Fourth Empire?

I was just reading Mackey again.

Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Herod ‘the Great’
Part Two:‘The King’ of Daniel 11
https://www.academia.edu/36262347/Antiochus_Epiphanes_and_Herod_the_Great._Part_Two_The_King_of_Daniel_11

He there cites at length an account by Philip Mauro and then inserts a few comments on his own.

From Philip Mauro's account:

According to one view (that presented by Smith's Bible Dictionary and other reputable authorities such as Taylor) this portion of the prophecy (Dan 11:36 to end) has still to do with Antiochus Epiphanes, and that tyrant is "the king" of verse 36. That view of the passage is necessitated by the general scheme of interpretation adopted in the work referred to, which makes the first coming of Christ and the Kingdom He then established, to be the "stone," which strikes the great image of Gentile dominion upon its feet (Dan 2:34,35). Now, inasmuch as it is a matter of Bible fact, as well as of familiar history, that Christ did not come into destructive collision with the Roman empire, but rather strengthened it, this scheme of interpretation is compelled to ignore the Roman empire, and to make up the four world-powers by counting Media as one and Persia as another. This makes Greece the fourth, instead of the third, and compels the idea that the entire 11th chapter has to do with the Greek era.

Mackey’s comment:

Which might actually be the correct scenario after all.

Now, my own view is, Fourth Beast is actually Rome, but as a Republic (republics being different, if not from Carthage or Athens or Corinth, at least from the other empires, Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece / Macedon / Hellenism).

Why so? Antiochus Epiphanes was acting under restraints imposable by Roman Senate.

But, on the other hand,

it is a matter of Bible fact, as well as of familiar history, that Christ did not come into destructive collision with the Roman empire, but rather strengthened it,

and I won't disagree. However, this was after Rome was already what is now called an Empire. It was after an Empire directed politically by the Senate had become an Empire directed by the commander in chief of its Imperium or military command.

This tended to sanitise Rome somewhat. We still have Nero and Domitian, but we also have nearly loveable people like Augustus* or Nerva.

Historically, parliaments have in recent centuries often committed heavy errors of judgement, absent from kings of previous ones. I think the personal power of the Emperor was a restraining force, keeping the mystery of iniquity at bay.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St John of Damascus
27.III.2018

* Before you call Augustus loveable full scale use of the word, consider he forced his stepson Tiberius to a divorce and remarriage.

Bon, M. Reeves, je sais que vous parlez le français ...

Et en l'écrivant l'année dernière, vous avez fait une bêtise sur l'histoire des sciences, comme pas mal d'autres scientifiques.

Sciences et Avenir, Spécial Anniversaire, p. ... ça pourrait être d'un livre de Douglas Adams ... 42.

Voici la phrase incriminée:

Pendant des millénaires, l'Univers était en effet considéré comme infini et immuable, tel que le philosophe grec Aristote l'avait décrit au IV^e siècle avant Jésus-Christ.

Aristote, en effet, a bel et bien décrit l'Univers comme immuable, puisqu'il dépend en simultané de Dieu, et Aristote n'arrivait pas à comprendre pourquoi Dieu infiniment bienheureux prendrait une quelle-conque décision, donc, l'univers serait un effet secondaire du Dieu éternel, donc, lui-même aussi éternel et immuable.

Sur cette erreur théologique, il a été corrigé en avance par Platon et après les faits par St Thomas d'Aquin.

Par contre, il n'a nullement décrit l'univers comme infini, c'est de Bruno, Newton et de Kant que ça remonte.

D'abord, l'univers dépend de Dieu en simultané comment, exactement? Il bouge autour de la terre un cercle les 24 heures ou presque autant (pour le Soleil, c'est 24 h par définition, mais il est en retard par rapport aux étoiles fixes).

Or, un univers infini aurait donc pour conséquence une vitesse infinie des choses qui bougent autour de la Terre, mais une vitesse infinie est invisible (surtout en cercle!) et donc, l'Univers a une limite extérieure à ce mouvement.

Ensuite, comment est-ce que Bruno, Newton et Kant ont bouleversé l'idée pour que pendant quelques siècles l'univers soit considéré par certains comme infini?

Bruno, il se posait la question, "si on peut marcher et marcher et toujours trouvers des nouveux horizons infiniment, alors pourquoi l'univers ne serait-il pas infini aussi?" Le problème, sur un globe ce n'est pas le cas. On marche (et navigue) suffisamment longtemps, on se retrouve avec le même horizon, comme Philéas Fogg et Passepartout à Londres. Son analogie n'était pas une, à moins d'imaginer la Terre comme plate (et les soleils comme une série).

Newton, avec la gravitation qui pousse les choses lointains vers l'ensemble, pour que les étoiles ne se rencontrent pas dans un "big crunch" il est nécessaire que en dehors de chaque étoiles de celles qui tirent le soleil entre elles, il y ait encore et encore et encore d'étailes qui les tirent vers l'extérieur aussi, en toute direction (ou, au moins dans un cylindre assez plat, avec une finitude dans une des dimensions possible). Je ne suis pas sûr qu'il en ait tiré cette conséquence lui-même, il était au moins créationniste jeune terre, mais en revanche, des newtoniens en ont tiré cette conséquence.

Kant n'était pas capable d'imaginer qu'un quelconque objet soit entouré de même un seul côté du néant, donc, pour lui c'était chose sûre : l'univers était rationellement parlé infini. Notons, il a considéré aussi impossible d'imaginer un univers infini, donc, il a mis cette observation parmi les "apories", là où la raison n'arrive pas à se faire un chemin. Il semble qu'au moins certains des kantiens auraient penché vers un univers infini.

Mais Bruno, Newton et Kant sont tous du dernier demi-millénaire. Bruno fut brûlé (car il défigurait la théologie, pas juste la cosmologie) en 1600. Les autres deux sont encore postérieurs à lui. Donc, ce n'est pas pendant des millénaires, ni d'Aristote, que vient l'idée d'un univers infini.

Si vous doutez que j'ai raison dessus, pourquoi pas consulter Michaël Fœssel, votre co-équipier pour ce numéro spécial?

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Castule et
Lundi de la Semaine Sainte
26.III.2018

Heliocentrism and Sci-Fi

Here is how Damien Mackey introduces a quote from Dr. Gavin Ardley:

Dr. Gavin Ardley tells of it, with Galileo being the cut-off point (Aquinas and Kant, 1950):

Post-Galilean physical science is cut off from the rest of the world and is the creation of man himself. Consequently the science, in itself, has no immediate metaphysical foundations, and no metaphysical implications, in spite of popular beliefs to the contrary. These beliefs arise from the failure to realise the science’s ‘otherness’, that it belongs to the categorial order and not to the real order.

Only that which belongs to the real order is directly linked with metaphysics. The ancient and medieval science of physics belongs to this real order, and is, in principle, an integral part of philosophy in general. It has metaphysical foundations and metaphysical implications. [Footnote: This is not to say that all the particular Aristotelean doctrines of the Earth, the Skies, the Heavens and so on, are essential to Aristotelean metaphysics. They are integrated with metaphysics only in their general intention, and not in particular formulation. They could be modified without necessitating any change in metaphysical principles since the principles of metaphysics are founded on more general grounds. Many of the particular Aristotelean opinions about phenomena were abandoned in the 17th century with the increasingly detailed knowledge of Nature. Galileo’s Dialogues on the Two Great Systems of the World is a classic account of this revision of detailed theories of phenomena. Galileo himself, unlike many of his more extravagant followers, generally pursued this revision with considerable moderation. (See Ch. XVII). He is careful to distinguish what is true an abiding in Aristotle from what is erroneous and non-essential.]….

Here is his comment:

It is not surprising that Immanuel Kant (d. 1804), considered by some to have been the most influential thinker of the Enlightenment era, who was able to identify the artificial nature of the new sciences, whilst however adapting this methodology to his idiosyncratic new philosophy, is considered to have buried metaphysics once and for all.

Academia : Stephen Hawking - a ‘Lord of Creation’?
Part Three: Creating new universes
https://www.academia.edu/36223512/Stephen_Hawking_-_a_Lord_of_Creation_Part_Three_Creating_new_universes

And here is mine: Heliocentrism would on my view be a point belonging to change of general intention, rather than of particular formulation. One confirmation of this is, the great promoters of Heliocentrism involve Euler and Kant, both of whom were willing to consider the point of view of Hypothetic Extraterrestrials on other planets in the Solar System and on Hypothetic Exoplanets all over Cosmos, perhaps and ideally even an infinite one, who clinched popular acceptance of Heliocentrism (popular relatively speaking, meaning outside the restricted area of astronomers).

A theme very dear to the sci-fi that Damien Mackey shall explore in the following, namely extraterrestrials, is at the core of the Heliocentric revolution in general culture.

When Kant and Euler said in effect "if you consider your senses as proving that Earth is the centre of the universe, consider that someone living on Jupiter or a planet going around Sirius could say the exact same thing," they were busy building the outlines of Isaac Asimov's Foundation, Christin and Mézières' Valerian and Laureline, George Lucas' Star Wars, and, of course, Star Trek.

They were also busy setting up a weird alternative for theology:

• a) several mankinds never fallen and only ours fallen;
• b) Christ dying on planet after planet, in world after world.

And the response "perhaps original sin is bogus, perhaps redemption is bogus" was preparing the decision of Roddenberry not to include a chaplain on the starship Enterprise.

It may be mentioned that Fr Joseph Pohle, who considered that Modern Cosmology (which he embraced) involved no challenge to Christian eschatology, was from Prussia, a land with great benevolence, but also heir of Kant and Euler and in Pohle's time swallowing an amateur theology in the later writings of Karl May which prefigure the prayer meetings of Assisi.

More on Pohle in the dialogue between me and Introibo blogger, back here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Introibo Blogger Misrepresents Galileo Case Inter Alia
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/03/introibo-blogger-misrepresents-galileo.html

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Victorian and Companions
Martyrs
23.III.2018

In Africa sanctorum Martyrum Victoriani, Proconsulis Carthaginis, et duorum germanorum, Aquisregensium; item Frumentii et alterius Frumentii, mercatorum. Hi omnes, in persecutione Wandalica (ut scribit Victor, Africanus Episcopus), sub Ariano Rege Hunnerico, pro constantia catholicae confessionis, immanissimis suppliciis cruciati, egregie coronati sunt.

Earliest trace of Balkanic Fusion of Dative and Genitive?

Today Greek is a Balkan language. Latin in the form of Romanian is also a Balkan language. Greek, Romanian and, in Bulgarian, the pronouns fuse Dative and Genitive.

My idea of how this originated is through Latin having double function Dative/Genitive forms like "puellae" or "diei".

"Do librum puellae" - I give the girl a book.
"Liber puellae impressus est, non manu scriptus" - The girl's book is printed, not a manuscript / not handwritten.

"Inceptio diei mane appellatur" - The day's beginning is called morning.
"Diei dominicae maxima debetur reverentia, tota hebdomade" - The greatest reverence is owed to Sunday, in all the week.

Greek and Bulgarian caught on to this and Latin going to Romanian then generalised this fusion of the two cases, by bilingualism.

Now, today the bilingualism between "Latin" (as in Romanian) and Greek is very restricted even on the Balkan and restricted to the Balkan.

However, this was not always so. In Palestine, during the British mandate, Megiddo prison was built over a Christian house. I just learnt this from Jonathan Sarfati today.*

I totally agree with the theological implications of this very ancient Christian house, Jesus Christ is called God, this is in a mosaic which has so far been dated to AD 230 - well near a century before the Council of Nicea.

However, I will also concentrate a bit on the grammatical side.

Quorting Sarfati's article:*

Notice at the end of the second-last line, there are words with a line over them. These are an ancient space-saving convention called nomina sacra (singular nomen sacrum), ‘sacred names’.8 That is, names for God would be abbreviated to the first and last letter, and a line drawn over them to indicate the shortening. These are found in many early papyri of the New Testament, and in a number of icons. In this mosaic the nomina sacra are clear. They are ΘΩ, ΙΥ, and ΧΩ. They are, respectively, the first and last letters of ΘΕΩ/Θεῷ (Theō, dative of Theos, God), ἸΗΣΟΥ/Ἰησοῦ (Iēsou, genitive of Iēsous, Jesus), and ΧΡΙΣΤΩ/Χριστῷ (Christō, dative of Christos, Christ).

So, genitive and dative are mixed here, about same referent?

Wait a little minute ... in Greek, if I recall it correctly, Ἰησοῦς has a rather special declinsion.

Ἰησοῦς, Ἰησοῦ, Ἰησοῦ, Ἰησοῦν, Ἰησοῦ.

Genitive, Dative and Vocative coincide. Nominative sticks out by having an s and Accusative by having an n.

So, in the inscription, we could actually instead of dealing with an early case of Genitive and Dative fusion, simply be dealing with one of the Greek confluents to this fusion. In the feminine, I think Dido has a similar reduced scale of cases, as Greek was previously also enjoying or suffering in the Dual number.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Passion of St Longinus
15.III.2018

Caesareae, in Cappadocia, passio sancti Longini militis, qui Domini latus lancea perforasse perhibetur.

PS, it seems my Greek was rusty ... I was right about Jesus' Holy Name, I suppose, but wrong about Dido. Διδω, Διδους is at least the most common Greek declinsion of that name./HGL

* CMI : Early mosaic calls Jesus ‘God’
by Jonathan Sarfati, Published: 15 March 2018 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/early-mosaic-calls-jesus-god