Thoughts on stuff I want to read

I would say this is my “Christmas” list, but I am trying to get a few of these ahead of time:

Corpus Mysticism by Henri de Lubac; The Dread Lord Peter Leithart always spoke highly of this book, and even though Leithart is a Protestant, de Lubac’s sacramental theology is heavy in Leithart’s book on baptism.

Medieval Exegesis by Henri de Lubac.  Actually 4 volumes to this set, though only 2 and 3 are out at the moment.  Don’t know why that is.  My last few posts were on Radical Orthodoxy, to note.  What really disenchanted my Protestant worldview was not some “1-2” argument from an ancient church apologist, though a few friends of mine have done some good posts on christology and sola scriptura.  No, it was the radical orthodoxy guys saying that hermeneutics are often dependent on philosophical assumptions.  We can laugh at the medievals for doing the four-fold exegesis (and at times they were wacky), but their hermeneutical assumptions were better than ourselves.  And if my Calvinism is dependent on certain philosophical and hermeneutical assumptions, well….my calvinism is only as strong as those assumptions.

Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor by Hans urs von Balthasar.  Tried to order this from the first time.  They dropped my order saying it was out of print.  Probably will try again soon.

Light from the East (Theology and the Sciences) by Nesturuk.  There are a lot of books (rightly) pointing out how Western Christendom facilitated the rise of modern science.  But as some have noted, in a rather Marxist historicist fashion, that the seeds of failure were already planted in the success.  Nesteruk suggests an Eastern model.

The Philosopher’s Stone:  Alchemy and the Secret Research for Exotic Matter by Joseph Farrell.  People made fun of me–and some got rather irrationally angry–because I refuse to believe that stone-age folks were capable of building the pyramids when today’s advanced cultures with modern engineering still cannot.  Dr Farrell’s stuff highlights aspects of history and science that modernists (be they conservative or liberal–usually conservative) do not want to admit.

The Struggle for World Power by George Knupffer.  What most do not realize is that before the Bolsheviek revolution, Russia was one of the wealthiest and most Christian nations in the world (indeed, in the history of the world).  Standing against the Revolutions of the 19th century and against the rising capitalist Anglo-American banking cartel was the (flawed, granted) soborpravna of Tsarist Russia.  The Rothschilds and Schiffs knew that for their banking cartel to achieve worldwide dominance, Tsarist Russia had to be destroyed.   This helps explain why Wall Street capitalists financed the October Revolution.  Communism was never about the common man, but about concentrating power and wealth into the hands of an elite.  At the heart capitalism and communism are the same thing.


3 Responses to “Thoughts on stuff I want to read”

  1. Jacob,

    You know I’m not a modernist, and I know how much you reject modernism as well. However, the claim that ancients were incapable of certain architectural feats because we have not duplicated them smacks of modernist arrogance, or what another person has called “chronological snobbery.” In other words, if we can’t do it our way (current tools, labor practices, etc, all the result of “progress”) then they couldn’t do it their way (worker camps, copper tools, etc). Fantastical hypotheses about ancient aliens, power plants, scalar waves and so on are still modernist, even if they’re minority reports.

    There are plenty of conventional hypotheses that would be viable, I imagine, if someone had the funds to replicate the large labor camps overseen by master architects and masons. Examples can be found in the links below, including Margaret Morris’ “rock-concrete” theory, recently tested at Drexel University. While not the typical stone-blocks-hauled-on-sledges answer, it would still be a simple and elegant solution without resorting to alternative histories extrapolated from poorly-interpreted data.

    By the way, Farrell quotes a lot from Zechariah Sitchin, the original ancient astronaut theorist whose interpretations of Scriptural passages are antithetical to Christian theology, to say the least. Sitchin is also, simply put, an illiterate in the ancient languages who claims to be an expert. OT scholar and ANE linguist Michael Heiser takes Sitchin to task at I’d be careful about using anyone who cites Sitchin as an authority!

    I’m not laughing and I’m not angry. I understand the allure of alternative history. But I do think it lacks explanatory power, it puts you with company you don’t want, and it reasserts modernity in disguise.

  2. tesla1389 Says:

    Hey Chris,
    I am not talking about you. This refers to others.

    Touche. I guess I did sound kind of modernist. No, I don’t think aliens built the pyramids. That’s what some others had accused me of saying.

    About Farrell using anti-Christian sources: I know him a little and I have spent a long time listening to his stuff. I cringe at some of his interpretations of the bible, but he has made very clear that if his position on x is unbiblical or against what the church has always taught, then he will drop it.

    I am not so much intrested in whether aliens built the pyramids. Farrell’s work touches on a lot of different fields

  3. I knew you weren’t referring to me, since we hadn’t talked about this matter before, but I wanted to make sure you knew I was approaching this seriously.

    I didn’t think you were talking about aliens, and honestly I’m not sure who you (and Farrell) think built the pyramids: Atlanteans (a la Graham Hancock)? Nephilim? No matter the purported society I would still be doubtful concerning the claim.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: