Tuesday, January 6, 2026
Christmas Explained with Apocalypse 12
WHY isn't THIS STORY told each CHRISTMAS?
BLK SHP Bible Talk | 19 Dec. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-PZOAyrm2k
8:46 There is a problem here.
In 2017, people were saying that the Apoc. 12 Constellation, searched by the same software, occurred once, 2017, and before that you needed to go back before Creation.
Was that search too specific about the stars, or what happened?
11:04 Solution. The Blessed Virgin Mary is more than just "one woman" ...
The Holy Family is the household of faith, and it's patriarch is called Joseph (for a reason).
Herself, She is called "blessed among women" because like Jael and Judith, She killed an important enemy of Israel. However, in Her case, that's a snake. And Luke 1:28 comes before Luke 1:31, She was already victorious before She was pregnant with God in the flesh.
12:55 You just called the woman "faithful Israel" ... but Romans 3:23 states no Israelite was without sin ... except the exception.
Mary is, personally, "daughter Zion", and as such faithful. Genesis 3:15 makes both Jesus and Mary an exception.
15:21 "of Rome"?
Herod sent his own soldiers, Hebrews. At the time, Judaea was a Protectorate, not a Province.
He was vassal to Rome, sure, but so was Antiochus Epiphanes. Nevertheless, when Antiochus attacked Hebrews faithful to the law, his soldiers spoke Greek, not Latin. Herod's spoke Hebrew, not Latin or Greek.
If you have data refuting this, bring them on.
And no, Luke 2:4 doesn't mean there was a Roman tax collector in Bethlehem. Joseph was a patriot and got enrolled to pay the Temple tax. He avoided Roman tax collectors by quitting Galilee. That's why the first Roman census in Judaea is not relevant to the historicity of the Gospels. The one in Galilee was earlier, under the governors of Syria, one other (Saturninus, I think) assisted by Quirinius. It was forgotten except by Luke, because it sparked no revolt.
18:01 Note, Calvary changes the deal.
From Calvary, Jesus conquered back the authority that had been formerly given to Satan. On Calvary, Satan was bound for a thousand years. Before Calvary He says:
Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
[John 12:31]
32:45 Commandments and Testimony.
What commandments? "I am the Lord thy God" certainly. Not eating pork ... maybe not so relevant any more.
You spoke of a household. It has been a visible community through history. That should be a clue as to its confessional identity. Or some would say "denominational" ... the same city they were first called Christians is where a bishop first called them Catholic (time of Peter, time of his second successor in Antioch, Ignatius).
32:49 Thank you for the final quote.
It's on the frontispiece of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, where I last worshipped with others for a longer period, except they accept the wrong Pope.
Monday, January 5, 2026
A Muslim Perhaps Made a Mistake in Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas via a Modern Work, the Summa is However Available (in Translation)
Here is a video involving how he got corrected:
@DailyPursuitOfTruth
He Tried to Misquote Aquinas… Then Got Exposed
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AOEMx53rFRc
Here is the work he was reading from:
Gregory M. Reichberg, Thomas Aquinas on War and Peace, 2017
https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Aquinas-Peace-Gregory-Reichberg/dp/1107019907
I'm not sure if Gregory M. Reichberg makes the mistake or not.
Here is the Summa in English translation:
Summa Theologiae
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/
Here is the article that is being quoted from:
II—II: Question 10. Unbelief in general
Article 8. Whether unbelievers ought to be compelled to the faith?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article8
Looking up Reichberg, it is probable that the Muslim misread him or oversimplified.
Sunday, January 4, 2026
A 12 Year Old Mother Should be Able to be a 12 Year Old Bride
What DNA Revealed About a 12-Year-Old Mother
DNAngels Org | 31 Dec. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1BaZc2qaAE
Was the considerably older man already married to someone else?
If not, under other jurisidictions, he could have repaired for what he did by marrying her, unless she preferred the age peer.
- I
- Jan van
- @janvan4424
- Jan van
- There is NO WAY to repair rape. The crime has already been comitted. Being married to the rapist would be a horrible thing for the victim to endure. Would you want to be married to someone who committed a crime against you?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @janvan4424 Being married would be horrible in some cases, not others.
Have you heard of "friend rape"? Means, they were already kind of romantic, or romanticism vs friend zone, so it wouldn't be like letting a complete stranger into one's life after he made a very rude intrusion.
And I think, statistically, that more rapes are committed from people you know than from strangers.
The Mosaic law was allowing for such reparation in some cases, and so were Medieval Catholic customs (and same reparation requirement was also attached to simply seducing a virgin, see El Alcalde de Zalamea, for an early post-Medieval example of such jurisprudence).
- II
- DNAngels Org
- @dnangelsorg2544
- DNAngels Org
- @hglundahl, we do not agree with a 12 year old victim marrying the person who harmed her.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @dnangelsorg2544 In this case, you do not agree with a father marrying a mother of the same child, then. I thought you were in favour of healing.
However, you are not accuser, judge or prison guardian, you are if anything at all closer to the coroner (or do you say "judge of investigation" in the US) if there is a case.
My observation was about jurisdictions, not about your view on the matter. However, it is likely views like yours have contributed to the raised age limits for marriage.
- Jan van
- @hglundahl we are in favor of the mother healing, but making her marry someone who raped her and stole her innocence will traumatize her even further and won't remotely bring healing
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @janvan4424 I said nothing about making her marry the person who committed what might have been just statutory rape in your jurisdiction.
I said, in a different jurisdiction it would have been an option for her (but an obligation for him), unless he was already married, consecrated celibate or close relative.
@janvan4424 I note you don't seem to be in favour of the perpetrator healing.
- Jan van
- @hglundahl marrying the girl he raped won't heal him. I am in favor of him being held accountable for the crime he committed by going to prison. I am in favor of him getting professional help so he will hopefully never commit that crime again.
I noticed you didn't address the question I asked you.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @janvan4424 If he marries her, he will not commit the crime again.
Without prison. Without therapy. Just by his duties as a husband.
Now, to the question. Depends on the crime. I would certainly not want to enter a gay marriage if raped by a bugger. But since the act, whether actual or just statutory rape, made a child, this was not the case.
- III
- Jan van
- Marrying the girl he raped doesn't repair what he did. All it does is punish the girl by marrying the man who raped her.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @janvan4424 Did you miss what I stated? She isn't punished, it's her option, but his duty if she choses. And some rapes do occur between people who have previously had a good relationship.
Plus, the rape in question could have been just statutory.
Catholic jurisdiction:
II—II, Question 154. The parts of Lust
Article 7. Whether rape is a species of lust, distinct from seduction?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article7
The Objection 3 is about an abrogated decree of a Council of Meaux.
Reply to Objection 3. The rape of a maiden who is promised in marriage is to be judged differently from that of one who is not so promised. For one who is promised in marriage must be restored to her betrothed, who has a right to her in virtue of their betrothal: whereas one that is not promised to another must first of all be restored to her father's care, and then the abductor may lawfully marry her with her parents' consent. Otherwise the marriage is unlawful, since whosoever steals a thing he is bound to restore it. Nevertheless rape does not dissolve a marriage already contracted, although it is an impediment to its being contracted. As to the decree of the council in question, it was made in abhorrence of this crime, and has been abrogated. Wherefore Jerome [The quotation is from Can. Tria. xxxvi, qu. 2 declares the contrary: "Three kinds of lawful marriage," says he, "are mentioned in Holy Writ. The first is that of a chaste maiden given away lawfully in her maidenhood to a man. The second is when a man finds a maiden in the city, and by force has carnal knowledge of her. If the father be willing, the man shall endow her according to the father's estimate, and shall pay the price of her purity [Cf. Deuteronomy 22:23-29. The third is, when the maiden is taken away from such a man, and is given to another at the father's will."
We may also take this decree to refer to those who are promised to others in marriage, especially if the betrothal be expressed by words in the present tense.
The previous article, on Seduction, features Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Friday, January 2, 2026
Sharing: "Male Distress is Medicalised"
Dark Tetrad Divorce: The Pattern Fathers Aren’t Warned About
Hannah Spier, MD | 1 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXoT0_8D3no
[The system is not just biassed against men in conflict with a woman, but also in other conflicts, for instance with a group.
In such cases, it can be biassed against women too, and also in conflicts with parents or teachers.]
Confer:
I have stood beside parents whose lives were torn apart by judgements untested in open court, based on ‘professional opinion’ masquerading as fact. I have watched as the narratives of doctors and social workers went unchallenged simply because no ordinary citizen was present to say: “That doesn’t ring true.”
Premier: The right to trial by jury is a Christian principle that must be protected
By Andrea Williams | 19 December 2025
https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/the-right-to-trial-by-jury-is-a-christian-principle-that-must-be-protected/20697.article
She's So Eager to Laugh at Jesus, She Destroys the OT and Second Temple Judaism
Christians Think This Is Deep. Jews Laugh.
Rebecca Bar Sef | 2 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIulq4QPjmU
5:56 You are wrong. What happens in Ruth is stated in Deuteronomy 25:9.
With the modification, she doesn't spit in the face, because she actually wants the less close relative, Boaz.
And in Genesis 38, Onan is not killed for refusing the levirate, he's killed for the contraceptive act. Levirate is in fact not a legal obligation before Moses. With Onan, it had been a kind of moral obligation when pretending to obey his father, but he could have said "I don't want her if I'll make a child for my dead brother" and God wouldn't have killed him, Judah would have found someone else.
6:41 First of all, there was not actually a change, other than when Moses made levirate an obligation and also gave a way out (which Boaz and the other kinsman didn't recall all details of).
In Genesis 38 levirate was not a universal obligation, it was just a question of what Judah had ordered his son Onan.
Second, the thing is, the point is that her infertility (or that of seven brothers) makes for repeated levirates, the Sadducees didn't state it was a contemporary case.
The reason they took this ridiculous setup is pretty much that some Pharisees already had an answer if she had been divorced and remarried (to the one who didn't divorce her presumably) and if she had been widowed after already having children (not sure, but probably to the first man). They were wrong, but not wrong to believe in the Resurrection, and Jesus gives the real solution.
7:20 Since He is eternally God before in time becoming Man, He was able to provide an answer, even with no actual previous revelation on the topic.
8:07 No, the argument is not the least absurd, since God says "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" and not "I was etc"
The two statements God made of Himself, and Jesus is the same person Who made them, as Word, He is the one Who spoke, only fit together if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are still somehow alive and especially if that partial life (a k a blessed afterlife) will be restored to full life.
You can guess people were laughing, but that means you opt out of answering the argument. So did they, but not because they saw nothing in it.
I think everyone who argued with Jesus when He and they were adults already knew since He was twelve, He could back up any argumentative challenge He made.
- Mighty
- @Mighty-ue7bt
- Also Moses and Elijah appeared to be speaking to Jesus in the mountain of Transfiguration. Clearly Moses and Elijah are still living
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @Mighty-ue7bt Elias is.
Moses came up from the dead.
8:17 If Abraham was a spirit, already that defeats the general idea of Sadducees.
Here is a passage on how Abraham was at this time alive:
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazarus evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented
And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance
And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead [Luke 16:22-31]
In case you think Jesus "was making it all up" out of nowhere, here is a passage on how Jeremias was alive on a previous occasion:
So he armed every one of them, not with defence of shield and spear, but with very good speeches and exhortations, and told them a dream worthy to be believed, whereby he rejoiced them all Now the vision was in this manner: Onias who had been high priest, a good and virtuous man, modest in his looks, gentle in his manners, and graceful in his speech, and who from a child was exercised in virtues, holding up his hands, prayed for all the people of the Jews After this there appeared also another man, admirable for age, and glory, and environed with great beauty and majesty Then Onias answering, said: This is a lover of his brethren, and of the people of Israel: this is he that prayeth much for the people, and for all the holy city, Jeremias the prophet of God Whereupon Jeremias stretched forth his right hand, and gave to Judas a sword of gold, saying
Take this holy sword a gift from God, wherewith thou shalt overthrow the adversaries of my people Israel [2 Machabees 15:11-16]
In other words, Jesus is agreeing with the author of II Maccabees. And with events that had occurred under the resistance against Nicanor.
But this kind of spirit existence is not the end. Here:
For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in the last day I shall rise out of the earth And I shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I will see my God [Job 19:25-26]
I shall be clothed again with my skin, in my flesh I will see my God.
The reason Jesus didn't quote II Macc. 15 or Job 19 is, Sadducees disputed the canonicity of them. Hence "God of the living" / "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob".
8:47 OK, the argument about the wife of seven brothers is "ridiculous", and that's why Jesus brought the argument back to basics.
God of Who? Living. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Nevertheless, your admission in the text added in edit "later Jews started to argue about it, because they lost their minds" is also an admission you do not represent the continuity of Judaism. You represent a kind of rehash of Sadducee thought, after millennia that it was a nono even to Jews. Like the "13 words" of your Rambam, bad enough in denying the Messias had already come, but at least are better than you.
8:55 But who pretends all religious truth has to be immediately for the betterment of society?
Not the God of the living. Not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Not the God-Man Who rebuked the Sadducees.
9:04 Once I die, I lose control.
However, this is what Paul said, recall the man who had studied under Gamaliel?
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment: [Hebrews 9:27]
In other words, the one Who does control what happens takes into account how you acted before you die.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)