.by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Sunday, 07 November 2010 at 21:41.
Mgr Fellay, to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of FSSPX (founded on diocesan level in perfect communion with a conservative bishop faithful to Pope Paul VI) and thirtieth of Institut Universaitaire St Pie X celebrated todays pontifical Mass.
One thing he said me struck me: Mgr Lefèbvre, in the Cathedral of Dakar, was dreaming about apostasy and realised there was only ONE solution: transmitting the Sacraments and the Doctrine was not enough, one had to transmit a spirit as well.
OK.
A Christian spirit.
OK.
Because there were just so m ...
No, I must have got this one wrong. I seemed to remember something vaguely synonymous to: just so many who received the sacraments and believed the doctrine but carried so little fruit because they did so in the wrong spirit.
Or, wait again. Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is where we make our sacrifice. We must unite ourselves to Christ. If we do not do so while assisting mass - and this he said - we make God a liar.
Is that so? Is lack of devotion, of whole heartedness, of unreserved offering of self not just irreverent in Holy Mass, but actually a worse offense than not assisting mass at all? If so, why did Church exact of us assistance at Holy Mass each Sunday and each Holiday of obligation?
As far as I can see, his preaching today is very akin to the liturgy in Novus Ordo I try to avoid by going there.
When certain N[ovus]O[rdo] priests say we should confess [in abridged confiteor or remade kyrie] that we have not always lived up to the graces we have been given, I feel bypassed, what about those of us who have actully sinned, like punch someone in the face, who when rejecting red coins was maybe offering to save me the thirty cents I had no yellow coins for? Or who, even if it was not anything we could help - at least it felt so to me - acvtually wanted to punch a priest in the face, because he was praying for a conversion that is impossible, since conversion from sins I had not committed. Not meaning I had committed no sins at all, but meaning I had committed quite other ones.
Such a liturgy says what today's sermon says, or feels like saying, to a man like me: even if you believe all the dogmas, you do not belong here, since you are not as devout as we.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Beaubourg/Paris
7/XI/2010
Added comment: Re title: Holy Spirit is transmitted by sacraments, and that is a dogma. Not first and foremost by natural efforts to "transmit a spirit".
But I think Dom Gérard did just fine transmitting a spirit in that sense too - only in his case the ones receiving were close disciples, like monks et c.
Sunday at 21:43
mercredi 10 novembre 2010
mardi 2 novembre 2010
Critiques of Testimonium Flavianum
A What were the texts? 1) somewhere else : The Question of Contemporary Evidence, 2) No, true enough Acharya, Varro did not write about Jesus ..., 3) What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League!, 4) 1st C Historians, Wikipedia Category, 5) HGL's F.B. writings : Critiques of Testimonium Flavianum, 6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on "Contemporary Historians Not Mentioning Jesus" (Answering aekara1987), 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Challenged Again on Testimonium Flavianum,
B How were they transmitted? 1) somewhere else : Laci Green likes strawmen?, 2) Variation on the Scriptoria Game,
B How were they transmitted? 1) somewhere else : Laci Green likes strawmen?, 2) Variation on the Scriptoria Game,
For a possible hint of Jesus's historicity, Christian authorities relied heavily on a single brief paragraph in the works of the respected Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who was born in 37 AD/CE, served as governor of Galilee and traveled extensively in the very same area where Jesus allegedly lived and taught. If anyone was in a position to report the wonder-workings of a local holy man in his own parents' generation, it was Josephus, a dedicated reporter of minute details. Yet in all his voluminous works, the single paragraph (Ant. 18.3.3)-called the "Testimonium Flavianum" or "TF"-says only that Jesus was
When we see it, it is not very only. It is a very succinct but not misleading testimony. I wish hippies were as correct and only correct about Jesus as this testimonium:
"a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
- teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure - a Socrates then?
- He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. - So, unusually cosmopolitan for a Jewish Socrates since Elishah, Daniel or Jonah? A prophet?
- He was [the] Christ - now that is even a bit more than a prophet.
- and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross - oops, a cross is a less confortable death than a cup of hemlock! And Socrates was only condemned on popular prejudice, Jesus on instigation of the aristocracy taking trouble to collaborate with a detested occupant to do the job. Did that discourage the movement?
- those that loved him at the first did not forsake him - Judas Ischariot is indeed not among the four first called disciples.
- for he appeared to them alive again the third day - resurrection.
- as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him - resurrexit, sicut scripsit then. [sic, vide comment]
- and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day - not unimportant as concerned with the prophecy of Gamaliel, as recorded in Acts: if it is from God, it will remain, if it is from man it will be destroyed.
This means - if the passage is genuine - that Josephus was either Christian or benevolent doubter, or wrote against his grain. As an open Christian, it is not probable he would have ruled Galilea - is it now? A "closet case Christian" a k a Nicodemus type (a phenomenon gay movement has more problems with than Christians) might have vented his conscience just once briefly. So could a doubter, one who had, up till that moment, decided to wait before deciding and who then did not decide. A man admitting inconvenient truth he hated might have used that tactique too.
The problems with this famous passage are many.
To the anti-Christian writer, there is ONE big problem, if he accepts the passage as genuine, he is forced to admit what he tries to deny, that Jesus was historic.
First of all, it is noticeably out of context with the surrounding material.
Which the writer conveniently enough does not quote.
Second, it evidently did not appear in the early copies of Josephus's works, nor in the second-century version quoted by Church father Origen, who would certainly have mentioned it if it had been there.
Absence from handwritten copies is an overrated argument. They neither had copy-paste send and print-out nor even printing press back then.
The TF does not appear in any known works until the beginning of the fourth century
As quoted, that is. In itself it is, if genuine, from Josephus' lifetime.
and is first quoted by Bishop Eusebius, the enthusiastic advocate of what he apparently called "holy lying" for the greater glory of the Church, known to have been responsible for many interpolations, revisions and blatant forgeries.
And therefore all later quotes are quoting Eusebius? Well, that takes the wind out of the sail of people using "reliable" Eusebius' silence about St Helen's discovery of Holy Cross, against that story. It is after all more convenient to be silent about truth than to lie against it.
Moreover, Josephus was a Jew and would hardly have referred to Jesus's ministry as "the truth" or "wonderful things"; nor would he have called Jesus "the Christ."
What kind of Jew? Not a Talmudic one as later known, of whom that description is true.
Neither could he have mentioned "the tribe of Christians," for there were no Christians in his day. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.
What the anti-Christian writer is trying to prove. Before proving it he cannot use this as a critique of Testimonium Flavianum.
Philo Judaeus (20 BCE-50 AD/CE) was born before the beginning of the Christian era and lived until long after Jesus's time. Philo knew Jerusalem well, and would have known of Herod's massacre of children, plus Jesus's miracles, well-attended preachings, triumphal entry parade and crucifixion, with its attendant earthquake, reanimated corpses and many other wonders. He would have heard about the resurrection before many witnesses.
Probably yes. But considering his role, would he have talked about it? First of all, he was an apologist for Old Testament Jewish religion - I will not say Judaism, since that religion began as known now after him, at Jamnia, after destruction of Jerusalem - and part of his arguments was playing down the bloody parts of Old Testament by claiming it was allegorical (after all the destruction of Pharao's army was a delicate subject in Alexandria, where last diadochian ruler, Cleopatra, had ruled Pharaonic style) and Herod's massacre did not quite fit into that programme. Furthermore such a thing is the kind of work authorities tend to hush up, Philo might have heard a rumor, but an obfuscated one. As was so much the case about Katyn massacre until very recently (recommend the film by Wajda, by the way). As for Resurrection, if he heard of it it was very probably by the men who came to Alexandria as converts and missionaries, and who constituted another community than his own or the one he grew up in. He might have thought them right, but left it up to them to speak up on it.
Neither Flavius Josephus nor Philo Judaeus were Jews as we know them now. Jamnia had not yet condemned Christianity as "minim and goyim". Philo used and Flavius had heard of Septuagint, which the Jews of Jamnia condemned. After the destruction of Jerusalem, that took place in year 70, the Jewish rabbis assembled in Jamnia from years 80 to 90 and took a lot of decisions, anti-Roman and anti-Christian. Only from then on is the word "Jew" incompatible with "Christian", as is also seen in the fact that the enemies of Jesus, in Gospels written before Jamnia (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are enumerated as such and such a theologic clan or sacred profession, but in St John, written after Apocalypse, and that Apocalypse written after Jamnia, as "Jews" - a word which in that connexion is not put in Our Lord's own mouth, until he talks to Pilate. But Philo and Flavius were pre-Jamnia.
Philo celebrated Septuaginta day, the day in which God inspired 70 men to make one and same translation of Torah independently of each other, but from Jamnia on Septuaginta day is a "dies nefastus", a "black day" like the "ides of march" to Romans. Flavius, in the beginning of his Antiquitates Judaeorum gives a genealogy from Adam to Noah agreeing with Gospel of St Luke and Septuaginta, whereas extant Masoretic text and Vulgate agree on a shorter one, omitting Cainaan from the descendants of Seth. Still, Flavius is thought as having used the Septuagint in places, but he claims to be translating himself from Hebrew.
The oldest collection of what is now known as Talmud, Mishna, was unknown to both Philo and Flavius, that is indeed from second century, published on order of "Judah the Prince".
Hans-Georg Lundahl
All Souls' Day 2010
Mairie du III Arr.,
Paris
lundi 1 novembre 2010
I once tried to write a novel about "Jack Denys" ...
by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Monday, 01 November at 16:34
... "Jack Denys" as in Iakkos Dionysius, and "tried to" as in one chapter or so with levitation inspired by Mary Poppins, adding some topsy-turvydom thought appropriate for someone personifying wine. By the way, why are so many Christians attacking Harry Potter but not Mary Poppins? P L Travers was a known adept of Gurdjieff:
She had studied the Gurdjieff System under Jane Heap and in March, with the help of Jessie Orage, she met the mystic Gurdjieff who would have a great effect on her, as well as on several other literary figures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._L._Travers
Now, after such a "literary carreer" in childhood, I maybe should make up for a bit of a Pagan slant in it by countering real Pagan slander on that theme:
The sacrificed god Dionysus, another son of the Heavenly Father, first performed Jesus's miracle of turning water into wine at temples in Sidon and other places, representing the rain of heaven fructifying the vine. In Alexandria, the Dionysian/Christian miracle was demonstrated literally by means of an ingenious system of siphons invented by an engineer named Heron, to enhance the awe of the faithful....
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/jesusmyth.html
Without even looking it up, how do the siphons of the Alexandria, Heron version, add up to the sealed wine skins of the Cana, Jesus Christ version? Obviously they do not. If perfectly unknown servants seal off perfectly beforehand unseen wine skins, you are in no position to add an ingenious system of siphons even if it was invented by Heron. Probably Our Lord in Egypt heard about that Svengali trick and had an urge one day to make it better ... by a real miracle, which only he could have done. Or Dionysius, if ever he did create such an entity.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Beaubourg/G. Pompidou
1/XI/2010, All Saints &
Sts Cosmas and Damien
Anno Domini 1000 the Church Christ founded was present ...
... in Old and in New Rome. I hope dearly it did not ceasse to be the case 1054, as it was present in Rome and Écône 1970, and i hope it did not cease to be the case 1988, and that Sts Theresa and Petka are rejoicing together on this day of all saints, as on the byznatine one. WHO holds me as a heretic for this hope?
lundi 25 octobre 2010
Debate with mainly a Christian who is a scientist, but not a Christian Scientist
me: "5.) Because I prefer the idea that a (insert god of choice) went ALLA-KADABRA-ALLAKAZAM!!!"
I do. If I can insert the one true god in Three Persons and replace alla-kadabra ... with "fiat lux" and stuff that is in the Bible. I definitely do.
JA: >>I definitely do.<<
Christianity does not conflict with evolution. Creationism conflicts with evolution.
me: Meaning you do not consider Creationism included in or implied by Christianity.
I do.
JA: Creationism is a philosophy. It has no scientific merit. It has no religious merit.
Creationism is not implied by Christianity.
Christians believe that God created the universe.
Christians who have an appreciation of science accept that the evidence the natural world is the evidence of Creation - and if the evidence of the natural world appears to conflict with the Creation account in the Bible then it is the interpretation of Genesis which is at fault - and needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the evidence of Creation itself (the natural world).
me: "if the evidence of the natural world appears to conflict with the Creation account in the Bible"
key word: appears
to whom and according to what hermeneutic principles?
JA: Scientific methodology has proved to be exceptionally robust - and is increasingly so.
The application of science is demonstration of the resilience of scientific research.
One cannot say that evolution is false and that other branches of science (the application of which our technology fundamentally depends on) are true because the investigative and deductive processes are essentially the same.
Creationists always ask for evidence in scripture that the Creation account in Genesis is not a scientific or literal history - they refuse to see that that is an irrelevance: the evidence of the non-scientific and non-literal nature of the Creation account in Genesis is in nature, not in scripture - and the reason is that Genesis is not a science book.
me: "Scientific methodology has proved to be exceptionally robust - and is increasingly so."
Not about evolutionism.
"The application of science is demonstration of the resilience of scientific research."
The applications that give evidence for "science" do not touch evolutionism, nor heliocentrism/geokinetism. No one has proven that geocentrics or creationists would be logically obliged to disbelieve in television, internet, bacteriology or gynaecology.
"One cannot say that evolution is false and that other branches of science (the application of which our technology fundamentally depends on) are true because the investigative and deductive processes are essentially the same."
1838 is discovered that very many stars do have a movement that circles in a year, same direction as sun, the biggest one angle being 0.76 seconds, and all others smaller, most stars still not having one recognisable angle (at least that was the case back in 1980, when the measurable angle parallaxes were for "tens of thousands of stars" among the hundreds of thousand known).
The methodology by which interpretation "stars stand still, mostly, and earth moves, and different observed movements are due to different distance" is preferred over "stars are moved by heavenly dancers" is not any technological one, except such as are applicable to dead matter alone, i e a denial of angelic hypothesis (the old scholastic one) in the principle of research rather than in application. Similarily for C14 datings exceeding Biblical chronology preference of interpretation "C14 was same proportion in athmosphere and present very much lower proportion is entirely due to old age" over interpretation "C14 was back close to creation lower proportion in atmosphere, which accounts for lower proportion now, even without exceeding Biblical chronology".
"Creationists always..."
Do not tell me what creationists always do, deal with what I do - in proving, asking, explaining, challenging.
"...ask for evidence in scripture that the Creation account in Genesis is not a scientific or literal history - they refuse to see that that is an irrelevance: the evidence of the non-scientific and non-literal nature of the Creation account in Genesis is in nature, not in scripture - and the reason is that Genesis is not a science book."
Genesis neither is nor purports to be a science book, however it was for most of its existence accepted by considerable communities as literal history. Which indirectly makes it scientifically relevant.
What you are saying is that Jews from Moses to Jesus and Christians from Jesus to Darwin and Spencer got it wrong. I say that is not compatible with Christianity.
@ CD saying "Hey if you got proof that evolution is false give me some ideas.I already have some maybe we can share some ideas"
Check this out: - a general checkout on chromosome numbers was suggested by Kent Hovind, but I use it in a different way. (Yes, it is my post, a composite of smaller posts on another of my blogs)
JA: >>Do not tell me what creationists always do, deal with what I do - in proving, asking, explaining, challenging.<<
If was you who brought up hermeneutic principals - as do many Creationists I have discussed these issues with.
I know about parallax - I have studied astronomy for over 40 years.
Carbon dating is only used for comparatively recent geology - other radiometric dating techniques are used, and used reliably, for older dating.
>>Which indirectly makes it scientifically relevant.<<
Wrong. SCripture has nothing to do with science.
Scripture is about interpersonal relationships - and the sole purpose of Genesis is to set the context for scripture.
In common with most (all?) Creationists you are clearly a "Genesis Christian" rather than a Gospel Christian.
>>What you are saying is that Jews from Moses to Jesus and Christians from Jesus to Darwin and Spencer got it wrong. I say that is not compatible with Christianity.<<
No. What I am saying is that the Bible is not about science. Genesis is not a history. Genesis sets the context for *your* personal relationship with God, and with your neighbour.
me: A Gospel Christian IS a Genesis Christian, since Gospels tell us Christ was a Genesis Hebrew.
Gospel is not limited to my personal relationship with God or man, though it includes that, it is reliable history as in Resurrection of Christ AND sayings of what He really said. And that includes historicity of Adam and Eve. He very specifically referred to Genesis History when talking about marriage.
Your Biblical hermeneutics are very clearly not those of the Catholic Church Fathers.
You avoided questions brought up about parallax (though you studied Astronomy for fourty years) and C14.
1) Can the movement currently interpreted as a parallax be interpreted as something other, like the dance of angels to honour God?
2) Are the older radiometric age datings you used to corroborate C14 as implying earth was too old for the doubt I brought up maybe subject to similar doubts as C14 itself?
I also go back to your previous answer, where you claimed there were no methodological difference between the science used in technology - as electronics, medicine - and the one used in heliocentrism and evolutionism. There is ONE clear difference:
Medicine students study bacteria that are there here before them and now while they are being studied, electricians study currents that are similarily circumscribed in time and space BUT evolution is about billions of years ago and heliocentrism is about 4 to 4 billion light years away. Except the kind of stuff that has also geocentric and creationist interpretations.
JA: Jesus's reference to the Old Testament was in respect of its teaching. Not its historicity. A teaching need not be historically accurate in order to convey the truth.
And the truth is that when Genesis talks about Adam, it is talking about you. When it talks about the serpent it is talking about sin acting on you.
The whole point of the Bible - and in particular of the Gospel, are the relationships. The whole point of the death and Resurrection of Jesus was God's desire for that relationship between God and man (specifically you, the reader) which man (specifically you, the reader) broke through his own fault be fixed. It is not Adam's sin, but yours for which Christ died. It does not matter that Adam never existed historically, but it is vitally important that you exist historically, and that Christ exists historically, to repair the relationship with God, which you broke.
me: "Jesus's reference to the Old Testament was in respect of its teaching. Not its historicity"
That is clearly NOT a limitation the Gospel brings out. Btw, I have updated the post you answered.
"The _whole_ point of the Bible - and in particular of the Gospel, are the relationships."
As excluding historicity? NO.
There are four senses*, not just one, and the fact that your favourite one is not the literal does not make your exegesis less lopsided.
*literal/historic
prophetic as in OT pointing to Christ
moral - your fav
AND anagogic as in NT pointing to Heaven
I do. If I can insert the one true god in Three Persons and replace alla-kadabra ... with "fiat lux" and stuff that is in the Bible. I definitely do.
JA: >>I definitely do.<<
Christianity does not conflict with evolution. Creationism conflicts with evolution.
me: Meaning you do not consider Creationism included in or implied by Christianity.
I do.
JA: Creationism is a philosophy. It has no scientific merit. It has no religious merit.
Creationism is not implied by Christianity.
Christians believe that God created the universe.
Christians who have an appreciation of science accept that the evidence the natural world is the evidence of Creation - and if the evidence of the natural world appears to conflict with the Creation account in the Bible then it is the interpretation of Genesis which is at fault - and needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the evidence of Creation itself (the natural world).
me: "if the evidence of the natural world appears to conflict with the Creation account in the Bible"
key word: appears
to whom and according to what hermeneutic principles?
JA: Scientific methodology has proved to be exceptionally robust - and is increasingly so.
The application of science is demonstration of the resilience of scientific research.
One cannot say that evolution is false and that other branches of science (the application of which our technology fundamentally depends on) are true because the investigative and deductive processes are essentially the same.
Creationists always ask for evidence in scripture that the Creation account in Genesis is not a scientific or literal history - they refuse to see that that is an irrelevance: the evidence of the non-scientific and non-literal nature of the Creation account in Genesis is in nature, not in scripture - and the reason is that Genesis is not a science book.
me: "Scientific methodology has proved to be exceptionally robust - and is increasingly so."
Not about evolutionism.
"The application of science is demonstration of the resilience of scientific research."
The applications that give evidence for "science" do not touch evolutionism, nor heliocentrism/geokinetism. No one has proven that geocentrics or creationists would be logically obliged to disbelieve in television, internet, bacteriology or gynaecology.
"One cannot say that evolution is false and that other branches of science (the application of which our technology fundamentally depends on) are true because the investigative and deductive processes are essentially the same."
1838 is discovered that very many stars do have a movement that circles in a year, same direction as sun, the biggest one angle being 0.76 seconds, and all others smaller, most stars still not having one recognisable angle (at least that was the case back in 1980, when the measurable angle parallaxes were for "tens of thousands of stars" among the hundreds of thousand known).
The methodology by which interpretation "stars stand still, mostly, and earth moves, and different observed movements are due to different distance" is preferred over "stars are moved by heavenly dancers" is not any technological one, except such as are applicable to dead matter alone, i e a denial of angelic hypothesis (the old scholastic one) in the principle of research rather than in application. Similarily for C14 datings exceeding Biblical chronology preference of interpretation "C14 was same proportion in athmosphere and present very much lower proportion is entirely due to old age" over interpretation "C14 was back close to creation lower proportion in atmosphere, which accounts for lower proportion now, even without exceeding Biblical chronology".
"Creationists always..."
Do not tell me what creationists always do, deal with what I do - in proving, asking, explaining, challenging.
"...ask for evidence in scripture that the Creation account in Genesis is not a scientific or literal history - they refuse to see that that is an irrelevance: the evidence of the non-scientific and non-literal nature of the Creation account in Genesis is in nature, not in scripture - and the reason is that Genesis is not a science book."
Genesis neither is nor purports to be a science book, however it was for most of its existence accepted by considerable communities as literal history. Which indirectly makes it scientifically relevant.
What you are saying is that Jews from Moses to Jesus and Christians from Jesus to Darwin and Spencer got it wrong. I say that is not compatible with Christianity.
@ CD saying "Hey if you got proof that evolution is false give me some ideas.I already have some maybe we can share some ideas"
Check this out:
JA: >>Do not tell me what creationists always do, deal with what I do - in proving, asking, explaining, challenging.<<
If was you who brought up hermeneutic principals - as do many Creationists I have discussed these issues with.
I know about parallax - I have studied astronomy for over 40 years.
Carbon dating is only used for comparatively recent geology - other radiometric dating techniques are used, and used reliably, for older dating.
>>Which indirectly makes it scientifically relevant.<<
Wrong. SCripture has nothing to do with science.
Scripture is about interpersonal relationships - and the sole purpose of Genesis is to set the context for scripture.
In common with most (all?) Creationists you are clearly a "Genesis Christian" rather than a Gospel Christian.
>>What you are saying is that Jews from Moses to Jesus and Christians from Jesus to Darwin and Spencer got it wrong. I say that is not compatible with Christianity.<<
No. What I am saying is that the Bible is not about science. Genesis is not a history. Genesis sets the context for *your* personal relationship with God, and with your neighbour.
me: A Gospel Christian IS a Genesis Christian, since Gospels tell us Christ was a Genesis Hebrew.
Gospel is not limited to my personal relationship with God or man, though it includes that, it is reliable history as in Resurrection of Christ AND sayings of what He really said. And that includes historicity of Adam and Eve. He very specifically referred to Genesis History when talking about marriage.
Your Biblical hermeneutics are very clearly not those of the Catholic Church Fathers.
You avoided questions brought up about parallax (though you studied Astronomy for fourty years) and C14.
1) Can the movement currently interpreted as a parallax be interpreted as something other, like the dance of angels to honour God?
2) Are the older radiometric age datings you used to corroborate C14 as implying earth was too old for the doubt I brought up maybe subject to similar doubts as C14 itself?
I also go back to your previous answer, where you claimed there were no methodological difference between the science used in technology - as electronics, medicine - and the one used in heliocentrism and evolutionism. There is ONE clear difference:
Medicine students study bacteria that are there here before them and now while they are being studied, electricians study currents that are similarily circumscribed in time and space BUT evolution is about billions of years ago and heliocentrism is about 4 to 4 billion light years away. Except the kind of stuff that has also geocentric and creationist interpretations.
JA: Jesus's reference to the Old Testament was in respect of its teaching. Not its historicity. A teaching need not be historically accurate in order to convey the truth.
And the truth is that when Genesis talks about Adam, it is talking about you. When it talks about the serpent it is talking about sin acting on you.
The whole point of the Bible - and in particular of the Gospel, are the relationships. The whole point of the death and Resurrection of Jesus was God's desire for that relationship between God and man (specifically you, the reader) which man (specifically you, the reader) broke through his own fault be fixed. It is not Adam's sin, but yours for which Christ died. It does not matter that Adam never existed historically, but it is vitally important that you exist historically, and that Christ exists historically, to repair the relationship with God, which you broke.
me: "Jesus's reference to the Old Testament was in respect of its teaching. Not its historicity"
That is clearly NOT a limitation the Gospel brings out. Btw, I have updated the post you answered.
"The _whole_ point of the Bible - and in particular of the Gospel, are the relationships."
As excluding historicity? NO.
There are four senses*, not just one, and the fact that your favourite one is not the literal does not make your exegesis less lopsided.
*literal/historic
prophetic as in OT pointing to Christ
moral - your fav
AND anagogic as in NT pointing to Heaven
dimanche 24 octobre 2010
"Is there anyone in this group from the UK who believes in creationism??"
Is there anyone in this group from the UK who believes in creationism??
Thread owner of this one claimed to be just curious.
First reply: Young Earth, doubtful. We have an education system that works, here.
I've met a few theistic evolutionists though.
Second reply: I'm afraid we do have creationists, they're just less arrogant
Third reply, by the one I opposed after: Creationism is a very American phenomenon unfortunately for us Americans. It's embarrassing. I hear Australia is infested as well. But the rest of the world, they are a huge minority.
Me: Sweden.
I know that "education system that works". I also knows that it works among other things by:
- teacher letting young earth creationists have part of his say once
- teacher then misunderstanding
- young earth creationist correcting teacher about misnuderstanding
- teacher saying the reply does not prove creationism true
- young earth creationist then trying to say that was not the purpose of his second say and trying to get beack but getting interrupted by teacher who declares there is no time for debates with creationism
Was that pupil. Am still creationist.
IIId replier: Well, Hans, there is only so much time for teaching. Might as well use that time discussing reality. BTW, was this a science class? If so then creationism is very inappropriate. Science is science. And creationism is not science. If it is a philosophy class, then it is all a huge waste of time anyway. And I am sure most kids in the room were more than a little uncomfortable with your display of schizophrenia. You are still schizophrenic.
A teacher misunderstanding creationism? I'm sure they understood completely in the definition but not in the reasoning.
me: "Might as well use that time discussing reality."
Precisely my point.
"BTW, was this a science class?"
Yes.
"If so then creationism is very inappropriate. Science is science. And creationism is not science."
Neither is evolutionism.
"And I am sure most kids in the room were more than a little uncomfortable with your display of schizophrenia. You are still schizophrenic."
No. You are a big fat bully, but on internet it does not quite work that way. Even if there are big fat bullies in psychiatric wards who will bully patients about creationism.
"A teacher misunderstanding creationism? I'm sure they understood completely in the definition but not in the reasoning."
It was not they, it was one. My reasoning was not complex. Only not what "they" - as in he - had been taught to expect from a creationist.
IIId replier: Wow, christianity in purity, right here. He will delete this in embarrassment within 24 hours. I hope he doesn't. For all to see.
Me: I just played with the thought of deleting it and writing something you might get an ever greater choke from.
Meanwhile, your hate speech - doubly, against me [or friend] and against a religious group [creationists in previous posts, christians in this one of yours] - has been reported in both of your posts. So long as it is not deleted, it is however for display.
Thread owner of this one claimed to be just curious.
First reply: Young Earth, doubtful. We have an education system that works, here.
I've met a few theistic evolutionists though.
Second reply: I'm afraid we do have creationists, they're just less arrogant
Third reply, by the one I opposed after: Creationism is a very American phenomenon unfortunately for us Americans. It's embarrassing. I hear Australia is infested as well. But the rest of the world, they are a huge minority.
Me: Sweden.
I know that "education system that works". I also knows that it works among other things by:
- teacher letting young earth creationists have part of his say once
- teacher then misunderstanding
- young earth creationist correcting teacher about misnuderstanding
- teacher saying the reply does not prove creationism true
- young earth creationist then trying to say that was not the purpose of his second say and trying to get beack but getting interrupted by teacher who declares there is no time for debates with creationism
Was that pupil. Am still creationist.
IIId replier: Well, Hans, there is only so much time for teaching. Might as well use that time discussing reality. BTW, was this a science class? If so then creationism is very inappropriate. Science is science. And creationism is not science. If it is a philosophy class, then it is all a huge waste of time anyway. And I am sure most kids in the room were more than a little uncomfortable with your display of schizophrenia. You are still schizophrenic.
A teacher misunderstanding creationism? I'm sure they understood completely in the definition but not in the reasoning.
me: "Might as well use that time discussing reality."
Precisely my point.
"BTW, was this a science class?"
Yes.
"If so then creationism is very inappropriate. Science is science. And creationism is not science."
Neither is evolutionism.
"And I am sure most kids in the room were more than a little uncomfortable with your display of schizophrenia. You are still schizophrenic."
No. You are a big fat bully, but on internet it does not quite work that way. Even if there are big fat bullies in psychiatric wards who will bully patients about creationism.
"A teacher misunderstanding creationism? I'm sure they understood completely in the definition but not in the reasoning."
It was not they, it was one. My reasoning was not complex. Only not what "they" - as in he - had been taught to expect from a creationist.
IIId replier: Wow, christianity in purity, right here. He will delete this in embarrassment within 24 hours. I hope he doesn't. For all to see.
Me: I just played with the thought of deleting it and writing something you might get an ever greater choke from.
Meanwhile, your hate speech - doubly, against me [or friend] and against a religious group [creationists in previous posts, christians in this one of yours] - has been reported in both of your posts. So long as it is not deleted, it is however for display.
mercredi 20 octobre 2010
Quand on fait de la polémique, on risque d'irriter les gens.
Surtout quand ils ne peuvent pas légalement se plaindre.
le blog deretour:
19 oct. 2010 14:00 - 20 oct. 2010 13:00
Réponses à "aimerjesus" http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/p/reponses-aimerjesus.html
19 juin 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite quelques musulmans?
Ordo Missae of Paul VI per se valid, probably http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/p/ordo-missae-of-paul-vi-per-se-valid.html
9 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite tradis ou au contraire ceux qui vuelent garder la communion en main?
De toute façon ceux qui ne croient pas l'eucharistie et la présence réelle.
Sir George Darwin corrected Galileo Galilei on tides http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/p/sir-george-darwin-corrected-galileo.html
29 avr. 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite quelques maçons, qui aiment Galilée précisement à cause de sa rôle dans le procès et l'héliocentrisme?
Terre et Soleil - laquelle est stabile? http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/p/terre-et-soleil-laquelle-est-stabile.html
22 mars 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite quelques héliocentriques?
De retour + conditions d'utilisations ultérieures ... http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/de-retour.html
27 mars 2008, 1 commentaire
3 Pages vues
Irritent quelques-uns qui voudraient que mes affaires soient négligées par ma faute?
Nativitas Beatæ Mariæ Virginis - Bonum Festum lect... http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/nativitas-beat-mari-virginis-bonum.html
8 sept. 2010, 7 commentaires
3 Pages vues
Irrite quelques-uns qui ne respectent pas la Sainte Vierge?
Yesterday I missed a close on martyr's day (no, no... http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/yesterday-i-missed-close-on-martyrs-day.html
17 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite quelques-uns qui n'aiment pas la critique de la Révolution?
Ste Brigitte de Vadstena - gratulerar på namnsdage... http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/ste-brigitte-de-vadstena-gratulerar-pa.html
8 oct. 2010
Irrite personne, on espère?
Il y a un anniversaire que j'aurais voulu célébrer... http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/il-y-un-anniversaire-que-jaurais-voulu.html
7 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite personne, ou alors la concernée, mais dans ce cas elle me néglige pas comme elle le prétend.
Par gratitude envers quelqu'un de très hospitable ... http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/par-gratitude-envers-quelquun-de-tres.html
11 oct. 2010, 3 commentaires
1 Page vue
Irrite personne, on espère? Qui serait irrité par gratitude?
Ou ça irriterait peut-être quelques fanatiques de l'évolutionnisme?
"Un chapelet de nucléotides" http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/un-chapelet-de-nucleotides.html
16 avr. 2010
1 Page vue
Encore, irrite personne, on espère? Ou des gens qui ne respectent pas la Sainte Vierge?
Où se trouvent encore ces lecteurs:
19 oct. 2010 15:00 – 20 oct. 2010 14:00
(notez une heure de décalage entre les statistiques)
Pays-Bas - 28
France - 4
États-Unis - 2
Canada - 1
Inde - 1 !
Russie - 1 !
le blog creation vs evolution:
France - 1
Pays-Bas - 1
19 oct. 2010 15:00 – 20 oct. 2010 14:00
Pas de statistique pour les messages concernés. !
le blog HGL's FB Writings:
St Luke concludes five more days of debate with sa... http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/p/st-luke-concludes-fiver-more-days-of.html
18 oct. 2010
5 Pages vues
Irrite biensûr les héliocentriques.
Situation of Yaqui children recently deteriorated http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/p/situation-of-yaqui-children-recently.html
4 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite les tenants de l'école obligatoire laïque ou l'école obligatoire anglo-saxonne plus laïque que pour les traditions des Yaquis?
Blogs/bloggar/bloggi ... http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/p/blogsbloggarbloggi.html
19 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite personne, j'espère?
Our Lady of the Rosary to today, debate between a ... http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/p/our-lady-of-rosary-to-today-debate.html
12 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Pourrait aussi irriter des héliocentriques.
Was John Wesley charitable to Catholics? http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/p/was-john-wesley-charitable-to-catholics.html
30 avr. 2010
1 Page vue
Pourrait irriter protestants et anglophiles. Et biensûr cathophobes.
D'où "lou / la scoumouno"? De FSSPX, de ma paroiss... http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/10/dou-lou-la-scoumouno-de-fsspx-de-ma.html
6 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Devrait irriter personne. Je suis dans une autre paroisse maintenant.
From Journalistic ethics of James O'Keefe to Psych... http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/10/from-journalistic-ethics-of-james.html
6 oct. 2010
1 Page vue
Pourrait irriter les amis de la psychiatrie.
Someone posted a link to Fr. Corapi today http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/someone-posted-link-to-fr-corapi-today.html
6 mai 2010, 2 commentaires
1 Page vue
Pourrait irriter les capitalistes.
Debate on communism (posted on day before and day ... http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/06/debate-on-communism-posted-on-day.html
2 juin 2010
1 Page vue
Pourrait irriter les communistes. Et les radins.
Dante's De Monarchia is wrong http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/dantes-de-monarchia-is-wrong.html
26 mai 2010, 3 commentaires
1 Page vue
Irrite laïcistes et d'autres gens totalitaires?
I have posted quotes on FB (sometimes with comment... http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/i-have-posted-quotes-on-fb.html
3 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Irritant pour les amis du malthusianisme?
svar om religionsfrihet, friskolor, tvångsomhänder... (c'est du suédois, ça!)
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/svar-om-religionsfrihet-friskolor.html
3 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Irrite l'élite actuelle de la Suède.
Freedom of Education (three FB groups) http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/freedom-of-education-three-fb-groups.html
3 mai 2010
1 Page vue
Devrait irriter les amis de l'école obligatoire, laïque, darwiniste et héliocentrique.
Et, autant, rejouir les amis de scolarisation à maison.
More quotes from FB notes http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/more-quotes-from-fb-notes.html
4 mai 2010, 1 commentaire
1 Page vue
Verse drama today (quotes from debate) http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/05/verse-drama-today-quotes-from-debate.html
3 mai 2010
1 Page vue
horaires: 19 oct. 2010 15:00 – 20 oct. 2010 14:00
Participants, même horaire:
Pays-Bas - 31
États-Unis - 2
Espagne - 1
France - 1
Suède - 1
Et a-t-on été irrité? Quelques mois plus tard cette question peut se repondre. Il me semble que oui: la semaine dernière il y avait un blocage de blogger sur les bibliothèques municiaples de Paris, voir ma lettre ouverte: Quand les bibliothèques censorisent ...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
23-V-2011
Bibliothèque publique d'Information du
Centre Georges Pompidou
Paris
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
