Little inspiration for Moses in Genesis, none for Luke in either book?

Jonathan Sarfati claims that Maccabees deny being divinely inspired.

If the Bible had actually disclaimed divine inspiration, it would indeed be illogical to defend it. This is one argument that the Apocrypha was not inspired—1 Maccabees 9:27 and 2 Macc. 15:37–39 explicitly disclaim divine inspiration.

Let us pick this apart:

If the Bible had actually disclaimed divine inspiration, it would indeed be illogical to defend it.

As divinely inspired, not as correct history.

I can defend aspects of Mahabharata and nearly all aspects of Iliad and not very much fewer of Odyssey, without claiming that the Muse that Homer invoked (claim of inspiration from a different and false deity) was a true divinity or an alias for God. But as historical, not as divenly inspired and not as inerrant. All of these are, outside human history and in theology very erroneous.

This is one argument that the Apocrypha was not inspired—1 Maccabees 9:27 and 2 Macc. 15:37–39 explicitly disclaim divine inspiration.

Let us look at the actual verses, shall we.

And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel.

But to celebrate the thirteenth day of the month of Adar, called, in the Syrian language, the day before Mardochias' day. So these things being done with relation to Nicanor, and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me.

The second is actually the graver one, namely "if not so perfectly". Here is bishop Challoner's comment:

[39] "If not so perfectly": This is not said with regard to the truth of the narration; but with regard to the style and manner of writing: which in the sacred penmen is not always the most accurate. See St. Paul, 2 Cor. 11. 6.

What does that word say?

For although I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but in all things we have been made manifest to you.

One could also say, the author was leaving to a higher authority than himself whether his book was inerrant and inspired or not.

Can there be a higher authority than a hagiographer?

Yes, Samuel the prophet may have been one, Jewish tradition says he was and it is generally considered reliable by Catholics too, yet he had a High Priest over him in all except when God used him to chastise the High Priest and he had a King over him in all except where God used him to chastise the King even to the point of exchanging kings. So, hagiographers, unless themselves the highest authority in the Church, as Moses was from the time when God spoke to him in the Burning Bush, and as St Peter was from Pentecost on (and even the previous ten days), are not the highest authority.

This means, God can definitly inspire a hagiographer on what he writes, but someone else and higher on whether he wrote inerrantly and under inspiration. For St. Luke, this is obvious. Either Catholics (with Orthodox on this one) accept that St. Luke sought to have his Gospel approved by the first Pope, St. Peter, after St. Matthew's Gospel already existed and already was approved (this was the occasion on which St. Peter read in alternation from Luke and Matthew, adding some of his own, and his secretary St. Mark took it down, thinking St Peter was dictating a Gospel, which through this "inspired mistake" it became, or Protestants not accepting this accept that Gospel and Acts were approved collectively by the Church, either way St. Luke had someone over him, we do not have just his word for his Gospel and his Acts being inspired writings.

In fact, we don't even have his word for it. Here are the first four verses of the Gospel:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.

Note that the fact of writing a Gospel per se, even if referring to events of God made Man, is not enough to guarantee divine inspiration : "many" arguably means more than four, so he's arguably saying (inerrantly, if Christianity is right) that there were uninspired Gospel books.

And here is the first verse of his Acts:

The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, of all things which Jesus began to do and to teach,

He claims to be making a human effort of historiography, not to be making prophecy.

In this, he makes the same claim as the writer in II Maccabees, only without the disclaimer, which was anyway conditional.

So, there is a principle in logic : if your principle proves too much, proves what you know is false, it is the wrong principle. Something else, contradicting it on some point, is the right one.

In so far as we can argue we know in any sense Christianity is true, we need to accept that St Luke was inspired even if he was not claiming inspiration, and was inspired even if he claimed a method very different from prophecy, and we know that not through his words, but through the words of the Church about his words. But the same Church also claims I and II Maccabees are inspired, while not claiming they are prophecy. Therefore, we must accept these as inspired too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XI
Octave of Immaculate Conception
15.XII.2018

A Quote on Church Buildings

I found it here:

WICKED SHEPHERDS : Where are the Churches?
http://www.wickedshepherds.com/WhereAreTheChurches.html

"Church buildings were unknown amongst the Christians of the New Testament. They had no permanent edifice around which to build their activities and programs. They had no building to go to in order for them to listen to one hour monologues once a week."

One thing is certain : there were no one hour monologues in the early Church.

Sermons are not liturgy, they are an extra to the liturgy.

Imagine everyone understands both the Epistle and the Gospel, no need for a sermon. Just creed and on to matters even more momentuous than the Gospel and the Creed. On to the Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedec.

Sermons are a secondary thing, one version is people are encouraged to ask questions after the reading or after Holy Mass and the priest answers them. Another one is, when the pronunciation of the Gospel became hieratic to exclusion of unlearned comprehension (sth which happened when Alcuin bettered Latin pronunciation in Tours to Classic or near Classic standards preserved in England) you add an explanatory sermon in the normal pronunciation (Council of Tours 813, about a decade after Alcuin's arrival, 14 years, I think).

So, either way, a sermon was not likely to be a one hour long monologue. That thing came with the abhominations of the Reformation.

But is the quote wrong on anything too?

Well, the fact is, the Church as "body of believers" was an institution (since they had bishops, priests, deacons, since there was a teaching authority, on which you measured not so much "spirituality" as orthodoxy.

But they also had buildings.

Acts 1:12-15 [12] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day's journey. [13] And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. [14] All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. [15] In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:)

• 1) a building is mentioned, sure, "upper room" does not signify all of the building, only part of it, but it involves the architectonic fact of a building.
• 2) if 120 persons were present when St Peter spoke up, obviously, the building was known among the disciples of Christ.
• 3) Nowhere in the NT does it say the Christians lost this building before year 70 AD.
• 4) there is even another indication they had a building in next chapter:

Acts 2:44-46 [44] And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. [45] Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. [46] And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;

• 4a) If everyone sold the possessions, this means that the house Churches here mentioned were common property of the Church, and therefore Church buildings.
• 4b) Obviously, practically arranging the division of goods is much facilitated by the existence of a building.

Therefore, buildings are part of the New Testament plan of the Church. Bethlehem involves a building, even if it was a cave : the stable.

However, best wishes to avoiding one hour long monologues!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Osmund of Salisbury
4.XII.2018

The same site is giving a truncated quote from St. Justin Martyr as evidence Church buildings were unknown in the early Church. Here is chapter two of St Justin's martyrdom:

Rusticus the prefect said, "Where do you assemble?" Justin said, "Where each one chooses and can: for do you fancy that we all meet in the very same place? Not so; because the God of the Christians is not circumscribed by place; but being invisible, fills heaven and earth, and everywhere is worshipped and glorified by the faithful." Rusticus the prefect said, "Tell me where you assemble, or into what place do you collect your followers?" Justin said, "I live above one Martinus, at the Timiotinian Bath; and during the whole time (and I am now living in Rome for the second time) I am unaware of any other meeting than his. And if any one wished to come to me, I communicated to him the doctrines of truth." Rusticus said, "Are you not, then, a Christian?" Justin said, "Yes, I am a Christian."

from: The Martyrdom of Justin
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0133.htm

Obviously, the meeting of Martinus at the Timiotinian Bath was already discovered by Rusticus, so St. Justin was not betraying a Church, this one being already "busted"./HGL

Adoptionism is Heresy : Therefore, so is Paulician Sect

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Is Justin Peters Competent to Condemn False Teachers? · Great Bishop of Geneva! : Adoptionism is Heresy : Therefore, so is Paulician Sect

I think Trail of Blood somewhere states that Paulicians were among the ones whom its author considers as the real Apostolic continuity.

Now, the problem is, their book "the key of truth" is known.

It is also edited. And its editor in the prefaces or introductions is giving parts of its doctrine, one aspect being Adoptionism.

The key of truth, a manual of the Paulician church of ... - Gospel Pedlar
gospelpedlar.com/articles/Church%20History/key_of_truth_manual_paulicians.pdf





If you believe the Holy Trinity, if you believe God the Son became man and that Jesus was no time any other person (though He had another nature too) than God the Son, you have no business accepting Paulicians as Christians. Justin Peters was wrong on more than one item, but he was right to condemn adoptianism:

Victoria Osteen

see, Jesus was a man until God touched him and put the Spirit of the Living God on the inside of him - and that's encouraging today.

Justin Peters

No, that's heretical today.

Arguably, Victoria Osteen considers Paulicians as Christians. I don't.

One theory of Bulgaria Muslims, a k a Pomaks, is, they go back to Paulicians and Bogumils.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Barbara of Nicomedia
4.XII.2018

In Answer to a Few Allegations on "Amredeemed"

[Not linking, a FB friend of mine did. I am reposting here a few things I posted under his status, on which he gave no response. my additions here are in saure brackets./HGL]

Here is one reference:

// Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. Cap. (The Pope can modify divine law.) Ferraris’Ecclesiastical Dictionary.” //

Now, the problem with this is, it's a phoney one. It cannot be identified.

[Ferraris can, see below, "Tranlatic Episcop. Cap." can't]

"The Catholic Church believes that the Bible is fallible and only the pope has authority to interpret it and his power is also above the Bible."

Not exactly true.

// “The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.” CCC 100 //

This reference CAN be verified. Now, it does not mean what the above given interpretation says it means.

"interpret authentically" doesn't mean everyone else is interpreting "inauthentically" or falsely, it means Magisterium is able to make interpretations that all Catholics need to accept as the authentic ones.

Which is also true. Not of Antipope Bergoglio, but of real Popes.

Here is a fuller overview, and unlike some other places, the §§ 96-100 make perfect Catholic sense:

IN BRIEF

96 What Christ entrusted to the apostles, they in turn handed on by their preaching and writing, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to all generations, until Christ returns in glory.

97 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

98 "The Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes" (DV 8 § 1).

99 Thanks to its supernatural sense of faith, the People of God as a whole never ceases to welcome, to penetrate more deeply and to live more fully from the gift of divine Revelation.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

[NB, not sure the previous passages on same page all do]
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

Lucius Ferraris is an extant man:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Ferraris

What does "modify" mean? It doesn't exactly mean "change" it more like means apply a "modus" (measure) of sth.

For instance, the divine law says to keep vows. Popes can modify in what cases a vow is binding and in what cases it isn't or in what cases it can be dispensed with. They cannot simply say "you don't have to keep vows".

They must say things like "you need to keep vows if they were made in these circumstances" (meaning, not if they were made in other ones, like Luther's vow to St Anne in the storm), or "you no longer need to keep a vow if you have already tried this and failed" (like a vow to enter a monastery after already being rejected from one or two).

[Done, as I said above./HGL]

Deinippus in Corinth ...

Sure, the New York of back then (basically), Corinth must have been hardest struck by the famine predicted in Acts (because commercial cities never are good at staying out of famine, you know, Dublin was the worst place in Ireland during potato famine, the country-side was fairly safe ... ?) and therefore an inscription marking off Deinippus as a very good overseer of the Annona means Corinthians in general and Corinthian Church in particular was stricken by famine when St Paul said it was preferrable not to marry.

Have you heard that story?

I have.

Virginity according to St Paul in I Cor 7:9 is preferrable ....

• in Corinth that moment, because Corinth is famine stricken?
• or - as tradition has it - because God likes virginity more than marriage, after the fall.

Those who hold the first have pointed to Deinippus as proof of Corinth, however improbable that is, having been famine stricken at the time when St Paul wrote his letter. Why would Corinth have a prefect of the Annona if there is no famine, after all?

Hmmmm ... socialism?

I mean, not like October Revolution 1917 (though parts of the civil war strifes after Punic wars were somewhat comparable to that or to National Socialism after WW-I loss, though the actual occasion was more like French peasants getting drafted and then having no earth to get back to when replaced by tractors - in ancient Rome megafamring with slaves) - but still kind of ... socialist welfare politics, so, socialism - could it be?

Yeah, there seems to be some ground behind the wiki I was presenting in response a few years ago.

Here is what J. Patrick Holding would presumably consider a scholarly source:

Grain Distribution at Rome
21/5/2015 by Emily Kittell-Queller :
http://emilykq.weebly.com/blog/grain-distribution-at-rome

Checking the scholarly part:

I am Women's and Gender Studies/Classics double major with a minor in Medieval Studies who really likes finding connections between the present and the things she's been studying.

Now, for the beef:

Starting in the late 3rd century BCE, politicians began distributing grain to the lower classes, mostly to men who could vote, in an effort to gain popularity and get elected. A century and a half later, Gaius Gracchus instituted a measure which allowed people to buy grain at a lower price. By this point, the availability of free or affordable grain to at least some of the populace of the City was so entrenched that to take it away might well have resulted in revolts. Julius Caesar, among others, tried to lower the number of people who were eligible, but the numbers always went up again. Eventually, the office of Prefect of Annona was set up to oversee the distribution. Emperors and other wealthy people also set up programs to supplement the official grain dole.

If you read on, you'll find, as a feminist she is upset that a woman could not get the grains on her own, she needed a husband.

This of course means, when the Church organised widows and sometimes even virgins in a kind of nunneries (see further on in same chapter) these women could not get the Annona, so, they needed men to do it for them, and since unmarried, this meant men in the Church supported them by donations.

And that in turn meant, in order to be really deflected from the obvious and traditional meaning by references to Deinippus, one really needs to have not read much of the rest of the chapter. Or to imagine, anachronistically, that in Ancient Roman Empire:

• everyone could support all needs by having a job
• and this was the case for women too.

On the contrary, an unmarried virgin needed support from the Church - and part of what the Reformation did was withdraw this.

Let's quote one more tidbit of the article:

The thing is, feeding the people of the City of Rome remained a problem for much of its history in the ancient period. The surrounding farmland simply couldn’t produce enough grain even before it started being used primarily to cultivate luxuries rather than food staples. Instead, they had to get grain from elsewhere.* There was another problem though: given the cost of importing grain, a significant portion of the lower classes in the city couldn’t actually afford to buy it.

This is relevant to what?

Well, to an article where I debunk the idea that "the city lights went out" at beginning of Middle Ages. Rather big cities became smaller and so citizens had an easier time supporting themselves. So, I here link to a little other article, where I deal with that idea (rehashed by - of all things - a Catholic, who should have known better than partake in Middle Ages bashing):

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : The City Lights Went Out, Did They?
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-city-lights-went-out-did-they.html

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of All Saints
8.XI.2018

Whitaker's Circularity Charge

William Whitaker's circularity argument is cited in this post on Beggars All:

Beggars All : The Vicious Circle
https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/vicious-circle.html

I am adding spaces to the text to improve the reading of the imagined dialogue. The blogger is citing from William Whitaker, Disputations on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1894; reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2005), 334-335.

For I demand, whence it is that we learn that the church cannot err in consigning the canon of scripture?

They answer, that it is governed by the Holy Spirit (for so the council of Trent assumes of itself), and therefore cannot err in its judgments and decrees.

I confess indeed that, if it be always governed by the Holy Spirit so as that, in every question, the Spirit affords it the light of truth, it cannot err. But whence do we know that it is always so governed?

They answer that Christ hath promised this.

Be it so. But where, I pray, hath he promised it?

Readily, and without delay, they produce many sentences of scripture which they are always wont to have in their mouths, such as these: "I will be with you always, even to the end of the world." Matth. xxviii. 20. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I will be in the midst of you." Matth. xviii. 20." I will send to you the Comforter from the Father." John xv. 26. "Who, when he is come, will lead you into all truth." Johnxvi. 13.

I recognise here the most lucid and certain testimonies of scripture. But now from hence it follows not that the authority of scripture depends upon the church; but, contrariwise, that the authority of the church depends on scripture. Surely it is a notable circle in which this argument revolves! They say that they give authority to the scripture and canonical books in respect of us; and yet they confess that all their authority is derived from scripture. For if they rely upon the testimonies and sentences of these books, when they require us to believe in them; then it is plain that these books, which lend them credit, had greater authority in themselves, and were of themselves authentic.

Has it occurred to Whitaker, that the Church can claim authority from the FACT of Christ giving the promise, and this before St. Matthew somewhat later recorded the promise? And that the Church to which St Matthew belonged therefore already had authority to decide His Gospel was canonic?

And, if so, was Whitaker setting up the order of questions in order to be able to make a circularity charge dishonestly?

Has it occurred to Whitaker, and to James Swan citing him, that from this moment on, the cessation of a Church having the right to define as Scripture is a contradiction in terms, whether the claim of continuation be circular or not?

Say, Whitaker actually had a point about circularity - I don't think he had, but I am supposing - then it would follow that both Church and Scripture were uncertain. And thence that Christianity is so itself.

This is why Whitaker's false charge of ciruclarity has resurfaced in another form, the charge of the penny-dime Atheist against the Fundie.

Ever heard this one?

"The Fundie says the Bible is true bc it is the word of God, and then that the Bible is the word of God bc it says so, which presupposes that the Bible is true, which was what needed proof"

It is in fact the Church which takes us out of this circle.

Now, Swan quoted Salsa on what is now a dead link, so I'll quote Salsa via Swan:

John Salza, "Relevant Answers Transcripts," Scripture Catholic.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/rradiotran.html (accessed July 19, 2010).
[dead link]

When Catholics explain that we believe in the Bible on the authority of the Catholic Church, Protestants accuse us of circular reasoning. They say we get this information from the Bible and so the Bible, not the Church, is the final authority. This argument, while clever, is incorrect. The Catholic argument is what we would call spiral, not circular.

First, the Catholic approaches the Scriptures as historical books only, but not inspired. Based on the historical evidence, the Catholic establishes the Scriptures are authentic and accurate documents.

Second, the historically accurate Scriptures reveal that Jesus established an infallible Church based on texts like Matthew 16:18 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] and 1 Timothy 3:15 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] . Third, this infallible Church has determined which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not. Based on the authority of the infallible Church, the Catholic believes in the inspired Scriptures. This is the only logical and rational approach to accepting the inspiration of the Scriptures, and this is John Salza with Relevant Answers.

I'll contradict him on one thing.

"First, the Catholic approaches the Scriptures as historical books only, but not inspired."

Was there ever a time when either the Church or its Jewish predecessor did so to a book now in the Bible?

"Based on the historical evidence, the Catholic establishes the Scriptures are authentic and accurate documents."

The reception of the Catholic Church itself (whether RC or EO, whichever be the right continuation) is the best historic evidence there is.

What is the evidence for Lord of the Rings NOT being a historic document from the III Age of the Middle-Earth also called "Old World" or "Eurasia with Africa" (this being the geography of an imagined past where Tolkien set the novel)?

The evidence is, there is a LOT of reception of it since 1954 and 1955, saying that Tolkien, far from translating a document found in an old Adûnaic tongue which he also discovered, wrote the book to honour a contract with the publisher who had published another book which had started out as a musing on what one could make of "once in a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit", a sentence which came to him like a daydream.

So, we are using tradition of the community of reception as evidence against historicity of Frodo and Sam making it to Mordor.

Therefore, we are right in using tradition of the community of reception as evidence for historicity of Jesus - or Mohammed - or Joseph Smith.

Now, Swan resumes Salza as saying this, in essence:

historically accurate Scriptures --> infallible Magisterium --> inspired Scriptures

Note, it does not follow from historically accurate either Corans or Hadiths that God revealed Himself to Mohammed. When I say the Coran is not from God, I am not in the least saying this in a tit for tat charge of Muslims changing the Coran after it was revealed. It may have been changed or not changed, but I am basically saying it is mostly as MOhammed spoke it Aya for Aya to a community memorising and therefore recording.

Mohammed made no miracles, and there are no "scientific miracles" in the Coran.

And same applies to Joseph Smith - he alone testified to his running with heavy gold plates, he alone testified to seeing them and getting the miraculous power to translate them (H/T Kent Hovind for this info, forgot which video)

It does follow from Christ's historicity that He was more than just a man. Because, miracles.

And it follows from the last words before He was visibly taken up into the Sky, that His Church was more than a club. This is also confirmed, again, because, miracles.

Now, here are Swan's problematisations of this reasoning, each followed by my reply:

i) There's nothing intrinsic to historical cases for the historical accuracy of Scripture that limits such an appeal to Catholics only; Protestants are free to make the same historical case as well.

And the better they make it, the better they see it depends on Tradition of early Church.

Which tradition cannot be seen as at any point disapearing, leaving as real successors of early Church only such communions as claim to be there since Ascension and Pentecost, excluding those claiming to be there since any reformation, unless they simply are new local groups to an already pre-existing and in their time still existing Church.

ii) Apropos, the move from historical accuracy to inspiration is exceptionally short. The difficult components of any external demonstration of inspiration are in establishing the historical accuracy of the New Testament documents. But once that is accomplished, it is a much simpler matter to move from the historical fact of the Resurrection, which establishes Jesus as God, to the ministry of the Holy Spirit, which gives inspiration to the Scriptures. If the Magisterium isn't needed to demonstrate the much harder case of historical accuracy, it's hardly required to demonstrate the much easier case of inspiration.

First, we have the historical facts from the tradition. Of which NT writings are one part.

Second, the historical facts as known outside and inside NT writings are not clear as to whether the Holy Ghost actually inspired ANY book after the OT.

Indeed, inspiration, while sometimes clear from historic facts, remains in itself a factor above history revealed through, but not so to speak in history. Human eyewitnesses may testify to several factors showing a revelation from God, but that it was so is their conclusion, not the exact physical thing they saw. Though sometimes these leave no reasonable room for doubt.

Third, supposing some books were written and recognised as inspired, both the recognition back then and our knowledge of it know, as to these particular books, demands a magisterium.

iii) I don't even know how, in principle, you can divorce historical accuracy from inspiration. A good deal of the data contained in Scripture cannot be both accurate and uninspired, e.g. various prophecies, knowledge impossible to discern in any natural method (what someone or some group was thinking in their hearts at one time or another), what God was doing, thinking or intending, etc. And some data, even if they are knowable through natural methods, carry a certain theological significance that could not be accurately known (as truth) by the authors of Scripture without inspiration.

This is also why there is generally a correlation between denying historical accuracy and denying inspiration. The two go hand-in-hand.

A good deal of the data cannot be both historical and uninspired (unlike, for instance, the claim for Islam or - let's balance a bit - Mormonism, in both cases real miracles are lacking); true.

But we can however have knowledge of historical accuracy before from this principle and from this known accuracy we conclude for inspired.

Also, the historicity of what Pharisees thought in their hearts or what God was doing where no man saw it and a few more is NOT so much part and parcel of "historical case" or "historical part of the case", it is part of the conclusion made by the Magisterium.

Reciting:

And some data, even if they are knowable through natural methods, carry a certain theological significance that could not be accurately known (as truth) by the authors of Scripture without inspiration.

Those data only (and a previously existing prophecy meeting what someone then considers to fulfil it is among these) constitute the "first step" of Salza's spiral.

Mohammed and Jesus both claimed to speak for God, this is a historical datum for both.

Mohammed did not do miracles that are well attested or especially even confirmed from outside his community. This is a historical datum for Mohammed.

Jesus did. This is a historical datum for Jesus.

The Church can based on this argue today that Jesus did speak for God (even when he claimed He was God) and that Mohammed did not speak for God (especially not with that pretense that Jesus had made any disclaimer against being God).

iv) How can Salza establish the Scriptures as authentic and accurate documents if we need the Magisterium to interpret those very documents for us? If the Scriptures are unclear or difficult to understand, as Catholics often assert, this would apply whether or not they were inspired.

• historical part is where there is least leeway
• doctrinal and disciplinary part gives more
• and it is principally here that the Church claims to be needed as interpreter.

v) If we can properly interpret all of the passages required to make a case for the historicity of Scripture (e.g. the Resurrection being supported by 1 Corinthians 15) before we establish the Magisterium as authoritative, why do we need the Magisterium to properly interpret all of Scripture once we learn that it is inspired? If we were competent enough to interpret the Scriptures before we discovered their historical accuracy, we should be competent enough to interpret them afterward.

I think any bloke is competent to interpret without too much difficulty the historic parts of Scripture.

If he didn't know of the transmission through the Church considering them as historical, he might be in doubt as to accuracy, but usually he would be mainly right about the historical sequence of events.

It is the doctrinal part which needs - authority.

Now, both Catholics and Protestants agree (with Josephus, whose Antiquitates and Bellum Judaicum, forgot whcih is most relevant here) are not considered as inspired, that there was a period when Maccabees resisted Antiochus Epiphanes and men enumerated here : "Then Lysias chose Ptolemee the son of Dorymenus, and Nicanor, and Gorgias, mighty men of the king's friends."

Both Catholics and Protestants also agree I and II Maccabees do not claim to be prophetic like Nahum or Isaiah, indeed explicitly states at outset to be written after prophecy ceased.

Both Catholics and Protestants also agree that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and all Oriental Churches except Orthodox Tewahedo of Ethiopia and Erythrea consider I Maccabees and II Maccabees as canonic, while Jews do not include them as to Biblia Hebraica.

And note, the inclusion and exclusion of texts in Jewish canon depends on two factors:

• Priests having the magisterial authority to say what is canon and say for a book it is canon
• Pharisees deciding at Jamnia to accept the list Ezra gave of 22 books (some of which are split in more than one in Christian Bibles).

This means, if Protestants were right to follow the Jewish canon then neither was there a more complete cohenic OT canon after Ezra nor did Churches (local ones) use the authority invested in them to add what additions Church universal much later accepted as valid, but instead mistakes spread all over Christianity and therefore Christianity would be false, as well as OT canon remaining with the Jews.

So, this is not proof for Protestantism, if accepted it is disproof of Christianity and if not, either there was a real authority of Churches or there had been BC a real addition from a cohen after Ezra. Even if Pharisees did not accept it.

vi) His appeal to Matthew 16:18 ... and 1 Timothy 3:15 ... is dubious (see here for a short, but devastating critique of appealing to 1 Timothy 3:15 ... ; the comments section also contains links to discussions of Matthew 16:18 ...

And "here" is:

Triablogue : "The church, the pillar & foundation of truth"
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/church-pillar-foundation-of-truth.html

One of the prooftexts for Catholicism is 1 Tim 3:15. Unfortunately for Catholics, this verse isn’t referring to the church of Rome. In context, it’s referring to the church of Ephesus (cf. 1:3).

This would have been the case if St Paul had spoken of "your Church", but when he said "the Church" it refers to the universal Church. Not to one local Church, but to all that remain in the unity of faith and charity.

Note, Trent was not deciding as per local bishop of Trent as delegate of local bishop of Rome, Trent was deciding as per local bishops from everywhere (everywhere in communion with Rome) gathering in a place where they could debate, and then all local bishops settling this together.

If you ask the bishop of Ephesus - the last known one in Greek hierarchy came from Turkey to Greece and became bishop of Athens till he retired, he died in 1968 when I was born, I named Chrysostomos II of Athens, it undoubtedly does not mean the local Church of Ephesus, but the Universal Church, with all local Churches.

There is a kind of parallel Latin hierarchy, where a Catholic bishop not so of a see of his own will be named bishop of a place in the hands of "Greeks" or "Turks" and the last one so named for Ephesus, whoever that was, or is, would also say the same.

They would have disagreed on whether the real universal Church in 1922 was the one which was in communion with Rome or the one which had been separate from Rome since 1053. But they would have agreed, St Paul meant the Universal Church and they would have agreed it exercised a continued magisterium that remained infallible in post-Apostolic times.

Now, the point made on Triablogue is a perfect example of someone being competent enough about the history recorded in NT and incompetent of what a certain rule (or phrase close to constituting a rule or alluding to a rule) meant.

This was foreseen, II Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Note, it is neither said here, nor defined in any Catholic Church document, that all of Scripture is so hard to understand that the magisterium is needed on that account. We don't pretend Flood could have occurred in AD years or Christ have lived close to the time of Moses. This is really not hard to understand with even some little attention.

But it is said that the Scriptures can be twisted and therefore we conclude they need an interpreter with authority, to denounce and condemn the false interpretations. Which Matthew 28:20 identifies as existing to the end of the world, not just during redaction of NT books.

Now, I missed the point that Triablogue had tried to establish his twisting by referring to I Tim 1:3 as "context".

Here is the verse:

As I desired thee to remain at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some not to teach otherwise,

So, this means (thinks Triablogue) that I Tim 3:15 refers to Church of Ephesus only? Here is the verse itself:

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Obviously, while the Church of God in which St Timothy was conducting himself was concretely the Church of Ephesus, the knowledge of how to do it is applicable anywhere.

Also, while St Paul left the local Church of Ephesus, when he went to Macedonia, he remained in the Church universal when going there. How could he otherwise have been remaining a teacher on how to conduct oneself in the household of God?

3 So even if the circularity is avoided by this argument, the Scriptures still do not establish an infallible, authoritative Catholic Magisterium.

Whether local or universal, Roman or Constantinopolitan, if Christianity is at all true, in some version of "Catholic Magisterium" they do so establish it.

In fact, Swan actually missed out on Whitaker admitting that on the Catholic quotes he analysed, Catholics are more saying "Scriptures establish the Magisterium" than "Magisterium establishes Scripture". Fine, even so, Scriptures are saying Church interprets and therefore in that sense establishes Scriptures.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
All Souls' Day
2.XI.2018

Answering a Got Questions Video, Part 1

What is the origin of the Roman Catholic Church?
Got Questions Ministries | 18.X.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCdrGWurdoQ
Les commentaires ont été désactivés pour cette vidéo. (So, I do not enable direct clicking to this video).

"Even a brief reading reveals" - universal negatives like the following? Taken from a still at 0:36

No mention (in NT) of:

• the papacy
• worship or adoration of Mary
• praying to saints
• apostolic succession
• the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments
• infant baptism
• confession of sin to a priest
• purgatory
• indulgences
• or the equal authority of church traditions and Scripture.

Now, generally speaking, I don't think an extensive corpus should be analysed for universal negatives like "no mention of" by any brief reading.

You may of course argue, these things are searched for and none of them mentioned by that exact term.



You cannot find "papacy" in any single verse in a Catholic Bible, but in this version, neither can you find "Jeremiah".

Computers are not all knowing superminds, they process mindless information (like letters in a book are mindless in and of themselves) and do it very quickly, but with no circumspection either as to synonyms or as to spelling variants.

It is very easy to find Jeremias in the same Bible. But only if you search for "Jeremias" with that spelling. The computer could not find "Jeremias" when "told to" search "Jeremiah", so why should we expect it to find "papacy" under synonymous terms not at all same word, but just same meaning?

So, even an allscanning but non circumspect computer search like the one I did for papacy (the search engine is obviously not searching the Challoner comments, otherwise it would have been easy to find papacy under one of them) will not reveal the concept you pretend to look for if you don't use the right terms for it.

The fact is, one of the instances is a strawman against Catholicism, namely the second one, we do not worship the Blessed Virgin with adoration, we give her an honour clearly inferior to that given God, namely honour due to saints more to Her than to any other (in Greek it is called hyperdulia, while adoration is called latria).

So, the list as actually given contains one fraudulent claim against the Catholic Church, namely the claim it practises Mariolatria. We have actually condemned sects that do that, like some sectarians have considered Her a Fourth person of the Trinity or Incarnation of the Holy Ghost, we have condemned that. We would also condemn Mariolatria of the Hindoo type, where some Hindoos would consider the Blessed Virgin a manifestation of a Hindoo goddess.

Now, for the other claims, I hope to prove that there is indeed a mention. I will also give such for a corrected version of this claim.

I do not claim each mention is as direct as to be incontrovertible on the ground of "sola scriptura", but I do not take the ground of sola scriptura.

And this brings us to the last item, for which there is a pretty direct mention.

I

the papacy

mention

Matthew 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Unlike previous verse, where some quibble on who is "rock", this is no place to doubt on who receives the keys of the kingdom from Christ.

Acts 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:)

Had Jesus explicitly said there would be a replacement for Judas? No. St. Peter is exposing two places of psalms:

"Let their habitation be made desolate: and let there be none to dwell in their tabernacles."
[Psalms 68:26]

"[May his days be few:] and his bishopric let another take."
[Psalms 108:8]

The first might indicate Judas should NOT have a successor, but St. Peter evidently considers that part as fulfilled about Haceldama instead, and only the second argues he SHOULD have one. St. Peter decides which is operative to decide, and the men obey.

II

adoration hyperdulia of Mary

mention

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Luke 1:41b - 43 And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

St Mary had obviously had some kind of initial if not misgiving at least fear and hesitation about blessed art thou among women. (Luke 1:28b) This designation had been used twice previously in a very warlike connection. Obviously she had not cut off the head of any human Holophernes or hammered a nail through that of any human Sisera.

When Elisabeth says Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb She knew from Genesis 1:15 what kind of enemy she would crush the or even had crushed the head of. The one whose seed Her Son would crush the head of. Or will, since Apocalypse 19:20 has not yet happened, as we generally suppose.

But after that, St Elisabeth reacts to the Blessed Virgin like King David to the Ark:

II Kings 6:9 And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?

Noted by Dave Armstrong:

New Catholic Register : Amazing Parallels Between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant
Dave Armstrong | Feb. 13, 2018
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/amazing-parallels-between-mary-and-the-ark-of-the-covenant

III

praying to saints

mention

Here I will have to analyse the concept, and then I'll search each part.

When I sit down in a car (not mine, I have no driver's licence), make a sign of the cross, and say "dear St Christopher, pray for us" - what am I doing and what am I counting on?

I am adressing a man who died as a martyr. Some have even denied historicity of his existence. I am trusting the Catholic Church, Roman martyrology entry for him, on July 25th, just below St James:

In Lycia sancti Christophori Martyris, qui, sub Decio, virgis ferreis attritus, et e flammae aestuantis incendio superna Christi virtute servatus, ad ultimum, sagittarum ictibus confossus, capitis obtruncatione martyrium complevit.

Trusting that this happened is however not the issue.

The issue is, this means he already died. I am adressing a departed man, a man who has died.

I then count on God bringing him to me (probably in some version of Narnian time, since presumably otherwise St Christopher would be at some pains to keep up with all adressing him every day) or on God telling his soul in heaven "Hans Georg wants your prayers for himself and this driver (and other passengers), what do you say on the matter?", hoping that St Christopher will feel our car journey should be safe, and hoping that Christopher will pray and God will hear his prayer for the car journey.

First of all, have I "asked the truth" or asked for a service? Is St Christopher "dead" or "living in Christ"?

I answer, I have asked a service of someone who, even if he died is not dead, but eternally lives in Christ. Why is this important? Well, if I had "asked the truth of the dead" I would be running afoul of ...

"Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead."
[Deuteronomy 18:11]

So, what I am seeking from St Christopher is not "the truth" but his prayers, and he is not "dead" but living in Christ.

"Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live:"
[John 11:25]

Also, I am not entering into a seance, I am performing a prayer, in the sense I count on God to make the contact which will remain invisible to me in this life, ordinarily speaking.

Now, I mentioned two versions on how St. Christopher could know of my prayer.

God, the Son, made Man and made Sacrifice for my sins, could be taking him along:

"These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb:"
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 14:4]

Or, St. Christopher could be watching me from Heaven. Like OT saints were already in the days of St Paul:

Hebrew 11:36 - 12:1 And others had trial of mockeries and stripes, moreover also of bands and prisons. They were stoned, they were cut asunder, they were tempted, they were put to death by the sword, they wandered about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being in want, distressed, afflicted: Of whom the world was not worthy; wandering in deserts, in mountains, and in dens, and in caves of the earth. And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise; God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us. And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us

So, wait, what does "over our head" mean? Watching us from heaven?

This would seem they are both watching and praying for us:

Apocalypse 6:9-11 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given to every one of them one; and it was said to them, that they should rest for a little time, till their fellow servants, and their brethren, who are to be slain, even as they, should be filled up

So, I obviously count on this "rest a little while" to not be actual sleep, or slumber, but peacefully waiting and watching. As St Christopher actually was slain ... now souls under the heavenly altar, which is Christ Himself, clearly reflects the practise of relics under altars of stone, as the Catholic Church still does. If without necessity you are celebrating the Eucharist NOT on an altar containing relics of martyrs, while the Mass may still be valid, you are committing a sacrilege.

IV

apostolic succession

mention

I already mentioned the succession of Judas, where St Matthias replaced him as Apostle, as one of the twelve.

But in more general terms too, the Apostles definitely had successors, and have so to the end of time:

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

How is this promise truly fulfilled?

• a) None of the eleven nor St Matthias died? False.
• b) The world was already consumed while at least some of them were still alive, year 70? Has been argued, but I have seen no match to all of the details in Apocalypse 19 and 20 about how this is to happen.
• c) It refers to them being alive in Christ after dying? While this also fulfils the promise, this would seem out of place as primary fulfilment, especially since in Heaven they are not directly engaged in teaching the nations, though they certainly pray for those who do.
• d) It is not fulfilled - if so, Christianity is false.
• e) It is fulfilled by ... tadah ... Apostolic Succession. When speaking to the eleven, He was speaking about themselves but including their successors.

Btw, just so you don't imagine it is simply a succession of all the faithful, look at verses 16 to 18:

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

Obviously, a few days later St Peter is adressing 120 faithful, we know from St Paul there had been an earlier occasion with 500 ones (most of whom are still alive). So, the eleven (perhaps adding up top thirteen with disciples of Emmaus, see Mark 16) are definitely NOT all of the faithful.

On the contrary, the eleven definitely are clergy taken out from among the faithful:

Luke 6:12-16 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and he passed the whole night in the prayer of God. And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles). Simon, whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes, And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.

Luke 9:1 Then calling together the twelve apostles, he gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

"And after these things the Lord appointed also other seventy-two: and he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come."
[Luke 10:1]

Meaning, there is clergy lower than the twelve (or on Ascension day eleven) and still above the general number of the faithful.

Also, the fides ex auditu passage ... my godfather's godfather converted bc of that one ...

Romans 10:14-15 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

This means, sent as or by apostles:

"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you."
[John 20:21]

So, Jesus sent the Apostles, as such, are others sent by them?

Acts 13:1-5 Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. So they being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Seleucia: and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. And when they were come to Salamina, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John also in the ministry.

It would seem, as one priest converted from among Anglicans had to say "prophets and doctors" were a name for certain types of bishops who were not themselves apostles. Obviously ordained and consecrated by these directly or with intermediates. While St Paul was chosen as Apostle, i e eyewitness of the resurrection, by Christ only, on the Road to Damascus, it is here that he received the episcopal powers which the other earlier Apostles had so far not given him.

But if Apostles and there successors are supposed to consecrate successors, we might expect some kind of mention of this?

I Tim 3:1-10 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.

While St Paul was chosen for Apostolic ministry before being a neophyte, as we saw, he was not quickly admitted to the service - but when he was, his mission by the Church counted as mission by the Holy Ghost.

One might object that next verse mentions women - and these are not clergy. One can answer that St Paul was either talking of widows and virgins, what we now refer to as nuns, or of wives and female relatives already there, not just daughters but also mothers or sisters or aunts or nieces living in same household. Or even of both.

Later on in the chapter:

These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

• a) St Paul was hoping soon to instruct St Timothy orally, with more detail, hence importance of Church traditions, but ...
• b) giving a very brief written instruction just in case, and this instruction related to the "house of God ... pillar and ground of the truth".

So, in other words, a community not having a series like this going back to the Apostles is not having the pillar and ground of truth.

And, here I take a rest, and publish this first, since otherwise the page would have difficulties uploading and it is probably already some job scrolling it, so I recommend writing the articles out.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. John Cantius
20.X.2018

PS. Today's saint is probaly for the idea of Jeszcze Polska nie zginela, but unlike Poland, the Church cannot be absent "from the map" a single day. Matthew 28:20 does not allow for partitioning and three foreign or even one foreign occupation over the whole Church, nor does the last sentence in Matthew 16:18./HGL

Does God Impute Righteousness? Not in Douay Rheims!

Impute:

"Said to him: Impute not to me, my lord, the iniquity, nor remember the injuries of thy servant on the day that thou, my lord, the king, wentest out of Jerusalem, nor lay it up in thy heart, O king."
[2 Kings (2 Samuel) 19:19]

"To all them, who with their whole heart, seek the Lord the God of their fathers: and will not impute it to them that they are not sanctified."
[2 Paralipomenon (2 Chronicles) 30:19]

Imputed:

"When thou hast made a vow to the Lord thy God, thou shalt not delay to pay it: because the Lord thy God will require it. And if thou delay, it shall be imputed to thee for a sin."
[Deuteronomy 23:21]

"And Joab answered: The Lord make his people a hundred times more than they are: but, my lord the king, are they not all thy servants: why doth my lord seek this thing, which may be imputed as a sin to Israel?"
[1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 21:3]

"Take unto you therefore seven oxen, and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer for yourselves a holocaust: and my servant Job shall pray for you: his face I will accept, that folly be not imputed to you: for you have not spoken right things before me, as my servant Job hath."
[Job 42:8]

"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin, and in whose spirit there is no guile."
[Psalms 31:2]

"None of his sins, which he hath committed, shall be imputed to him: he hath done judgment and justice, he shall surely live."
[Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 33:16]

"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin."
[Romans 4:8]

"For until the law sin was in the world; but sin was not imputed, when the law was not."
[Romans 5:13]

Imputing:

"For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins; and he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation."
[2 Corinthians 5:19]

What about Romans 4?

Faith was reputed Abraham to righteousness and so were a lot of other good deeds, not those of the Mosaic ritual law. Obviously, verse 8 (see above) in this chapter has "imputed", but it is here a question of imputation or better non-imputation of sin. Not a question of imputing righteousness.

So, verse 8 has "imputed" about sin, verse 24 has "reputed" about righteousness.

How about Vulgate and Greek?

		Vulgate		Nestle-Aland
Romans 4:8		Beatus vir, cui non imputavit Dominus peccatum.		μακάριος ἀνὴρ οὗ οὐ μὴ λογίσηται κύριος ἁμαρτίαν.*
Romans 4:24		sed et propter nos, quibus reputabitur credentibus in eum, qui suscitavit Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum a mortuis,		ἀλλὰ καὶ δι’ ἡμᾶς, οἷς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν,

I must admit, Greek has the same verb. I presume that St. Jerome perceived a difference in meaning when translating Romans 4. I presume that Greek logizesthai of which logisetai is a form has a wider range of meaning than either.

In fact, it is a very common word in Classics, and I think that word study will have to wait.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Francis of Assisi
4.X.2018

PS, I think English "count" or "reckon" which is given is a sufficient range of word meaning. Blessed is the man whose sins the Lord hath not counted. But also for us, to whom it shall be counted/reckoned, if we believe in him, that raised up Jesus Christ, our Lord, from the dead, - it is a question of God accepting or not accepting sth as being "on our account" and the things on our account need to be acts in us, like believing./HGL

God didn't promise to preserve the English language

I am not sure you have heard how John XXIII, often considered as bad by traditionally minded Catholics or indeed as a non-Pope, also had a Catholic side or two.

One of these was the document Veterum Sapientia.

Well, Kent Hovind has just made the point for why Catholics do things in Latin (or Classic Greek, or Church Slavonic or Coptic or the Syriac spoken in Jesus' time). In context, he is arguing against Gap Theory, a long gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and one of the arguments was KJV in Genesis 1:28 says "replenish" which would seem to mean "fill again". Here is his answer:

The Bible says that God told Adam to “replenish the earth.” (Gen 1:28) And the Gap theory folks always say: “Well see, right there it says replenish and the word replenish means, fill again.” Look it up in the dictionary. And sure enough, you look it up in a dictionary, and it says, replenish: fill again. Well, you better look up the meaning of the word in 1611, when they translated this. The King James translators came across the word ‘male’ which means, fill, and they chose the word ‘replenish’, because back in 1611 the word replenish only meant, fill. In 1650 an author named Bacon added a second definition to the word, called fill again. It never meant, fill again, until 1650. You get some old dictionaries, like an 1828 dictionary. You can see for yourself, the primary meaning of the word ‘replenish’ is, fill. The secondary meaning is, fill again, recover former fullness, added by Francis Bacon, ok. Here's an 1891 dictionary. The first definition of the word is, fill. The second definition is, recover former fullness. In 1892 the dictionaries switched the definitions. The first one in 1891 is, fill; in 1892 the first one is, fill again, and the secondary meaning becomes, to fill. Huh, what happened here? Modern dictionaries changed it again. 1989 only shows, fill again. They left out what used to be the primary definition of the word, fill. There's a 21st Century Dictionary: Replenish: make full again. See, English words change meanings all the time.

When I was a kid, the word ‘cool’ meant, not hot. And ‘gay’ meant, happy. Anybody remember those old-fashioned days? How would you decipher this verse here? James 2 (v. 3): “Ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing.” Would you agree that word has changed meanings in the last 30 years or so? And you probably shouldn't say that to somebody today. “Wow, you have gay clothing on today.” That would not be a good thing to say if you want to keep your teeth, right?, ok. Paul said: “I would have come to you, but I was let hitherto.” (Rom. 1:13) You know the word ‘let’ used to mean, hindered? Now it means, allowed. English words change meanings. You see, God promised to preserve His Word; He did not promise to preserve our English language.

From Seminar 2 The Garden of Eden, part a
Dr Kent Hovind's Creation Seminars, this one from 2005
http://wiseoldgoat.com/papers-creation/hovind-seminar_part2a_2007.html

Too true, too true ... I alluded to a sentiment by Puddleglum about being "gay and frolic" when asked by school mates how I dealt with the life of one oppressed often enough by bullying. I found out the next minutes what a change the word "gay" had underwent since C. S. Lewis wrote that passage. French still uses "gai" in the proper sense. If it means "gay" in the pride sense, it spells it "gay".

Chesterton put this as "the alternatives are not a dead language versus a live language, if you mean one which stays alive, but a dead language versus a dying one" Ah here:

SOME OF OUR ERRORS
in The Thing, (essay collection 1929)
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/The_Thing.html#26

Paragraph antepenultime, or third from end:

It is a question between a dead language and a dying language. Every living language is a dying language, even if it does not die. Parts of it are perpetually perishing or changing their sense; there is only one escape from that flux; and a language must die to be immortal. The style of the English Jacobean translation is as noble and simple a thing as any in the world; but even there the words degenerate. It is not their fault; but ours who misuse them; but they are misused. No language could lift itself into a loftier or simpler strain than that which begins, “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people”; but even then, when we pass on to “speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem,” we stumble over a word we have vulgarised.

Jerusalem suavely lectured on an interesting topic from an armchair ... that is what the the new English meaning of the word "comfortably" suggests. Chesterton was alluding to KJV Isaias 40:1, 2a. Here is Douay Rheims, quoting verse 2 in full:

[1] Be comforted, be comforted, my people, saith your God. [2] Speak ye to the heart of Jerusalem, and call to her: for her evil is come to an end, her iniquity is forgiven: she hath received of the hand of the Lord double for all her sins.

And Vulgate has:

[1] Consolamini, consolamini, popule meus, dicit Deus vester. [2] Loquimini ad cor Jerusalem, et advocate eam, quoniam completa est malitia ejus, dimissa est iniquitas illius, suscepit de manu Domini duplicia pro omnibus peccatis suis.

Suddenly it is no longer C. S. Lewis giving a lecture from an arm chair, say on writing, which is a subject he mastered in full, and lectured very suavely on, it is a messenger of God giving a vital message to His Bride. Even a sense of the messenger being an "advocate" ...

For some reason, God seems to have preserved the English of Douay Rheims and even the "irrelevant" vernacular associations of Vulgate Latin a bit better than the English of King James.

Either way, the Latin language was also dying.

It was in fact dying in France up to 800. It only rose from the dead when Alcuin declared her dead - and brought her back to life. Incidentally, he needed to invent (or allow close disciples to invent) vernacular as sth other than Latin in the process, that is why we had a decision 813 requiring that Gospel reading on Sundays and Obligatory Feast Days be followed by a sermon in the vernacular. One language was declared dead, two languages rose from the grave.

Now, I gave that story in somewhat more prosy detail on the wall of another Creationist, Robert Carter, that other day. For good measure, I'll copy all of that comment, starting with a quote from the paper by Carter:

"Early on, Venema makes another poor argument when he tries to explain what he means by ‘evolution’ by comparing the random changes that occur in DNA to how languages change. But language development cannot be separated from the mind or from conscious choice, e.g. the widespread borrowing of words and phrases. In fact, had he done any homework at all, he would have known that biblical creationists had a ready answer to his false comparison."

Apart from the facts that:

• you cannot prove a LUCA for all IE languages anymore than for all life;
• the argument is often misstated, like Latin "developing" to French.

In fact, Latin was *written* as vernacular in Gaul from Caesar (and even before in the South, one Sextus Calvinus coming in during the "IV Beast era" of ancient Rome, the Senatorial Republic) all the way to Charlemagne.

During this time *pronunciation* and the popular colloquial *usage on cases* (and other forms) did develop, and in the North to the direction of French. But the *written* French actually does result from a few creative initiatives:

• 1) Latin pronounced in Francia was getting unintelligible to priests from elsewhere, so, one imported Alcuin to start correcting pronunciation in the monastery of St Martin in Tours, 800
• 2) followed by the discovery 813 that this led to people no longer understanding the Gospel and so the sermon was invented as a real staple of even a normal priest's Sunday duties (Patristic sermons are typically by bishops), with the new function of more or less translating the Gospel
• 3) and preparing these sermons made priests aware of how the vernacular differed from the written Latin, a bit like if one were required to spell out "don't" rather than "do not" to a text which doesn't even have the circumlocution with do. A Gospel in which Christ approves the rich man's enumeration of commandments, like "murder not" gets a translation like "don't murder".
  
  In the language concerned, let's go to Vulgate and then reconstruct how the sermon may have sounded:
  
  Gospel reading includes:
  
  "[20] Mandata nosti : non occides; non moechaberis; non furtum facies; non falsum testimonium dices; honora patrem tuum et matrem."
  [Luke 18:20]
  
  Sermon includes this retelling:
  
  "Tu seis li mandats : tu ne tueras, tu ne fereis adultère, tu ne voleras, tu ne direis fals tesmein, onore teon pèdre et tea mèdre"
  
  (Actually, this is more like what it would have sounded like in 1200 than in 813 ...)
  
  "Tu sabes li mandates : tu no tuer habes, tu no fair habes adultero, tu no voler habes, tu no dir habes falso tesmeino, onora teon pèdre et tea mèdre"
  
  (This is a bit more adapted to Strassburg Oaths)
  
  AND
  
  
• 4) this prepared them to one day compose original texts in vernacular, the first preserved being a pronunciation guide for the "Latin" version of the Strassburg Oaths, soon followed by things sounding even less Latin, like Song of St Eulalia.
  
  This kind of social development I would like to call "language divorce". A bit like very recently in the 1970's, New Greek as in Dhimotiki was "divorced" from Classic Greek or Katharevousa.

So, in other words, the "Veteres" whose "Sapientia" John XXIII was lauding were Carolingians, and especially an Anglo-Saxon invited such. I suspect in heaven Chesterton may by now have met a greeting from Alcuin "was hail, landës-man! thou wert up to something" - or its equivalent in a more eternal tongue. Or, why not, both.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Parmentier
St. Thérèse of Lisieux
(of Child Jesus and of the Holy Face)
3.X.2018

Answering a Meme About Catholic and Orthodox

As I recommended a resource by Bible.ca on the Scopes trial, it should be made clear I don't recommend all their material.

For instance, not this meme:



It is true both claim to be all the five items, meaning both Catholics and Orthodox are making the same claim as rival claimants, but the reason Bible.ca add a "false" after each claim are false reasons.

So, both claim to be ...

Claim : 1. The only true church founded by Jesus Christ

"False"

Orthodox and Catholic split to "break communion" in AD 1054 because "Rome" introduced instrumental music and sprinkling for baptism.

Answer

This doesn't make the claim untrue for either one of them, it just means it can't be true for both.

One could still be the one founded by Jesus Christ, the other one be the one founded by the split. Actually, there are three more confessions making such a claim : Monophysites of Egypt and Ethiopia, Monophysites of Armenia (who are not the same Monophysites as the Copts, but slightly different) and Nestorians or Assyrians. So, one cannot say one of them must be. Rather, one of the five, not just above two, must be so.

Claim : 2. The only Church that gave the world the Bible

"False"

All Bible books were in full circulation and used in the Church by AD 100.

Answer

The claim obviously involves the claim of being the Church which existed in AD 100. All five of the confessions make this claim (either claim to be, or to be part of), and all five of them honour the man who was Pope of Rome that year as a saint - that was Pope St. Evaristus, from 99 to 105.

Also, not all books of the NT were accepted by all of the Churches as canonic until last quarter of 4th C. You had eastern churches (notably Laodicea) which did not accept Apocalypse and you had western churches who were hesitant about some other book.

Claim : 3. The only Church that has all the Sacraments instituted by Christ.

"False"

"Confirmation" and "Holy Orders" are not found in the New Testament.

Answer

They are. Confirmation in Acts 8, about Samarians needing a laying on of hands after Baptism, and just after Simon Magus is asking for the orders which the Apostles had and Philippus lacked, namely episcopal orders making it possible to confirm others (Orthodox could say even priests culd do so, since Philippus was only a deacon).

Also, the Greek word for giving holy orders is cheirotonein, which appears more than once in the NT. In the letters to Timothy it is clear it cannot mean the Classical meaning of "raising hands" in vote for someone. It is clear it must mean a gesture made by the one who single handed appoints someone as part of what therefore must be considered as a kind of clergy.

Claim : 4. The only Church whose leaders trace authority to Christ & Apostles

"False"

"In AD 595 Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople John IV was the first man to ever claim to be "universal bishop" (Pope). Gregory I, Patriarch of Rome says the new Holy Order of Pope is a sign "the antichrist is near" and calls "Universal Bishop" a "proud and profane title" and equates John IV's to the devil himself. In AD 606 Boniface III, Bishop of Rome, is the first Catholic" to claim to be "Pope"

Answer

Even if the accusation against papacy were true, this leaves out that one of the five confessions traces its bishops back to the Apostles, all of them do in a series of ordinations, or as it is called when a bishop is given his orders, consecrations, and one of them does so licitly, even if up to four others do so by a kind of robbery, as it would have been robbery to give episcopal consecration or even priestly ordination to Simon Magus.

However, the story as told is even skewed. It gives the impression that the claim is meant for exactly one authority bearer in each camp, Pope and Ecumenic Patriarch, leaving out bishops, when in fact the Orthodox usually have bishops only as this claim with Ecumenic Patriarch as a kind of administrational umpire between the bishops on items of less than purely spiritual importance.

Also, we have evidence that Popes well before Boniface III in fact were acting as if bishops over not just Rome but all the Church.

England traces its Catholic Hierarchy back to St Augustine of Canterbury, who was sent by the same Pope St. Gregory I.

Oh, wait, he was not sent by a neighbouring bishop in a neighbouring Christian country, as closests to the issue? No, he was sent by the Pope. The bishop of Rome acted as if he was responsible for Anglo-Saxon England getting a missionary - which he was.

Claim : 5. The only true "universal" Church on earth with a unified doctrine

Here

I will diverge from the format and break the "false" statement into two and answer each part.

"False"

Orthodox, Catholic and Jehovah's Witness all achieve "unity" by top-to-bottom decree yet differ significantly with each other on many key doctrines. ...

Answer

Unlike Catholic, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, the Watchtower society has no claim to be the true Church. Since it was obviously not around since AD 33. However, if each of the other five does make the claim and they differ between them, this means only one of the five can be the genuine deal. It doesn't mean all of the five have to be fake.*

Also, you have several branches of Protestantism which are similarly diverging from each other while replacing the claim with the claim of basing doctrine on "Bible alone" without any at least universal top-to-bottom decrees. So, the argument is clearly no good for Protestantism.

"False"

... These doctrines are not found in the Bible : infant baptism, sprinkling instead of immersion, unmarried bishops, instrumental music. Mary died a virgin, praying to any dead humans including Mary, the Rosary, annual celebration the birth or death of Christ.

Answer

Apart from sprinkling replacing immersion in some cases and apart from the specific prayers of the Rosary, these doctrines or disciplines are common between the five confessions which could make a claim.

These are not really any cases in point for the previous part of the "false" answer.

Moreover, they are also no answer to the claim, unless you argue that the "true" part in "true universal" precludes false doctrines or universally accepted disciplines, as it does, and that any doctrine or discipline not directly found in the Bible is ipso facto false - which is a version of the sola scriptura heresy which Catholics condemned at Trent and which Orthodox condemned in the Councils of Jerusalem and Iasi, as also in the Sigillia which mainly targetted Catholics, a bit later (a sigillion by a Ecumenic Patriarch is "roughly equivalent" to a Papal bull : both mean a document sealed by the authority bearer's actual seal). Sigillion of 1583 point 7 targets all not following Orthodox customs and sigillion of 1756 in its entirety targets the use of Gregorian instead of Julian calendar : it says you must celebrate Easter with the Eastern Orthodox and you most celebrate Christmas when Julian, not Gregorian calendar has December 25. This is also said in point 7 of 1583.

So, while true universal Church means no false doctrine or discipline, the appeal to Bible alone clearly is a false either doctrine or discipline - not a true one on which to judge such a claim.

See also : Creation vs. Evolution : Lying for Darwin
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/09/lying-for-darwin.html

* Correction inserted from yesterdays version. See comment.

Ken Johnson on what to do with Cultist - and a comment of mine

From Ruckman's errors - and giving a correction · Ken Johnson on what to do with Cultist - and a comment of mine

I'll be transscribing a few early minutes of this video:

After the Flood
Ken Johnson | 2.XII.2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcFwM4c_avM

Perhaps it is not all that great in the rest, I was starting to see it to see the alternatives for my own view on After the Flood.

But he starts video with saying he got saved at 12, then started to want to have the right confession, and went to early Church Fathers.

He then says he saw early Church Fathers up to c. 200 or 250 AD had one doctrine "and then it started to change" ... I would not agree with that, I think it is a question of the Mexican in Edinburgh effect : they start writing more stuff that gets better preserved and they start bringing up subjects which they had always thought the same things on, but which they hadn't bothered to mention the first 200 years in books we still have. And Ken Johnson coming to them as a stranger, finds they "start" doing strange things, like that Mexican in Edinburgh sees his correspondent starts wearing a skirt or drinking grappa spoiled with some smoked wood (kilt and whiskey, it is really peat smoked grains that ferment before destillation, and traces of grape taste comes from whisky barrels previously having served for sherry - not from the liquid itself being grape based). And they can't believe the man or men they knew previously from writings that hadn't mentioned some things and start revealing them had been doing them all along.

BUT, here is the very good remark, he gets into how early Church Fathers exposed Pagan gods:

2:13 "and what they did simply is very logical"
2:16 "I wouldn't have thought about it, but they went back and [found] actual Roman"
2:21 "or Greek historical records of these people when they were kings and"
2:23 "queens a few hundred years after the Flood, where"
2:26 "they died, where they're buried, what kind"
2:29 "what kind of bad things if they did at all, and then you"
2:31 "go witness to people, why do you worship Zeus, you"
2:33 "know he did this, well yeah, you"
2:36 "know he's buried in their backyard, people go there every"
2:38 "year and make a pilgrimage [?]"
2:41 "so why do you worship a dead man in a grave?"
2:45 "become a Christian! - And I thought that was really interesting, very, very"
2:48 "effective, we could do kind of the same thing"
2:50 "with our cults today, you know: Why"
2:54 "do you follow Joseph Smith and Mormonism? How"
2:56 "did he die again? He was in jail"
3:00 "and he was lynched - what's the story behind that?"

Guess what the Catholic writers have been doing about Luther and Calvin?

Back before Iohannes Calvinus, of original French name Jehan Cauvin, started preaching "reform", one Jehan Cauvin in where he arguably was from was convicted of Sodomy, but found guilty with attenuating circumstances, so not executed to death, but branded. There was a guy who was suspecting John Calvin in his lifetime, he went from Geneva to Noyon to get the story, came back, Calvin denied, but people were divided and demanded he take a wife, which hitherto he hadn't (even while attacking clerical celibacy).

Some Calvinists would say "that was another Jean Cauvin" - possible. Some would say "the guy who went to check can't have done it, he would have had to go through Catholic / Papist country" - like John Calvin he was born as a Papist and therefore knew how to show up like one. Some would say that the Englishman who reported this after leaving England was dishonest - to himself, possible, he had some reasons to hate reformers, as he had to leave his country persecuted by a new Protestant régime, so he could have been overconfident in any bad report he could have found. But to others? No, he had sacrificed a bit too much - unless you would want to say he had something else to hide, and that is of course backfiring on Calvin. I unfortunately misplaced the reference to that Englishman.

If I were a Calvinist, I'd deal with that like Lutherans deal with Luther : "look, he's not a perfect model, he's not a saint in the Catholic sense". Or I'd try to show that after having a background of homosexuality, his making a marriage with Ydelette de Bure was kind of a triumph of grace.

But this is the genre background to why Catholic writers often collect accusations against those founding the sects of the Reformation.

When it comes to post-Reformation sects, I don't need that. John Wesley and William Booth were wrong on many things, but they had one great excuse : like Mohammed and Joseph Smith, they never ever were involved with the Catholic Church as practising members, so they did not have full access to the full truth in the first place and therefore had less responsibility when it came to twisting it. One could even make a case they were partly going closer to Catholic and to fully Christian than the Reformers were. But as non-Catholics raised in anti-Catholic traditions, Wesley, Booth and Joseph Smith had one great excuse for getting somewhere else than to the Catholic truth. A complete excuse? Well, some would say "in the end, certainly not, they are in Hell". I am less sure, but either way ... saying Wesley and Booth were ignorant is also using the same meme in a different shape as saying "Zeus is dead, he's buried on Crete".

Also, great thanks for saying that when I am myself saying "Romulus was a man" or "Hercules was a man" I am not a Pagan Romulus worshipper or Hercules worshipper. Ditto for Odin and Thor. Up in Sweden they may be ancestry, they never were gods, except as part of a sinful charade, one which probably the False Prophet and Antichrist might try again.

Most of the video, I haven't seen it yet, and I suspect that while it may contain some error here or there (not sure yet) it will be of historical import and not of directly theological import.

Next seconds are not bad either, telling the Watchtower Sect that while they are against Pyramidology, Charles Taze Russell was for it.

That approach is more useful perhaps when dealing with Novus Ordonians ... we remaining Catholics and they both believe St Augustine is a saint, we can show he was a Young Earth Creationist and they are against (at least many Novus Ordonians are) Young Earth Creationism. We and they agree St Robert Bellarmine was a saint, it is well known he judged Giordano Bruno in part on his being "relative Heliocentric" and he condemned a book by Galileo (but did not try the man himself, but tried the book in his presence) because it was absolutely Heliocentric. Yet they (nearly all) are relative Heliocentrics and will have nothing to do with Geocentrism.

Those who do accept (at least socially in others) Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism, on my view they are only half bad, even if one could call them Novus Ordonians over using Novus Ordo Missae. Conversely, those who genuinely don't, even if they use Latin Mass ... well, they are kind of Novus Ordonians in disguise.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Visitation of the Bl Virgin
to Elisabeth
2.VII.2018

PS : "I unfortunately misplaced the reference to that Englishman." - I tried to recover it among the 39 hist involving "Calvin" on Assorted Retorts blog./HGL

PPS, looking on at video, just after his reference to dialogue with JW, he reveals he's baptist, so, I am now going to link this to previous one./HGL

From Ruckman's errors - and giving a correction

From Ruckman's errors - and giving a correction · Ken Johnson on what to do with Cultist - and a comment of mine

In his comment on Thessalonians and Philemon, chapter 1:

"In step with them were several billion Catholics (since A.D. 500) who followed a wine-drinking bachelor in Rome who taught that Mary was born sinless and was omnipresent after her death, that you could swallow Jesus Christ and then take Him again a week later, and that no one could know where they were going until they were dead (including all Popes)."

Breaking this down:

"In step with them were several billion Catholics (since A.D. 500)"

Why that year?

"who followed a wine-drinking bachelor in Rome"

St Paul was a wine drinking bachelor who died in Rome.

"who taught that Mary was born sinless"

Even conceived sinless. Genesis 3:15.

"and was omnipresent after her death,"

Not taught. She was received into Heaven Body and Soul.

Oh - it is also taught, by St Jerome, all who follow the lamb wheresoever he goeth are not so much "omni-" as "anywhere" present.

" that you could swallow Jesus Christ and then take Him again a week later, "

As Our Lord taught Himself. John 6.

"and that no one could know where they were going until they were dead (including all Popes)."

No one, except those who are given a special revelation, yes.

Ecclesiastes 9:[1] All these things have I considered in my heart, that I might carefully understand them: there are just men and wise men, and their works are in the hand of God: and yet man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred:

Did the Church Alter the Commandments?

Here is the text in a Catholic Bible, Exodus 20:

[2] I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [3] Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. [4] Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. [5] Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: [6] And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments. [7] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain. [8] Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. [9] Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. [10] But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates. [11] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. [12] Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee. [13] Thou shalt not kill. [14] Thou shalt not commit adultery. [15] Thou shalt not steal. [16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. [17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

As you can see, there are no Roman Numerals above each commandment here. Nor are there here, Deuteronomy 5:

[6] I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [7] Thou shalt not have strange gods in my sight. [8] Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any things, that are in heaven above, or that are in the earth beneath, or that abide in the waters under the earth. [9] Thou shalt not adore them, and thou shalt not serve them. For I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon their children unto the third and fourth generation, to them that hate me, [10] And shewing mercy unto many thousands, to them that love me, and keep my commandments. [11] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for he shall not be unpunished that taketh his name upon a vain thing. [12] Observe the day of the sabbath, to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. [13] Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. [14] The seventh is the day of the sabbath, that is, the rest of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not do any work therein, thou nor thy son nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy ox, nor thy ass, nor any of thy beasts, nor the stranger that is within thy gates: that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest, even as thyself. [15] Remember that thou also didst serve in Egypt, and the Lord thy God brought thee out from thence with a strong hand, and a stretched out arm. Therefore hath he commanded thee that thou shouldst observe the sabbath day. [16] Honour thy father and mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee, that thou mayst live a long time, and it may be well with thee in the land, which the Lord thy God will give thee. [17] Thou shalt not kill. [18] Neither shalt thou commit adultery. [19] And thou shalt not steal. [20] Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. [21] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife: nor his house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

And here is how a Catholic would usually divide this in Commandments, with numerals:

I

[6] I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [7] Thou shalt not have strange gods in my sight. [8] Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any things, that are in heaven above, or that are in the earth beneath, or that abide in the waters under the earth. [9] Thou shalt not adore them, and thou shalt not serve them. For I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon their children unto the third and fourth generation, to them that hate me, [10] And shewing mercy unto many thousands, to them that love me, and keep my commandments.

II

[11] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for he shall not be unpunished that taketh his name upon a vain thing.

III

[12] Observe the day of the sabbath, to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. [13] Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. [14] The seventh is the day of the sabbath, that is, the rest of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not do any work therein, thou nor thy son nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy ox, nor thy ass, nor any of thy beasts, nor the stranger that is within thy gates: that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest, even as thyself. [15] Remember that thou also didst serve in Egypt, and the Lord thy God brought thee out from thence with a strong hand, and a stretched out arm. Therefore hath he commanded thee that thou shouldst observe the sabbath day.

IV

[16] Honour thy father and mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee, that thou mayst live a long time, and it may be well with thee in the land, which the Lord thy God will give thee.

V

[17] Thou shalt not kill.

VI

[18] Neither shalt thou commit adultery.

VII

[19] And thou shalt not steal.

VIII

[20] Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.

IX

[21] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife:

X

nor his house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

The forbidding of images is not away from our Bibles, as it is commented on by Challoner in Exodus 20, 4:

[4] "A graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing": All such images, or likenesses, are forbidden by this commandment, as are made to be adored and served; according to that which immediately follows, thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. That is, all such as are designed for idols or image-gods, or are worshipped with divine honour. But otherwise images, pictures, or representations, even in the house of God, and in the very sanctuary so far from being forbidden, are expressly authorized by the word of God. See Ex. 25. 15, and etc.; chap. 38. 7; Num. 21. 8, 9; 1 Chron. or Paralip. 28. 18, 19; 2 Chron. or Paralip. 3. 10.

Let's take a look to prove that Exodus 20:4 and its parallel Deuteronomy 5:8 does not in general overall forbid images:

Description of Ark in Exodus 25:

[16] And thou shalt put in the ark the testimony which I will give thee. [17] Thou shalt make also a propitiatory of the purest gold: the length thereof shall be two cubits and a half, and the breadth a cubit and a half. [18] Thou shalt make also two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle. [19] Let one cherub be on the one side, and the other on the other. [20] Let them cover both sides of the propitiatory, spreading their wings, and covering the oracle, and let them look one towards the other, their faces being turned towards the propitiatory wherewith the ark is to be covered.

Exodus 38:7 parallels preceding verse Exodus 25:15 and so implies the cherubim were also made, at least later, by King Solomon.

Numbers 21:[8] And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. [9] Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed.

I Chronicles 28:[18] And for the altar of incense, he gave the purest gold: and to make the likeness of the chariot of the cherubims spreading their wings, and covering the ark of the covenant of the Lord. [19] All these things, said he, came to me written by the hand of the Lord that I might understand all the works of the pattern.

II Chronicles 3:[10] He made also in the house of the holy of holies two cherubims of image work: and he overlaid them with gold.

This is a reason why the forbidding of images is not seen as a separate commandment, but as part of the first one.

So also Luther divided the beginning of commandments, he only changed the last two, taking Exodus 20 instead of Deuteronomy 5:

IX

[17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house:

X

neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

LXX has Exodus 20 in agreement with Deuteronomy 5:

IX

[17] οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον σου

X

οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ πλησίον σου οὔτε τὸν ἀγρὸν αὐτοῦ οὔτε τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ οὔτε τὴν παιδίσκην αὐτοῦ οὔτε τοῦ βοὸς αὐτοῦ οὔτε τοῦ ὑποζυγίου αὐτοῦ οὔτε παντὸς κτήνους αὐτοῦ οὔτε ὅσα τῷ πλησίον σού ἐστιν

Gynaika means woman or wife. If house is translated τὴν οἰκίαν, meaning the material building, perhaps with garden and so on, it is obvious that it is less offensive to God to desire that than to desire the neighbour's wife. On the other hand, some would perhaps (I think Luther might have done so) have taken "house" as household, ton oikon, meaning that the desire to be lord where someone else is lord of his household is even worse : we Catholics would of course consider that as against the IV commandment, we don't agree with that either.

No, we have not taken commandments out of the Bible. But we have divided them differently from Calvinist and similar Protestants later than we, and this means that when we state them in shorter terms, as in the catechism, we sometimes leave out part of commandments rather than memorise all the text of each.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St Zeno of Verona*
12.IV.2018

* Veronae passio sancti Zenonis Episcopi, qui inter persecutionis procellas eam Ecclesiam mira constantia gubernavit, et, Gallieni tempore, martyrio coronatus est.