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]