On Certain Catholics Considering Pope Michael or myself as Protestants

Paul J Martin

Admin ·

There seems to be a lot of controversy over Pope Francis, ranging from rumours, accusations, hearsay, sensational tabloids or expectations on what a pope is supposed to be and do. I would value your feedback so I can better understand how you feel about the pontiff.

• Pope Francis is a great pope doing a great job. +30
  
  
• Pope Francis is a bad pope leading the one true church. +6
  
  
• Pope Francis is a highly flawed individual trying his best to lead the church. +6
  
  
• Pope Francis is a Communist because he comes from Latin America, and is in cahoots with the banks and the Illuminati.
  
  
• Pope Francis is the Antichrist or an apostate and I’m a Sedevacantist/Protestant.

Steve Wall

Pope Francis is THE Pope and Catholics should show him the proper respect. No Catholic should publicly castigate the Holy Father based on unproven accusations. Wait for the investigations to be completed, otherwise it is slander.

Paul J Martin

Then cast your vote 🙂

Steve Wall

There was not an appropriate choice.

Skipping

some other comments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look here, "sedevacantist" and "protestant" are not exhaustive for Bergoglio being apostate.

What about "orthopapist" (recognising someone else as pope; my case) and certain more stringent of the Orthodox?

Steve Wall

There is only one Holy Father. Catholics call him Pope Francis.

Even before he became the Vicar of Christ, calling him by his last name without using his title would have been disrespectful . . . unacceptable behavior from a Catholic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholics call him Pope Michael.

Oh, there is a certain point to Bergoglio. Even clearer if you write in Upper Case BERGOGLIO. Try the sum in ASCII (A=65 to Z=90, that name has no accented letters).

Steve Wall

Who is Michael and why would you, a protestant, believe him to be the Vicar of Christ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Will you take back "you, a protestant"?

Steve Wall

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Absolutely not! You are as protestant as Martin Luther! Perhaps more so!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As Martin Luther in what year?

1515? He was basically Catholic.
1517? He was Jansenist.
1520? He was Protestant.
and so on ... one minute more Protestant than Erasmus, one minute less Protestant than Zwingli (good for him, btw).

Now, if you do not believe ANY of the heresies condemned at Trent, you cannot qualify as Protestant.

I believe in Seven Sacraments, Mass being a True Sacrifice, Mary being Co-Redemptrix (a Prot just called me blasphemous for the quote from Challoner on Genesis 3:15) ... you could call me schismatic or heretic, from your point of view, but calling me a Protestant is as inaccurate as calling Luther a Nestorian.

Btw, before calling me a heretic, you might want to check the exact definition on which you would call me so.

Steve Wall

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not call you a heretic. Please do not lie in an attempt to strengthen your position.

I would say you are as protestant as Martin Luther in 1522 when he published his perversion of the New Testament. In it, he corrupted Sacred Scripture in an attempt to strengthen his position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not say you had already called me a heretic.

The technical term for publishing an own Bible translation which is not the Church's is schismatic.

I said you could from your p o v call me schismatic. However, Protestant refers to a very specific group of heresies, with close kins, the original ones condemned at Trent being Luther's, Zwingli's, Calvin's, Bucer's, Cranmer's, the Anabaptists' and the two Sozzini's more or less contemporaneous heresies.

If someone's position doesn't fit these, you cannot call him a Protestant.

Btw, I was quoting a fully Catholic Douay Rheims.

Steve Wall

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I didn't call you a Protestant, I called you a protestant.

Say what you want, but the one thing you are not is Catholic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I didn't call you a Protestant, I called you a protestant."

Oh, sorry, missed that shade of meaning.

A "protestant" - lower case - has no canonical meaning whatsoever.

In that sense, St. Thomas More could have been called "a protestant" bc of protesting against the majority of the English bishops (against all but one, in fact).

As for the last, you are not my bishop or pope.

Steve Wall

Well, you've told us who you chose to be you pope, who have you chosen to be your bishop?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For the moment, His Holiness seems to be the only bishop in the world.

(Only bishop with jurisdiction, those who consecrated him seem to have retired)

Steve Wall

It's a shame you've rejected the Catholic Church. We have a lot of bishops and each one of them has a proven line of Apostolic succession all the way back to Jesus Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You know, there are some of them whose most recent in the line consecrations are after a new rite (1970 or 1969 or sth).

Steve Wall

So? They are still valid and licit lines of Apostolic succession.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is disputed.

The Anglican lines are invalid, due to a change in rite.

The Novus Ordusian ones could be so too.

His Holiness has a line reaching back to Duarte Costa.

Steve Wall

Wow!

ALMOST a full century of succession???

You do realize that Duarte Costa was excommunicated BEFORE he founded his own Church.

What's that question we always like to ask of protestants???

WHO FOUNDED YOUR CHURCH?

The answer to that question for you would be:

The excommunicated Duarte Costa in 1945.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You do realize that Duarte Costa was excommunicated BEFORE he founded his own Church."

Do you realise this does not make his line of succession invalid, any more than that of the patriarch of Antioch?

A schismatic bishop is still a bishop.

The Anglican non-bishops (except very recent through Antioch and very few) are not non-bishops due to schism, they are non-bishops due to change of rites.

An illicit consecration is not the same as an invalid one.

The consecrating bishops were juridically reconciled with the Catholic Church (insofar as Bawden was validly elected) before ordaining and consecrating him in 2011, Gaudete weekend.

Some background to the election, the emergency conclave.

• 1) 1986 Wojtyla had visited a synagogue in Rome and convoked a prayer meeting involving non-Catholic and non-Christians, every religious tradition except atheists and radical evangelicals;
• 2) 1988 Monseigneur Lefebvre had consecrated four bishops, on the theory that Wojtyla was not fit to decide on what bishops to consecrate;
• 3) 1990 a conclave took place on the theory that if so, Wojtyla was not Pope and since the Church has a right to elect a valid Pope, even laymen could go ahead, should higher clergy and lower clergy fail to take on the duty which normally would have fallen on cardinals.

Steve Wall

You do realize that a schismatic bishop does not have the authority to ordain anyone as bishop.

When Duarte Costa rebelled against Christ's Church, he ended his line of succession.

Your church is just one more in the tens of thousands of protestant religions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are dreaming. The Church has decided otherwise, that is the only reason why Orthodox bishops are considered as HAVING valid, though gravely illicit, Apostolic Succession.

Steve Wall

Duarte Costa was not an Orthodox Bishop, he was an excommunicated bishop. His Apostolic succession ended when he was excommunicated. He had no authority to ordain anyone to carry on his line.

Your pathetic claims that Michael is the Pope are without merit. He is a false pope, a false bishop, in a false church with no link to Christ or His Apostles. Just one more protestant sect among the tens of thousands.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Orthodox bishops have been excommunicated since 1053.

"His Apostolic succession ended when he was excommunicated."

If so, Orthodox would have as little valid bishops as Anglicans.

"He had no authority to ordain anyone to carry on his line."

He had no jurisdiction to do so licitly, but he did have the powers to do so validly.

"authority" is a buzz word fuzzying out the distinction between jurisdiction and episcopal powers.

Mark Shea : For Kaepernick AND For Tebow

New blog on the kid : Citing Mark Shea on the Prejudice of Certain People he Considers as Racist · HGL's F.B. writings : Mark Shea : For Kaepernick AND For Tebow

Ty Barker

Admin

Shared:

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not all of them.

I really don't think Mark Shea was against Tebowing.

I added

a link to the article On the Dumb Nike Flap

Ty Barker

Your comment has been removed because it violates Facebook’s Community Standards.

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/integrity_authenticity/?hc_location=ufi

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Nous travaillons sans relâche pour limiter la diffusion de contenu commercial indésirable en vue d’éviter les publicités mensongères, les fraudes et les failles de sécurité qui empêchent les utilisateurs d’interagir et de partager l’esprit tranquille. Nous n’autorisons pas les utilisateurs à utiliser des informations trompeuses ou incorrectes en vue de recueillir des mentions J’aime, des abonnés ou des partages."

It was NOT a commercial.

NOR a fraud.

Your removal of it on that pretense was fraudulent.

II

Martin Brown

I've never even heard of this Tim bloke

Ty Barker

Tim Tebow is a Christian who used to play in the NFL. Liberals hated him, because he had a habit of taking a knee to give thanks to God for his success on the field. He wasn't protesting anything, he was simply expressing his faith. The same people who vilified him for expressing his faith by taking a knee to show respect for God are the same people who now lionize Kaepernick for taking a knee to disrespect police officers, the military and America in general.

Martin Brown

Ty Barker can we verifiably state "the same people"?

Ty Barker

Martin Brown Yes we can.

NewsBusters : Flashback: When Tebow Knelt
By Corinne Weaver | September 25, 2017 12:06 PM EDT
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/corinne-weaver/2017/09/25/flashback-when-tebow-knelt

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"While the NFL outrage poured in on all fronts over the weekend, resulting in mass protests among football players that were heavily encouraged by both the media and liberal celebrities, it’s interesting to note that about six years ago, these same outlets bashed quarterback Tim Tebow for kneeling on the field in prayer."

You have NOT verified "the same people" since "these same outlets" in article refer to some media, which are not exhautsive of the ones who are for Kaepernick.

As I showed with the link to a Catholic blogger which Ty Barker FRAUDULENTLY pretended to remove in "obedience" to FB standards.

Mark Shea was certainly for Kaepernick, as shown by the article, but as certainly, since Catholic, for the right of Tebow to bow.

Unless you can show on Mark Shea's blog that he was not so.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Afterthought

I actually searched it, and found he was FOR Tebow:

Catholic and Enjoying It : What is “Christianism”?
December 13, 2011 By Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2011/12/what-is-christianism.html

"Those sorts of things (and similarly politicized stuff) could arguably be called “Christianism”: the conflation of a peculiar political agenda with the gospel. But Sullivan’s reason for seeing the telltale traits of Christianism in Tebow? He prays publicly. He’s overt about his faith. This discomfits Sullivan, whose own Irish Catholic pieties see this as Not the Done Thing. So Tebow is consigned to the circle of the Christianists. What then, is “Christianism”? Whatever a conservative Christian does, says, or thinks that Andrew Sullivan doesn’t like. Mystery solved."

AND HERE:

Jewish Writer Labors to Dispel Anti-Semitic Myth…
December 14, 2011 By Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2011/12/jewish-writer-labels-to-dispel-anti-semitic-myth.html

…that Jews are smarter than the rest of us; goes into full panic mode about Tim Tebow:

If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell​’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.

What’s particularly delectable about this snobbish rant is that the author, apparently noticing the gales of laughter greeting him in this most Judeophilic nation of Gentiles on planet earth, has gone back and quietly excised this lunatic paranoid remark from his original piece. Unfortunately, he didn’t excise the whole piece.

In other words, Mark Shea, just shown to be for Kaepernick was also FOR Tebow, not against him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2 More Afterthoughts

i

On top of that, your article on Flasback was from September 25, 2017 - well before the Kaepernick affair, as far as I get it.

ij

Sorry, I seem to be wrong - in fact the Kaepernick affair was 2016 - and that was under Obama's mandate.

So, he was even protesting things which happened under Obama.

Ty Barker

Hans-Georg Lundahl Your link was removed because it said Trump had mocked a reporter for his disability. THAT IS FAKE NEWS.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Don't pick a fight with me Hans. First off, you’re not even an American, which means you’re not familiar enough with the Kaepernick controversy to give an informed opinion. Second, the same networks that eviscerated Tebow are indeed the same networks that are now praising Kaepernick. I never pretended to offer an “exhaustive” list, nor did I need too.

Tell you what Hans, I don’t make a habit of getting involved in the affairs of other countries, so why don’t you do Americans a favor and keep your uninformed opinions about what’s going on in our country to yourself? America is already being ripped apart by fascists like Kaepernick, so we don’t need outside help to make a bad situation worse.

Hans-Georg Lundahl On top of that, your article on Flasback was from September 25, 2017 - well before the Kaepernick affair, as far as I get it.

-----

And thank you for making my point that you’re not informed enough about this controversy to comment. Kaepernick first started protesting in August 14, 2017 and that article I referenced was published on September 25, 2017. Of course if you had taken time to read the article, you would know that the entire reason for the article was to contrast how leftist hypocrites in the media reacted to Tebow with how they reacted to Kaepernick.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And if YOU had read my comment, you would have known I took issue with exactly one phrase of yours.

"are the same ones" - stated in a way not limited to leftist media.

Ergo, exactly ONE counterexample is enough to prove you wrong, and I provided one with Mark Shea.

Regardless of how little I could be informed about it in other respects.

"America is already being ripped apart by fascists like Kaepernick,"

That's meddling in Italian business.

Il Duce would be rolling over in his grave if he had overheard you comparing him to Kaepernick - since I just found out Kaepernick donated to a "pro-choice" (pro-death) so called "charity".

In his Italy, abortion with medical assistance was 2 to 5 years prison for both aborting mother and assisting medical personnel. Abortion wiithout that was 1 to 4 years.

I think you would owe Il Duce an apology for calling Kaepernick a fascist.

Ty Barker "Your link was removed because it said Trump had mocked a reporter for his disability. THAT IS FAKE NEWS."

Possible. If so, would you mind explaining the gif.

Also, while this might be fake news, it was a side issue on Mark Shea's rant against those who boycott Nike now.

Ty Barker "I don’t make a habit of getting involved in the affairs of other countries, so why don’t you do Americans a favor and keep your uninformed opinions about what’s going on in our country to yourself?"

You were a bit less eager to say things like that when I campaigned for releasing Kent Hovind, when he was still in prison, or when I supported NoBama.

Ty Barker

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Investors : Fake News: Trump Did Not Mock Disabled Reporter And Other Lies From The Left
KERRY JACKSON 1/17/2017
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/fake-news-trump-did-not-mock-disabled-reporter-and-other-lies-from-the-left/

Hans-Georg Lundahl BTW even though that is a "side issue," if a site is spreading fake news like that about Trump, nothing it says can be trusted. Especially when it comes to defending anti-American communists like Kaepernick.

Hans-Georg Lundahl You were a bit less eager to say things like that when I campaigned for releasing Kent Hovind, when he was still in prison, or when I supported NoBama.

-----

There’s a difference between Christians supporting a fellow Christian who is being persecuted and getting involved in the politics of other countries. I may have opinions about Canada’s Prime Minister or Great Britain’s royal family, but I keep those opinions to myself and I wish people from other countries would show Americans the same courtesy. As a Christian, though, I would have definitely appreciated your prayers and support for Kent Hovind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The truth is, Trump has often used those same convulsive gestures to mimic the mannerisms of people, including himself, who are rattled and exasperated."

Noted.

"And here's another point: Why have we seen no images of Kovaleski moving the way Trump is moving? In every video and photograph of Kovaleski we've seen, he is calmly standing still with his right arm held firm against his chest. He's not waving his arms uncontrollably.

"Why would Trump imitate a man who has difficulty moving at least one of his limbs by madly thrashing his own?"

Noted.

Mark Shea, while not a liberal, is a bit too eager to find fault with Trump, so he could be a sucker for this kind of disinformation.

"if a site is spreading fake news like that about Trump, nothing it says can be trusted."

Mark Shea is a blogger. One man can have an error of judgement without being completely unreliable on all issues.

"There’s a difference between Christians supporting a fellow Christian who is being persecuted and getting involved in the politics of other countries. I may have opinions about Canada’s Prime Minister or Great Britain’s royal family, but I keep those opinions to myself and I wish people from other countries would show Americans the same courtesy. As a Christian, though, I would have definitely appreciated your prayers and support for Kent Hovind."

Well, I did.

Not so much praying, my prayer life is a bit lame, but writing in his favour.

As for Canada's prime minister, I happen to read one Canadian blogger, who called Trudeau a "fascist" and noted that was not quite correct with Mussolini's memory.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(starting new thread)

If you have a real issue with Kaepernick, it should be this one:

LifeNews : Former NFL Player Colin Kaepernick Donates Thousands to Radical Pro-Abortion Group
Opinion Ryan Bomberger Sep 10, 2018 | 9:20AM Washington, DC
https://www.lifenews.com/2018/09/10/former-nfl-player-colin-kaepernick-donates-thousands-to-radical-pro-abortion-group/

Samuel Rivera

Is incredible. Individuals like that, (Mr. Kaepernick), are the "heroes or role model" of today's society. Some even wants to compare Mr. Kaepernick and his cause and values, with Mr.Tim Tebow...NO WAY...no way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but the comparison is over the right to be public, not over each stance each makes.

Ty Barker

Hans-Georg Lundahl Actually the point of this thread is that liberals are rank hypocrites. No one is saying a communist like Kaepernick doesn't have the right to make millions of dollars from America's capitalist system and then trash the system that has blessed him so much. We're just saying he, and the liberals who defend him after they eviscerated Tebow, are hypocrites.

Samuel Rivera

Hans-Georg Lundahl Mr. Kaepernick action, is like the "pandora box"...will open in minds the "van wagon effect" We do not need to disrespect our nation "soul".... And that is just reality 101. 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, the point is a bit different from the wording.

Mark Shea is not democrat, he voted third party.

Samuel Rivera - I do not say his choice was necessarily good, but as far as Mark Shea's article is concerned, unlike the donation to some pro-death "charity", he had a point.

X had been charged with a crime he could not possibly have committed. Perhaps bc X was black. This is not quite what police are supposed to be doing. Kaepernick had some point in that.

Btw, the Pandora's box comparison is exactly what a liberal Jew made about Tebow, and what Mark Shea found exasperatingly dumb.

Petition I am sharing : don't drop Latin from Creatorspace

Link: Don't Drop Latin books from Createspace (now sold to Kindle Direct)
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/fr/499/013/403/dont-drop-latin-books-from-createspace-now-sold-to-kindle-direct/?taf_id=58856514&cid=fb_na

Image of my signature, with the text:

Two other subthreads, here with Creationists

Men, Dinos, Trent, Church Fathers · Continuing with Tom Dorsey · Men, Dinos, C14 and Harry Weatherford · Two other subthreads, here with Creationists

I

Brian Lantz

Frankly I think that was a period of history so violent, demanding a worldwide flood, that man raised the dinosaurs as a food source!!! lol

Harry Weatherford

Sophia Kok

Yuppa duppa dooooo!!!!😬😆

Brian Lantz

Sophia Kok that's Yabba Dabba do and I don't think they were quite that happy

Sophia Kok in fact if you want to look at some of the crazy stuff they made long before the Egyptian pyramids Google Baalbek. Frankly I think it was dedicated to human sacrifice

Sophia Kok

Brian Lantz Baal? It’s detestable to God , so is Astheroth, Molech , and many Egyptian and Babylonian gods

Brian Lantz

Baalbek not ball. This is much earlier than that

Sophia Kok

Brian Lantz

The Myth of the Megalith
By Elif Batuman | December 18, 2014
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/baalbek-myth-megalith

☝️this one you mean ? Their root also from Baal , the word Baalbek tells about it

Brian Lantz

Sophia Kok that's just a name given to it we don't know what it is. The article isn't very descriptive you can find better pictures of it elsewhere illustrating 1500 ton megalithic Stone precisely cut and precisely stacked on each other. That's not something the Romans did their biggest crane was no more than 10 times. In fact it in most the megalithic sites around the world you will find huge foundational sounds even bigger than 15 and 20 tons upon which people came later and built with smaller cut stones. But find the picture of the pillar with a 90-ton Capstone sitting on a pillar 60 feet high. Nobody knows how that was done. The article is imbecilic

Sophia Kok

Brian Lantz noted

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Brian Lantz - I don't think dinos are very edible.

I do think they are very dangerous, and so can have been used as death trap fences (like machine guns at Berlin wall).

Brian Lantz

Hans-Georg Lundahl oh my gosh some of those animals presented huge steaks veryfit for those who built Baalbek. Google Baalbek and look at some of their work

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you have heard Kent Hovind's video on crypto-zoology, there is one with a plesiosaur or sth getting killed and being TOTALLY inedible.

Brian Lantz

Hans-Georg Lundahl apparently the other dinosaur that killed him didn't seem to think so

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sure dinosaurs don't have the same taste buds as we do.

[I added the link to this post as notification.]

II

James T Beaton

Genesis didn’t say much about the animals before the flood. I’m sure there were large animals that didn’t survive in the flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Flood would for land animals be the least likely time to go extinct.

Before or after, but not at.

Human populations did go extinct though : Neanderthals, Denisovans and Flores Hobbits.

(I suppose that Homo Antecessor and Homo Heidelbergensis are two aliases of Denisovans : Antecessor in Atapuerca has been analysed as having a genome with Denisovan traits, and they are anatomically very close to Heidelbergians).

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl sounds like you believe in evolution

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where do you get that from?

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl from your words. Non biblical and evolution terms.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

But none of the terms were used to bolster evolution or to contradict anything in the Bible.

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl ya think?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, show otherwise if you can.

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl evolution terms versus biblical terms are obvious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What Biblical term was negated by the use of so called "evolution" terms?

Is Genesis 10:32 These are the families of Noe, according to their peoples and nations. By these were the nations divided on the earth after the flood. - is it contradicted by my saying there are biological differences between Japanese and Negros, like in capacity to drink milk as adults?

No.

Hence saying that Denisovans, Heidelbergians, Neanderthals and Sethite = Cro-Magnon = Noah's race all "evolved" from Adam is also not contradicting the Bible.

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl wow

I studied evolution and the Scriptures for almost 50 years. It’s amazing to see the twisting and misinterpretations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What exactly is twisted compared to what?

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl human reasoning

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, what about it?

You might use some of it on this one:



Yes and no.

Adam and Eve were all 512 to some (like Lamech, if I counted right)

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl The Bible does not use the term caveman or Neanderthals. So, according to the Bible there is no such thing as “prehistoric” man, in that sense. The Bible gives no indication that Adam and Eve evolved from lower life forms.

When God created Adam and Eve, they were fully developed human beings, capable of communication, society, and development (Genesis 2:19–25; 3:1–20; 4:1–12).

The creation vs. evolution debate even exists in its present form. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”

The Bible is clear: God is the Creator. Any interpretation of science that attempts to remove God from involvement with origins is incompatible with Scripture.

David Jackson

All races descended from Adam and Eve, and later from Noah and his family. I am sure there were some unusual offshoots... pygmies, etc.

In Hawaii there was a race they called the menehune, or little people who were there when the earliest Hawaiians arrived.

Skeletons of giants have also been found around the world.

Some of these tales of unusual races in the past may be only legends, but I suspect that at least some of them are real.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

James T Beaton "The Bible does not use the term caveman or Neanderthals"

So?

"So, according to the Bible there is no such thing as “prehistoric” man, in that sense."

More like, there is no such thing as prehistoric in the sense of being before there was history, Biblical history starts with Adam.

"The Bible gives no indication that Adam and Eve evolved from lower life forms."

Didn't say they did.

Neanderthals and Apauerca men [Atapuerca men] have been found, they have to fit in somewhere, if not before Adam, as you said, then after.

[as you said = as you rightly said]

James T Beaton

David Jackson either be all biblical or don’t play Christian using evolution terms.

David Jackson

James T Beaton I am 0% evolution. I won't cede all words to them them, though.

James T Beaton

David Jackson sorry. That was meant for Hans-Georg Lundahl

[For those unfamiliar with Facebook. In the groups or on the walls, FB has a system in which you can write a few letters and it fills in suggestions of names, or you can click reply and it fills in the name of the one you clicked reply under. James probably wanted to reply to me, but clicked "reply" under a comment of David.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look here.

Neanderthals have been found. What term do you propose for them?

I am Biblical, since I place them in a Biblical context.

They lived after Adam, i e after 5199 BC, and before the Flood, i e before 2957 BC (Biblical chronology as per the LXX version available to St Jerome when he calculated the chronology the Catholic Church or its Latin rite liturgy uses at Christmas).

I think that should be Biblical enough for you.

And before you propose "pre-Flood men", Heidelbergians, Antecessors and Denisovans were ALSO pre-Flood men, all of which may have been same race type or very similar with each other, but were not so with Neanderthals or with Cro-Magnon, that is, with Noah's race type.

Human reasoning can go wrong like if Lamech had said "no way I could have just two ancestors seven generations ago, there must be 512 of them!" (probably Lamech did believe in Adam and Eve, this example is spoof).

But human reasoning can get it right by saying that 512 ancestors need not be 512 different people.

Btw, it's not necessary that Adam and Eve were always in the 512 ancestor generation to Lamech, with people marrying nieces or aunts, some lines from Lamech back to Adam and Eve could be longer than the patrilinear one given in Genesis 4 and some could be shorter.

Same way, human reasoning can go wrong with Neanderthals and Denisovans, with Antecessors and Heidelbergians ... by assuming they evolved prior to times recorded in the Bible, by taking certain types of dating too literally or trusting certain other types at all.

But human reasoning obedient to the faith can get it right too.

[I added the link to this post as notification.]

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl if they don’t agree with Genesis. Then it is human reasoning and rejecting God’s word over man’s words.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, you did not catch me not agreeing with Genesis anywere.

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl evolution terms and theories do not belong in Christianity. By faith, we are trust God’s Words alone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Evolution THEORIES do not being in Christianity.

You did not tell me which TERM can be only used appropriately by a deluded evolution believer.

Neanderthal?

What term would you use for the men whose bones are found in Sidrón cave?

OxA-21776 bone 48400 ± 3200 Galeria del Osario III
Beta-192065 tooth SID-19 40840 ± 1200 Galeria del Osario III
GifA-99704 Hominid bone SID-00B 49200 ± 2500 Galeria del Osario III
Beta-192066 Hominid bone SID-20 37300 ± 830 Galeria del Osario III

Heidelbergian?

What term would you use for the men whose bones were found in Mauer near Heidelberg, or Petralona, near Thessaloniki?

Denisovan?

What term would you use for the men in Denisova who were not Neanderthals?

Calling all of them "pre-Flood men" obfuscates:

• they are different between them
• they are different from the pre-Flood men we mainly descent from (Noah was Cro-Magnon type man)
• there is a controversy among Creationists whether they were pre-Flood, early post-Flood or even post-Babel.

I consider them pre-Flood, Cuozzo says they were post-Flood patriarchs who lived long (as I understood him as cited by Kent Hovind), and CMI considers them (at least Neanderthals) as one post-Babel population.

James T Beaton

Hans-Georg Lundahl well. That’s your reasoning I don’t agree with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, you don't agree with it, but you haven't shown it contradicts Genesis, bc I nowhere did that.

Men, Dinos, C14 and Harry Weatherford

Men, Dinos, Trent, Church Fathers · Continuing with Tom Dorsey · Men, Dinos, C14 and Harry Weatherford · Two other subthreads, here with Creationists

Harry Weatherford

The answer is no. The scientific evidence shows that man did not live during the age of dinosaurs. How ever man did live during the time of mega mammal fawna. These are what we find as leviathans and behemoths.

Richard Linck

All evidence is interpreted from one's world view. The Secular Evolutionary world view is that since the earth is billions of tears old, man did not live with dinos. The Creationist world view is the world was created around 6,000 years ago, with a great, world wide flood around 4,000 years ago, which wiped all air breathing life from the face of the earth, except for Noah and his family.

Harry Weatherford

Richard Linck that is true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The scientific evidence shows that man did not live during the age of dinosaurs."

Do you include or exclude Mark Armitage's carbon dating of dinosaur soft tissue or bones in the scientific evidence?

28 000 BP for one, 22 000 BP for another.

That is Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl any scientist worth his weight would know that after 15000 to 20000 bp radio carbon is unreliable. Now I want to indulge you so post a link of his full report as well as peer reviews so that I may look at it. And it must be from a reputed journal. Not off of a creationist web post.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"any scientist worth his weight would know that after 15000 to 20000 bp radio carbon is unreliable."

Not exactly what the Carbon calculator says.

30 000 years = 2.654 pmC.

His reports are on video:

AgeOfSpecimensandPreachtheWord
MarkHArmitage | 4.XI.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpRK7v2_Ok4

Btw, adress to carbon calculator:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

When I type in 70000 years, I get this:

This date is too large and beyond the limits of present accuracy (55000 to 60000 years)

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl that still does not verify his c14 findings. Its been a few moons since I studied the accuracy so the extent may have changed however I would like still see the findings. How he verified the c14, who else verified the findings, as well as the peer review.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" Its been a few moons since I studied the accuracy"

Sorry, but 22 000 BP and 28 000 BP have ALWAYS been considered within accurate, as long as the method exists.

The recent push is from 40 000 to 55 - 60 000.

"How he verified the c14"

By sending samples of dinos to carbon labs.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl where is the article? Where is the proof? I'm sorry but up till recently what I stated with c14 dating was the truth. Now with that said I will not take the word of a creationist young earth crack pot website. I want to see the verified evidence my self

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" I'm sorry but up till recently what I stated with c14 dating was the truth."

You know, I'd like to see a paper on that one.

"Now with that said I will not take the word of a creationist young earth crack pot website."

I was looking for the video, where he showed the lab reports.

There is one.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl where

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Carbon-14 dated dinosaur bones - under 40,000 years old
TrueThatiz | 24.VIII.2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl from what I have discovered is that outside this "group" there was no independent testing for verification. The group as a whole is bent on young earth theory. There are many doubt's as far as contamination. So therefore there is yet to be conclusive proof of younger Dino's.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where have you "discovered" this?

From what I saw on a video, the probes were sent to labs, outside creationism, since creationists don't own their own C14 labs.

And doubts about contamination were raised after the results were known, so as to discredit the conclusion - sometimes by those labs, and yet they did show the measured pmC values and therefore ages.

Obviously, non-creationists don't take samples of dinos and send them for carbon testing - at least it has not been routine so far. Or they haven't said so.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl there have been however dating have been inconclusive

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, and perhaps they have concluded it was "inconclusive" for the reason they can't accept the conclusion?

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl still researching

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Would you like to give a link or so?

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Letters to Creationists : Some Simple Evidences for an Old Earth
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/some-simple-evidences-for-an-old-earth/

Live Science : Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained
By Stephanie Pappas, Senior Writer | November 26, 2013
https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Second link is not concerned with C14 dating.

Iron will perhaps preserve soft tissue, but not C14, as far as I know.

First link includes this one:

"some (e.g. Cyprian) held them to be 1000-year periods"

Would you mind documenting he held them to actually BE 1000-year periods, rather than correspond to subsequent such of post-Creation history?

"while Augustine opined that it was difficult to be sure about what the “days” of Genesis actually were."

He gave two alternatives.

• 1) days were 24 h periods
• 2) creation was in exactly one moment, but God gave angels six moments in viewing it (and these angels then gave Moses the account).

NOT a trace of 1000-year or longer periods.

"Today’s Young Earth (YE) creationists typically take them to be normal 24-hour days,"

As the Church Fathers except Clement, Origen and St Augustine, these favouring a one moment creation.

"and also take the genealogies in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible to be literal and exhaustive representations of post-creation chronology."

As do all Church Fathers INCLUDING St. Augustine. See de Civitate. Origen also had no use for Egyptians inflating post-Creation chronology to 40 000 or some years.

NEITHER of the two dealt with C14 dated dino bones and conclusions about dates being inconclusive.

Which is what I was asking about, since it was what you were speaking of.

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm still researching plus one must look at all info. How ever all that I have found thus far preclude that contamination can and will give false readings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, but you missed that Armitage had taken special care to avoid contamination, due to being aware of the problem.

Oh, it was you who were still researching, thought you meant non-YECs carbon dating dinos and they still researching what these things meant ...

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes I'm still researching. there is much info and I am at work I'm not able to look at it all. However in response to him taking precautions not all contamination can be removed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not all extant one, which is the reason where bone parts where such are likely were discarded from samples.

"I am at work I'm not able to look at it all"

• 1) You are at a work NOT involving looking into this. Mine is looking into things, I am a full time writer ("unpaid" so far).
• 2) You probably did a search which gave too wide a scope of answers.

[+notification of the debate being mirrored]

Harry Weatherford

Hans-Georg Lundahl it is the wide scope that gives rise to wisdom.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And also, in a debate, to not finding the wanted link ... very fast ...

Continuing with Tom Dorsey

Men, Dinos, Trent, Church Fathers · Continuing with Tom Dorsey · Men, Dinos, C14 and Harry Weatherford · Two other subthreads, here with Creationists

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[link to previous one]

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl your giving me you as a reference? And by who's authority do you claim VII was invalid?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am not giving you me as a reference, if you looked it up, I am notifying you our debate has been mirrored on my blog.

On authority of Pope Michael.

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm finding Clement of Alexandria and Origen, as well as Augustine, call the Six Days of Creation figurative.

Hans-Georg Lundahl pope Michael?

Hans-Georg Lundahl are you a Sedevacantist?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don't think His Holiness likes being called a Sedevacantist, since on his view the vacancy was ended in 1990.

Calling the six days figurative doesn't mean calling the whole account figurative. I specifically read St Augustine on this one a few years ago, and apart from six different and full 24 hour days, he is not calling the account figurative. Also, he is giving that as a kind of speculation or "strong food for advanced learners".

Calling the six days figurative also does not in any way or shape or form detract from the creation being recent.

Also, if CMI got him correct, one of his arguments was an overliteral interpretation of another passage, given in a Latin not his own dialect (he and St Jerome had agreed Vulgate needed to avoid older and obsolete words, "iunctim" for "together" was one of these, and in St Jerome's dialect it probably was "simul" while in St Agustine's it was as probably "iunctos / iunctas /iuncta", leading to his taking "simul" in Classical value as "simultaneously"). This exact passage would obviously have made him even more horrified about the old age paradigms than the six days, not less.

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl his view is meaningless, since he and you are in Schism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Unless you are in both schism and heresy - for denying Trent and Church Fathers, for instance.

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl lol, Trent not once referred to genesis. And I gave you 3 Doctors of the Church that give testimony that it shouldn't be taken literally.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered "as sacred and canonical". They are the seventy-two books found in Catholic editions, forty-five in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. //

The first of the seventy-two, being, of course, Genesis.

You have not given ONE single either Church Father or doctor of the Church who considers that Genesis as such should not be taken literally.

You have given two who did not consider that the word "day" should be taken literally, which is a separate question, and which involves a one moment creation which I already took into account.

My quoted reference was of course:

Catholic Encyclopedia : The Bible
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl Along the same lines, but with deeper metaphysical considerations, St. Clement of Alexandria and Origen both recall Genesis 2:4: “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,” as evidence that the “six days” are to be taken figuratively.9 In his Miscellanies, St. Clement notes that the creation could not have taken place in time because time itself was created.10 So, new things could be “generated” over a span of days, but creation itself did not transpire over a period of time but is rather the source of time.

Origen argues similarly that “there was not yet time before the world existed,”11 and that the first days cannot be taken literally because you cannot have a day without a sun, a moon, and a sky.12 So, early in the third century Clement and Origen have already articulated the central difficulties in taking six ordinary days as the literal sense of Genesis 1.

St. Augustine does not interpret the six days of creation to be six periods of twenty-four hours. He treats this theme in a few different works and is consistent on this point. In his Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Augustine makes some important distinctions about how Scripture should be read and then directly addresses the question of creation in Genesis 1:

In all the sacred books [of Scripture], we should consider the eternal truths that are taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that are given. In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened. No Christian will dare say that the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense. For St. Paul says: “Now all these things that happened to them were symbolic.” And he explains the statement in Genesis, “And they shall be two in one flesh,” as a great mystery in reference to Christ and to the Church. If, then, Scripture is to be explained under both aspects, what meaning other than the allegorical have the words: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth?” Were heaven and earth made in the beginning of time, or first of all in creation, or in the Beginning who is the Word, the only-begotten Son of God? And how can it be demonstrated that God, without any change in Himself, produces effects subject to change and measured by time? And what is meant by the phrase “heaven and earth”? Was this expression used to indicate spiritual and corporeal creatures?13

Augustine goes on to raise a host of possible interpretations of “heaven,” “the earth,” “darkness,” “the abyss,” and “let there be light”; and he will conclude that “heaven and earth” refer to formless matter.14 He explains that in a narration, you must give one thing before the other, but that doesn’t mean that there is a difference in time. So, the first day and the second day are not different times but different orders. He offers the example of speech: “But the speaker does not first utter a formless sound of his voice and later gather it together and shape it into words. Similarly, God the Creator did not first make unformed matter and later, as if after further reflection, form it according to the series of works He produced. He created formed matter.” Augustine clarifies that the material itself of a thing does in a certain sense precede the thing, as clay in a certain sense precedes a clay pot; but whatever shape the clay has at any time is simultaneous with its being clay.15

In a manner reminiscent of Origen’s argument, Augustine doubts the counting of six ordinary days, pointing out that the sun would never set on God in his creation—for where would it go, to another universe?16 And not unlike Clement, Augustine insists that creation had to be instantaneous. "No one certainly would be so foolish as to think that, because God is great beyond all beings, even a very few syllables uttered by I-us mouth could have extended over the course of a whole day. Furthermore, it was by His coeternal Word, that is, by the interior and eternal forms of unchangeable Wisdom, not by the material sound of a voice, that “God called the light Day and the darkness Night.” And further questions arise. If He called them with words such as we use, what language did He speak? And what was the need of fleeting sounds where there was no bodily sense of hearing? These difficulties are insurmountable in such a supposition."

Helpful to our overall consideration, Augustine warns against pretending to have one single right interpretation of these difficult passages: In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, you made it three by adding St Clement.

Fine.

Now, none of the three said that the narrative as such was figurative.

Each of them took exactly one key word, namely "day" as figurative.

That is still a far cry from any of them taking the passage as a whole as primarily on its own subject figurative.

"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."

That is why I am not dogmatic between six days and one single moment.

This does NOT mean I could not be dogmatic against:

• millions and billions of years
• human history longer than Biblical history
• sin and suffering in either men or lower creatures before Adam fell
• time before creation of Adam and Eve comparable to or even exceeding time after it (as per Mark 10:6).

When you have come over the haze in which "six days needs not be six literal days" seems to you as a code phrase for any of above, you are welcome to TRY TO document any of these - from Church Fathers.

Note, I said try to.

Oh, by the way, there seem to be numbers referring to footnotes not given by you and not starting with one, so I'll suppose you are copying from somewhere. From where? A link is in order.

This one?

Thomistic Evolution : Interpreting Genesis 1 with the Fathers of the Church
https://www.thomisticevolution.org/disputed-questions/interpreting-genesis-1-with-the-fathers-of-the-church/

Men, Dinos, Trent, Church Fathers

Men, Dinos, Trent, Church Fathers · Continuing with Tom Dorsey · Men, Dinos, C14 and Harry Weatherford · Two other subthreads, here with Creationists

Sandra Balance

Did men and dinosaurs live together?

Skipping

some which is irrelevant for my discussion with Tom Dorsey. Down to his reply and our subthread.

Tom Dorsey

No

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You mean dinos didn't exist?

Tom Dorsey

not at the same time as man, no

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wait, they were created on day 6 and before the Fall I don't think any kind went extinct in just a few hours ...

Tom Dorsey

not a 6 literal days of creation Christian here, LOL

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, if you go with St Augustine and them all being one moment, seen by angels in six successive moments, even less time for dinos to go extinct ...

Tom Dorsey

in the blink of an eye!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yeah - but why would they?

I mean, the Fall of Adam was after that "one moment" if it was not six literal days ...

Tom Dorsey

exactly!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And Adam was, in that theory, created in that one moment - which would have been contemporary to the dinos.

Tom Dorsey

or not??

how long is a "moment" when there is no dimension of time??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The most common position in Church Fathers is, Adam was created on day 6.

The other, very uncommon one, is, Adam was created in that one moment.

And obviously a moment means no length at all.

Tom Dorsey

I think you're misreading the fathers. They ask the question, but have no answer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think you are misreading them.

None of them would accept millions or billions of years before Adam. None of them would accept physical suffering on God's physical creatures before Adam sinned.

While they do not fix it on either six literal days or one moment, these alternatives have in common sth which they say elsewhere too : Pagans who extend history beyond Biblical chronology are lying (including to themselves).

Tom Dorsey

The Six Days of Creation
Jimmy Akin | January 02, 2003
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-six-days-of-creation

The Catholic Church has no Dogma relating to the "literal 6 days of creation".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jimmy Akin has a problem. He refers to the non-Catholic "CCC"

"According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, one must "read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church" (CCC 112)."

No authority.

"This means that when interpreting Scripture one must take account of the interpretations offered by the Church Fathers-the source of the Church's Tradition"

No, Christ is the source of the Tradition, the Church Fathers are successive series of arbiters on it.

But yes, one must take it into account. As per Trent, not as per CCC.

"-and by the magisterium, the shepherd and arbiter of the Church's Tradition."

According to that idea, one could never appeal to Church Fathers against apparent "magisterium".

"The Catholic Church has no Dogma relating to the "literal 6 days of creation"." [my special emphasis]

Yes, the Trentine dogma about exegesis certainly does relate to if not six literal days, at least the alternative between these and one single moment.

New blog on the kid : Grammatica et Logica de Canone Celeberrimo Concilii Tridentini
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/07/grammatica-et-logica-de-canone.html

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl sorry, but can you find a Dogma that states "Creation is a literal six days"??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not say I could find that, but that was not your previous proposition. Your previous proposition was none relates to the question, but the Trentine dogma does.

Tom Dorsey

That is NOT a Dogma that exists in the Church Magisterium.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Did you just say this is not a dogma?

Praeterea* ad coercenda petulantia ingenia decernit, ut nemo, suae prudentiae innixus, in rebus fidei et morum ad aedificationem doctrinae Christianae pertinentium, Sacram Scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens, contra eum sensum, quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cuius est iudicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum Sanctarum, aut etiam contra unanimen consensum Patrum, ipsam Scripturam Sacram interpretari audeat, etiamsi huiusmodi interpretationes nullo umquam tempore in lucem edendae forent. Qui contravenerint, per Ordinarios declarentur, et poenis a iure statutis puniantur.

Tom Dorsey

Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't read Latin??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Translation:

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

Tom Dorsey

nor have I ever heard of "Trentine Dogma"??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You never heard of the Council of Trent? Or you think it was purely pastoral?

This is as much Trentine dogma, as divinity of Christ is Nicene dogma

Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
The Fourth Session
http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html

Tom Dorsey

Yes, Trent was an Ecumenical Council. But where does Trent say that Creation was and is to be believed to be Literal??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You just read that all of the Bible needs to be read in the unanimous sentence of the Church Fathers.

Show me one who did NOT believe Creation was literal or who did NOT believe it blasphemous or idiotic to extend time back beyond the years of the timeline in Biblical history after Creation.

Tom Dorsey

The Church has NEVER made a Dogmatic declaration on the Literal Reading of Creation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Church has never made a Dogmatic declaration that Christ cured a leper either.

Tom Dorsey

so no such Dogma exists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

But the Church has made dogmatic declarations having a clear bearing on these question, like the one given by Trent on Church Fathers and exegesis.

Posing millions of years and posing suffering before Adam fell puts you in conflict with ALL Church Fathers.

Tom Dorsey

The Decree at Trent doesn't refer to Genesis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It refers to exactly ALL of the Bible, including Genesis.

Tom Dorsey

No, The Church says all of the Bible is to be read as it was meant to be understood....some literal, some metaphorical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Would you mind referencing that from Trent?

Tom Dorsey

got to go to work, let's chat later brother

Was Vatican II pastoral or Ecumenical?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Would you mind referencing from Church Fathers one who thinks Genesis should be taken metaphorical?

As to work, mine is looking into these things.

Vatican II was invalid.

To be,

most probably, continued, when he gets back from work.