly drawn to the ridiculous."

Whether it is real or not, it technically could be real. There was no technical obstacle to faking Moon Landing that way. ANY evidence getting us out of this must involve eye-witness and for most of us hearsay insofar as they are not themselves evaluating the eye-witness.

BR

HGL How would objects left on the Moon be faked?

[Not answering immediately, but he will get onto Moon Lazer Experiment, see further down.]

HGL

"is massively greater."

I can take a wild guess at your having a prejudice against miracles.

Which cuts no ice with me. Save the trouble, your real point is not how many eye-witnesses there were, but that it was a miracle they witnessed, so their testimony MUST (somehow!) be unreliable. Idiotic circularity that looks like to me.

DC

HGL for Ignatius's account to be of comparable validity he, along with many others would have seen it with their own eyes, there would need to be testimony from people hostile to the belief too, first hand accounts, and there would need to be material proof... there is none of any of this...

HGL

"Do you acknowledge that Buzz Aldrin boarded a rocket in view of many people, including TV cameras and that rocket subsequently blasted off?"

I was just asking MC if his relatives on NASA included people having seen that.

BR

HGL Well, sure but if we acknowledge that some people got on a rocket and that rocket blasted off, then they were going SOMEWHERE.

DC

HGL your argument over this matter of hearsay, a simple thing, just illustrate the toxicity of belief on critical thought ...

HGL

"for Ignatius's account to be of comparable validity he, along with many others would have seen it with their own eyes,"

No, since I was comparing him to earth based NASA staff who knew Armstrong and Aldrin.

"first hand accounts"

St John and St Matthew.

BR

Pretty sure this would be hard to fake.

Wikipedia : Lunar Laser Ranging experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

HGL

Material proof = empty tomb.

"there would need to be testimony from people hostile to the belief too,"

A VERY flimsy excuse is such.

DC

HGL and I added about the other astronauts and the other moon landings did I not?

HGL

Material proof = empty tomb.

BR

HGL The authors of those books are unknown and written decades after the purported events. Additionally, there are indications that some of the gospels are the product of piecing together other books.

DC

HGL yes there would... the Russians accepted that the moon landings had occurred too didn't they...

HGL

Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment is none I have seen with my eyes, I have hearsay it is ongoing.

DC

HGL not material evidence if it isn't systematically recorded as being filled then emptied and someone witnessing the event.

BR

HGL You can visit Goddard Spaceflight Center and see it occurring for yourself. Check beforehand to determine scheduling and admissions requirements.

Jac. H

He also affirmed the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the real presence of the Eucharist, and the efficacy of baptism. What are you, some kind of Papist, OP?

DC

HGL you are just defending an indefensible point just by asserting it is true essentially. That is blind faith, DM't try and dress it up as logic or evidence... You are just taking the word of a man who wrote a letter about a conversation with another man who reckoned he saw a miracle... that is just gullibility, you wouldn't accept that as reasonable evidence in any other aspect of your life...

HGL

"if it isn't systematically recorded as being filled "

It was. [By all involved in the burial.]

"You are just taking the word of a man who wrote a letter"

An official letter.

"about a conversation with another man"

He had sufficient talks with several other men to ...

"who reckoned he saw a miracle"

... be reasonably sure they KNEW they had seen, not reckoned they had seen, a miracle.

"You can visit Goddard Spaceflight Center and see it occurring for yourself. Check beforehand to determine scheduling and admissions requirements."

For my own part, I can't, I am in Paris and broke. So, to me it is hearsay

BR

HGL Observatoire de la Côte d’ Azur also conducts LR experiments.

TO

http://jesusbirthermovement.tumblr.com/.../research...

Research Articles, Evidence and Videos that Prove a Historical jesus, NEVER Existed

by Peter Vidani

KP

^^^hogwash

BR

KP How so?

KP

There are just as many "accepting" or "for" the historocity of Jesus Christ.

What's funny is I could sit down and right about my accounts of the Gulf War (91-92) today for they are still a fresh memory to me. You guys think that Matthew and John could not do the same? Another point you might want to make is there are no "claims" during this period of history that Jesus was a hoax. We call that the law of non-contradiction. It is often how historians verify the truth of historical claims.

RLF

''In ancient times, historical records were often written on stone monuments. These can often be dated by the strata in which they are found''- so each context has its own date-stamp? That'll be handy.

[Often is a clear exaggeration. Most historical records are books that have been copied, not stone monuments - at least after cuneiform went out of fashion.]

HGL

"and I added about the other astronauts and the other moon landings did I not?"

Sure, and I answered that there were others than John and Matthew who saw Jesus risen, didn't I?

Taken together the 12, the 70 (even if some of them were the twelve), the 500 by far outnumber the astronauts so far on the moon?

"The authors of those books are unknown and written decades after the purported events."

Well known by the Church. Suppose someone would deny that LotR was written by Tolkien, it would have been written by Christopher Tolkien after Peter Jackson's work.

Refute that, you must take into account hearsay from people like Unwin or people claiming to have bought their examples of LotR before Peter Jackson's films (that would include me btw).

So, if you accept JRRT is known as author of LotR, why not accept St Matthew mentioned alternatively as Matthew and Levi in Gospels was author of St Matthew's Gospel like everyone back then (or as soon as authorships were mentioned by other authors) said?

"Additionally, there are indications that some of the gospels are the product of piecing together other books."

The scholarship behind those claims is based on denial of accounts given.

KP

BR the onus is on you to prove they are unknown

CB

DC: " regarding your question about science, because of parallel sources of information, because the search continues and because there is no requirement to insert magic/supernatural/inexplicable powers arbitrarily into the mix. "

Your problem DC is that you are unable to see out of the box; everything science for you boils down to naturalism and materialism which is severely limited in scope.

Re' the "requirement to insert magic/supernatural/inexplicable powers arbitrarily into the mix.", this is exactly what you and others do when they assume "naturalistic abiogenesis" as the only possible origin of life: the only plausible explanation of how life began requiring the chemical magic of a primordial soup.

This explains my position more if you care to read it..............

[Quote I]

Methodological Naturalism is the philosophy that in science, we should act as if there is no supernatural. MN not only restricts science to investigating the natural cosmos and explaining its order; it restricts science from even contemplating the possibility of the supernatural.

Sometimes, MN is confused with the scientific method, the process by which science is conducted, but it is not the same thing. The scientific method is the process by which science is conducted, but MN is a philosophy intended to place limitations upon that process.

[Quote II]

The theistic or agnostic scientist has an advantage over the MN scientist. He is free to choose between theistic and naturalistic explanations, depending on which seems the most reasonable. The MN scientist, on the other hand, has restricted himself to naturalistic explanations, even when they appear to be quite improbable, counter-intuitive, or irrational.

Science bound by MN cannot, and does not invalidate religion. Since it is not able to even consider supernatural causes, it cannot rule them out. To rule them out, an MN scientist must step outside of science into the realm of metaphysics, or he must adopt an agnostic approach that is open to the possibility of the supernatural, at least for the sake of argument.

What about when there is no plausible naturalistic explanation available? Should we hold out forever waiting for one when other philosophical disciplines offer attractive explanations? If we restrict science to methodological naturalism, then scientists can never consider ideas from these disciplines and deem such conjectures "scientific."

What if nature is designed and created by a transcendent metaphysical intelligence? What if the evidence in nature actually points to this? Science bound by methodological naturalism must ignore this; it is forever bound to seek naturalistic explanations, no matter how implausible they may be. It is not free to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. Is this healthy? Is this the approach we really want to take into inquiring into the truth? Should the evidence be the standard of truth, or presupposition?........................

Should Only Naturalistic Explanations Be Allowed in Our Science Classrooms?
http://www.creationdefense.org/117.htm

BR

KP Proving a negative? The texts themselves do not identify their authors and no know copies exist with autographs by the original authors.

MC

Hans "OK, how do YOU know St Ignatius knew his witnesses less than you know your relatives?

PLUS, what were their positions? Was one of them seeing Buzz and Armstrong walk into the rocket and then seeing the rocket launched?"

Because I didn't just hear their story and report it as true. I've seen evidence first hand. Things most civilians aren't privy too. We even had original photos of the first Mars surface pictures ever taken.

Plus, the people I have on hand could potentially be called upon to give their accounts, where as ignatious simply stated that these other people said so and I believe it. In s court of law, his testimony would be worthless.

[None of above answers point I had asked about St Ignatius knowing less than he about the matter each has good knowledge of. Which are not the same matter.]

DM

Standards of evidence makes it hearsay? LOLOL...that makes most of your pagan worlds acceptance of non-supernatural history as "hearsay"! The Gospels are probably one of the most attested books in history!

MC

DM relying on experts to provide information on things we DM't wish to be experts on is not hearsay. How about you go look it up and learn something.

HGL

"Proving a negative? The texts themselves do not identify their authors and no know copies exist with autographs by the original authors."

St Luke and St John do contain identifications of author.

Copies by authors existed in Constantinople till the time when Iconoclasm either destroyed them or occasioned their hiding.

Point is, this method is not only one available to identify authorship, if they were you would have to ditch nearly or absolutely ALL of ancient literature.

Caesar's War of Gaul was found in ONE manuscript, from so late it was from Carolingian or later monks, first manuscript known.

Cicero, Plato, Demosthenes, etc no better.

"I've seen evidence first hand."

Like you were there when they took off? Will be checking your age now.

Were you born 1978 ... uh, that was like nine years after Armstrong and Aldrin anyway. (Ten years after me)

"Plus, the people I have on hand could potentially be called upon to give their accounts, where as ignatious simply stated that these other people said so and I believe it."

St Ignatius was called up to give his account and he knew the people he had on hand either had been or could be called upon to give their accounts. It is called martyrdom.

"In a court of law, his testimony would be worthless."

In that case any court of law's finding about testimony is equally worthless to the next court of law. In reality, if I were to contest even an assessment of such and such a court of law I was involved it, next court would look at first court and take its even just assessment very seriously.

St Ignatius was taking his task of checking up as seriously as a court of law, or if not he was a fool. He gave his life for what he had been told and what he had trusted. And his mentor presumably for many years was St polycarp whose mentor for presumably also many years was St John of Epheus, disciple, author of Apocalypse, author of Gospel.

He was also succeeding St Eleutherius as bishop of Antioch after this one had succeeded St Peter as such - when the latter went on to Rome.

"DM, relying on experts to provide information on things we don't wish to be experts on is not hearsay."

Oh really? Starting to give some kind of meaningful limitations to the word "hearsay"? Well, if in favour of experts, why not in favour of St Ignatius' assessment of the witnesses he heard?

"Plus, the people I have on hand could potentially be called upon to give their accounts"

If so they reasonably up to now have had less reason to fear from state for sticking to their story than St Ignatius and his sources for sticking to theirs. A big point.

Why do Oil Companies Drill For Oil and Find it, when Using Millions of Years?

KD

JM, your point concerning oil companies is one I've been trying to make for days now.

According to a geologist buddy of mine, who actually works as an oil/gas prospector, if oil had formed according to the creationist model of geology it would lie in deposits so shallow (it was made only ~4000 years ago, after all) that, in his words, "we could practically dig it up with a shovel."

[In some places one could]

So if the creationist model were correct, why do we have to drill down thousands of feet to find oil and gas?

SG

//The only difficulty I see even if what you say is true, is the fact the Bible says God in fact did make light before he made objects that produce Light.//

My answer is simply that the OT creation narrative is not inpspired truth but a myth most likey borrowed from other older ones.

HGL

"if oil had formed according to the creationist model of geology it would lie in deposits so shallow (it was made only ~4000 years ago, after all) that, in his words, 'we could practically dig it up with a shovel.'

"So if the creationist model were correct, why do we have to drill down thousands of feet to find oil and gas?"

Because oil and gas forming during the flood (which I think is the standard creationist model) happens to have had the material making them up sink through or start off under very huge piles of flood deposit.

"My answer is simply that the OT creation narrative is not inpspired truth but a myth most likey borrowed from other older ones."

If so, how come none of the older - e g Egyptian or Mesopotamian - myths ever mentions the idea of God or any of the gods creating light before creating lights?

SG

I haven't studied, so you would have to inform me.

HGL

Well, none of them do. None of those preserved to now.

My answer is that your guess is wrong and this item is real revelation after all.

And yes, God can produce light without using a light source. Just as He can make water into wine without using soil, vine plant, lengths of time etc.

KD

//Because oil and gas forming during the flood (which I think is the standard creationist model) happens to have had the material making them up sink through or start off under very huge piles of flood deposit.//

No. Geologically impossible. Observations simply don't support this premise. And by what mechanism would this work, were it true?

And of course, the million dollar questionwhy isn't the creationist model of geology used to prospect for oil and gas? Why do oil companies use the standard model, which acknowledges deep time and refutes the possibility of a global deluge?

//And yes, God can produce light without using a light source. Just as He can make water into wine without using soil, vine plant, lengths of time etc.//

A major claim. Evidence of how the laws of physics may be violated without invoking a magical explanation, please.

HGL

I guess you owe me a million dollars, because I have an answer:

• because their Capitalist owners get their education (or half education) from un-Catholic places like Harvard until even Catholic places where you can get educations start repeating the nonsense.

Now for the rest:

"Geologically impossible."

For what reason?

"Observations simply don't support this premise."

Wrong category, I didn't give a premiss for a conclusion, I gave a guess for an explanation.

Wrong number, I didn't give one but two.

[1) Because oil and gas forming during the flood (which I think is the standard creationist model) happens to have had the material making them up sink through OR 2) start off under very huge piles of flood deposit.]

And for a guess in order to explain, wrong objection too: "observations simply don't support" is good enough against a premiss for a conclusion, but hardly against a guess for an explanation.

[There you would rather want observations incompatible with the guess or its obvious conclusions than lack of evidence in observations.]

Fact remains, if we had observations of the process while ongoing, we would not have a long age guess and we would not have an alternative creationist guess (or two).

SG

I got that theory from atheist debunkers, btw, HGL.

HGL

"A major claim. Evidence of how the laws of physics may be violated without invoking a magical explanation, please."

• What law of physics says "God can't"?
• What law of physics is violated?
• Who says Christians can't invoke explanations which atheists will scoff as "magical"?

[HGL @ SG] Well, either these atheist debunkers were too atheist and need debunking themselves or they were debunking atheism but not enough.

KD

//"A major claim. Evidence of how the laws of physics may be violated without invoking a magical explanation, please."

• What law of physics says "God can't"?
• What law of physics is violated?
• Who says Christians can't invoke explanations which atheists will scoff as "magical"?//

LOLthese aren't refutations! You're JAQing off now.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/just-asking-questions-creation-edition/

[Not linking to that pseudoscientific antiphilosophical shit, you have the adress if you want to copy it.]

"Geologically impossible" due to the fact that we DONT observe the evidence expected were the creationist claim correct.

[Did not directly answer this one here, but gave an answer later and in link I gave. It provides a theory of mine with empirical palaeontological backup.]

HGL

Here is ANOTHER Q for U.

• Who made NeuroLogica blog the judge of what strategies I may use in debate?
  
  And one more:
  
  
• If "just asking questions" is not allowed, how come science is allowed at all?

KD

Sorry HGL, but answering evidence with questions isn't a refutation.

Want to refute the standard explanation for geology? Only one way to do it.present EVIDENCE that the creationist model for oil and gas formation is valid.

//If "just asking questions" is not allowed, how come science is allowed at all?//

Red herring. Please present evidence that supports your claim of creationist geology.

[Didn't do it here either in the Gish Gallop he provided, but later]

Please explain why energy companies use the standard geologic model versus the creationist model, if the creationist model is supposedly superior.

HGL

But if you want refutations instead of questions, here we go:

• First law of physics is God created everything and can do anything He wants with the creation;
• Second law of physics is that spirit rules matter within - for created spirits like human souls and angels - the limits God decided;
• THIRD ONLY law of physics is that material objects when interacting (usually moved by God, angels or men ultimately) follow certain physical laws.

THAT being said you can ask why I can define laws of physics? Well, I am not a physicist, but physicists are not metaphysicians.

This means that the underlying metaphysics of any non-Theist physicist or believer of such will get the first two laws of physics wrong and therefore object in the wrong places and against the wrong things.

That was not JAQ, that is my formal answer. YOU GOT IT WRONG.

If you want to you can scoff and call that appealing to magic, doesn't change a thing.

"Sorry HGL, but answering evidence with questions isn't a refutation."

You gave no evidence. You gave an attempt at a proof and I asked you to confirm the unstated premisses. Sorry for understanding your argument better than you do yourself!

"Please explain why energy companies use the standard geologic model versus the creationist model, if the creationist model is supposedly superior."

Because their directors go to the wrong schools, as already stated.

Adding "milions of years" of duration or "millions of years ago" doesn't change a real thing in otherwise correct explanations and the way you find oil is not by reasoning about either model as such but by going by where oil was found in the past.

HH

bahahhahaha

creationism does not have a geological model, no backing scientifically of any of it

HGL

Creationism has even more than one geological model for flood geology. They are most of them being debated. Here is mine, which isn't:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

KD

//You gave no evidence. You gave an attempt at a proof and I &asked you to confirm the unstated premisses. Sorry for understanding your argument better than you do yourself!//

No HGL, you still don't get it.

Energy companies UNIVERSALLY agree on deep time and standard geology. They use this knowledge to reliably find oil and gas deposits. They do NOT rely on the creationist model, and if you look at previous comments you'll see I mention a few reasons why.

My evidence, therefore, is the success that energy companies enjoy due to following the deep time interpretation of geology.

NowI'll ask a question of my own.why should this be, if the creationist model is supposedly the superior explanation?

HGL

"Energy companies UNIVERSALLY agree on deep time and standard geology."

You don't get that I got it.

What I answered is that using millions of years isn't helping them.

"They use this knowledge to reliably find oil and gas deposits."

The knowledge that actually helps them is not the millions of years part.

But of course, they UNIVERSALLY get the same indoctrination and narrowminded prejudice that makes them think it does.

KD

//What I answered is that using millions of years isn't helping them.//

No. Incorrect. The deep time model is an integral part of understanding how oil formed, where in the world the conditions were correct for formation to occur, the LENGTH OF TIME the deposits have been buried, and where we are most likely to find oil in this day and age after MILLIONS OF YEARS of tectonic action.

"They use this knowledge to reliably find oil and gas deposits."

THe knowledge that actually helps them is not the millions of years part.

NO. INCORRECT. Deep time is an integral factor in energy prospecting, and for the reasons I've stated.

//But of course, they UNIVERSALLY get the same indoctrination and narrowminded prejudice that makes them think it does.//

AGAIN.INCORRECT. The deep time models consistently get positive results and bring in trillions of dollars in energy products every year.

So.why can't creationist geologic interpretations do this?

Because they are flawed, and cannot make these predictions.

Sorry HGL, but you still haven't explained why energy companies shun creationist explanations in favor of standard ones.the ones based on DEEP TIME and which refute a global flood.

HGL

"The deep time models consistently get positive results and bring in trillions of dollars in energy products every year."

What gets these results is the prospecting of which millions of years is MISTAKEDLY seen as an integral part.

What actually IS an integral part is the distinctions of layer types, like Cretaceous. I believe Cretaceous is a real type of deposit or several of them, but that x millions of years ago has NOTHING to do with it.

"So.why can't creationist geologic interpretations do this?

Because they are flawed, and cannot make these predictions."

If Tas Walker was hired or Woodmorappe, they would get equal results. They are flood geologists. They have a geologic education and no longer (at least for Tas) believe millions of years have anything to do with real geology.

I don't know Woodmorappe's background, so I can't say for sure he was an old earth believer, but if not he may have had a hard time socially while doing the studies.

What predictions are based on are rather "this formation is shale and shale can lead to oil" - that type of reasoning. You can decorate that with "this is shale that formed over millions of years" but it adds nothing.

KD

//"The deep time models consistently get positive results and bring in trillions of dollars in energy products every year."

What gets these results is the prospecting of which millions of years is MISTAKDLY seen as an integral part.

What actually IS an integral part is the distinctions of layer types, like Creataceous. I believe Cretaceous is a real type of deposit or several of them, but that x millions of years ago has NOTHING to do with it.//

HGL, no matter what you believe, reality says different.

And no if the idea of deep time were false, the standard model WOULDNT WORK, and oil companies would just have to drill everywhere and keep their fingers crossed.

But that's not how it is.using models based on deep time and no cataclysmic flood, they consistently find valuable energy deposits right where they are expected to be.

This is the benchmark of any scientific school of thoughtPREDICTIVE POWER. And this is the very thing that creationist models lack.

HGL

"HGL, no matter what you believe, reality says different."

What reality? The petrol [that is] found?

I just told you why it does NOT say differently.

In fact, it does in itself NOT say anything, you have to interpret it and your interpretation lacks a certain elasticity as to seeing things from different angles even when handed them on a plate.

"if the idea of deep time were false, the standard model WOULDNT WORK,"

It is a rule of logic that premisses that are right and are rightly applied cannot yield wrong conclusions. But it is not a rule of logic that premisses that are wrong cannot yield correct ones. Still less that a sentence that is wrong and not really part of the premisses cannot leave them unaffacted so they can give a right conclusion.

KD

//If Tas Walker was hired or Woodmorappe, they would get equal results. They are flood geologists. They have a geologic education and no longer (at least for Tas) believe millions of years have anything to do with real geology.//

And yet no oil company seeks out creationist geologists to do their prospecting. Instead, they choose the standard interpretation and reap billions in profits.

A completely hypothetical statement, and still doesn't refute my point regarding the energy companies' preference for standard geology.

//I don't know Woodmorappe's background, so I can't say for sure he was an old earth believer, but if not he may have had a hard time socially while doing the studies.//

Your own personal musing, but again, doesn't explain the energy companies' preference for standard geology.

[He really is the kind of jerk who's able to take an aside and an admission as if it had been meant as and failed as a proof, isn't he?]

HGL

"And yet no oil company seeks out creationist geologists to do their prospecting."

And actually Tas has other things to do too.

"Instead, they choose the standard interpretation and reap billions in profits."

I don't adore profits. I don't make them my benchmark for truth. They show something is working, but do not show what is working.

"A completely hypothetical statement, and still doesn't refute my point regarding the energy companies' preference for standard geology."

As a curious fact, no, it stands. As a point against creationism, yes, I just refuted it.

And explaining their preference was already done : the bad education they got.

KD

//"if the idea of deep time were false, the standard model WOULDNT WORK,"

It is a rule of logic that premisses that are right and are rightly applied cannot yield wrong conclusions. But it is not a rule of logic that premisses that are wrong cannot yield correct ones. Still less that a sentence that is wrong and not really part of the premisses cannot leave them unaffacted so they can give a right conclusion.//

This isn't your high school debate team HGL, and a logically pretty argument does not trump evidence.

Evidence supports deep time. Oil companies make fortunes based on the concept.

HGL, you're trying to use a philosophical method to approach a scientific matter. It doesn't work.

HGL

"a logically pretty argument does not trump evidence."

A logically pretty argument trumps a logically faulty one when making sense of evidence.

No evidence is evidence for anything unless it is argued about, at least implicitly.

"HGL, you're trying to use a philosophical method to approach a scientific matter. It doesn't work."

When it comes to truth, it is the unphilosophical one which doesn't work.

KP

KD, what is a creationist geologist? Do you work for oil companies? Thx.

HH

there is no such thing

you need real science not guesses to do geology

KD

//When it comes to truth, it is the unphilosophical one which doesn't work.//

No. In reality, evidence rules. We see the results of honestly following evidence to a parsimonious conclusion in the fact that by following the standard, deep time model of geology energy companies are consistently successful in finding what they go looking for.

Predictive power.it's the best, strongest evidence of the credibility of any scientific model. Creationist models have none. Standard models have it in spades.

HGL

Evidence can only get correct conclusions through logic, not through "parsimoniousness" and still less through mistaking antisupernatural prejudice for parsimoniousness.

Predicting can be a devious game, I studied Greek tragedy, I ought to know. Start with Oedipus.

HGL @ KP- a creationist geologist or more usually a flood geologist is a geologist who like Steno, founder of the discipline, believes most deposits are from Flood.

KD just said he didn't work for oil companies but had a buddy who does.

KD

//KD, what is a creationist geologist? Do you work for oil companies? Thx.//

Hey KP!

Creation geologists could be descibed as those who accept a young age of the earth and claim the earth was once submerged under a world wide deluge.

No, I don't work for the oil companies, but have a friend who does. He's a geologist who does prospecting work looking for natural gas and oil deposits. He's taught me a few things, and has shown me survey maps, how they're used, and why they work in the way they do. It's all based on standard explanations of rock formation, chemistry, and millions of years worth of plate tectonics and tracking of the paths of plate movements.

HGL

Oh, did they really take millions of years while tracking the paths of plate movements?

[Not answered.]

HH

its easy to see the real science behind why the earth is over 4 billion years old

HGL

Ah, it is easy to see it? Where is it then?

KP

So KD, hypothetically speaking for you, if you take the statement "millions of years" out of your response there would be no difference between a creationist geologist and a regular geologist, correct?

HH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rArGi6lwds.

[Not linking there either. Might later do - or not do a series of comment refutations, as with AronRa's videos. If so, I will link from their mirror on my blog.]

real science has nothing to do with religion books

HGL

HH, I wasn't asking for a 52 minutes long video, I was asking for a definite place where one can really see the science behind the 4 billion years figure.

HH

it 4 time 52 minutes and teaches you some real stuff, you would be better to watch that then debate lol

learn it first then debate it

most people dont even know its the zircon that we use to date old things with now, science moves very fast

KD

//Evidence can only get correct conclusions through logic, not through "parsimoniousness" and still less through mistaking antisupernatural prejudice for parsimoniousness.//

> The scientific principle of parsimony favors the most streamlined explanation as being the one more likely to be valid. Standard geologic interpretation is the more parsimonious oneit involves no untestable, unmeasurable forces like a supernatural entity. And it gets results.

The creationist model can't say the same, and is refuted by observed evidence. Sorry, still no support for any creationist explanations and the oil companies continue to get richer based on standard science.

//Predicting can be a devious game, I studied Greek tragedy, I ought to know. Start with Oedipus.//

Thus has nothing to do with any scientific topic being discussed.

HGL @ HH

I don't agree about your assessment of me and I would appreciate you let KD answer my question about how the millions years were followed in real time by the geologists . IN REAL TIME, Get it?

HH

if you dont want to learn you never will

HGL

"Thus has nothing to do with any scientific topic being discussed."

It has to do with whether predictive power is an argument for truth.

Apollo predicted accurately - but counted on Oedipus and Akrisios to fulfil the prediction by believing it.

JM

HGL: " because their Capitalist owners get their education (or half education) from un-Catholic places like Harvard until even Catholic places where you can get educations start repeating the nonsense. "

That's right because capitalists prefer god-denying bad science that gives them less profits to bible-affirming good science that would maximise their profits. Similarly universities such as Harvard (and Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne etc.) can't be bothered to upgrade the science courses to take into account the irreproachable YEC evidence.

HGL

HH, I am not here to learn but to teach - if not science, at least logic.

HH

what i posted is science of our history if you ignore it its youre loss not mine

KD

//So KD, hypothetically speaking for you, if you take the statement "millions of years" out of your response there would be no difference between a creationist geologist and a regular geologist, correct?//

No, there's still the difference regarding the flood. As HGL stated previously, perhaps the term "Flood Geologists" might be better. Standard interpretation of the geologic evidence refutes a global flood.

HGL

The YEC evidence is indeed being ignored as you say, JM.

And you still missed the point that I think BOTH models for what happened are irrelevant for getting the results oil companies want.

HH

Q you should ask HGL is does he know about tsunamis?

and how big they were in the past

HGL

"Standard interpretation of the geologic evidence refutes a global flood."

Ah the interpretation of it, yes. The evidence as such no.

HGL @ HH, "your loss not mine" is a standard argument of gipsy women with crystal balls.

[like zircon]

HH

it is a great doco

JM

HGL. Why is the YEC evidence rejected (not ignored)?

KD

//"Thus has nothing to do with any scientific topic being discussed."

It has to do with whether predictive power is an argument for truth.

Apollo predicted accurately - but counted on Oedipus and Akrisios to fulfil the prediction by believing it.//

LOL "Truth".now we're back to discussing philosophical topics?

[My emphasis]

The predictive power of science is a known thing and gives valuable results, and is entirely different from the prophetic types of predictions you allude to. As far as truth goes. I suppose the truth is standard scientific explanations succeed where creationist explanations fail, based on results.

HGL

A wise thing to ignore if the one using such a sales argument seems like a gipsy woman offering a palm reading.

HGL @ JM, this here is ignored, not rejected:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

HH

its not mine lol its common science that is why you are a twit

KD

//"Standard interpretation of the geologic evidence refutes a global flood."

Ah the interpretation of it, yes. The evidence as such no.//

Sorry, the evidence as such, yes. There's no credible evidence to suggest a world wide flood.

HH

you should not be dabating it if you dont understand it in the first place

KD

HGL, why are you citing yourself as a reference?

HH

there are places in australia water has not been for billions of years

HGL

ALL the sediments are VERY credible evidence for a global flood. Except very recent ones in Deltas of Nile and Mississippi.

Especially fact you nowhere find a trilobite under a dino and both under a smilodon.

[reference to what I was saying at greater length in the link]

KD

Be back shortly guys

HGL

"why are you citing yourself as a reference?"

I am not citing me as a reference, I am offering a previous essay or series of such I gave on topic.

[Difference? A reference would be someone else backing up my facts. My essay was giving my own argument but at much greater length than I could give during this anticreationist Gish Gallop.

HH

i do urge you to learn it first HGL. you look silly debating something you dont understand

JM

HGL: Are you using the word ignore in its French sense of "being ignorant of"? If YEC science is well-founded there is no logical reason why it should not be adopted by universities and oil companies.

HGL

Thank you very much to leave me alone about your sordid urges, HH

[HGL @ JM]I use ignore in the English sense and learnt English before French, you idiot! Just because I stay in France doesn't make me a Frenchie.

It is being ignored and not ignoring it would ruin carreers. Perhaps not oil companies, but academic carreers.

[HGL @ HH], I will have to block you [he's number 6, how big is your block list?], there are people who actually try to argue I prefer arguing with them to hearing your insults.

JM

If the science was good, companies which rely on good science getting good profitable results would soon put pressure on universities to change. And anyway there is no academic career to be made by blindly pursuing yesterday's science.

HGL

Btw, JM, Padro Pio never lent any authority to Evolutionism as far as I know.

KD

//"why are you citing yourself as a reference?"

I am not citing me as a reference, I am offering a previous essay or series of such I gave on topic.//

I understand. Thank you for the clarification.

Making coffee, brb

HGL

"If the science was good, companies which rely on good science getting good profitable results would soon put pressure on universities to change."

ONLY if the good science makes any difference for their profits.

[And perhaps not even then.]

JM

Padre Pio, to his friends

HGL

KD, enjoy the coffee.

[HGL @ JM] Yes, what did Padre Pio say to his friends on Evolution? Anything at all? What friends except Jesus and the Blessed Virgin?

To people confessing to him, he had more urgent matters.

As to oil companies putting pressure on universities if YEC science was good, you overrate the interest of businessmen in good science.

Their attitude is often tied up with bad logic like that given just recently by KD (hope he enjoys the coffee, he already had my correction on that one).

What was the Potato Famine?

1) HGL's F.B. writings : What was the Potato Famine?, 2) New blog on the kid : Good and Bad Stuff in Mater et Magistra

HGL (me) > ‎SNM (an Irish young lady)

I just described the events of 1840 like this:

100 potato farmers live close to one Anglo-Irish wheat farming landlord.

Potato crop goes wrong. AI wfll [Anglo-Irish wheat farming landlord] gives nothing to his neighbours, sells all to London to get his usual revenue. After the famine (like when aid at last arrives), 50 of his neighbours are dead, 40 off to US and 10 remain.

Was I basically wrong about the story?

SNM

I have two problems with what you wrote, though they are nothing major. First of all the worst famine, that is the Great Famine, was between 1845 and 1852 about. There were also other famines before that time. 1840 is correct in the sense that that was when the potato crop failure began, though there was no wide scale famine, to my knowledge. My second problem is with the figures. Though the scenario that you show could possibly have happened, most of the country saw a fall in population of less than 30%. There were some parts of Mayo, however, which were devastated with whole villages being wiped out. Another point that I would like to make is that almost all people at that time that had even the smallest patch of land grew potatoes. Most people would also have been tenants of the landlord. Few people owned their own land.

HGL

So, in that case the landlords who were selling wheat to London in 1845-1852 were basically letting their own tenants starve to death, whichever year was the worst one? I mean the one in which relief was debated for months and not done while people were starving to death.

SNM

That is practically what happened. I am almost sure that the worst year was 1847.

HGL

Oh, ok. Same year that Catholic Sonderbund of the four earliest Cantons was beaten by a centralising policy in the Swiss federacy. The year before the Revolutions of 1848.

Thanks for replying!

La plus haute décoration militaire remportée par une femme

Imaginez que vous étiez un garçon comme aux veux temps quand les croisades et plus tard les colonies faisaient rêver des carrières militaires. Vous avez peut-être rêvé de sauver le Roi ou le Président de la République dans une embuscade ou d’un attentat. Ou de faire une entrée dans le camp d’un ennemi et de prendre le chef captif ou de le tuer, pour que les ennemis restent sans commande. Mais vous saviez très bien que tout ça devait attendre jusqu’à ce que vous ayez eu un entrainement militaire. Et un jour vous êtes sommé à la cour, ou la cour se rend chez vous pour vous conférer la plus haute décoration militaire du pays.

Peut-être penseriez-vous que c’est une blague, ou que c’est une rêve ou que c’est une piège. Si un moment donné vous comprenez que c’est pour vrai, la décoration est vôtre, et en plus comment vous l’avez méritée, vous seriez sans doute saisi de joie. Bon … dans l’Ancien Israël, quelle était la plus haute décoration militaire remportée par une femme ?

Déjà, après la chute d’Ève, l’Ancien Testament n’est pas gaspillard d’appeler une femme simplement bénite. Il y a deux, Ruth et Abigail. Ruth parce que cette jeune veuve ne prend pas un jeune homme, mais un homme déjà vieux qui se croyait condamné à la solitude. Et Abigail parce que c’est elle qui par un mot paisible sauve le Roi David de souillir ses mains avec un meurtre.

Ces décorations de paix conviennent à la Sainte Vierge. Elle a donné de la compagnie – sans perdre sa virginité – à un veuf, selon le Protévangile de St Jacques. Mais elle prie aussi pour la paix de l’Église et pour la conversion de mainte pécheur. De manière que son Divin Fils ne le damne pas. Mais la décoration qu’elle a eu, c’est une décoration militaire.

Bénite entre les femmes.

Jaël et Judith étaient bénites entre les femmes d’Israël, parce qu’elles avaient sauvé leur peuple de Sisera et de Holopherne.

Quand la Sainte Vierge a entendu les mots de l’ange, oui, certes elle avait une raison de se poser des questions. Ses mains étaient autant pures de sang que de péché. Elle n’avait égorgé personne, fût-ce le pire ennemi d’Israël … parmi les hommes. Comment pouvait-elle remporter une décoration militaire comme celle-ci ?

Quand la cousine Élisabeth lui dit qu’elle est bénite entre les femmes et béni est le fruit de ses entrailles, il n’y a plus aucun doute possible. Elle a terrassé le pire ennemi, non juste de son peuple Israël, mais de tout le genre humain.

Celui que les exorcistes appellent « vieil ennemi » et « vieux serpent », et pour cause.

Car dans cette salutation il y avait un écho d’un menace que Dieu a donné au serpent, qui est une promesse pour nous. Je poserai des inimitiés entre toi et la femme, entre ta semence et sa semence.

Félicitons la Sainte Vierge de sa première grande victoire décisive sur Satan : d’être déjà engendré sans avoir été un seul instant l’esclave du serpent par le péché, ni personnel, ni celui d’Adam.

Car esclavage et inimitié, et en plus inimitiés au pluriel comme l’hébreu intensifie le mot, sont incompatibles. En posant inimitiés entre elle et Satan dès le début de son existence, Dieu a empêché qu’elle n’ait jamais été un instant même l’esclave du diable. Donc, puisque et le péché personnel et le péché originel sont des esclavages sous le diable, elle n’a ni connu l’un ni l’autre en elle-même. Hélas, combien en d’autres personnes.

Elle est, comme son Fils, semblable à nous en tout sauf péché.

Défendente Génolini vient de poser la question si Son Fils lui a dit qu’elle était sans péché originel.

Oui, la salutation d’Élisabeth était inspiré par la joie prophétique de son propre fils à elle de rencontrer son Seigneur – et d’être délivré du péché originel. Si St Jean n’est pas engendré sans péché originel, il est né sans, et il fut sanctifié à ce moment là. Notre Seigneur a ainsi voulu que Sa Sainte Mère sache qu’elle avait totalement plu au Très Haut.

Mais Il a répété le message de Sa Propre Bouche.

Celui qui fait la volonté de Mon Père est Ma Mère et Mes frères et Mes sœurs.

Il a dit « ma mère » au singulier. Et Elle a bien compris.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU Nanterre
Immaculée Conception de la BVM
8-XII-2014

PS, puisque Russell Grigg vient de nous rappeler que la chair d'Ève est essentiellement, sauf le genre, la chair d'Adam, rappelons une autre raison de croire la fête d'aujourd'hui : la chair du Christ est semblablement tiré de la chair de la Sainte Vierge.

Debates on "Gospel of Barnabas" and Fifth Sourate, at the end with a Muslim

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... Debate against a Blasphemous Hegelian Bengali. Part one, Education of Jesus Christ. And education in general, 2) Debate against a Blasphemous Bengali Hegelian : Part two, His evil ideology of Progress, 3) ... with the Bengali and "deadlock", on Jesus and on Apocryphon called Gospel of Thomas, 4) HGL's F.B. writings : Debates on "Gospel of Barnabas" and Fifth Sourate, at the end with a Muslim, 5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Remember the Buddhist Aussie?

Status :

Could this be true ? http://www.livebuddhism.com/2014/07/1500-year-old-bible-claims-jesus-christ.html

HGL

"Much to the dismay of the Vatican, an approx. 1500-2000 year old bible was found in Turkey, in the Ethnography Museum of Ankara. Discovered and kept secret in the year 2000, the book contains the Gospel of Barnabas – a disciple of Christ – which shows that Jesus was not crucified, nor was he the son of God, but a Prophet. The book also calls Apostle Paul “The Impostor”. The book also claims that Jesus ascended to heaven alive, and that Judas Iscariot was crucified in his place."

Gospel of Barnabas has come up VERY recently if we go by referrings in other books.

Like 1500 AD around or so.

[I was corrected on this, see later on, rather 7th C AD]

As to Turkish scholarship, one leading Turk (Erdogan I think) said Turks had discovered America before Columbus (but after the Vikings, which he did not mention) and that Columbus found a Mosque on Cuba.

Something to think about before arguing the manuscript is 1500 years old!

The manuscript is pretty certainly NOT 2000 years old, since it is a codex, not a scroll. Codices re placed scrolls later and Jews still use scrolls in the ritual usage of holy texts.

[Earliest mention of codex form is actually by Martial, I C.]

BSS

The Gospel of Barnabas is an obvious forgery, no one ever considered it canonical in any major early church group, and it was likely written by the same group forging letters in Paul's name.

HGL

If the Gospel of Barnabas in the early lists of Apocrypha is identical to this one, that is. More likely it was lost and this is a later Muslim forgery using its title. There IS a "Gospel of Barnabas" in the old lists of Apocrypha, or not, by the way?

BSS

Oh wait, I'm thinking of the EPISTLE of Barnabas. Ima go read the Gospel of Barnabas, looks interesting!

How do we know its a Muslim forgery and not just written by Arians or such"

Jo H

yeah sure wasn't me and him hang at the bar and smoke a few joints on a regular basis.

HGL

1) first mention around 1500, 2) prophecy of Mohammed, 3) Arians were no docetists, did believe crucifixion.

LWh

Islamic fake

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel

Its a stupid lie !!!!!!!! Dont buy into it Jesus Christ our lord was crucified for us according to our sin !!!!! Dont listen to this Gospel of barnabas he wasnt even a diciple of Christ

BSS

" 1) first mention around 1500, " - The concept of the Gospel of Barnabas was first mentioned in the 7th century as far as we know, whether the current copy is a redacted Islamicized version or not is up to dispute. It could also have been written by Docetists initially.

HGL

7th C? By whom?

Barnabas was a disciple, posthumously at least, but not one of the twelve:

Wiki on St Barnabas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnabas

BSS

[Site on:] NTCanon : Sixty Canonical Books
http://www.ntcanon.org/Sixty_Canonical_Books.shtml

Mentioned in the list of Apocryphal books.

Well, Paul was not one of the original disciples either so...

HGL

But from Barnabas we possibly do have a real book in the Bible. Hebrews is either by Paul - or by Barnabas.

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel

Give me scripture in the King James Version about barnabas being an diciple

HGL

Yes, indeed, the title as such is mentioned in Apocrypha list you gave as "The Gospel according to Barnabas". NOT sure if it is same as the examples we have.

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel

Paul was chosen like the rest of them

BSS

Right, I agree that we don't know if its the same one or not. It probably is interpolated heavily.

HGL

Scripture, will acts from Douay Rheims version do?

Douay Rheims Bible Online : Acts, chapter 14
http://drbo.org/chapter/51014.htm

BSS

However, its arguable that the Docetist theme was picked up on by the Islamists because they agreed with it, and then added to it from there.

HGL

"And they called Barnabas, Jupiter: but Paul, Mercury; because he was chief speaker."

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel

Give me scripture !!!

BSS

What about it? You said Barnabas not being an original apostle meant something.

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel

Nope just King James all the others are corrupt

HGL

I did [as to Scripture, not as to « only King James »]. Previous chapter we have:

Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.

Now, KJV onlyism is obviously a Protestant heresy.

DRB is older. It is Catholic. And Catholics unlike King James were not persecuting Baptists in 1600's.

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel

Be not deceived this is all based on science once again and science loves to try to prove God wrong

HGL

Nope, science does not love that. Science falsely so called does it.

ATK

LOL I wonder when they'll start believing what the Qur'an has said..

HGL

ATK, I am never going to believe the Fifth Sourate. It contradicts Holy Gospel. Btw, this "Gospel of Barnabas" as here extant is probably a forgery by Muslims.

LWh

Muslims would love it to be real.

ATK

Lol! Did you actually listen to yourself clearly? HGL , you can spew sweeping statements for all you want, but that doesn't negate the fact and objectivity of authenticity regarding theological text signaling the contradictions and flaws of the other. Henceforth, being a little more introspective would undoubtedly help you grasp reality devoid of prejudices and preconditioning.

LL

Paul warned you about false books as early as second Thessalonians chapter 2. The Vatican was a takeover of the old Cesar Roman Empire. You wouldn't be surprise what you find in old Rome

HGL

ATK, I said that I would never believe the Fifth Sourate and you came up with: "you can spew sweeping statements for all you want, but that doesn't negate the fact and objectivity of authenticity regarding theological text signaling the contradictions and flaws of the other. Henceforth, being a little more introspective would undoubtedly help you grasp reality devoid of prejudices and preconditioning." ?

Gospels are written by two people who had followed Jesus, and two who had met such as had followed him. Quran (including Fifth Sourate) is about 600 years later. So, if they contradict each other about Jesus, I believe the Gospels. Common sense ; and not seeing that shows some stiff prejudice and preconditioning on your part.

Church has preserved the Four Gospels and authentified its authorship. The new find is on the contrary just a find. Can this manuscript be from the time when Jesus lived? No, not likely. Back then books were scrolls. This manuscript is a codex, like books are now. With a scroll you roll out lines 1 - 20, before you come to line 20 you roll in lines 1 - 15 and roll out lines so you have line 15 - 40 or whatever, as you can see Romans do in Asterix (yes, it is a comedy basically about our times, but details about Romans are usually accurate). In a codex you turn pages, like we do today.

[Scrolls were very rarely replaced by codices in Ist C, but it happened, but manuscript being a codex it is not very probable it is from 2000 years ago.]

HH

i see you have to been fooled by mans trickery

HGL

HH, how about telling us if you mean me or ATK or someone else?

ATK

The Qur'an only seeks to rectify and explicitly correct the flaws and the contamination done to the previous scriptures via the last and final prophet which is also found in the current bible of today, so your claims are pointless HGL

And as far as theological history is concern, Paul was never a companion of Jesus and you know it.

HGL

ATK "The Qur'an only seeks to rectify and explicitly correct the flaws and the contamination done to the previous scriptures via the last and final prophet"

I am aware of the claim.

We Christians believe such a rectification was never ever necessary.

Christ promised us the contrary in Matthew 28.

So, even humanly speaking, if we were even just talking about a human person, we would still be wise to trust a writing from his own life time over a writing from 600 years later especially if the writing from his own life time was supported as genuine by a Church or society he had founded. Which is the case . Even humanly speaking therefore, we have a case for believing Christ was crucified. And that he was so for claiming to be the Son of God. And that He rose from the dead. Thereby showing He was not just a man, but also who He had said He was: God.

"And as far as theological history is concern, Paul was never a companion of Jesus and you know it."

Sure. But Matthew was. He wrote the Gospel while Saint Paul was as yet no saint but an enemy of the Saints, of the Church. Later he converted and was ACCEPTED as an Apostle by those who HAD been along with Jesus. He and Barnabas were both disciples of Gamaliel. Barnabas was either already a disciple of Jesus Christ among the Seventy or converted soon after Pentecost. Either way he sold his property after Pentecost. And if Saint Paul died along with Saint Peter in Rome, Barnabas was the founder of the diocese of Bergamo, also in Italy.

So, no, we are not liable to have had all our theology changed by someone called Paul who had no connexion and then have had to wait another five hundred fifty years or so till Mohammed came along. There was never such a gap in the presence of the people of God on Earth.

ATK

The question you genuinely have to ask yourself is, is Paul a companion of Jesus? Has he ever met Jesus before in his lifetime? How did he came about collecting and compiling an original manuscript of Jesus?

And whom do you prefer and give credence to among all the so called companions? I bet it has always been Paul.

HGL

There is no original manuscript of Jesus.

[Unless angels have preserved miraculously what He wrote in the sand]

You are not in a position to tell me what questions I must ask myself.

You ignored the fact that St Matthew who WAS along with Jesus for most of the 3 and a half years wrote the words Christ said:

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

Note that "all days" contradicts your supposed gap between Paul falsifying and Mohammed rectifying the message of Jesus.

"And whom do you prefer and give credence to among all the so called companions? I bet it has always been Paul."

Why should there be a preference when they do not contradict each other? Insofar as I have a personal one, it is not St Paul.

Sts Matthew and John who wrote two of the four Gospels come before St Paul in my affection.

ATK

Are you kidding me? HGL

Do you even know the native language of Jesus?

HGL

No, I am not.

Here is the Gospel text of St Matthew, last chapter:

DRBO / Gospel of St Matthew : chapter 28
http://drbo.org/chapter/47028.htm

St Matthew wrote his Gospel Hebrew or Aramaic first, before translating to Greek, if that is what you mean.

ATK

Lol! It does speaks volume of you

His native language was Aramaic...

HGL

Sure, as St Matthew's, as St Pauls. All of them also spoke Greek.

ATK

Aramaic was the native language of Jesus

I'm not talking about Greek

LL

Second Thessalonians warns us about false books of the Bible. The Gospel of Thomas clearly teaches that Jesus has to turn the woman into a man in order for her to inherit the kingdom of God. The book in the Vatican same type of garbage

[So the Nag Hammadi sect may, unlike Jesus Christ, have been disciples of Buddhists, directly or per intermediates : there are Buddhists who say a woman has to get reborn as a man before she can reach Nirvana.]

HGL

Yes, I just agreed on that point. [ATK’s on Aramaic mother language] I also just added that this is the case for Saint Matthew and Saint Paul as well.

As to your not talking about Greek, that is your problem. We all know it was more relevant in Roman Empire than Aramaic.

Sure, LL, and Gospel of Thomas falsely so called was much earlier mentioned in lists of books condemned by the Church than this one, "Gospel of Barnabas."

As to Gospel of Barnabas earliest mention is from 7th C. - i e after Hegira or shortly before.

ATK

I wish we still had the entire manuscript of the bible today in Aramaic, and guess what would've happened.

HGL

Entire Bibles in Aramaic do exist.

They are Christian Bibles.

ATK

Have you ever read the Qur'an from cover to cover before HGL

Here

I must confess he was giving his comments so rapidly I am not always answering the last one he gave just before my own.

HGL

Aramaic in this context = Syriac.

ATK

Ok can I have access to it?

HGL

[About having read Quran] No, but I know sufficiently of the Fifth Sourate not to want to. It contradicts all Four Gospels.

You access to Bible in Syriac? Ask Palestinian Christians.

ATK

I don't think it actually exist. If indeed it's in existence, we would've seen it

HGL

Or ask the Christians of Mosul.

ATK

What filth sourah [sic!] are you talking about?

HGL

They have it, University professors know it even here. You are not one.

I am talking of the Fifth Sourah where "Isa" is supposed to contradict Holy Trinity.

ATK

The fact that Mary the mother of Jesus had a complete chapter in the holy book?

HGL

I am talking of the passage in the Fifth Sourah where Isa is supposed to say things Christ very certainly never said.

ATK

I just wished you're a little bit open-minded to see things clearly and try to understand that particular verses.

HGL

We know from the Gospels what Christ said. And we know that none of them is by St Paul, two of his immediate followers over years, and that St Paul does not contradict them.

We know that Quran contradicts them.

And we know who wrote Gospels from the Catholic Church, just as you know Quran was given "through" (if it wasn't by) Mohammed Ayah by Ayah adding up to Sourah after Sourah through your Ummah

ATK

Has Jesus ever said he's God that you should worship him? Can you show me where in the bible did Jesus clearly state that I'm God so worship me.

Didn't the bible says God is not a MAN?

Characteristics of Prophet Muhammad was explicitly stated in the bible in Deutronomy 18

HGL

What I say about Fifth Sourah refers to 5:72, 5:73 and 5:116.

What I say about Gospels refers to John 8, among other places:

Gospel according to St John : chapter 8
http://drbo.org/chapter/50008.htm

Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad. [57] The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? [58] Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. [59] They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Notice: "before Abraham was made, I am." Christ was [is!] before He was made man.

Saint John was a disciple, this is not Saint Paul writing.

Book Of Deuteronomy : Chapter 18
http://drbo.org/chapter/05018.htm

Christ was and is God. He was also humanly speaking King, Priest and Prophet. Deuteronomy 18 speaks of Christ as prophet.

ATK

So what are you alluding by that verse?

Didn't the bible says God is not a MAN?

HGL

I think it is very obvious. If Christ had only been man, he would not be able to say "before Abraham was made, I am".

Where exactly does the Bible say God is never man? He was not man from eternity, but made Himself Man.

It is contradicted by n o place in the Bible.

ATK

Jesus ate, drinks and defecates and these are human attributes but God isn't a man, so how come God eats and drinks?

Do you believe in the 10 commandments?

HGL

God becomes Man for our sake.

Yes.

As transmitted by the Church.

ATK

That's an utter lie. Stop lying lad...

[A bit thick to call me both liar and « lad » / roughly « boy », but in Scots]

Even your bible clearly stated that God isn't a man. So where are you getting all these from?

HGL

Here, I have already elsewhere answered a Muslim who could not believe Christ is God, as for lying, that is not on my side:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Answering a Muslim who asked "If Jesus was [=is] GOD ..."
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/p/answering-muslim-who-asked-if-jesus-was.html

ATK

What's the first commandment?

HGL

"I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no strange gods before me"

Now, my turn.

"Even your bible clearly stated that God isn't a man. "

WHERE?

ATK

So does that sound like God is 3, 2 or only 1

HGL

As to the commandment, I said I accept and believe them as transmitted by the Church.

Here is Catholic [Trentine] and Orthodox [Philaret] catechism on the commandment:

Trento - Philaret (Catechisms) : On the First Commandment. & On the Second Commandment./THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
http://trentophilaret.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-first-commandment.html

And [as to his question] God is one God in Three Persons.

ATK

Numbers 23:19

HGL

Numbers 23:19?

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said then, and will he not do? hath he spoken, and will he not fulfill?

[Book Of Numbers : Chapter 23
http://drbo.org/chapter/04023.htm]

God was not yet man, and when He became so, He became no liar.

His promises - whose certainty is ascertained in this verse - mean He had to later become Man

A royalty over Israel implies God and a Son of David are the same, since both eternally King of Israel. That Son of David was Jesus Christ.

ATK

Dude! Just accept and give credit to your Creator ok and not Jesus. He was only sent to deliver a divine message of God and He never claimed to be God nor the son of God. All the messengers and prophets of God came with one solid message, saying that Worship none but your Creator and do not associate any partners with Him, because if you do so, you'll never smell the fragrance of heaven. And that's exactly what Jesus p.b.u.h professed. He worshipped his Creator alone without associating any partners with him and taught us to do same. In contrast to that, I'll never worship any creation except the Creator, and Jesus as far as I'm concern is also part of God's creation. So think deeply my friend and take a decisive step to discovering all the truths.

HGL

Incarnation was also more directly prophecied.

Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another' s speech. [8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city.

How could God go down if He was everywhere? He was going to become man.

"He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. [38] Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men."

Genesis 11, Baruch 3

[Book Of Genesis : Chapter 11
http://drbo.org/chapter/01011.htm

Prophecy Of Baruch : Chapter 3
http://drbo.org/chapter/30003.htm]

"He was only sent to deliver a divine message of God and He never claimed to be God nor the son of God. "

That is a lie and contradicts the Gospels.

ATK

http://quran.com/19

I want you to read this chapter carefully.

HGL

I do not believe Sourah 19 if I refuse to believe Sourah 5.

ATK

Lol! I thought you're open-minded and hopefully you might give it a go.

HGL

"And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree."

Wrong. She gave miraculously birth without pain.

If you still consider me "openminded" (I consider them empty minded), you are not very open to evidence.

ATK

Is your premise a verse that you quoted or it just popped up in your head?

HGL

What do you mean by that question? My premise for which of my conclusions?

There are lots of conclusions and to some of them (like seeing how "open minded" often means empty minded) my premise is NEITHER but common sense evidence and experience

ATK

"She gave birth miraculously without pain"

HGL

I skimmed over Sourah 19. Till I found the error.

ATK

I just wished you would complete it and stop the cherry-picking

HGL

That pain comes from childbirth is because children's flesh and bones are usually hard.

After Resurrection Christ walked through walls. While being born, He preserved His Holy Mother's Virginity. I e she gave birth miraculously.

I have this from Tradition, not from a verse directly.

I am not cherry picking about the Catholic Tradition, I accept it.

ATK

May the One that created you, guide you to the truth HGL

HGL

He already did.

ATK

Not when you blatantly worshipping His creation instead of Him alone.

HGL

I adore only God. Now God has made Himself part of His creation. Not in a way as to contradict Numbers 23:19. He made Himself "like unto us in all except sin" (this one is from Saint Paul) and He did that AFTER saying (through Balaam the gentile prophet) He was not - back then - "a man", but he added qualifications agreeing with the comment of St Paul "so as to lie".

Even more. Vulgate has for 23:19 of Numbers Non est Deus quasi homo ut mentiatur, nec ut filius hominis ut mutetur.

God is - both in His own nature and in the one He assumed through Incarnation - unlike men who are liars and changeful.