When Exactly Did Common People Get Bible Access? 1517 or 1800?

Mary Jones – The Welsh Teen Whose Determination Changed Christian History
AI Illustrated | The Incredible Journey | 17 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Saab53GGyI

Don't confuse Mary Jones with Martin Luther!/HGL

PS, just in case you think the story is AI generated, nope:

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

Are Christians Grafted In?

Well, some are.

And if some of the branches be broken, and thou, being a wild olive, art ingrafted in them, and art made partaker of the root, and of the fatness of the olive tree Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in Well: because of unbelief they were broken off. But thou standest by faith: be not highminded, but fear
[Romans 11:17-20]

It also says, some of the natural branches are broken.

Which ones?

The ones that rejected Jesus Christ.

What is a natural branch that is still on the root? A Christian of Jewish origin.

What is an ingrafted branch, first grown on a wild olive? A Christian of Non-Jewish origin.

What is a broken branch? A non-Christian Jew, which is what the word Jew most usually means in some languages.

Meanwhile, there is a real replacement, from Aaronic to Apostolic priesthood. Melchisedec was not called a Cohen because he was a secular official, he was a priest of the Most High. The wine and bread were not a diplomatic meal, but his sacrifice. And that means, there is today a non-rejected sacrifice, but one which is not of the Jewish rite, as the word is usually understood, but of the Catholic rite.

That replacement is very real.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Peter and Paul
(after first vespers)
28—29.VI.2026

Romae natalis sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, qui eodem anno eodemque die passi sunt, sub Nerone Imperatore. Horum prior, in eadem Urbe, capite ad terram verso cruci affixus, et in Vaticano juxta viam Triumphalem sepultus, totius Orbis veneratione celebratur; posterior autem, gladio animadversus, et via Ostiensi sepultus, pari honore habetur.

C'est pas les Musulmans qui se prosternent la face à terre ?

Pas que.

Les prêtres le jour de l'ordination le font aussi, en se préparant./HGL

Can Jews for Judaism Explain "le Olam" ?

Why Psalm 110 Terrifies Modern Judaism
Christian Chronicles | 24 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRDxy6hFLE

This is the Classic Christian challenge, simply taking note of what's in the Psalm.

King David is talking of the Messias as of "my lord" ... the argument isn't that "LORD" and "lord" are the same word in Hebrew, though it becomes so back when reading the tetragrammaton as "Adonai" (now, for some reason, they prefer "HaShem"). The argument is that whoever King David was talking about was not King David and not just simply any descendant who needed to see David as lord, since father or ancestor. This point is missed in the Jewish response I just read.

That person is by God the most High, by the LORD, invited to sit at His right hand.

That person is also a priest, namely the same type as Melchizedek was. And that forever.

Each of these is more or less explained by Jews for Judaism, in the link below, written or compiled by Bentzion Kravitz:

Psalm 110 - A Jewish Perspective
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/psalm-110-a-jewish-perspective

King David is, they say, putting words into the mouths of Levites, to sing about him when he has the temple consecrated. So ... wait, is each Levite singing about King David or King Solomon as "my lord"? Why aren't they unitedly singing of King David as "our lord" if King David meant this to be words in the mouth of Levites, not said in his own person?

This also has the weakness that the temple actually was consecrated by David's son Solomon.

The seat at the right hand is not in some heavenly sphere, the right hand simply means protection, specifically military such.

And Melchizedec was "Cohen" insofar as he was King, not an actual priestly function.

Now, it is true that "Cohen" is used of King David's sons II Kings/Samuel 8. It's also true that King David once behaved like a Cohen, by eating of the breads of presence, and it's not improbable that the Temple fixed the illegality by an adoption, making King David an Aaronite by adoption. However, Catholic commentary tends to accept the Jewish explanation that this means some kind of peace time officers, like of the palace, rather than strictly temple functions. We see this kind of mingling (as per my suggestion) of Aaronite and Davidic later on too, since Mary and Joseph were of the house of David, but Mary's cousin was the wife of a Cohen (strict Aaronitic sense).

In sum, the psalm refers to King David as lord of Levites (plural), protected by God, holding office (not a priestly one) in Jerusalem.

Here is where this breaks down.

If David was putting words into the mouths of plural Levites, and the word is about himself, why is he "my lord" and not "our lord"?

If sit at my right hand is no more than "be secure in my protection" why is Daniel seeing a heavenly vision? Here:

I beheld therefore in the vision of the night, and lo, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of days: and they presented him before him And he gave him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes and tongues shall serve him: his power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away: and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed
[Daniel 7:13-14]

As we are at the wording of David in the psalm, how many nations did king David judge through Israel?

I only recall Philistines. The Amalecites were already killed off by Saul.

He shall judge among nations, he shall fill ruins: he shall crush the heads in the land of the many
[Psalms 109:6]

Seems more like Daniel 7 than King David.

Now, suppose King David were "Cohen like Melchizedec" simply by ruling from Jerusalem, there are two problems.

First, Melchizedec as ruler of Jerusalem or Salem is called, specifically Melech. He is called Cohen "of God the Most High" as if it were a priestly title, and in connection with an oblation of bread and wine, which can be seen as a kind of sacrifice, leading up to a blessing, another priestly act:

For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts
[Malachias (Malachi) 1:11]

If Catholicism is true, Holy Mass fulfills both Ps 109 and Malachias 1.

But more, whoever King David is talking about is this kind of Cohen like Melchizedec "for ever" or "le Olam" .... here is where Bentzion Kravitz gets very weak:

Therefore, the term priest as in “priest of G-d, the most high” in Psalm 110:14 can also refer to a leader.

That David would be a “priest forever after the manner of Melchizedek.” means that the privilege of being ruler of Jerusalem would always remain to David and his descendants forever.

“To David and his offspring, forever” Psalm 18:51

The sons of King David were not designated as priests of the most High, but if they actually could be so designated, one of them was a prophet. They were also not ruling Jerusalem when II Kings / Samuel 8 was about.

And the "forever" in Psalm 18 compounds with the difficulty for Judaism. Sons of David have not been ruling Jerusalem as kings since Nebuchadnezzar came and then once more under Serubbabel. Herod wasn't one. Titus wasn't one. Constantine wasn't one, nor even his mother St. Helen. Heraclius wasn't one and his enemy Chosroës II wasn't one. Omar wasn't one. Mehmed VI wasn't one, nor his older brother Mehmed V. Nor George V, nor Ben Gurion.

If physical or political rule of earthly Jerusalem is meant, the throne "forever" has stood empty, not for 2000 years, but for even longer. This parallels the disingenuous interpretation of Genesis 49:10. And as we there deal with Judah, not king David, and as there is an actual term, that political sovereignty was taken out of the hands of the Jews after Herod the Great died, so the expectation of nations has already come.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pentecost Thursday
28.V.2026

Perhaps I Had Too High Hopes For You, Tovia Singer

Why didn't you say so, Tovia Singer? · Perhaps I Had Too High Hopes For You, Tovia Singer

I mean "the moment it matters, you don't understand" in your video on Genesis 6 or your foolish dream about winning a war against Iran proving Ezechiel 38 refers to such ethnic Israelites who practise Judaism and their relatives ... and even worse, in so doing disproving the Church Fathers.

However, I began an answer on the Biblical authors of the New Covenant, these being 8 or possibly 9 people (some claiming Hebrews was not by St. Paul, but by Gamaliel's other disciple, St. Barnabas).

"We don't even know who the NT authors were"

In general.

I think I have heard this one before, but about the OT authors too.

No, Moses didn't write the Pentateuch. Daniel's prophecy of the two rams wasn't in the time of Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus and the whole book is later. There were two Isaias.

Tovia, you seem to give some credence to one author being Paul, and then you divorce him from the main character of the second half of Acts and from the author of the Pastorals. That's a fair parallel to accepting the Isaias of IV Kings 19 as author of part of Isaias.

You know why we both know Moses wrote the Pentateuch, even if he was not the primary source for Genesis 9 and even if Deuteronomy 34 was written by Joshua? Because that's what the tradition says. The tradition among Christians, which we inherited from Second Temple Jews, the tradition among Samarians who refuse the book of Ruth, the tradition among Jews, also inherited from Second Temple Jews, which is not the same thing. If one of these traditions is right, whichever it is, Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

I'm not ignorant of which is true, I'm just keeping the argument accessible to those who have parts of the Catholic truth.

You would say the Jewish tradition is the true one, I disagree, vehemently, but on this theory too, Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

Now, the same applies to why we believe Daniel is the author of Daniel and the two rams prophecy was given to one deported by Nebuchadnezzar. And to why Isaias has one author.

This presumes, we normally trust tradition on who wrote what book. Even outside sacred scriptures. I trust tradition that Julius Caesar penned Commentarii de Bello Gallico. I trust tradition that Arrian wrote a work on the Life of Alexander the Great. _Anabasis of Alexander._ I also trust tradition that he was not at all a contemporary but had access to lost works by such, by two of Alexander's generals.

It's not trusting a tradition on an authorship which takes a special argument, it's not trusting one. Saying "Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Daniel wrote Daniel, Caesar wrote the Gallic War, Arrian wrote Anabasis of Alexander, Xenophon wrote an older Anabasis, from which I will recall "pente parasangas"* until I die, presumably, but Paul didn't write Timothy and his disciple didn't write Acts" is special pleading. As such it needs a special argument.

Luke and Acts were written much later.

I will here not content myself with referring to your video.

You gave the reasons, 1) Luke copies Mark, Mark is post-AD 70, and 2) Acts so late that Luke missed out on Paul being executed under Nero. I've heard a reason 3) that Mare Adriaticum was in the time of St. Paul still called Mare Illyricum and so the change occurred in 140 AD, showing an anachronism.

1a) Luke copies Mark.

Not according to tradition.

Now, you could say, tradition is in this specific case not to be trusted, since there is a Synoptic thing going on, seeming to indicate there is some copying.

Here is my response.

I'd tend to go with the version in Stromata, by Clement of Alexandria. Matthew was written first. Then Luke, ignoring Matthew, wrote his Gospel.

He brought it to Peter in Rome to get it approved (so, this is, if so, an early attestation of Papacy, since Luke was probably in the Holy Land when he collected the witness accounts).

Peter already knew Matthew, and spontaneously picked up scrolls, one brought by Luke and one he already had by Matthew. He started reading in alternation from both (starting after the childhood accounts, which are complementary). He also inserted some remarks on his own. Mark was his secretary and thought he was finally dictating a Gospel, so started to take this down as dictation.

Peter remarks what Mark is doing and authorises that as a Gospel and Luke after it.

This story pretty fully accounts for the Synoptic unity or near unity of loads of text.

Two more details. It's not all that probable that this alternate reading went on all the time without either of St. Peter or St. Mark noticing what happened. It's also not excluded, the reading time being in English one hour for silent reading and someone has stated reading it aloud took 1 h 30 min. If St. Peter's enthusiasm lasted that long, St. Mark takes a palm in good secretary taking down-ship. Indeed, among other patronages, he's not just invoked for Alexandria, where he was the first bishop, and Venice, where his relics are since the Crusades, but also precisely secretaries.

The other possibility is, Peter noticed what was happening, perhaps halfway through, perhaps earlier, took it as a sign of the Holy Ghost, and then continued. Perhaps he didn't tell St. Mark, whose witness in Alexandria would have been accessible to Clement the Stromatist.

The other thing is, while St. Luke was doing his interviews, it's very probable the Christians he interviewed already had the Gospel of St. Matthew, were used to hearing episodes or pericopes from it (you already know, some other readers of mine don't know, in Hebrew that's a Parashah). This may well have coloured the wording they reported to St. Luke.

So, no, forget the Prussian Kulturkampf shtick that "Matthew and Luke copied Mark" ...

1b) Mark is post-AD 70

This is based on the idea that Jesus did not predict the destruction of the Temple.

You have pretended to find fault with how He predicted it, namely the words "not a stone shall be left on a stone" and you point to the Western Wall.

First, it's clearly not from Herod's time.

Coin discovery sheds new light on sacred Jerusalem site
Nov. 24, 2011, 1:38 AM GMT+1 / Source: The Associated Press | By Matti Friedman
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna45419597

But that would still be before AD 70, so what's going on?

Christians have proposed, and I'll add a third:

• Western Wall is the wrong site
• Western Wall is outside the actual temple as such and part of a surrounding complex, like around the Court of the Gentiles
• Jesus prophecied only about the stones already standing in His time, the Western Wall was added later (Archelaus II, perhaps).

Or even "not a stone on a stone" describes a figure of speech or is sufficiently fulfilled in all the buildings that were destroyed.

So, the idea that the prophecy is wrong doesn't stand.

The idea that the prophecy is added after the event has been pretended about Daniel's two rams prophecy too, as I've mentioned.

2) Acts is written so late that Luke didn't get the memo that Paul was executed under Nero.

Or, Acts is written under Emperor Claudius, making the Gospel of Luke early too.

At this time, St. Paul was in prison, but definitely not executed yet. The reason that the martyrdom of Peter and Paul isn't mentioned is that the book was already finished when it happened.

3) Mare Illyricum became Mare Adriaticum in 140 AD

This seems to be one reading of the texts, there is no official declaration that "Mare Illyricum" should be renamed "Mare Adriaticum" from the time of Hadrian or his successor. It's simply the idea of a man who found "Mare Illyricum" in Cicero, I presume, perhaps Caesar too and "Mare Adriaticum" in a post 140 text, not sure which.

Here is wiki on the ancient names, I'm omitting a subsequent paragraph of the section that gives non-Classic names:

The origins of the name Adriatic are linked to the Etruscan settlement of Adria, which probably derives its name from Illyrian adur 'water, sea'.[2] In classical antiquity, the sea was known as Mare Adriaticum (Mare Hadriaticum, also sometimes simplified to Adria) or, less frequently, as Mare Superum '[the] upper sea'.[3] The two terms were not synonymous, however. Mare Adriaticum generally corresponds to the Adriatic Sea's extent, spanning from the Gulf of Venice to the Strait of Otranto. That boundary became more consistently defined by Roman authors—early Greek sources place the boundary between the Adriatic and Ionian seas at various places ranging from adjacent to the Gulf of Venice to the southern tip of the Peloponnese, eastern shores of Sicily and western shores of Crete.[4] Mare Superum on the other hand normally encompassed both the modern Adriatic Sea and the sea off the Apennine peninsula's southern coast, as far as the Strait of Sicily.[5] Another name used in the period was Mare Dalmaticum, applied to waters off the coast of Dalmatia or Illyricum.[6] During the early modern period, the entire sea was also known as the Gulf of Venice (Italian: golfo di Venezia),[7] although that name is now informally applied only to the northern area of the sea, from Maestra Point in the Po Delta to Cape Kamenjak on the Istrian Peninsula.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_Sea#Name

But suppose this were the case, suppose this were an anachronism. I didn't look it up, so I gave the other possibility.

Like scribes in the Tabernacle and Temple changed names in the Torah to update, after the cities of Exodus 1:11 were renamed, so also a Christian scribe could have changed the name after 140. But I find it likelier that wiki is right, and that the prevalence of the name Adriatic ows more to Acts than to Emperor Hadrian.

"Paul ... definitely was not a Pharisee."

He does not apply Pharisaic thinking.

From the parallel passage on the Gospels, I presume you mean, he's not getting into legal stuff. And when he does, as in Timothy, you say it's another person and not Paul.

The problem here is, on the Christian view, which is the right one, the old law was done away with when Jesus died. Debating what work you can or can't do on a Sabbath after Good Friday is like debating how the Holy Roman Emperor proceeds when naming a duke, after 1806 and 1918.

So, lot's of the things St. Paul learned when he studied under Gamaliel, simply doesn't apply any more, and that's why he's not using that type of questions. Jesus famously was saying the thing about donkeys before he was crucified, when the Old Law still was in full force, except Judah had lost the sceptre, Rome didn't allow Jews to carry out death penalties, and if they did so anyway, it was illegal lynchings. Also, people were High Priests on a rotational basis and that's unlike the rules foreseen by Moses about Aaron.

"He is also quoting from Menander."

If you don't believe the Messiah has come, you won't try to be relevant to people who need to accept him.

St. Paul did believe He had come, had asked for the Gentiles on top of the Jews, and so St. Paul was complying by being an efficient missionary to Gentiles.

"Completely at home in the Greco-Roman world"

As you are in the US of A. You may disapprove of things, some I would approve of, but you know your stuff. You don't take California for a Caliphate, even if that's part of where the name came from.**

For instance, you mention Einstein. Princeton. How is that less abhorrent than Menander?

I mean, his cousin Alfred is making decent statements about music history. He compares Gregorian music to Synagogal recitation and finds common ground, but a huge difference in Gregorian having a smoothing out of rhythmical differences and no chromatism.

But the guy who pretends everything is determined? He was worshipping a false god.

"He is applying Middle Platonic thinking everywhere."

Like Philo and Josephus aren't doing so? Josephus was also a former Pharisee, and Philo did some parallel work to them. Between Philo and Pharisees, St. Paul at least scores one Pharisaic point in clearly believing the Resurrection of the Dead.

"Pharisee means the exact same thing as Orthodox Jew."

No. The earliest Pharisees were not yet parts of Rabbinic Judaism. The earliest tractates of the Mishna are pre-Christian, therefore not anti-Christian. This is by the way not the case with Sanhedrin 59a, Yohanan Ben Zakkai. He wrote after the Destruction of Jerusalem. This arguably totally switched the way the LXX was viewed (OT accessible to Gentiles).

"Paul claims to be a Pharisee."

You mention Philippians 3, and here is a passage which might solve the objections you have to that claim:

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other thinketh he may have confidence in the flesh, I more Being circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; according to the law, a Pharisee According to zeal, persecuting the church of God; according to the justice that is in the law, conversing without blame But the things that were gain to me, the same I have counted loss for Christ
[Philippians 3:4-7]

In other words, if there is a noticeable lack of Pharisaic thinking in St. Paul's letters, it's because he gave that up.

"Always talking of himself."

Always be wary if someone throws this around about someone he disapproves of!

I check Romans, quick overview: a few verses in the presentation, chapter 1, three verses in chapter 9 ... no, he actually isn't.

I have recently been obliged to talk about myself for a purpose, and some might pretend this is a very representative sample. It also isn't.

Only Luke in Acts claims Paul was a student of Gamaliel.

This is dealt with in the part about Acts and Luke, and it is dealt with in part in above objections to his being such.

But did you know that wiki on Gamaliel states that he was a grandson of Hillel, but even so, he is passed over when Pirkei Abot gives the lineage of the Hillel school, reference to 1—2.

Perhaps Gamaliel too was not very typical as emerging "Orthodox" Judaism was concerned. Perhaps the very little there is of Gamaliel in the Mishna is due to Yohanan Ben Zakkai being the gatekeeper between Second Temple Judaism, recently destroyed, and emerging Rabbinic Judaism.

Did I forget anything?

I suppose I'll be watching your video again, just to make sure, maybe write a PS or maybe another post, but in the meantime, I'll finish this one. I came to notice, one passage in St. Paul would probably have appealed to basically every Pharisee:

For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable

Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents

Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them
[Romans 1:17-32]

This would be a Midrash if you like on

Behold, he that is unbelieving, his soul shall not be right in himself: but the just shall live in his faith.
[Habacuc 2:4]

And why would it be worse to cite Menander than to cite Bugs Bunny?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Thursday in Pentecost Novena
21.V.2026

The post was mostly in reference to:

Rabbi Tovia Singer - Are the New Testament Authors REALLY Jewish? 2331
TeNaK Talk (TaNaCh) | 13 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=564eZ2eeoZ0

* 15 to 22 1/2 miles, or 24 to 36 km, it seems the exact value is not fully known. Too brisk a walk for me, I'm sure, even back in 2004. After one thirty km day, I had sores. ** See Will There Be a Real Hobbiton or Beruna? There Is California.

Charges Against C. S. Lewis

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: On CSL and Mike Schmitz · New blog on the kid: Did C. S. Lewis Publically Attack Catholicism? · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Charges Against C. S. Lewis

Found a meme on FB, an Evangelical attacking C. S. Lewis about doctrinal matters:

Some of the charges are true, and in some cases, they are charges against Catholicism and so against me too.

Purgatory is a real place ... he insisted it didn't include flames, though, despite 1 Cor 3:15. I wish he had been more into this. And less into excusing the Reformation by blaming the "flame imagery".

Catholic sacraments are necessary ... again, I wish he had been more into this. He did not explicitate what exact view he held of the Eucharist, but felt some need to excuse the Reformation by taking a distance from Real Presence and Transsubstantiation.

Anglicans and under their influence by now also Lutherans do have seven sacraments, but recognise only some of them as "Gospel sacraments" ... C. S. Lewis confessed regularly, but unfortunately to a priest who had no actual power to absolve him.

Some of the charges are true, and I take a distance.

The Bible is not inspired or inerrant ... he actually believed the Bible inspired but not everywhere inerrant, especially on topics outside doctrinal or moral core doctrine. To him it was good enough if the Bible conveyed truth, even if on some issues it didn't convey literal fact.

Evolution is true ... this to the amount that he didn't believe in a literal Adam. Lots of Church of England didn't already before he returned to it. There is some indication in late essays he was maybe reconsidering this, but in two works of the 1940's, this was very unfortunately the case. In Miracles, it matters less, he enumerates Evolution among the truths that only quasi transcendent claims of reason could reveal with certainty to us. In Problem of Pain, it matters more, he gives a whole chapter on what happened instead of the actual story in Genesis 3.

The Bible is not literal ... more like diversly literal or otherwise in diverse books. Genesis he classed as mythology, so, not literally true.

Obviously, I cannot be held solidaric with these actual errors given I have explicitly stated my adherence to the opposite truths.

Some are what I consider and he would probably also have considered debatable topics.

Christ did not atone for our sins ... by substitutionary atonement, as Evangelicals understand it, if so understood, it is actually correct. Jesus was not temporarily damned so we needn't be. He was temporarily dead, so we could be raised. But He won our delivery from sin by other means, i e sacrifice.

CSL was not totally into the Catholic view of Christ's sacrifice, which has more of atonement in the Evangelical sense than his position had, he certainly believed Jesus saves us through the Cross, and he was content to say "I don't understand how, I just believe that."

Pagan religions have truth ... if we take this as them having some truth, that is obvious.

There is a God Who created Heaven and Earth is a truth admitted by unbelievers like Jews and Muslims.

There is a clear question on how much such truth can be hoped to contribute to an adherent's salvation. I would say, and CSL would not say "if he didn't convert from that community, it didn't contribute enough, though."

God is found inside man ... how so?

If you mean "inside man, as opposed to in Bible or Church", that's not just a heresy, but a heresy CSL didn't utter.

CSL would have stated, and I would agree, that some things that happen inside man, for instance universally valid reasoning, even if we are sometimes inattentive enough to reason invalidly or on false premisses, or universally valid moral principles (sth other than "universally agreed" as in conventions!) are known if not always obeyed, do in fact point to God being the reason why they exist.

Natural Man is not condemned ... what "natural man"?

The word "natural" in the context of man or his habits is used in two different ways. CSL as a linguist knew both.

• as opposed to elaborate, studied, cultured, possibly overcultured and degraded to unnatural man, and in this sense Christianity does not condemn natural man;
• as opposed to regenerate man, and in this sense not just all of Christianity, but CSL with it admits that man on his own, without redemption, is headed for damnation.

I suppose some sects are so good at making the "discipleship" a perversion of human nature, that they tend to confuse the two senses. For instance, it's natural man in the first sense that is disgusted at Double Predestination, and yet a Calvinist will pretend this is just the reflex of Unregenerate Man, Incurved into himself. This is obviously a well known and old example, but there are some newer ones too.

White Magic is good ... when and where?

CSL would have classed what Jacob did with painted staffs in Genesis 30 as "magic", and somehow he considered that even so God allowed it back in this confused time, when very little of revelation was public and known on earth.

CSL might have classed what St. Raphael did in Tobit as magic, in this case, it's his prerogative as an angelic being. It's men who are forbidden to use angelic powers at their own command, since the only angels providing such to some would be demons.

In the parallel creation called the world of Narnia, he supposed there was no such rule. Perhaps because in Narnia, the magic would not have been provided by demons. He would probably have denied that in our world it would be licit to call on help magically by blowing a horn, aware that no one likely to hear it would be willing or able to provide help.

When Merlin offers help, his help is accepted, but with a caution, and someone tells him that such things "were never quite licit even back in your day"

And some of the charges are simply false.

Hell is fiction ... if you had said "Hell is unreal" you would have been up to something about what CSL thought.

He thought that every damned person in Hell is unreal, like a drama queen is unreal. Like you are telling someone "get real" you don't imagine you are God calling them into existence. You are calling them out of a real or supposed unreality of their own self perception and perception of their circumstances.

That kind of unreality, Hell, on his view, has plenty of, and Satan was the first drama queen. And it "rubs off on the landscape" too. But Hell is as unreal as a person or place gets without not existing at all, Hell is not unreal like a fictional story. As a Platonist, CSL believed "reality" or in other words "being" has several different graditions, not just that God is more an IS than any created thing is, but also that there are differences within creation.

God's creation was flawed ... if you mean "before sin", no. As he admitted Evolution, he admitted sadness and pain before human sin, but he put this down to creation being corrupted by Satan. I think Copeland has said the same thing, and does so in connection with Gap Theory, the creation days supposedly coming after "Satan's Flood" after a flood in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 over God condemning how Satan had misruled and corrupted earth.

This is wrong too, but CSL never said this was how God's creation originally was.

Mysticism supersedes the Bible ... no. He definitely does not say mysticism supersedes external authority, whether of Bible or of Church Magisterium.

We should pray to the dead ... he said we and the dead can pray for each other, he clearly didn't feel at home in directly asking dead, presumably having died in Christ, to pray for him.

On praying to the saints, Anglicans are divided from Catholics by a ban ... which CSL respected. On praying with them, well, Anglican "common prayer" as well as Lutheran "mass" (but not a valid one) have liturgic traces of the Catholic mass and both say things to the effect of "Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all the company of heaven, ..." so, CSL insisted we have the right to pray WITH the saints, but while he respected his friend Tolkien under a different ecclesial authority praying to them, he didn't do that.

God is not the only object of worship ... again, I don't see CSL even took up praying the Hail Mary, just so as to avoid making some person other than the Three Persons of the Trinity an object of any kind of cultus.

In Catholicism, God is the only object of the cultus or worship of adoration. CSL unfortunately (like other Protestants) took this to other kinds of cultus as well, denying saints dulia or hyperdulia. The most Marian prayer he allowed himself was arguably the Magnificat, because he thought it was OK to pray with Her.

We also adress Her with the words of Gabriel and Elisabeth, of an angel and a priestwife of the Old Testament, and some prayers from the tenderness of the faithful over the centuries. He didn't, alas.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre BU
Wednesday of the Pentecost Novena
20.V.2026

Why didn't you say so, Tovia Singer?

Why didn't you say so, Tovia Singer? · Perhaps I Had Too High Hopes For You, Tovia Singer

If you had, I could have converted you years earlier!

Well, not too late to convert now, God will then repay you years eaten by the locust!

But, say what?

I mean all of this video:

Rabbi Singer Exposes What Everyone Missed in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount
Tovia Singer & Tassja Cadoch | 30 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hak5NJ2HPY

And especially the part about the Sermon on the Mount. But, let's take first things first.

According to Isaias 11:2,3, can God become the Messias?

And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom, and of understanding, the spirit of counsel, and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge, and of godliness And he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes, nor reprove according to the hearing of the ears
[Isaias (Isaiah) 11:2-3]

Your argument is, God fears no one, so "fear of the Lord" in a person proves he cannot be God.

Now, this misunderstands what the Incarnation is. It doesn't mean God takes on human flesh, but retains as His only consciousness the one He has as God. No, He takes on human ways of experiencing things, therefore human experience. In human experience, fear of fearful created things is part, but fear of God, which drives out that fear, is part of the experience of holy men.

So, God could cry when as an eight day old baby He was circumcised. And if fear of the Lord is a fear of displeasing Him, the fact of having a human body and mind not used to since eternity doing the complete holiness of God, well, as God He didn't fail in doing God's will, but He could be nervous, perhaps. Even if your first bike lesson doesn't mean you fall, it may mean you are nervous of falling. And the human consciousness of God incarnate is not shielded from that by divine knowledge of His in fact not falling.

But above all, it's an attitude when we approach God, and doesn't necessarily mean being afraid of something. I don't know Hebrew, but I can look up the interlinear and then the meanings in Strong.

Meaning and core idea

יִרְאָה (yir’ah) speaks of an attitude of awe-filled reverence that may include trembling before God’s majesty but always presses toward loving obedience. It can describe dread of judgment (Genesis 20:11) or the glad worship that springs from recognizing the LORD’s holiness (Psalm 2:11). The word therefore gathers together emotion, intellect, and will: the heart is struck by God’s glory, the mind acknowledges His authority, and the life aligns with His ways.

Totally compatible with the fact of Jesus being God incarnate. Just as His praying was so.

Can the Messias be God and offer sacrifice for His own sins?

On Calvary, Jesus bore our sins nearly as if they had been His. But that's not all of it.

Every day, the Messias is actually offering sacrifice for His own sins. How does that work?

Every Catholic priest who is validly ordained and celebrates Mass is saying:

Nobis quoque peccatóribus fámulis tuis, de multitúdine miseratiónum tuárum sperántibus, partem áliquam, et societátem donáre dignéris, ...

To us also Thy sinful servants, who put our trust in the multitude of Thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship ...

The priest offers the sacrifice, and he does so for his sin and that of the others ... but where does the Messias come in? Well, the priest is, became at ordination, a second Christ. He become united to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is offering, as well as being offered, whenever he celebrates Mass. So, the Messias actually does not in his own person, but in the united person of the priest, "sins of his own" to offer sacrifice for.

Did Jesus speak the sermon on the Mount?

I absolutely didn't miss this. I enjoyed every second.

Jesus, habitually spoke Aramaic. Therefore, He didn't use the allitterations on pi in the Beatitudes. But how come there is this allitteration in Greek?

If there were nothing else, one would need to have this takeaway: the criticism presumes Jesus to be a purely human author, with no way at all of knowing what the words he spoke would sound like translated. Come on, He spoke the universe and every one of our souls into existence, and somehow He couldn't say a few lines in Aramaic so that when His disciple Matthew (Matatiahu ha-Levi) translated them they would allitterate in Greek? Come on. What do Rabbis do, if they are caught in such a blunder that even a five year boy would get a reprimand in the Yeshiva? You should do that (I don't mean damage control).

But there is one more level to this. Jesus had spent part of His childhood in Alexandria, presumably. Jews there spoke Greek. In Galilee, bilingualism in Greek would have not been uncommon. And we know from Matthew 4 that Jesus was in Galilee:

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom: and healing all manner of sickness and every infirmity, among the people And his fame went throughout all Syria, and they presented to him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and such as were possessed by devils, and lunatics, and those that had palsy, and he cured them And much people followed him from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond the Jordan And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and when he was set down, his disciples came unto him And opening his mouth, he taught them, saying
[Matthew 4:23-25, 5:1-2]

Matthew is highlighting possibly one occasion, possibly repeated, within this span of time in Galilee.

So, as He is in Galilee, He could have been speaking Greek.

But there is one more level to this too. Church Fathers have said, the Sermon in Matthew is the first sermon to the disciples, and the Sermon in Luke is the ensuing sermon to the crowd. Let's highlight the relevant words from Matthew 5:

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and when he was set down, his disciples came unto him And opening his mouth, he taught them,

Does them mean "the disciples" or "the multitudes" ...? Both "mathetai" and "ochlous" are masculine plural. The disciples are the closer other referent, so, the Church father takes this as what He taught to His disciples (while the crowd was getting ready and sitting down and things).

And all the multitude sought to touch him, for virtue went out from him, and healed all And he, lifting up his eyes on his disciples, said: Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God
[Luke 6:19-20]

Here the first Marcan beatitude is adressed to the disciples, but in the presence of the crowd. So, the Church father is saying the Lucan Sermon is the one adressed to the crowd. The one where He has the greater chance of speaking Aramaic is what He said to the disciples, the one where He has a less small chance of speaking Greek is what He said to the crowd or to the disciples in front of the crowd. And the Lucan Beatitudes alliterate less in Greek. So, it actually is more likely, as God He foresaw that the longer Beatitudes would be translated with allitteration. And as a Levite, Matthew certainly didn't overlook it once he saw what words in Greek were available.

I think we can take miracles and historicity of the Gospels another time, but the more "in principle" objections of the video, well, this was it ... one more. You misrepresent what the acceptance of Jesus' teachings would have implied to a Second Temple Jew.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Joseph Workman
1.V.2026

Solemnitas sancti Joseph Opificis, Sponsi beatae Mariae Virginis, Confessoris, opificum Patroni.

What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1?

Creation vs. Evolution: I Hope, For Galileo's Sake, He Did Retract · Parallax and Heliocentrism · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1? · The Introibo Blogger Repeats A Blunder by Henry Drummond

I'm listening to (or watching without sound but with subtitles) a video where Keaton Halley argues from Romans 1 that humanity is coeval with creation.

However, while he's perfectly right that mankind since Adam and Eve (and that being at the beginning of the world) have been able to conclude for God, he says "we can know from watching creation, there is a Creator" ... but that's not exactly what St. Paul says.

It makes sense in the modern world, where we are aware that an eternal stedy-state universe with an eternal steady-state earth isn't an option.

Hydrogen meets Hydrogen, becomes Deuterium. Deuterium meets Deuterium, becomes Helium. Happens over and over again in the Sun and all self luminous stars. It's a one way process. Hydrogen is being depleted. Helium is being replenished. There is no opposed process known to science. If this had been going on since all eternity, Hydrogen would already be completely depleted and Helium would be all that was left. Or heavier elements. However, given spectral lines, we know Hydrogen is more abundant than Helium:

For example, the abundance of oxygen in pure water can be measured in two ways: the mass fraction is about 89%, because that is the fraction of water's mass which is oxygen. However, the mole fraction is about 33% because only 1 atom of 3 in water, H₂O, is oxygen. As another example, looking at the mass fraction abundance of hydrogen and helium in both the universe as a whole and in the atmospheres of gas-giant planets such as Jupiter, it is 74% for hydrogen and 23–25% for helium; while the (atomic) mole fraction for hydrogen is 92%, and for helium is 8%, in these environments.

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

So, given the universe had a beginning, a finite time ago, sorry, I'm repeating myself, how did it begin? And we can rule out Big Bang from spiral galaxies "13 billion light years away" and we can rule out Abiogenesis from the fact that Miller Urey conditions can't provide materials for cell membranes (which are essential to preserving amino acids from disintegrating in Miller Urey conditions) and we can rule out non-human apes turning to men because of language, as I have argued here:

HGL's F.B. writings: Challenge not met
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2026/03/challenge-not-met.html

If you aren't a linguist having never heard of "dual patterning" or "double articulation", check out the link I give in the status on the forum:

All Human Languages are Human, None are "Primitive"
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2026/03/all-human-languages-are-human-none-are.html

So, yes, we are in a position to argue not just generally for God in a Theistic sense, but specifically for a Creator God. There was never when God wasn't (and this is true of God the Son too, see the condemnation of Arians in the Fourth Century), but there was a beginning when the creation hadn't been before. And a beginning that could only originate from a conscious God, not from sth like unconscious space-time with natural laws.

By the way, in Einsteinian terms, Big Bang is a contradiction in terms. "Once, all of them matter and energy in the universe was concentrated in a point as small as an atom, then it expanded" — this doesn't work if space itself is a kind of material substance or force field. Because that one would have been expanding, but there is no extension to measure of it as a whole apart from what it contains, so the logic consequence would be, a universe as big as ours could "in our universe" take up the space of an atom, but not that the universe could gain in size against the outside, since there is no space outside it. Space can't expand, even if finite, since there are no "empty space coordinates" for it to expand in.

But, Lucretius didn't believe in the Big Bang. I'll actually go to the Pagans first. Specifically the most non-Theistic ones, the precursors (very indirectly) of modern Atheism.

He had no spectral lines. He had no idea of what happens as hydrogen to helium fusion in the Sun. He had no indication the universe had a beginning.

In the 12th C. the Shroud of Turin could have been a forgery. After Secondo Pia and Barry Schwortz we can't. Just the same way, we know the universe had a beginning, but in the 12th C we didn't know it and Lucretius didn't know it. Noah knew it because he recalled that Adam had been created a celibate adult, but some of the peoples after Babel forgot that and therefore didn't know it any more. St. Paul speaks of what observation can tell us. Even without the tradition from Adam and Eve.

Can you think of a specific observational item, not "special instruments" but "naked eye" observation, since the beginning of the world, which tells us of God, but not necessarily that He created? I can. If we take the words "his eternal power also" these are in the Greek: ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις and 126. aidios has two definitions:

1. (forward and backward) eternal
2. (forward only) everlasting

It's both, if it's everlasting, as we observe it to be, it can't be acquired from somewhere else, so it's eternal in the first sense too, but what we observe is, "no God didn't get tired, He gave us another day" or "another night".

St. Ambrose puts it in a very nice way in a hymn before going to bed (technically Compline, I think, no, Saturday Vespers), here:

DEUS creator omnium
polique rector, vestiens
diem decoro lumine,
noctem soporis gratia

Here is a translation:

GOD that all things didst create
and the heavens doth regulate,
Who doth clothe the day with light,
and with gracious sleep the night....

So, "didst create" is a statement of the past and is known through faith. But the rest of it "and the heavens doth regulate, / Who doth clothe the day with light, / and with gracious sleep the night...." is known by observation. This is the kind of thing we observe and which St. Paul speaks of.

What was the Atheist response? It actually wasn't Heliocentrism, Lucrece was also a Geocentric, though not as much as Sts. Paul and Ambrose. Here is a quote from a translation of De Rerum Natura, book I, 979 to 1068:

Air divides the hills; the earth
Creates the sea, and the sea gives birth
To it, and so it goes. The traits of space
Are such that even thunderbolts can’t race
Across the endless tracts of time, nor may
They rest awhile while they go on their way;
There’s such a huge abundance spread around
In all directions: lest a thing is bound
By limits, every body must enclose
Each void, each void each body, and this shows
That both of them possess no boundaries:
Unless it hemmed the other, one of these
Would be extended, stretched immeasurably,
And thus the earth, the bright-blue sky, the sea,
Mankind and the immortals could not stay
An hour in place, for all things, swept away,
Would through the massive void be borne, indeed
Would never have combined to be the seed
Of anything. For prime germs certainly
Did not with any perspicacity
Fashion themselves in order or decide
What movements for each one they should provide,
But, since they’re multitudinous and change
In many ways among the All, they range
Abroad, pushed out and beaten, venturing
All kinds of movement and of coupling
Until they settle down eventually
With those designs through which totality
Is made: for countless years they’ve been protected
Now they acceptably have been projected
Into their proper motions – thus the sea
By all the streams is freshened constantly,
The earth, lapped by the vapours of the sun,
Brings forth new brood, all creatures, every one,
Flourish and all the gliding fires which flow
Above us yet live on. They could not, though,
Have managed this at all had no supply
Of matter risen from the void, whereby
They could repair lost things. With scarcity
Of food beasts waste away, while similarly
All things must fade when matter, blown aside
Somehow, is then unable to provide
Succour, nor from outside can blows maintain
The world’s united sum. For blows can rain
Often and check a part while others come
Along, enabled to fill up the sum;
But meanwhile they are often forced to spring,
Thus to the primal germs contributing
A space and time for flight that they may be
Borne from this union to liberty.
So many things, we’re brought to understand,
Must rise, and yet the blows must be at hand
Always in order that there’ll always be
A force of matter universally.
Don’t listen to those people who profess
That all things inward to the centre press,
Dear Memmius, and that the entire world
Stands firmly while no outward blows are hurled
Against it, since neither their depth nor height
Can be unbound and all things are pressed tight
Into the centre. Therefore, do not think
That heavy weights beneath the earth can shrink
Upon it, having striven from below
To settle upside down, as images show
Upon the ocean. They also propound
That every breathing thing wanders around
And can’t fall up to the sky any more than we
Can reach the heavens by flying; when they see
The sun, the constellations of the night
Are what we view - we thus detach our sight
From theirs, our night coequal to their day.
These dreams have made these people fools since they
Embrace them faultily, for there can’t be
A centre when there is infinity.

So, his point is, the Geocentrism we observe is kind of a whirlpool movement, by lack of stability. It is also an illusion from lack of circumspection insofar as Earth is only a local centre. Much as modern Heliocentrism isn't cosmic Heliocentrism, but makes the Sun only centre of the locality known as the "Solar System".

This obviously depends on lots of unobserved assumptions, not quite unlike, in our modern Atheism, "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy". He is asking us to take unobserved "infinity" as inherent in things that are observed as finite, having limits.

So, in contrast, St. Paul tells us we can trust our perception, we don't have to fumble with unproven assumptions in the unknown, especially where they contradict what we know of things by observation, Geocentrism really is absolute, movement isn't just a whirlpool effect, and it comes from God.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Easter Thursday
9.IV.2026

Jean Colson or St. Augustine? Who's Right?

In Tractate 119 of Homilies on the Gospel of St. John, St. Augustine tells us how the Gospeller becomes the Son of the Mother of God, from the Gospel.

After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own
John 19:27

Here St. Augustine pauses to ask, "how could he even have anything 'his own' to take Her to?"

Obviously, St. Augustine belongs to the tradition after St. Irenaeus, and considers St. John the Beloved as St. John the Son of Zebedee. As one of the twelve. About whom the Synoptics say:

Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have?
Matthew 19:27

In other words, St. John the Beloved lived in Apostolic Poverty, and didn't have a house of his own. Nothing with his property deed to it.

Part of how St. Augustine answers is this:

And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting
Matthew 19:29

The hundredfold is involved even in this life, and part of that, for St. John, was, he had enough to host the Mother of His Master Who was now his own Mother, by adoption. So far St. Augustine. He doesn't stop here. He gives a very concrete suggestion:

And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need
Acts Of Apostles 2:43-45

And on this occasion, St. John had need of a house to host the Mother of God.

Did St. Augustine imagine that St. John and the Blessed Virgin were teleported forward in time to when this was happening after the First Pentecost? Probably not. In Acts 1, Our Lady is among those praying. Part of the idea behind Mediatrix of All Graces is, while we do not know if the Holy Spirit would have been sent anyway if She hadn't been there and prayed, we do know He was not sent without Her being there and praying for Him. The Apostles received the Holy Spirit to Strength and to Witness after She prayed and that means because She prayed. Also after they prayed, and that means because they prayed, but it was worth noticing She was there to pray with them.

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 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren
Acts Of Apostles 1:13-14

So, St. Augustine definitely could have a point that community of property in Jerusalem had started before Pentecost because it was already practised before. If the practise already existed before the Crucifixion, then this could be how it happened.

However, Jean Colson said: St. John the Beloved was not one of the twelve, he was the host at the Last Supper (and left his guests among themselves before the First Mass, which means that Judas had also already left and didn't receive the Eucharist). He was a Cohen and as such he was a rich proprietor. He was the man to whom this house belonged.

After hosting God's Mother, he later came to host Her already extant legal stepsons or nephews or whatever, the "brethren of Jesus" after they became believers, like after Jesus appeared to St. James the Brother-of-God. But on Good Friday, he hosted Her, not them. One reason why She did not become their mother after the flesh is, if She had been so, they, not John, would have hosted Her. Hence, two explanations, one is they were sons of St. Joseph's first wife, and he was a widower, another is, they were sons to Her sister or halfsister. Otherwise it would be very curious, to say they least, why they weren't taking care of Her.

However, back to the practical question. In favour of Jean Colson:

And on the first day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man, and say to him: the master saith, My time is near at hand, with thee I make the pasch with my disciples And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch
Matthew 26:17-19

According to Jean Colson, the "certain man" here is John the Beloved. And the scene doesn't show the disciples of Jesus and believers in Jesus already practising perfect communion of property before the Last Supper. That certain man seems to have spent his time in his property as his property. It was not full of other believers, it was not full of the poor, it was his to do with as he saw fit, and he could host a very large party.

This is then how Jean Colson explains how St. John took the Mother of Salvation home to his own that very day, that Good Friday. This is a case for his not having been one of the twelve.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Good Friday
3.IV.2026

What Words did Job Repent Of?

And the Lord answering Job out of the whirlwind, said Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and do thou tell me Wilt thou make void my judgment: and condemn me, that thou mayst be justified
[Job 40:1-3]

Then Job answered the Lord, and said I know that thou canst do all things, and no thought is hid from thee Who is this that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have spoken unwisely, and things that above measure exceeded my knowledge Hear, and I will speak: I will ask thee, and do thou tell me With the hearing of the ear, I have heard thee, but now my eye seeth thee Therefore I reprehend myself, and do penance in dust and ashes
[Job 42:1-6]

I find only two possibilities.

a) The words Job regrets are things he said that aren't in the book of Job even if he said them. Because, as writer, he censored out his bad words. However, if so, this must be after this exchange:

And he said to her: Thou hast spoken like one of the foolish women: if we have received good things at the hand of God, why should we not receive evil? In all these things Job did not sin with his lips.
[Job 2:10]

or b) The words Job regrets were indeed spoken, but only in his heart, not across his lips. He said "no thought is hid from thee" and Job 2 kind of underlines he did not sin "with his lips".

Also, he calls his words basically foolish. However, Psalm 13 doesn't say the fool is an outspoken atheist, it says he has said in his heart "there is no God." God saw something in Job's heart that did not match his words. If God hadn't showed up in a whirlwind, Eliphaz and the rest would have never known that. Even if they may have guessed right, they had no right to guess.

I am the Lord who search the heart and prove the reins: who give to every one according to his way, and according to the fruit of his devices
[Jeremias (Jeremiah) 17:10]

Sounds like an echo of sth in Deuteronomy 32 which St. Paul cites:

Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord
[Romans 12:19]

It would seem, then, the same applies to analysis. But how do we know that Job didn't mean any of the actual words said to those around him?

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]

Dear St. Job, pray for us!

Est-ce que Gaudium et Spes 22, 2, enseigne que la grâce n'ait pas été perdue ?

Voici Maître Adrien Abauzit* :

Gaudium et Spes(22, al.2) enseigne que le péché originel n’a pas fait perdre la grâce sanctifiante à l’homme, mais qu’il l’a simplement « altérée » (ou « déformée » selon d’autres traductions), étant rappelé que la notion de « ressemblance divine » est un signifiant de l’état de grâce :

« “ Image du Dieu invisible ” (Col 1, 15), il est l’Homme parfait qui a restauré dans la descendance d’Adam la ressemblance divine, altérée dès le premier péché. »

Si la grâce sanctifiante est simplement « altérée » ou « déformée », alors, elle est toujours possédée par l’homme.

L'idée clef est que la phrase biblique « ressemblance divine » est automatiquement à prendre comme l'état de grâce.

Voici St. Thomas (ou "Auteur inconnu" mais je compte Postilla in Libros Geneseos comme un ouvrage de jeunesse du Docteur angélique).

Dicit igitur, faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.		Il dit donc, faison l'homme en notre image et ressemblance.
Habent ista duo distinctionem: nam imago attenditur secundum potentiam cognoscendi, similitudo quantum ad potentiam diligendi, secundum auctorem libri de spiritu et anima.		Ces deux ont une distinction : car l'image on fait attention selon la puissance de connaître, ressemblance quant au pouvoir d'aimer, selon l'auteur du livre De Spiritu et Anima.
Vel imago dicitur, quantum ad naturalia, et dispositionem partium naturalium; sicut videmus, quod imago habet consimilem dispositionem in partibus quantitatis cum re imaginata.		Ou image est dite quant aux choses naturelles, et la disposition des parties naturelles; comme nous voyons que l'image a une disposition ressemblante dans les parties de sa quantité avec la chose imagée.
Similitudo autem attenditur quantum ad gratuita, sicut dicit Magister in historia.		Mais ressemblance on fait attention quant aux choses gratuites, comme dit la Maître dans l'histoire.**
Et subdit postea dispositionem suae praelationis vel sublimationis, cum dicitur, et praesit piscibus maris: ubi tangitur ejus presidentia respectu aquatilium et volatilium, et respectu terrestris duplicis, scilicet gressibilis et reptilis, quae omnia patent in litera: et respectu creaturae omnis corporalis universaeque terrae.		Et il ajoute après la disposition de sa préférence ou sublimité, quand il dit et qu'il ait préséance sur les poissons de la mer : où est touchée sa préséance vis-à-vis les choses aquatiques et capables à voler, et vis-à-vis le deux types de chose terrestres, c'est à dire qui marche ou qui rampe, ce qui tout se comprend dans le texte : et vis-à-vis toute créature corporelle et l'universalité de la terre.
Quod alicui videbitur contrarium esse veritati et sensui. Nam videmus multa sibi resistere et contrariari etiam pro illo statu innocentiae; nam tunc corpora caelestia non fuissent illi subjecta, nec sol, nec stellae, neque etiam hic mineralia.		Ce qui à quelqu'un va sembler contraire à la vérité et à l'expérience sensorielle. Car nous voyons que beaucoup lui résistent et lui font contrariété même pour cet état d'innocence ; car alors les corps célestes ne lui furent pas soumis, ni soleil, ni étoiles, ni les minéraux même ici.
Ad hoc dicitur, quod pro illo statu habuit duplicem praesidentiam super omnem creaturam irrationalem: primo scilicet praesidentiam naturalis dignitatis; secundo praesidentiam finis bonitatis; quia sicut omnibus fuit natura superior, sic ad ejus servitium et utilitatem omnia sunt producta, et propter ipsum. Respectu autem naturalium, vel rerum, quae possunt nutus humanos aliqualiter recipere, habuit tertiam praesidentiam imperii: quandiu enim expediret, ejus nutibus obtemperassent.		À ceci est dit, que pour cet état l'homme avait une préséance double sur toute créature irrationnelle : à savoir d'abord la préséance de dignité naturelle ; ensuite la préséance de la bonté de la fin ; car comme il devint supérieur à tous par nature, ainsi tout est produit à son service et à son utilité, et pour lui. Mais vis-à-vis les choses naturelles, ou chose qui peuvent quelque part recevoir des commandes humaines, il eut une troisième préséance de l'empire : pour autant que c'était utile, elles auraient obéi à ses commandes.
Si autem quaeritur, an tunc esset aliqua impressio in animalibus, quae non modo non, propter quam nutui hominis paruissent, an forte sic se habent modo, etiam quod si homo non esset infectus, adhuc sibi obtemperassent?		Mais si on demande, si alors il y avait quelque impression sur les animaux, qui pas seulement pas, à raison d'obéir à la commande de l'homme, ou peut-être sont ainsi que même si l'homme n'était pas infecte, ils lui obéiraient encore ?***
Incertum est, quid horum duorum sit verius: verisimile est tamen, quod ex utraque parte modo sit defectus.		C'est incertain lequel des deux soit plus vrai : mais le vraisemblable est, que depuis le dédecte soit des deux parties.
Et quod tunc ex parte virtutis hominis, scilicet justitiae originalis, et ex parte dispositionis animalium obedientia illa caussaretur, quorum utrumque nunc deest.		Et qu'alors de la part de la vertu de l'homme, c'est à dire de la justice originelle, et de la part de la disposition des animaux cette obéissance était causée, desquelles les deux font désormais défaut.
In quibusdam tamen, Deo sic ordinante, dispositio ista remansit propter hominum maximam necessitatem, sicut in pecoribus et jumentis.		Mais en vertains, Dieu l'a disposé ainsi, cette disposition est resté pour la plus grande nécessité des hommes, comme dans le bétail et les animaux de trait.
Pisces dicuntur a pascendo, quia ex illis pascimur, vel quia unus alterius est cibus.		Les poissons sont dit de "paître" parce que nous nous paissons d'eux, ou pare que l'un est le repas de l'autre.°
Dicit autem Papias, quod piscibus nomina sunt instituta post animalia; unde vocantur aut ex similitudine animalium terrestrium, ut vituli, aut ex colore, aut ex moribus ut canes, quia mordent.		Mais Papias dit, que les noms des poissons sont fait à partir des animaux; donc ils sont appelés pour ressemblances d'animaux de la terre, comme les phoques veaux-marins, soit de la couleur, soit des mœurs, comme les "chiens"°° parce qu'ils mordent.
Alia vero nomina sunt prius exposita, ut volatile, etc. sequitur.		Mais les autres noms sont déjà exposés, comme volaille, etc.
Et creavit Deus et cetera. Ubi post dispositionem factionis tangit ipsam factionem hominis, et tangit ipsius esse, secundum quod fuit in fieri, et secundum factum esse, et secundum sexuum distinctionem: unde dicit per ordinem, creavit, id est, de materia produxit.		Et Dieu créa etc. Où après la disposition du façonnage il touche aussi au façonnage même de l'homme et touche son être, selon ce qu'il fut dans le devenir et dans le être fait et selon la distinction des sexes : d'où il dit dans l'ordre, "il créa" c'est à dire fait d'une matière.
Accipitur enim hic creatio pro factione, et non pro productione ex nihilo.		Car ici création est pris pour façonnage, et non pour production ex nihilo.
Quamvis autem productio hominis fuerit de materia, dicitur creatio, quia fuit factus subito homo: unde et si fuerit factus propter subjectum, quod ibi fuit materia: tamen dicitur creatus propter istam causam.		Mais malgré que la production fût d'une matière préexistante, elle est dit création, parce que l'homme est fait soudainement : d'où, même s'il fût "fait" parce qu'il y avait un sujet, parce que là il y avait matière, néanmoins il est dit "créé" pour cette cause.
Sicut etiam Scriptura vocat eum hominem ab humo vel limo, de quo fuit factus cum aliis animalibus communiter: et denominatur sic a viliori ut ex suo nomine discat homo subjici et humiliari Deo, quando cognoverit se esse de materia ista vili, et non possit eum latere, quando nomen ejus ad materiam tam vilem tantam habet vicinitatem.		Comme aussi l'Écriture le nomme "homme" à partir de terre ("humus")°°° ou limon ("limus")~, de laquelle il fut fait de même que les autres animaux : et il est ainsi nommé à partir du moins noble pour que l'homme sache de son nom se soumettre et s'humilier devant Dieu, quand il apprend qu'il est de cette matière vile, et il ne peut pas lui être caché quand son nom a une tellement grande vicinité à cette matière tellement vile.
Et ne forte aestimari posset, quod ipsum fecisset quantum ad corpus solum, et quod non esset in eo aliquid nisi corporale et eductum de materia corporali, addit, ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.		Et pour qu'il ne soit pas possible d'estimer qu'il le fît seulement quant au corps, et qu'en lui il ne serait rien sauf du corporel et tiré de matière corporelle, Il ajoute en notre image et ressemblance.
Quia secundum quod dictum est, imago attenditur in homine secundum animam.		Car selon le déjà dit, l'image on fait attention dans l'homme selon l'âme.
At vero ne etiam ab aliquibus putaretur, quod Deus solum produxit hominem secundum animam, eo quod toties ponitur imago et similitudo, quae sequitur animam, sicut etiam dixerunt Manichaei, quod corporalia essent a Deo malo; subdit, masculum et feminam creavit eos.		Mais encore pour ne soit pas supposé par certains que Dieu produisit l'homme selon l'âme seulement, aussitôt qu'est posé image et ressemblance, ce qui fait suite à l'âme, comme dirent aussi les Manichéens, que les choses corporelles seraient d'un mauvais Dieu, il ajoute "il les fit homme et femme".
Distinctio enim sexuum ad corpus pertinet, et ex illo pendet.		Car la distinction des sexes appartient au corps et dépend de lui.
Provide Manichaeorum error ex hoc manifeste eliditur.		Avec prévoyance, l'erreur des Manichéens est par ceci manifestement brisée.

Bon, il y a des opinions diverses, une notée est que l'image est la faculté intellective, la ressemblance la faculté affective, encore que la ressemblance est la prédominance sur les animaux, pas totalement perdue dans la chute, mais il y a encore de diversité, car Historia scholastica se range peut-être avec Maître Adrien Abauzit :

Sed imago Dei est anima in essentia, et ratione ejus, quia spiritus factus est et rationalis ut Deus. Similitudo in virtutibus, quia bona, justa, sapiens. Cum imagine pertransit homo (Psal. XXXVIII), quia illam habet etiam homo peccans, similitudine vero saepe privatur.

Mais l'image de Dieu est l'âme en son essence et sa raison, parce qu'il est fait un esprit, et rationnelle comme Dieu. Ressemblance dans les vertus, car bonne, juste, sage. L'homme s'évanouit comme une image (Psaume 38), parce que celle aussi l'homme qui pêche possède, mais de la ressemblance il est souvent privé.

Notons le "saepe" = "souvent" ... Pierre le Mangeur dit donc que l'homme dans l'état de péché manque souvent la ressemblance de Dieu. Donc, pas tout le temps qu'il est en péché, donc pas par le péché lui-même.

Le Catéchisme de St. Pie X prend "image et ressemblance" comme un hendiadys.

Pourquoi dit-on que l’homme a été créé à l’image et à la ressemblance de Dieu ?

On dit que l’homme a été créé à l’image et à la ressemblance de Dieu, parce que l’âme humaine est spirituelle et raisonnable, libre dans ses actes, capable de connaître et d’aimer Dieu et de jouir de lui éternellement ; et ces perfections sont en nous un reflet de l’infinie grandeur du Seigneur.

Voici le Catéchisme du Concile de Trente :

Enfin Il forma le corps de l’homme du limon de la terre et, par un pur effet de sa bonté, Il lui accorda le don de l’immortalité et de l’impassibilité, qui n’était pas essentiellement attaché à sa nature. Quant à l’âme, Il la fit à son image et à sa ressemblance, la doua du libre arbitre, et régla si bien tous les mouvements et tous les désirs du cœur, qu’ils devaient toujours être soumis à l’autorité de la raison. A cela i voulut joindre le don admirable de la justice originelle, et enfin Il lui soumit tous les animaux.

Est-ce que les deux, image et ressemblance, se réfèrent aux deux, nature et sainteté ? Ou image à nature et ressemblance à sainteté ? Quand il parle du péché original, il ne tranche pas :

aussitôt il tomba dans cet affreux malheur qui lui fit perdre la sainteté et la justice dans lesquelles il avait été créé, et lui-même devint sujet à une foule d’autres maux que le Saint Concile de Trente a énumérés tout au long.

Je pense qu'il soit possible de prendre les mots cités de Gaudium et Spes comme voulant dire que la nature fut offusqué mais pas perdue. Et surtout par rapport au libre arbitre, parce que des Calvinistes ont prétendu que la liberté fut simplement perdue. L'Église catholique répond ici "offusquée, oui, perdue, non" et ceci bien avant Gaudium et Spes.

Est-ce que St. Irénée a pris "image" comme nature et "ressemblance" comme justice ? Les Orthodoxes le font. Mais le Concile du Trente en Session V ne précise pas le sens des termes bibliques "image" et "ressemblance" de la manière que le fit Johannes Dörmann, que Maître Abauzit cite.

Par contre, c'est possible que cette précision ait été opérative dans la lecture que fit "Jean-Paul II" de ce Document. Et des paroles en de cette homme qui semblent indiquer le salut universel font écho à une phrase un peu plus banal de Gaudium et Spes, aussi en 22, 2.

Car, par son incarnation, le Fils de Dieu s’est en quelque sorte uni lui-même à tout homme.

En quelque sorte ? Par union hypostatique ? Par grâce ? Par sanctification ? Plus banal que ça, dans le contexte qui suit immédiatement :

Il a travaillé avec des mains d’homme, il a pensé avec une intelligence d’homme, il a agi avec une volonté d’homme [30], il a aimé avec un cœur d’homme. Né de la Vierge Marie, il est vraiment devenu l’un de nous, en tout semblable à nous, hormis le péché [31].

C'est Wojtyla, pas le concile, qui précise :

Jésus-Christ s’est uni à chacun, pour toujours

Or, "à chacun" ne devrait s'appliquer qu'en mesure qu'il exemplifie la situation humaine (qui cesse dans une âme damnée~~) et "pour toujour" au fait que l'Incarnation ne cesse pas, ainsi lu, même Redemptor Hominis 13, 2 ne serait pas blasphème. Malheureusement, Assise 1986 semble indiquer qu'il a compris ses mots d'une manière plus stricte, qui va dans le sens de rédemption universelle.

Je ne dis pas ceci pour exonérer le document Gaudium et Spes ou Wojtyla, mais pour demander un peu plus de rigueur dans l'accusation.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
l'Octave de l'Épiphanie
12—13.I.2026

PS, une indication que Wojtyla n'ait pas voulu dire que chacun est sauvé est le début de Redemptor Hominis 14 :

L'Eglise ne peut abandonner l'homme, dont le «destin», c'est-à-dire le choix, l'appel, la naissance et la mort, le salut ou la perdition, sont liés d'une manière si étroite et indissoluble au Christ.

"Ou la perdition" qui, donc, existe, comme possibilité réelle./HGL

* Voir Réfutation des hérésies et du sophisme du père Horovitz | Adrien Abauzit ** Je pense que l'histoire est Historia scholastica, et le Maître donc Pierre le Mangeur. *** J'avoue que la traduction de cette phrase m'était difficile. La suite montre que la question est si le loup obéirait à un homme non déchu (même sans miracle). ° Fausse étymologie, probablement. Nos propres grammariens ne disent pas que "piscis" vienne de "pascere". Mais ceux du Moyen âge, oui. °° Canis marinus = Seehund ? Aussi phoque, alors. J'ai une demi-mémoire sur morue, mais je n'arrive pas à la confirmer en glossaires ou Gaffiot. °°° Ici notre linguistique confirme l'étymologie ! ~Je ne suis pas sûr, mais c'est possible que "limon" marcherait mieux en hébreu. Le lexique hébreu donne une étymologie avec 'adom, rougeâtre ou encore le texte en Genèse 2 et 3 donne 'adamah, sol, parce que le sol est rougeâtre. ~~ C. S. Lewis considère les damnés comme des ex-hommes, pas comme des hommes à proprement parler. Il est certes pas une autorité catholique, mais ce que St. Thomas décrit en Supplem. Q. 98, la volonté et l'intellect des damnés, peut être considéré comme ayant perdu même l'image de Dieu, donc d'avoir cessé d'être humain.

Bible in a Year Plan (73 Books)

1 Genesis 4 2 Genesis 7 3 Genesis 11 4 Genesis 15 5 Genesis 18		6 Genesis 22 7 Genesis 26 8 Genesis 29 9 Genesis 33 10 Genesis 37		11 Genesis 40 12 Genesis 44 13 Genesis 48 14 Genesis 50 14 Exodus 1 15 Exodus 5
16 Exodus 8 17 Exodus 12 18 Exodus 16 19 Exodus 19 20 Exodus 23		21 Exodus 27 22 Exodus 30 23 Exodus 34 24 Exodus 38 25 Exodus 40 25 Leviticus 1		26 Leviticus 5 27 Leviticus 9 28 Leviticus 12 29 Leviticus 16 30 Leviticus 20
31 Leviticus 23 32 Leviticus 27 33 Numbers 4 34 Numbers 7 35 Numbers 11		36 Numbers 15 37 Numbers 18 38 Numbers 22 39 Numbers 26 40 Numbers 29		41 Numbers 33 42 Numbers 36 43 Deut 4 44 Deut 8 45 Deut 11
46 Deut 15 47 Deut 19 48 Deut 22 49 Deut 26 50 Deut 30		51 Deut 33 52 Deut 34 52 Joshua 3 53 Joshua 7 54 Joshua 10 55 Joshua 14		56 Joshua 18 57 Joshua 21 58 Joshua 24 58 Judges 1 59 Judges 5 60 Judges 8
61 Judges 12 62 Judges 16 63 Judges 19 64 Judges 22 64 Ruth 1 65 Ruth 4 65 I Kings 1		66 I Kings 4 67 I Kings 8 68 I Kings 12 69 I Kings 15 70 I Kings 19		71 I Kings 22 72 I Kings 26 73 I Kings 30 74 I Kings 31 74 II Kings 3 75 II Kings 7
76 II Kings 11 77 II Kings 14 78 II Kings 18 79 II Kings 22 80 II Kings 24 80 III Kings 1		81 III Kings 5 82 III Kings 9 83 III Kings 12 84 III Kings 16 85 III Kings 20		86 III Kings 22 86 IV Kings 1 87 IV Kings 5 88 IV Kings 9 89 IV Kings 12 90 IV Kings 16
91 IV Kings 20 92 IV Kings 23 93 IV Kings 25 93 I Paralip. 2 94 I Paralip. 6 95 I Paralip. 9		96 I Paralip. 13 97 I Paralip. 17 98 I Paralip. 20 99 I Paralip. 24 100 I Paralip. 27		101 I Paralip. 29 101 II Paralip. 2 102 II Paralip. 6 103 II Paralip. 9 104 II Paralip. 13 105 II Paralip. 17
106 II Paralip. 20 107 II Paralip. 24 108 II Paralip. 28 109 II Paralip. 31 110 II Paralip. 35		111 II Paralip. 36 111 I Esdras 3 112 I Esdras 6 113 I Esdras 10 114 II Esdras 4 115 II Esdras 7		116 II Esdras 11 117 II Esdras 13 117 Tobit 2 118 Tobit 5 119 Tobit 9 120 Tobit 13
121 Tobit 14 121 Judith 2 122 Judith 6 123 Judith 10 124 Judith 13 125 Judith 16 125 Esther 1		126 Esther 4 127 Esther 8 128 Esther 12 129 Esther 15 130 Esther 16 130 Job 3		131 Job 7 132 Job 10 133 Job 14 134 Job 18 135 Job 21
136 Job 25 137 Job 29 138 Job 32 139 Job 36 140 Job 40		141 Job 42 141 Ps 1 142 Ps 5 143 Ps 9 144 Ps 12 145 Ps 16		146 Ps 20 147 Ps 23 148 Ps 27 149 Ps 31 150 Ps 34
151 Ps 38 152 Ps 42 153 Ps 45 154 Ps 49 155 Ps 52		156 Ps 56 157 Ps 60 158 Ps 63 159 Ps 67 160 Ps 71		161 Ps 74 162 Ps 78 163 Ps 82 164 Ps 85 165 Ps 89
166 Ps 93 167 Ps 96 168 Ps 100 169 Ps 104 170 Ps 107		171 Ps 111 172 Ps 115 173 Ps 118 174 Ps 122 175 Ps 126		176 Ps 129 177 Ps 133 178 Ps 137 179 Ps 140 180 Ps 144
181 Ps 148 182 Ps 150 182 Proverbs 1 183 Proverbs 5 184 Proverbs 8 185 Proverbs 12		186 Proverbs 16 187 Proverbs 19 188 Proverbs 23 189 Proverbs 27 190 Proverbs 30		191 Proverbs 31 191 Ecclesiastes 3 192 Ecclesiastes 7 193 Ecclesiastes 10 194 Ecclesiastes 12 194 Canticle 2 195 Canticle 6
196 Canticle 8 196 Wisdom 1 197 Wisdom 5 198 Wisdom 9 199 Wisdom 12 200 Wisdom 16		201 Wisdom 19 201 Ecclesiasticus 1 202 Ecclesiasticus 4 203 Ecclesiasticus 8 204 Ecclesiasticus 12 205 Ecclesiasticus 15		206 Ecclesiasticus 19 207 Ecclesiasticus 23 208 Ecclesiasticus 26 209 Ecclesiasticus 30 210 Ecclesiasticus 33
211 Ecclesiasticus 37 212 Ecclesiasticus 41 213 Ecclesiasticus 44 214 Ecclesiasticus 48 215 Ecclesiasticus 51 215 Isaias 1		216 Isaias 4 217 Isaias 8 218 Isaias 12 219 Isaias 15 220 Isaias 19		221 Isaias 23 222 Isaias 26 223 Isaias 30 224 Isaias 34 225 Isaias 37
226 Isaias 41 227 Isaias 45 228 Isaias 48 229 Isaias 52 230 Isaias 56		231 Isaias 59 232 Isaias 63 233 Isaias 66 233 Jeremias 1 234 Jeremias 4 235 Jeremias 8		236 Jeremias 12 237 Jeremias 15 238 Jeremias 19 239 Jeremias 22 240 Jeremias 26
241 Jeremias 30 242 Jeremias 33 243 Jeremias 37 244 Jeremias 41 245 Jeremias 44		246 Jeremias 48 247 Jeremias 52 248 Lamentations 3 249 Lamentations 5 249 Baruch 2 250 Baruch 6		251 Ezechiel 3 252 Ezechiel 7 253 Ezechiel 11 254 Ezechiel 14 255 Ezechiel 18
256 Ezechiel 22 257 Ezechiel 25 258 Ezechiel 29 259 Ezechiel 33 260 Ezechiel 36		261 Ezechiel 40 262 Ezechiel 44 263 Ezechiel 47 264 Ezechiel 48 264 Daniel 3 265 Daniel 6		266 Daniel 10 267 Daniel 14 268 Osee 3 269 Osee 7 270 Osee 11
271 Osee 14 272 Joel 3 272 Amos 1 273 Amos 5 274 Amos 8 275 Amos 9 275 Abdias 275 Jonas 2		276 Jonas 4 276 Micheas 2 279 Micheas 5 278 Micheas 7 278 Nahum 2 279 Nahum 3 279 Habacuc 3 280 Sophonias 3		281 Aggai 2 281 Zacharias 2 282 Zacharias 6 283 Zacharias 9 284 Zacharias 13 285 Zacharias 14 285 Malachias 3
286 Malachias 4 286 I Macc 2 287 I Macc 6 288 I Macc 10 289 I Macc 13 290 I Macc 16 290 II Macc 1		291 II Macc 5 292 II Macc 8 293 II Macc 12 294 II Macc 15 295 Matth 4		296 Matth 8 297 Matth 11 298 Matth 15 299 Matth 19 300 Matth 22
301 Matth 26 302 Matth 28 302 Mark 2 303 Mark 5 304 Mark 9 305 Mark 13		306 Mark 16 307 Luke 4 308 Luke 8 309 Luke 11 310 Luke 15		311 Luke 19 312 Luke 22 313 Luke 24 313 John 2 314 John 6 315 John 9
316 John 13 317 John 17 318 John 20 319 John 21 319 Acts 3 320 Acts 7		321 Acts 10 322 Acts 14 323 Acts 17 324 Acts 21 325 Acts 25		326 Acts 28 327 Romans 4 328 Romans 8 329 Romans 11 330 Romans 15
331 Romans 16 331 I Cor 3 332 I Cor 6 333 I Cor 10 334 I Cor 14 335 I Cor 16 335 II Cor 1		336 II Cor 5 337 II Cor 9 338 II Cor 12 339 II Cor 13 339 Gal 3 340 Gal 6 340 Eph 1		341 Eph 4 342 Eph 6 342 Phil 2 343 Phil 4 343 Col 2 344 Col 4 344 I Thess 1 345 I Thess 5
346 II Thess 3 346 I Tim 1 347 I Tim 4 348 I Tim 6 348 II Tim 2 349 II Tim 4 349 Tit 1 350 Tit 3 350 Phil 350 Heb 1		351 Heb 5 352 Heb 8 353 Heb 12 354 Heb 13 354 James 3 355 James 5 355 I Pet 1		356 I Pet 5 357 II Pet 3 357 I Jn 1 358 I Jn 4 359 I Jn 5 359 II Jn 359 III Jn 359 Jude 360 Apoc 4
361 Apoc 7 362 Apoc 11 363 Apoc 15 364 Apoc 18 365 Apoc 22

Cornthwaite présentait une vidéo sur les problèmes des évangiles

Je vais probablement faire une réfutatation en détail et y mettre le lien vers sa vidéo. Voici, je vais copier les six problèmes et y répondre :

Problème n° 1 : Origines inconnues

Pas si nous acceptons la tradition de l'Église comme indication des origines. Cornthwaite venait d'un milieu protestant, dans lequel il paraissait évident que l'Église catholique aurait introduit un bon nombre de traditions spurieuses, et apprenait que cette Église ne pouvait pas se distinguer de la première Église au moins du temps que nous avons le canon du Nouveau Testament. Pour lui, la question suivante était, si les auteurs des Évangiles aussi étaient des inventions par l'Église catholique.

Bon nombre de communeautés ont bon nombre de raisons à falsifier les propres traditions et parfois agissent sur ces mobiles, en les falsifiant. Mais les choses les moins aisées à falsifier sont les propres origines. Je ne dis pas les origines d'une communeauté antérieure, mais de la communeauté elle-même.

Supposons que la Sparte antique était à réformes inconnues ou mineurs à partir de Lycurgue. Nous avons davantage de raison de croire dans la Sparte comme réformée par lui que dans la Sparte dont les rois descendent d'Héracles, depuis le retour des Héraclides, et davantage de raisons de croire dans le retour des Héraclides que dans la fondation initiale par Lacédémon et sa femme Sparte. Néanmoins, à part l'origine prétendument divine de Lacédémon, ou de sa femme, je pense que la Sparte des temps mycénéens remonte à Lacédémon.

Pour Walter Leaf, le trope "fils de Zeus" pour ces personnages "mythologiques" désignait surtout un "self made man" (dont le père humain et réel n'avait pas d'intérêt). Item pour Minos ou pour Dardanos. Pour Héracle un peu différemment, je dirais, mais si la seule chose connue d'un "fils de Zeus" est la fondation ou recupération d'une ville ou île, je penche pour qu'il ait eu un père plus insignifiant que lui-même et que la superstition n'ait pas voulu accepter ça, on l'a donc fait prétendre "fils de Zeus" (très différemment d'un Fils de Dieu mort sur la Croix !). Certains prétendent d'ailleurs que Dardanos était fils de Corythos.

Appliquons ceci à une communauté protestante. Si elle dit "George Whitefield et John Wesley nous ont fondé au début du XVIII^e S. parce que l'Anglicanisme était devenu rigide comme l'Église catholique avant elle, et qu'elle avait donc trahi la Réforme" ... je veux bien croire ce qu'elle dit sur le propre origines du Méthodisme, je crois moins que l'Anglicanisme soit "devenu" rigide et impersonnelle et encore moins qu'une rigidité pareille dans l'Église catholique était le mobile des Réformateurs de s'en séparer. Si on compare la crédibilité sur les origines du Catholicisme entre Alexander Hislop et un Catholique, je note que Hislop faisait partie de l'Église libre d'Écosse, elle-même issue de l'Église d'Écosse et celle-ci issue de l'Église catholique à travers les critiques et révolutions de Jean Knox. Il y a donc deux bouleversements entre l'église qu'il prétendait définir et celle à laquelle il appartenait. Le catholique, par contre est lui-même dans la communauté qui a probablement une bonne mémoire de ses origines, et donc son explication de l'origine de l'Église catholique est plus crédible. À ceci appartient l'histoire de l'origine des évangiles. L'église se souvient de leurs origines, comme Rome de l'auteur des Commentaires sur la Guerre des Gaules.

Problème n° 2 : Usage inconnu (Magie et amulettes)

Les amulettes de l'Église catholique sont en connection avec de prières. La médaille miraculeuse à sa propre prière.

Et la prière judaïque comprend des tephillin, qui citent la loi de Moïse.

Les usages de brefs textes du Nouveau Testament utilisés (très visiblement, à partir du pli) comme amulettes devraient se comprendre comme des "tephillin catholiques" et donc pas mettre de doute sur l'existence d'un texte sacré comme ayant une existence aussi en dehors de ces brefs textes.

L'idée pourquoi ça rendrait l'origine traditionnelle moins crédible repose sur un préjugé de l'Évangélicalisme contre les "usages magiques" ou encore ritualistes. Cornthwaite avait effectivement été Évangéliste. Pour un Catholique, les usages en amulette de brefs extraits des Évangiles n'est pas un problème.

Problème n° 3 : Relations complexes (Problème synoptique)

Apparemment, il y aurait des répétitions verbatim très extensives entre les trois évangiles synoptiques.

Pour Cornthwaite, ceci serait infaisable sans un copiage à partir de l'écrit, la tradition orale aurait été trop fluctuante, n'aurait pas été rendue suffisamment uniforme dans sa mise en écrit.

Pour Bernard Scherrer, dernier numéro de 1000 raisons* Jésus est, selon la tradition syriaque, un malpana, un professeur qui enseigne en faisant apprendre des choses par cœur. Supposons que chaque mot attribué à Jésus en Matthieu ait été appris par cœur directement quand Jésus l'a dit. Ces paroles constituent d'ailleurs 56 % du contenu de l'Évangile de Matthieu. Ceci suppose qu'Il les aurait entrainé à apprendre des choses par cœur ou choisi pour avoir déjà une bonne maîtrise de cet art. Et avec ceci, ils avaient aussi un outil pour noter en mémoire, dans un texte fortement formalisé quoique oral, ce qu'ils voyaient dans les actes du maître également. Le résultat ?

L'Occident ne connaît pas la force de l'oralité, et pourtant on n'imagine pas, au sein d'un club des amoureux de La Fontaine, quelqu'un récitant La cigale et la fourmi en changeant un seul mot.**

Je pense que ceci peut expliquer pas mal de coïncidences entre les Apôtres en bloc (dont dépendait St. Luc sans en faire partie), St. Matthieu (un de ceux-ci), St. Pierre (un autre de ceux-ci, le principal, la source de St. Marc). En plus, pour Clément le Stromatiste, Luc aurait soumis son évangile au pape, au premier pape, St. Pierre, qui, ensuite, prit deux volumina ou rotuli*** et lisait de Mathieu, de Luc, de Mathieu, de Luc, en ajoutant parfois de commentaires propres. St. Marc, son sécretaire, crut qu'il était en train de rédiger finalement son évangile et prit notes, et quand St. Pierre découvrit ceci, il canonisa l'évangile de St. Marc avant celui de St. Luc.

Problème n° 4 : Manuscrits anciens manquants

Ici, Cornthwaite semble, soit ignorant, soit de mauvaise foi. Je devine, ignorant.

Pour la quasi-totalité de la littérature ancienne, beaucoup davantage de siècles manquent au début. L'exception est Homère. La transmission de ses poëmes avant les manuscrits, purement à l'oral, avant la mise à l'écrit par les fils de Pisistrate prouve aussi la possibilité d'apprendre un texte exact par cœur.

Pour un texte comme César, Commentaires sur la Guerre des Gaules, nos plus vieux manuscrits viennent de deux rédactions (une pour la Guerre des Gaules seule, une pour celle-ci avec la Guerre civile et encore quelques) dont le plus vieux se trouve en chaque cas entre 750 et 800 AdS.° Il y a des témoignages en des auteurs proches en temps à César, mais leur livres aussi sont attestés tardivement. Donc, entre 800 et 850 ans de l'histoire des manuscrits nous manque.

Problème n° 5 : Communautés incertaines

Ici, je ne suis pas sûr de compdrendre exactement le problème, j'y reviendrai en faisant la réfutation de la vidéo.

Je pense que ce qu'il vise est que pas juste les Catholiques ou "Proto-Orthodoxes" (le terme désigne pour ces siècles quelque chose bien avant le schisme entre Rome et Constantinople) mais aussi l'hérésie de Marcion se reclame de l'évangile de St. Luc.

La réponse devrait être que la communauté apostolique se laisse tracer. Ça ne fait pas de sens que de dire que Polycarpe appartenait à une communauté, Irénée à une autre quand ils décrivent, les deux, leur communauté de manières très semblables. Quand Irénée fait référence à Polycarpe comme l'ayant vu. Quand les doctrines sur morale, sur l'hérésie (une contagion à éviter), et sur l'orthoxie (l'inverse positif de l'hérésie) et son contenu sont sensiblement identiques.

Ceci est donc la communauté dont la tradition dit que Jésus les a fondés sur les douze, dont St. Pierre et dont St. Matthias en remplaçant de Judas le traître, ceci est la communauté dont la tradition dit que les gens des Nations peuvent être membres sans de judaïser, et ceci enfin est aussi la communauté dont la tradition dit que les évangiles préservés à nous sont quatre, Matthieu, Marc, Luc, Jean.

Problème n° 6 : Contradictions évidentes

Pour Cornthwaite, la contradiction la plus éclatante est la mort de Judas. Voici la reconciliation attribué à St. Jean, qui connut bien l'affaire (dans la Vie de St. Jean), étape par étape, comme je la comprends.

• Judas jette l'argent et va se pendre ;
• il ne meurt pas, quelqu'un le sauve ;
• les prêtres achètent le champs avec en premier plan que les étrangers soient ensévélis là-bas ;
• il obtient le champs une fois qu'on se rend compte qu'il est encore en vie ;
• en se mettant à la charrue, il explode et en meurt finalement ;
• enfin, son champs ne sert même pas à ensévélir d'étrangers, il reste inoccupé comme maudit quand St. Pierre parle en chapitre premier des Actes.

Alternativement, le plan que les étrangers y soient ensévélis est pris dans un second temps de la réflexion des gens qui avaient agi comme les gardiens de Judas et de sa fortune, même si St. Mathieu résume leur pensée en une phrase.

Vu que la vidéo pourrait contenir d'autres problèmes que juste les six problèmes ici mentionnés, je préfère donner le lien avec une réfutation plus complète, en anglais, sous la vidéo.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
L'évêque St. Pierre de Compostelle
10.IX.2025

Compostellae sancti Petri Episcopi, qui multis virtutibus et miraculis claruit.

* 1000 raisons à croire, n° 9, juillet — septembre 2025, pp. 22—27, "À la recherche de la version originale des évangiles". ** Ibid. p. 23. *** Deux manières de rouler un livre quand le livre était un rouleau. ° Rédaction seule Guerre des Gaules, le plus vieux est MS. Amsterdam 73, écrit à l'abbaye de Fleury dans le neuvième siècle tardif. Pour la rédaction plus extensive, le plus vieux est écrit à Corbie, dans le dernier quart du neuvième siècle, il s'appelle MS Paris lat. 3864. Merci à la wiki anglophone pour ...

Commentarii de Bello Gallico : Manuscripts and publication history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico#Manuscripts_and_publication_history