I think I understand the title of this. The Bible is also a history, I assume that the makers of the page believe that. It’s history from the beginning, but it’s not necessarily “all of history to date, to the present time”. How do you work with that? Classics are history, too, it’s just that not every writer across time has written a classic. Some histories contemporary to the Bible are less well known than Xenophanes Cryophon, and today I think that many of us (at least me) grew up conditioned to believe that “most” European histories were destroyed during the 1900s, if they’d even survived the 1800s. People talk about conditioning these days as if it were all psychological and you’d find it false when you got older. I disagree, most European histories were destroyed during the Holocaust. That doesn’t make James Joyce true, and most of what I’ve read in Spanish has been totally false. Spain might still have some pretty good libraries at home, but I’m slightly closer to South America. That’s the practice of relativity. There are alternative histories. It’s the subject of everything by Washington Irving. Historic Christianity? Is that anything like a watershed case in the Supreme Court? I’ll have to be sure I read “In God We Don’t Trust”, for all I know you’re taking about the Bible online, and have your place saved in McCulloch vs Maryland over there on the other side of the narthex wall. Actually, most people don’t think I know anything about God at all, let alone the Bible! I’m so intrigued by the Book of Numbers that I occasionally tell people out loud that I’m a “numerologist”, after all, the Book of Numbers does say something, or God is speaking in the Book of Numbers. I started doing that a few years ago, there’s a church on Broadway on Beacon Hill called All Saints Church that had a sign up reading “God is Still Speaking”. Beacon Hill can be kinda rough, think of numbers as maybe masses of bikers in the Hells Angels. No, they don’t trust in God.
In reply to myself, the historic Christian faith is listed first in the classes section. So far, I’ve been listening to the first speech, “How to be a thinking Christian”. Have a couple of thoughts and questions on it. First, as a teacher, I’m wondering if Bercot literally means that in his scholarship, people who lived and worshiped before the birth of Jesus in Rome were Jews while Christians as a class of people didn’t exist before the ministry of Jesus himself in Nazareth itself. As a theologian, doesn’t he see the same God who seems to have met Adam and Eve before the fall in the garden of Eden as being “the same as Christ, by way of being the same God, visible in human like form, as man was created in ye likeness of God according to Genesis”. Have there always been Christians? Before the both of Jesus near Jerusalem at the time of the Roman civil War, were all Jews who subscribed to the prophecy that a messiah would come in the future Christian believers? I believe that I see a scholarly reason to say that historical Christianity begins with writings, the patristics are in evidence in library files, am I supposed to be separating them from the pre advent classical writers for at least the sake of bookkeeping and taking notes in the timeline? If so, the first Christians are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, since history as a rule requires some writing, or else events won’t be available to posterity young enough and far enough in the future relative to the authors for “history” to exist. Jesus Christ is known to have grown up in Bethlehem and Judea near Galalee during the time of the Hispanic Wars, which was completed by Marcus Cicero, who ascended to the office during the Civil Wars, which occurred near Jesus’ birth date in remote Palermo. Jesus Christ and Marcus Cicero, who seceded Julius Caesar, both died in the Egyptian Wars, which concludes the five books of SPQR record keeping collectively “The Gallic Wars”. The one is classical, the one is religious. Yes, I understand, but Patrick was killed in the same first century before Christ; nevertheless he is a Christian also, is he not? And of books in the same library as military classics by Herodotus or Caesar, Horus’ Odes are in the categorical vein of religious writings, and so is Hesiod’s Works and Days. How does the speaker in that series tend to classify them?
In further reply to myself, on the second lecture in Historic Christianity, as I hear what’s said, Bercot is speaking about “the idiosyncratic state”. Another way to say “idiosyncratic state” is to say “the tribal state”. In my paragraph, tribal doesn’t pertain to race or to language, it pertains to the ethnicity of the population of a named territory on the basis of their birth and residence there long term. An idiosyncratic state is composed of is composed of neighbors in a geographic region who because of their proximity are all consciously members of the same society at the same time. What caused me to bring this up is his example of the United States and Denmark. The meditation on “The Great Divorce” (as I heard the speech to mean in the part about Ireland, England and the U.S.) is on a certain topic. The one about Denmark I can actually enlighten. The idiosyncratic state is composed of conscious adherents, by name. Bismarck is an idiosyncratic state. The city of Bismarck is a local capitol, it’s in North Dakota, and anyone born in the United States who has in his mind a premier allegiance to North Dakota is Bismarckian. You could in that sense under the auspices of amendment ten all the way Dutch, in the USA, and speak English your whole life. That’s a reconstruction civil war law, and it’s encouraged as a sieve, or a measure like biblical passages about sorting wheat from chaff and sheep from goats. Any American who is certain that North Dakota (also known as Bismarck) is his idiosyncratic state is just as German as the next Berliner who never spoke anything but Dutch. It’s part of keeping the peace and diplomacy in the world of civil rights and civil liberties. The fact being that the idiosyncratic or tribal state is absolutely composed of its census population as is, without immediate reference to written laws, is to do with your own nationality being a matter of life and death.
The matter of the idiosyncratic state as it pertains to the divorce described in his passage about Ireland is elucidated by traducing “civil rights as opposed to civil liberties” of the two parallel lines, civil rights belong to the foundational state, meaning its architecture. Civil rights are governed me in nature, and are classified as edificial. The expression civil rights pertains to the doctrine of creation, it means that the world has a right to exist. The planet, earth, has a divine right to exist, as evidenced by the fact that God created it. That’s civil rights. Civil liberties are also a divine right by the same token, and the fact that God created you is evidence of the fact that you have the right to civil liberty. Civil liberty is not edificial, it is within the privacy of your soul or “found in freedom of thought”. What it means is that the idiosyncratic state has an idiosyncratic population. A well founded state is in a territory delineated by its nature, meaning that it will have natural borders. Large rivers, high mountain ranges, and seacoasts are the edificial extents of a naturally occurring state. If it’s part of civil rights, you can observe it and be educated by it, for example Yellowstone National Park. But that’s the state of nature. It isn’t all sweetness and light, in English writings Richard Kipling’s “Jungle Book” describes it, but the state of California (the bear flag republic) is edificial in the same line. The real Historic delineation of an edificial state to be as traditional as possible is found in presence of a walled city, literally meaning a city with walks around it, like Jerusalem or Berlin. An architectural edifice deliberately planned and constructed to be civic is the definition of civil rights, which means the rights of the atomic state. This is different from civil liberties, because the stonework doesn’t move if its own accord. Premier historical examples of civil rights monuments include the edificial Ten Commandments and Mount Rushmore. Your civil liberties vary from place to place, because civil liberty is freedom of movement in a country. The first thing is being able to read what’s written in the constitution of the law, and to be as patristic as possible, “the constitution of the law” is of a granite stone nature, exactly like the Ten Commandments. In his second lecture, what you’d look at as an American or a German is first off, if you mean to travel to the other country, about his well do you understand its language? In Christian times, it’s been practiced that if you keep the Bible with you in your home language, you’ll be understood by natives of other Christian languages. Berlin is a hard one. I’m almost certain that the English crusader who wrote Beowulf was a man who knew a German crusader of his times, and wrote the story about his battle in Palestine. That might be by Edward the First, after whom Strongbow Cider is named, it’s thought to be about a Dutchman named Stephen, or also spelled Siegfried, and contains the story of Adam after the fall procuring an animal skin for himself to wear. The tale is the basis of the expression “To Skin A Cat”, popularized by Woody Guthrie in the times of fortress Europe. It means to shear sheep, dye wool, and weave oneself a flag. That’s an interesting lecture. North Dakota has a large idiosyncratic population, by which the language means that besides its citizens by birth, all fifty states contain many people who strongly prefer North Dakota for individual reasons. That’s a serious issue in esoteric and exoteric thought (it hits habius corpus). Literally millions of Americans are extremely likely to shoot you dead over offenses to the state of North Dakota. They’re almost Germanic about it, as a matter of fact.
The center of Bercot’s attention to immigration, however, centers around Ireland, and divorce. George and Catherine aren’t divorced. They are the same couple also known as Hanover. That’s a tricky situation. The Hanoverian dynasty is said to have originated with the two linear kings named Charles, of whom the first inspired the well known university of Indiana mascot (also attributed to Abe Lincoln) and of whom the second, known as Charles Lavoisier, invented black leaden gunpowder and the repeating firearm. A dynasty is a class within a class, a group of family members set apart as themselves, in the Old Testament you read of “a tithe of the tithe”, or one tenth of one tenth, a number determined by sequencing a linear series and also called “The Fibonacci Series”. Some English monarchs are Hanoverian, they commute a dynasty, or family within the family. They are in the same way related as a subgroup as the more than one Roosevelt or more than one Bush executive. They aren’t divorced. Neither are north and South Carolina, it’s the result of “other, outside influences”.
Further to myself in the subject of David Suchet’s second lecture in Historic Christianity, I have found this extremely enlightening. When I was very small child, I remember reading the parable of the sower, which in Matthew 13: 25-30 elucidates the 1776 statement regarding “the course of human events”. A sower has sown his field, and on the good ground, which he has tilled as a farmer will do in preparation for springtime, his crops came up aright. But an enemy sowed tares, or weeds, among his crops. This is a passage I haven’t read in a while, and think when I was nine or ten, I had it confused with another story about the tones of Saul and David (not the New Testament Saul who converted on the road to Emmaus and became Paul). In that story, Saul tied torches to the rails of foxes and destroyed crops. I was looking at the back of an older Eisenhower dime when I realized that in fifth grade civics, the older dime showed a torch on the back, it was worth ten of the old wheat back copper pennies, remember those? The story however is in Matthew. It represents letting a matter lie fallow. As he noted that the grain was corrupt, he decided to let the whole field mature together anyway, and that later he would separate the wheat from the thistles. That is the biblical meaning of “When in the course of human events”. Members of parliament in 1776 were already elected to Boston Commons, the separatists who withdrew to write the Declaration of Independence withdrew from government. As older, already established and experienced congressmen, they elected to wait and see what would happen in the electoral field. The more avid or conservative members, elected to the same house of representatives simultaneously, decided to immediately try to cull what they thought to be tares, instead of waiting for the target desired wheat crop to arrive fully grown before acting. That it the point of divergence in 1776. It would work in Irish. For those with a sense of the color wheel, Ireland’s post 1916 faded Frangos flag oft alleged to be a napoleon tricolor after and against Martin’s original could be constructed as a tricolor tare. Is it time to see what Cole of Frenchman everyone is yet again with John Jay in the Madison Building? Just in case anyone else at Historic Christianity attends Hillsdale, the description of Jay during the times of Madison is delivered in “The Federalist”. The Federalist class ware and exam is delivered a couple of years into your career. I’m ready.
Matthew 13: 24-30
Another parable put he forth unto them saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appears the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He says unto them, an enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, nay, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye rot up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them into bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
