Wednesday, 16 November 2016

Are CMI Ever Wrong on Exegesis? Well, Yes.


They are wrong whereever they differ notably from Church Fathers or the Catholic Church.

Exegesis with Russell Grigg:
http://creation.com/whats-in-a-name


We should be wary of using passages of Scripture as ‘proof texts’ which were not written with this purpose in mind. However, the rest of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, reveals the doctrine of the Trinity to us (e.g. Matthew 3:16–17). We can look back into Genesis and see that the terms and words Moses used by divine inspiration are not inconsistent with later revelation, but in fact foreshadowed later teaching on the Trinity.


Exegesis with the Church Fathers, Saint Thomas Aquinas and (whatever that is worth!) 3 or 4 out of 6 Reformers in 1517 (I am not sure if Münzer believed the Holy Trinity, and I am sure the two Sozzini disbelieved it, while Luther, Zwingli and Oecolampadius all believed it).

We must bear two things in mind:

  • The ultimate author of the whole Bible (all 72 books, or 73 if you count Baruch as separate work from Book of Jeremiah) is God.
  • According to St Thomas Aquinas, though the Hebrew people were not yet allowed to know God was the Blessed Trinity, Moses, Aaron, all priests (even up to Zacharias the husband of Elizabeth and even Hannas and Kaiaphas), all true prophets, as well as all Davidic kings (instructed from start by Samuel, no doubt, unless David had a revelation independently of Samuel first) knew this or knew of this, even if disbelieving. They also knew they could not openly talk about it to the normal Hebrew faithful.


The first means that Russell errs on too much historic and situational exegesis. Saying that such a word to its first hearers positively excluded such an interpretation from situation is one thing, but saying their situation as now known does not encourage us to see it as interpretable in such a way is another.

God knew of every situation in which Holy Writte would be applied or misapplied, before Moses wrote one Iota of either Job or Genesis.

When Moses was perhaps chosing between "a tower so high it reaches heaven", "a tower which reaches heaven", "a tower so high its top reaches heaven" and "a tower the top of which was meant to reach heaven", God decided he should chose the one which is not just compatible with a skyscraper but which would to some readers of the 20th and 21st Centuries AD suggest a three step rocket (only the top of which goes into space and which looks a lot like a tower before takeoff).

And so, even if God hadn't revealed the Trinity to Moses (which He had, however), God would be author of a choice of words which can proof text the Blessed Trinity.

The second thing is straightforward, there was a time for keeping secrets (Old Testament era) and there is now a time for divulging them (New Testament era).

Ecclesiastes 3:7
A time to rend, and a time to sew. A time to keep silence, and a time to speak.

Luke 12:3
For whatsoever things you have spoken in darkness, shall be published in the light: and that which you have spoken in the ear in the chambers, shall be preached on the housetops.


The main instance beeing the major things to be believed openly in New Testament era, but under symbols for many and under secrecy for few in Old Testament era, namely Trinity and Incarnation of the Word for our Salvation.

This means of course that what is now claimed among Jews as being secret tradition of the Aaronite priests, namely most often Lurian Kabbalah, is not the secret tradition, since it misses the main thing, and in the case of specifically Lurian Kabbalah even distorts part of what was openly believed, namely difference between God and His creatures.

Also, that the Jewish cult of keeping secrets should not be imitated by Christians, most specially not in the type of Freemasons (who are really no longer Christians, but apostates from their baptism) and Templars (who are really a type of Freemasons, condemned even before Freemasonry, on the Ecumenical Council of Vienne in Isère.

Apart from this point, Russell Griggs was of course right in the article, though.

Is my own hunch of Tower of Babel being a project of a rocket too diverse from Church Fathers?

They had in fact not seen a rocket. And one of them, St Augustine, precisely while reminding us that we must stick to the Church Fathers did encourage further research, especially as some passages of prophecy would be clearer once the fulfilment approached.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Saint Gertrude
16.XI.2016

Checking on not contradicting all Church Fathers, by the way:

Haydock comment in chapter 11 has little. Ver. 4. Famous before; Hebrew lest, &c.; as if they intended to prevent that event. (Haydock) --- Their motive appears to have been pride, which raised the indignation of God. Nemrod, the chief instigator, might have designed the tower for a retreat, whence he might sally out and maintain his tyranny. (Menochius) Ver. 6. In deed. This seems to be spoken ironically; though the effects of weak mortals, the sons of Adam, when pursued with vigour and unanimity, will produce great effects. These builders had conceived an idea of raising the tower as high as possible, hyperbolically, to touch heaven. (Haydock) / George Leo Haydock and Menochius are good priests, but not all of the Church Fathers./HGL

Next double check on Sts Augustine and Thomas gave me this:

Quaesiui an contra patres loquutus sim, dicendo de Turri Babel quod sit intenta ut navis spatialis?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2016/11/quaesiui-contra-patres-loquutus-sim.html


Note:
Faciamus nobis civitatem et turrim,
idest turres, singulari pro plurali. Vel turrim vocat capitulum civitatis factum ad modum turris. Triplici autem ex caussa videntur ad hoc opus moti. Primo scilicet ex cupiditate regnandi, et tyrannicam potentiam super universam terram exercendi in urbe illa, quam scilicet et inexpugnabiliter et insuperabiliter fundare intendebant. Secundo ex ambitione nominis et famae ex hoc apud omnes obtinendae. Unde et hic dicitur: et celebremus nomen nostrum. Tertio secundum quosdam, ut consimile diluvium si accideret, evaderent: et ideo usque ultra nubes turrim voluerunt elevare, ut illuc diluvium non posset attingere.

Pertingat usque ad caelum,
idest usque ad supremam regionem aeris: quod caelum vocatur, vel quod secundum sensum caelo videtur esse conjunctum. Vel hoc dicunt secundum praesumptionem superbiae suae.


Both the security motive and the "secundum praesumptionem superbiae suae" go very well with rocketry. Have you seen any trailer or poster with the text here?

"Mankind was born on Earth. It was never meant to die here. The end of Earth will not be the end of us. Go further. Mankind's next step will be our greatest."

Interstellar (2014)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/taglines


Some angels will have been going "where have we heard that one before?" "Ubinam istud iam audiuimus?" "Wo haben wir daß schon gehört?" in all 6000 languages which exist today./HGL

No comments:

Post a Comment