1) I am a convert from Lutheranism and from further back a basically Evangelical outlook before I was baptised, but also a revert from Neohimerite Orthos. I did not abjure Roman Catholicism when converting to them, and I did not abjure Eastern Orthodox when converting back, a k a reverting.
2) I know for a fact that Neohimerite Orthos are neither comfortable with the papacy nor with some traditional readings of the Bible, like the ones involves in Young Earth Creationism.
So, I providentially or by feeds being pushed by actual people get suggestions for watching things. One video-short is by an Orthodox priest. Another one is by Brewery Ministries, and I follow up.
My problem with such people isn't that they find some things I have written objectionable and then object to them. My problem is, they don't object to them, but decide I should not "rush ahead" (from their perverted pov), they need to give me "another chance" (after 1000 "other chances" already offered and already declined) to think things through, SO, they don't confront me in a comment "hey, I think you wrote sth incorrect here" they pray for me to get confronted with or use the feed's possibility of video suggestions, to get me to get confronted (obliquely, by someone else) to the pov they would like me to be confronted with but will not confront me with themselves.
Here are the videos (technically known as shorts) I am talking about with my comments under each:
Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic? ☦️
@RootsofOrthodoxy
https://youtube.com/shorts/NZf-ayrD0Vs?si=5o1nup8xnMNhPay5
Saint James was monarchic bishop in Jerusalem after the Twelve Apostles spread out, so these were in fact collectively ruling Jerusalem before he did.
They were also ontologically bishops, i e consecrated, before he was.
The Roman Catholic claim is not that Apostolic Succession comes only through St. Peter.
The Apostolic Succession in the order of episcopal consecration can come from any of the Twelve.
We claim however, the episcopacy can only be canonically exercised in communion with St. Peter or the canonic successors of St. Peter.
Debunking the myth: Did one language exist before Babel?
@breweryministries
https://youtube.com/shorts/pnRVzjvxSzg?si=b9Y4rO8mIrfS_yGz
1) Genesis 11:1 does not chronologically follow after Genesis 10.
2) The texts were created at the events or closely after and transmitted to Moses. Each could change in response to more correct info being added, like if the confusion of languages happened after the overview in Genesis 10, this would affect the original text of Genesis 10 and the oral tradition would add that.
3) That Moses stringed these two texts after each other that order doesn't equate to chronological order, but to the Genesis 10 text referring back to getting out of the Ark and then on to the Tower text, while the Shem genealogy refers back to the Tower text and on to Abraham. That's why the Tower text is put between these two. The chapters were only divided in the 13th C. AD by a bishop going on a hunt and doing it as he knew the Bible by heart.
How stupid can Bible scholars be?
They think it was a shared trade language, while each culture had its own language, two problems.
Glaring ones.
1) Peleg is born 101, 401 or 531 years after the Flood, depending on text. That's not long enough for languages like Sumerian and Old Egyptian to differentiate, at least not without massive conlanging. This problem can be restated "where did 'other languages' come from if this was shortly after the Flood.
2) God confuses a trade language, which differred from already different native languages. Well, that means each participant in the project already had experience of language learning and at least the concept of a lingua franca. That would not have put the project on a halt for 4500 years to Cape Canaveral and Bajkonur, but just a decade or two, while a new lingua franca was being constructed.
If on the other hand everyone had the same native language, with very minute dialectal differences (lesser than within English, since some versions of English go back to or are influenced by versions going back to dialects pre-existing Caxton's printing press, and since 500 generations were fewer generations back then), and God confronts them for the first time in their lives and their memory with language barriers, it could take some centuries until people learned how to learn someone's language. This would definitely have derailed Nimrod's project far more effectively (Nimrod's doesn't equate to him taking sole initiative, he was trusted to execute the plan).
Bible hints that people existed outside of Eden
@breweryministries
https://youtube.com/shorts/fWmR9nrT4hg?si=XUnNLuDS-qqeLsdY
By the time Cain was even born, every human creature (at his birth exactly three) was living outside Eden.
Are you aware that the idea that the creation of Adam is distinct from the creation of man in Genesis 1 comes from Jewish extra-Biblical and highly racist texts, that post-date Christianity?
There is no traditional reading of the story in which, by the time he commits fratricide, he, his parents, and his dead brother are the only people, back to three.
The Genesis 5 statement of Adam begetting sons and daughters doesn't start with Adam begetting Seth, it's placed after it just to mention it doesn't end there.
Cain's wife was his sister or possibly niece.
Remember Seth was born 230 or in the Masoretic and perhaps Samaritan 130 years after Adam was created. He and Eve were created adult and fully fertile. They didn't live in crowded cities yet in which certain couples might find other people an obstacle to taking care of their children.
By the time of the fratricide, there were plenty of people already around, Adam, Eve, their children, their grandchildren. Cain married a sister or a niece or was already married to one when doing the killing.
- Brewery Ministries
- @breweryministries
- I don't think I'd heard that about Adam but I favor the oldest possible sources. I usually try to avoid anything written after the first century. It helps avoid some of those problems where new traditions emerged.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- OK, @breweryministries ... you are aware that all the CF of the first C. as well as the NT itself in Mt 24:16-20 exclude your view that traditions emerged that did not come from Jesus and still enveloped all of the Church?
- Brewery Ministries
- @hglundahl I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I really haven't decided whether or not people existed outside of Eden or not. Just sharing what Bible scholars discuss and find it interesting.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- OK, @breweryministries ... if a Bible scholar pretends "whom was he afraid of, when there had been only four people and now were back to three?" that's strawmanning the traditional position heavy.
I don't believe in strawmanners, neither should you.
NOW.
Perhaps some Orthos imagined I needed to hear the anti-YEC stuff from an Evangelical, as if they were my authority. I am leaving out for now an Ortho video debunking at once Original Sin (which St. Gregory Palamas believed in, believing the Virgin was exempt!) and Total Corruption, as if these were the same. The fact I got that in the prompt however confirms my suspicion. My authority for YEC being true in its exegesis of the Bible is Sts. Augustine and Basil, not Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, even if I find them refreshing. When it comes to solving problems posed by so-called science, the modern Creationist movement has contributed, but Orthos rejecting Creation Science will nevertheless accept the "science" of Atheists, as if they likened the accreditation of Academics to the Apostolic Succession and Catholic Communion of the Bishops. Now, the Church back when St. Augustine wrote City of God actually had and still has a promise from God, Academics don't have that promise. They are people with minds created in God's image, and so am I. Their minds are not totally corrupt by Adam's sin, neither is mine. In fact, it's probable the idea we need to rely on Academics and cannot trust our own judgement comes from Calvinists believing the TULIP T, which, as said, I don't. Can some Orthos please get it into their minds that I have thought through why I returned to Catholicism, and I had thought through Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism at least in relation to basics, before I made my excursion to them?/HGL
PS, comments under my original ones added in later, where appropriate./HGL
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar