Hinduism is False (as Most Commonly Understood)

Hinduism is FALSE and here's why
Sanctus | 20 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCg3rsEDB0g

Unlike the story-lines of Ramayana and Mahabharata (if you reverse the order), Hindu theology is a total mess.

And a story-line is not a complete theology.

Best Documentation to Us is Not About Who was Best Documented Back Then, But Whose Documentation Survives Best

Christians, Stop Saying This About Jesus
The Counsel of Trent | 21 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMHZgtahZuE

1:41 Prove Anaphora Pilati is a forgery?

BrentenApologetics

@BrentenApologetics

If you’re looking for evidence that the Anaphora Pilati is a forgery, the scholarship is actually unanimous on this. There are zero early manuscripts of it, the earliest Greek copies show up over a thousand years after Pilate, and no Roman administrative record ever mentions such a report even though we have thousands of surviving Roman documents. The style and vocabulary are clearly Christian and post‑Nicene, not Roman bureaucratic, and the text uses theological language that didn’t even exist in the first century. Early Christian writers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian only reference the idea of Pilate reporting to Tiberius as an apologetic trope, not as an actual document, and none of them ever quote a text. On top of that, the content contradicts known Roman procedure, because a governor would never send a theological reflection to the emperor praising a man he just executed. Modern scholars classify it as an apocryphal pseudepigraphon, with works like Baudoin’s “Truth in the Details: The Report of Pilate to Tiberius as an Authentic Forgery” explicitly identifying it as a later Christian composition falsely attributed to Pilate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@BrentenApologetics "There are zero early manuscripts of it,"

Did you just attack Caesar's writings?

"the earliest Greek copies show up over a thousand years after Pilate,"

Them being Greek might be a problem, if one could show Zeno and others were too interested in religious forgeries. Can one do so, or does that depend on viewing other things as forgeries which have also been accepted as genuine, just because they theoretically could be and it sounds "over the top"?

A thousand years after Pilate? So, one century worse than Caesar, but some centuries better than the epistles of Cicero.

"and no Roman administrative record ever mentions such a report even though we have thousands of surviving Roman documents."

I don't know what you mean by us having thousands of surviving Roman "documents" ... if you mean administrative reports, sorry, we don't.

We have thousands of literary works that are based on administrative reports, and we may have thousands of fragments of administration, like wage rolls for militaries or inscriptions saying "such and such an administrator did this building, while so and so were consuls" ... neither of these would be likely to mention Pilate, unless you mean Roman historians of Nero's time, like Labienus, none of whom have survived in full if they dealt with contemporary issues.

[Pilate is mentioned inscriptionwise as builder in Caesarea Maritima, I think, though]

"The style and vocabulary are clearly Christian and post‑Nicene, not Roman bureaucratic, and the text uses theological language that didn’t even exist in the first century."

You are presuming very much on 1) Pilate never having Christian convictions and 2) 1st C. Christians never using language close to Nicene theology. If Nicene theology is correct, at least the ideas should have been there.

"Early Christian writers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian only reference the idea of Pilate reporting to Tiberius as an apologetic trope, not as an actual document, and none of them ever quote a text."

Oh, they did reference that idea. How if it happened, but they couldn't access the document, but had a reliable rumour about it?

"a governor would never send a theological reflection to the emperor praising a man he just executed"

As in changes of heart and stepping out of the routine never happens?

You might be overdoing the routine aspect of Tiberius' administration after analogy with later administrators, like Pliny the Younger.

"[Anne-Catherine] Baudoin"

She's in these institutions and conferences:

1 AOROC - Archéologies d'Orient et d'Occident et Sciences des textes
2 ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris
3 LEM - Laboratoire d'Etudes sur les Monothéismes
4 Cultures de l’écrit

In, very Secularist academic culture, France. I think there is a bias.

3:15 How much evidence do you have for the Rubicon?

"Bellum Civile" is his own words, earliest manuscript 10th C AD.
Livy, Velleius, Tacitus and Suetonius, but by the latter two, it's like comparing to Early CCFF for Jesus.

3:18 Cicero wasn't precisely a historian, he was a historic source, and we have his letters from one manuscript discovered by Petrarca.

3:25 Between Cicero and Bellum Civile, you insert a letter from Pompey.

Is it in Cicero's correspondence, or where else?

Anthony Zav

@anthonyzav3769

Only in Cicero’s letters back and forth to each other. The Poet Lucan has Pompey as a charter - he prob used sources we lost.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@anthonyzav3769 Ah, thank you!

It's a while since I read Cicero, does Pompey mention the Rubicon?

Lucan using lost sources is obviously a parallel to Justin Martyr mentioning a real report by Pilate if the Anaphora is after all even a forgery.

3:34 Coinage commemorates Pallas Athena.

Is she a real goddess, or is the coin just showing her statue?

4:52 We have enough manuscripts for Bellum Civile, but enough isn't as many as for Jesus, or especially, as early as for Jesus.

Assume someone had wanted to forge history about Caesar, the production of manuscripts of fake documentation would have had more time.

7:38 I begin to think, both you and the Orthodox priest have read my work on the issue, and he's repeating me badly, you are partially correcting and partially repeating me, badly, both without mentioning my name.

The blogs in question, mainly "somewhere else" (than in the comments section of Tim O'Neill, hence the name of my blog) have made these points:

• on manuscript evidence, Moses is comparable and Gospels better than Corpus Caesareum
• on other authors confirming Caesar, they also have late manuscript evidence
• on George Washington, he is, per definition, the origin story or "aetiological myth" about the US, doesn't prove he isn't historical, and neither should the origin stories of Israel or of the Church be assumed to be such
• on comparable documentation, in the sense of contemporary surviving to us, Alexander the Great has lots less than the Crucifixion, Caesar conquering Gaul less (not as good as the crossing of the Rubicon), Tiberius has less, if only because Velleius says nearly nothing except "Tiberius is perfect, let this be perfectly clear" and after Velleius no contemporary historian speaks up before Tacitus' Agricola, but obviously, Joseph Smith and George Washington have more, because he lived in a much more written age, with newspapers, and a closer and therefore better preserved age.

8:25 I did go on and on about historians who wouldn't have mentioned Jesus and why.

Like if Varro died in 4 AD ...

11:30 I would, for reasons mentioned, not call it an overstatement.

I respect your mention of the Testimonium Flavianum, to which I have done parallel work.

---

Returning to the Rubicon, we don't have much sources for it:

Cicero, contemporary of Caesar, does not mention Rubicon or the cast of the die in his letters.

Neither does the historian Livy in his Ab Urbe Condita, written only 17 years or so after the event. (Tucker, p. 246) The relevant volume (liber 109), however, containing these events is missing. What we have left is the Periochae, i.e. summaries of the book itself. The summary does not mention the Rubicon or Iacta alea est, the book might have.

Another Roman historian, Marcus Velleius Paterculus (c. 19 B.C.- c. 31 A.D.), mentions Rubicon, but not the expression:

“…ratus bellandum Caesar cum exercitu Rubiconem transiit.”

— Velleius, 2.49

i.e. ”Caesar concluded that war was inevitable and crossed the Rubicon with his army.” (transl. Shipley, 1924)

Iacta Alea Est: Crossing the Rubicon
By Amelie Rosengren
https://latinitium.com/iacta-alea-est-crossing-the-rubicon/

Both Velleius and Lucan were born after Caesar had been killed.

Exegesis, a Protestant and My Response

They Say 'The Greek Means This.' Here's Why They're WRONG!
BiblicallyMotivated | 19 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AswxB6gBTbM

3:54 Were Jesus and Nicodemus speaking Greek or Aramaic?

If Aramaic, is there an Aramaic word that means both "from above" and "again"?

Because a word used in translation being misunderstandable or punnable doesn't guarantee the original is.

I suppose you are not pretending the dialogue was ahistoric and originally written in Greek by John after the Resurrection, in order to make a point?

BiblicallyMotivated

@BiblicallyMotivated

The data we have about the conversation is written in Greek. That’s all we have. How would the conversation actually have sounded? Couldn’t say for sure. But it’s irrelevant because we don’t have that data.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated You can check Aramaic lexica.

Is there a single word in Aramaic which has both meanings or not?

13:09 The two meanings do not exclude each other.

Baptism is from above, not from the flesh.

But it comes after birth (as some Catholic midwives know: after birth has started ... if there is a danger of death, you remember Jacob's hand and the red string? ... that hand could have been baptised by a midwife, if she feared the head wouldn't come out alive). In that sense it really is a second birth.

I

BiblicallyMotivated

The English translation is correct because it’s trying to show that Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus, which is apparent because Jesus corrects him and then highlights the heavenly “from above origin”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated The Latin is correct.

It has "denuo" and that means again, and the "from above" items are never resumed as "from above" but given in detail.

BiblicallyMotivated

@hglundahl the Latin is irrelevant. The Bible was written in Greek and that’s the data that matters.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated Not if Matthew 28:20 is a promise Jesus kept, if so, what the Catholic Church uses matters.

Or any other single persisting Church you might prefer, I don't recommend tracing your line from Novatians over Albigensians, though.

II

john irish

@johnirish989

Jesus was baptized. So He was born twice. His Father was never birthed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 The Baptism of John was not the Baptism in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Jesus, even as Man, was already Son of the Father.

john irish

@hglundahl His first creation. A creature. Still God. Created before time and place.

Without sin. Needing no cleansing. Baptized to fulfill Scripture.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 To fulfill scripture is correct, no sin, needing no cleansing is correct.

But first creation is not. Creature is not.

john irish

@hglundahl So you believe. LOL. My condolences.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 So you don't believe? My condolences!

john irish

@hglundahl Wow. Shameless plagiarism. I forgive you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thanks, I suppose.

17:22 Thank you for the lesson. I was not unaware of this stuff. On βατταλογέω, Matthew 6:7 I have done my own work. It is a hapax. The meaning in Strong matches a Protestant reading. The one Greek occurrence outside the NT is lacking from the LXX and is centuries later. Can't be bothered to repeat the Perseus search.

You know what I did?

The Vulgate, one fairly early translation, doesn't use "repeat" but inserts "multum loqui" from the context. I asked on quora about the Syriac and Coptic translations, which I also knew to be early, I just don't know the languages. Both of them use "stammer" (or stutter, if you prefer) ... the most probable isn't that battologein or battalogein means "speak like Mr. Battos" (if such a man existed) but more like "speak like you were stuttering" ... what exact attitude comes across both as "stuttering" and as "many words"?

Putting a prayer on repeat, until you fly over the single words, thinking about sth else entirely, hopefully something related to the reason of the words (like, in the Rosary, the mysteries instead of the words of Hail Mary)? No.

The attitude you want is, like a teen not following school rules, trying to explain himself with the principal, he'll both start many diverse trains of thought and be insecure about many of them.

And what do we find among Greco-Roman Pagans? Not just that, but the very same year that Jesus preached, i e the sixteenth year of Tiberius? Velleius Paterculus ends book II of Roman Histories with a prayer to his gods. I'm not sure the Christian copyists have left it entirely intact. But half short as it is, it has the traits of a teen before the principal (like Edmund would have before the White Witch at a point, if she hadn't cut him short). To god after god, three different ones, with well-chosen attribute after well-chosen attribute, he requests, with no word repetitions, except "Romani" and "orbis" a preservation and blessing on the rule of Tiberius and giving him successors to the end of time ... but obviously he has to explain, he doesn't mean weak successors, but capable ones ....

The point is, the real God Who takes us as His children and becomes our Father, doesn't need those kinds of explanation. He doesn't love tricking people with the verbal meanings of their requests, unless the words are very carefully chosen.

This verse says nothing against (and also not much for) repeating prayers. Unless you fall into the trap of trusting Strong and Perseus (both operating under the KJV tradition) to tell you the word meaning.

I'm Not Part of the Ones he's Calling Out

Catholic Apologists, STOP Saying THIS
Scholastic Answers | 17 janv. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPgprPQPnvY

Or, I don't need to know Dorcas / Tabitha lived in Lydda near Joppe to be saved, therefore someone denying it is not a heretic.

RandomKnight

@randomknight5236

You're confusing two things. You're confusing the things necessary for faith with everything that is an object of faith. If you culpably deny something that is divinely revealed you do not have faith. It doesn't matter how necessary that thing is for salvation. If you culpably deny it, you don't have faith

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@randomknight5236 Thank you.

My "or" was in reference to what Wagner said, I totally agree with you.

And, judging from the words so far, Wagner.

---

Adam begat Seth when he was 130 / 230 (depending on text) years old. You apply this principle to the add-up of Genesis 5 and of Genesis 11 too?

Dávid Bernhardt

@davidbernhardt551

We have good reason to believe that is not meant to be literal history, based on style, external evidence and the fact that other similar ancient texts in that region also used symbolic numbers for ages.

A better example would be something like the Ten Commandments and other clear statements, obviously you didn't need to wait until Evangelium Vitae to know that killing an innocent human being is intrinsically wrong.

But I agree that it would be ridiculous to apply this to these random statements not concerning faith and morals.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@davidbernhardt551 "based on style"

Like bone dry genealogy. Sounds pretty pointless other than as literal history.

"external evidence"

Like what?

"and the fact that other similar ancient texts in that region also used symbolic numbers for ages."

How do you prove they were meant as "symbolical"?

How similar are the texts? If the similarity is on subject matter, is it a matter of diverging accounts of the same events?

"something like the Ten Commandments and other clear statements"

You keep the Sabbath, abstain from all images and call God the Tetragrammaton, or avoid doing so by saying Adonai?

"it would be ridiculous to apply this to these random statements not concerning faith and morals."

Not on Christian Wagner's view and certainly not on mine. Watch the video once again!

It is specifically about statements that themselves are not matters of "faith and morals" in the subject matter.

---

Other dialogue:

Billy G

@billyg898

Genesis, on a plain reading, depicts the world as flat with a hard dome over it, with water above the dome and below the earth. The dome (the firmament) has windows which is how rain comes through.

Even the most determined young earth creationist doesn't go this far. But why shouldn't they if we are to take the plain reading of scripture?

I

RandomKnight

Bro, Wagner is talking about when the sense of the text is plain, not interpreting Scripture in a plain way

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@randomknight5236 How are these different?

RandomKnight

@hglundahl When Scripture says "God is my rock" to interpret it plainly would be to say that Scripture is saying that God is quite literally a rock. While the sense being plain means that what the sense of the text is is plain to us. Ignoring that OPs examples were poor examples

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@randomknight5236 No, wooden literalism is not plain meaning.

The metaphor is perfectly clear even to a plain understanding.

I'm not sure how the OP's examples were bad, he got them wrong.

RandomKnight

@hglundahl That's the point. Reading something plainly and the meaning being plain are two different things. OP is confusing the two. And the reason OPs examples were bad is because they're either wrong (the earth being flat) or ignorantly informed (his understanding of the firmament)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@randomknight5236 I'm not sure he is confusing the two, he's misapplying plain reading.

Most of his examples are such that the meaning is plain if we presume the things to be true and use our knowledge of the globe.

The firmament is the exception.

The earth being flat is in fact not in the text, and he might be deriving this from a confusion between waters being below the earth (surface) and this meaning below an earth disc.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"depicts the world as flat"

No. Give me the passage, I'll give the correct meaning. It won't be abstruse.

"with a hard dome over it"

"firm" need not mean "hard"

"with water above the dome"

Or in the upper parts of it.

"and below the earth."

Or below the surface of the earth, below the land.

"has windows which is how rain comes through."

The Floodgates of Heaven could have been a mechanism applying to only the Flood. Like an upper atmosphere mixing of Oxygen and Hydrogen into Brown's gas.

Billy G

@hglundahl thank you for the reply. I should note that we can help understand Genesis by other passages in scripture.

What do you suppose is meant by the word "face", as in "face of the deep", "face of the waters", "face of the whole earth", etc? The rest of scripture also seems to depict a flat earth, sitting on a foundation.

The text does seem to explicitly say the water is "above" the firmament in gen 1:7, so the firmament is able to hold the water up, indicating it is firm. We still must contend with the fact that it plainly says that the windows of the heavens were opened and closed. Like with the "fountains of the deep" bursting open and then being closed, we all know what that is. Applying it to floodgates or windows, the plain reading is that there was a physical opening and closing in the firmament. This all indicates something physical hard.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@billyg898 "What do you suppose is meant by the word "face" "

Surface.

A globe has as much a surface as a disc has.

"The rest of scripture also seems to depict a flat earth, sitting on a foundation."

If you mean immobility passages, I'm Geocentric, I have no problem with them.

If you mean "pillars of the earth" there actually are things describable as pillars in tectonic geology.

"The text does seem to explicitly say the water is "above" the firmament in gen 1:7, so the firmament is able to hold the water up, indicating it is firm."

Can air hold water up in the clouds? While air is in that sense "firm" it isn't hard.

Are hydrogen and water molecules up well above the atmosphere?

Obviously yes.

Now, my main view of the firmament is, it is the aether that God is turning around Earth each day.

Another possibility is, it's the magnetic field around Earth.

The passage about flood gates of heaven can be understood this way:

In the pre-Flood world, the atmosphere had more oxygen and oxygen higher up, and more hydrogen and a thick hydrogen layer further down. The opening means, something which had separated them disappeared, lightnings ignited this and produced water, the closing, the exhaustion of both gasses reintroduced a space between them.

III

ʙᴀᴛᴀᴠɪᴄᴀ ♰

@Batavica

Slippery slope fallacy

Billy G

@Batavica i agree, its a slippery slope, but can anyone explain what is the fallacy?

Why should we take the forming of Adam from dust as it plainly states, and the ages as it plainly states, etc, but when it says plainly that there are windows in the firmament that open and close, we dont take that plainly?

ʙᴀᴛᴀᴠɪᴄᴀ ♰

@b @billyg898 because “literal until proven otherwise” is not held by any of the fathers, the correct reading of any verse is whatever the writer intended it to mean.

There was never a consensus that Genesis was literal, and the church holds to consensus of the fathers.

Billy G

@Batavica what? No consensus that Genesis is literal?

The church fathers are unanimous that it is literal. It was almost completely unanimously believed the firmament was a literal hard dome with water above it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Batavica I would concur that there is a definite patristic consensus that Genesis is litteral.

Any patristic support for allegory in Genesis is in addition to the literal sense, not instead of it.

Adam literally slept and Eve was created from his side. Christ "slept" on the Cross and Church was born from His side (that's the allegory part applicable to Genesis 2).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@billyg898 "It was almost completely unanimously believed the firmament was a literal hard dome with water above it."

Say solid instead of hard.

Non-solid bodies have certain types of solidity as well, as a study of aerodynamics will tell you. If you don't believe that, I hope you never take an airplane, you wouldn't see that air has sufficient solidity to keep the plane up.

Why did Noah Curse Canaan?

I saw a bad theory:

Why Did Noah Curse Canaan Instead of Ham? | The Real Sin in the Tent
Unforsaken | 2 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ct5J7IqhIk

[I'm not making it clickable, feel free to copy-paste if you must torment yourself, but here is my answer:]

Idiocy.

The solution is far less dramatic (within Noah's close family).

1) Canaan was the first to test the wine, got drunk, and
2) Noah asked him how much he could safely drink
3) but Canaan gave him too much.

Woe to him that giveth drink to his friend, and presenteth his gall, and maketh him drunk, that he may behold his nakedness
[Habacuc (Habakkuk) 2:15]

Woe is a synonym for "cursed be" and "drunk" and "nakedness" are direct matches to Genesis 9.

Now, this supposes that Canaan was already old enough to taste wine (as he was already old enough to be a servant). This means, there were other people alive than just the 8 on the Ark plus the grandchildren of Noah. Noah's embarassment could have social consequences and have led to Nimrod's rise to power.

Unforsaken

@GodsUnforsaken

That theory simply is not in the text. Genesis does not say Canaan tested the wine, advised Noah, or got him drunk, and it does not place Canaan in the tent at all. It explicitly says Noah drank, became drunk, and Ham saw his father’s nakedness. Quoting Habakkuk does not rewrite Genesis, and importing later verses to invent a new character role is not exegesis, it is speculation. The narrative is clear, the actors are named, and the attempt to shift the event onto Canaan contradicts the plain reading of the passage.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@GodsUnforsaken "Genesis does not say Canaan tested the wine, advised Noah, or got him drunk"

No, but the parallels between Genesis 9 and Habacuc 2:15 are striking enough to justify reading this or some very similar thing between the lines.

Unlike my theory, yours is drawing from nowhere at all in the Holy Scriptures.

Other gods? Well, not real gods, but sometimes real people or things

@StandingForTruthMinistries
Atheists Say, “You Reject All Other gods!” – Here’s Why That Argument Fails.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/BaABR-sjwOA

Fun quip.

But your guest believes the other women exist, right?

Here is where it gets interesting. I think St. Paul mentioned Hercules in Romans 1: "the likeness of the image of a corruptible man"

Now, Hercules was corruptible. But he was also a man.

"Clearly Hit"

New blog on the kid: Renee Nicole Good · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Both Videos (Except the Guy's Own) · A Veteran Analysing · "Clearly Hit"

NEW Footage in Renee Good ICE Shooting Changes Everything
TriggerSmart | 15 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=897HM4BU4Xk

Here is the view of a lawyer from the Rodney King case:

These 5 FACTORS Could FLIP the CASE in Minnesota ICE Shooting
Talking Feds with Harry Litman | 14 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-QKRj8iaSM