Communications are a Bit Rocky (with Caleb Howells too)

Was Homer’s Troy Ruled by the Assyrians?
Caleb Howells | 8 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I1lS2-E56A

1:03 Barring your proposal of placing Troy in the Iron age and closer to Homer ... my view is, first Hattusa was destroyed (with possible Trojan involvement) and then Troy itself was temporarily destroyed and permanently joined to the Ionic Greek world.

May I remind that the famous Trojan war was not the first conflict between Mycenaean Greece and Troy, it seems that Priamos means "hostage" in Greek (correct me if I'm wrong) and got that nickname when Hercules took him hostage in an earlier war, when he was a boy.

As to the earlier war, I have no doubts that Hittites were involved.

2:37 I've noted that too.

With the exception of the word, presumably Myc. Greek *hethos and then by dissimilation of aspiration in Classical Greek ethos.

The possibly oldest and crudest meaning being "duty" or "taxation" ...

Hittites were forgot because they were plundering some guys with too much taxes. Damnatio memoriae, except for the Bible and one Greek word preserving the memory one tried to erase.

4:17 I would place Ninus in carbon dated 6000 / 3000-ish BC.

6000-ish ... Historia scholastica considers him a contemporary of Sarug.

3000-ish ... he is credited with having initiated idolatry over grief of his father Belus. Idols, specifically of Ishtar, come to the foreground in Mesopotamia around 3000-ish BC.

In both cases obviously carbon dated.

5:05 Assyria can have after taking over the Hittite heartland have taken on all Hittite loyalties as claims, and retroactively branding them as Assyrian ones.

30 kings, from Ninus. I'll go with the real historical years of Sarug, born 2295 BC. Nineve was destroyed in 612 BC. 1683 years.

Now 22/30 * 1683 = 1234, and so many years after 2295 = 1061 BC. One century off traditional date of 1180 BC.

5:25 Can Plato be dependent on Ctesias?

[All ensuing comments are lost]

6:13 Sure. But I obviously dispute that the actual Ninus lived in the 1300's BC.

Ninus and his father Belus are tied to a story in which Ninus invented idolatry over the statue of his dead father Belus.

And if I give the medium time for 22 kings out of 30, it's 1061 BC, a pretty good match for Troy destroyed in 1179 BC, 120 years earlier.

What's the time for each king on my view? 1683 years = 1683 / 30 = 56.1 years per king. Now, that's not realistic for the times of the Trojan war, and one could imagine that kings have been forgotten or interregna overlooked, perhaps deliberately so. It is more realistic for times back near Sarug.

Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243 f.Kr.-1208 f.Kr.). 1243 to 612 = 631 years = 631 / 30 = 21 years per king. Realistic as far as it goes, but why would Ctesias have come across people who forgot about his father Salmanassar, who must on any view have been pretty famous?

8:03 Some have said Cadmus is a myth and Herodotus was wrong in crediting him with the Phoenician letters.

Some have said the Greek alphabet is older than we thought.

Archeology doesn't quite prove that Thebes ever was a Phoenician enclave, Bronze Age or later. Herodotus can have been wrong in crediting Cadmus with the Greek Alphabet.

8:59 I would say that the Ethiopians in the Trojan war actually point to Hittite times.

How so?

My theory is, Hittite memories of Kadesh were mixed with Trojan memories of the War.

However, in Kadesh, Hittites were fighting Egypt and may have had Ethiopian allies. So little battle-field archaeology exists, this Ethiopian presence can't be ruled out.

Later, when one deliberately forgot about Hittites and their name got nobler connotations than taxation, these memories were reattached to the Trojan war.

I need to go back to the video* with Mary Bachvarova (channel Lantern Jack interviewing her) to get back to whether there was a Hittite version of the Iliad.

[tried to add:

Also, apparently Assyrians never conquered Ethiopia, so the info in Ctesias is spurious, i e garbled info.]

* A Hittite Version of the War of Troy?
Lantern Jack | 28 Nov. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ao2sps9bR4

As Said, Horrible Red Things is NOT CSL's Best Chapter

A CSL Fan Saying CSL Was Wrong · As Said, Horrible Red Things is NOT CSL's Best Chapter

This C.S. Lewis Argument Only Works Until You Read the Bible
Mindshift | 9 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYhHZlo0kQg

15:49 I accept 15 cubits.

Noah had built the Ark on the highest mountain of the pre-Flood world, so if the water line of the Ark was 15 cubits (half of the height, pretty normal for a water line) and Noah understood the waterline (he had 600 years of life experience, instructions from God and access to a pre-Flood Nodian civilisation lost to us), he knew exactly when the water was 15 cubits above that top, and hence at least 15 cubits above the other tops.

I would say this mountain may have been flattened by the Flood so the remainder where it's cut off is called the Meseta in Spain.

Even if you project the Meseta up to all the height possible of the angles leading up to it, that mountain will be lower than Mount Everest. Now, Mount Everest and Himalayas are post-Flood phenomena.

And the earliest parts of it rising were the fastest, and you don't find human habitation on the Sivalik hills (foot of Himalayas) until a few centuries after the Flood. Which on my calculations is adequate, given the earliest part was too violent to be safe for human even roaming in the vicinity.

So, where do you get "100 % incorrect" from?

I

Das Bus

@dasbus9834

So, where do you get "100 % incorrect" from?
Floods don't flatten mountains. And the Himalayas are of course way, way older. Also everyone would have suffocated on that ship with one tiny window. And so on.

So yeah, that story fails on absolutely every level. It is 100% false.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@dasbus9834 "Floods don't flatten mountains."

High pressure water with oversaturation of mineral particles does "sandpaper" even stone.

The point is, the Flood had enough water, enough speed and enough oversaturation to do this with a mountain. Not comparable to "a flood" as we see them today.

"And the Himalayas are of course way, way older."

Even if it were true, and we didn't have the Bible to tell the opposite, it would be unknowable.

"Also everyone would have suffocated on that ship with one tiny window."

Thou shalt make a window in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish the top of it: and the door of the ark thou shalt set in the side: with lower, middle chambers, and third stories shalt thou make it
[Genesis 6:16]

In a cubit shalt thou finish "the top of it" ... how much was the rest of it? Does this mean "the height" and no mention of width and length given? Does "a window" stand for multiple windows by a figure of speech that Noah understood?

Some creationists have interpreted this as a series of windows all 1 cubit high.

"And so on."

Like your summing up, this isn't an extra objection.

Das Bus

@hglundahl High pressure water with oversaturation of mineral particles does "sandpaper" even stone
"Sandpapering stone" and flattening mountains are not the same thing. By far.

The point is, the Flood had enough water, enough speed and enough oversaturation to do this with a mountain. Not comparable to "a flood" as we see them today.
Then the energies involved would not have allowed a wooden boat to survive. And the effects of these forces would show still today. Which they don't.

Even if it were true, and we didn't have the Bible to tell the opposite, it would be unknowable
It isn't unkowable though, and the Bible is wrong.

Some creationists have interpreted this as a series of windows all 1 cubit high.
Whatever fan fiction they need to make the story slightly less ridiculous.

Like your summing up, this isn't an extra objection
No. Those I gave are already enough. No reason to mention the countless further facts that make the story impossible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "are not the same thing. By far."

The difference is one of quantity.

"would not have allowed a wooden boat to survive."

Except for the mile or so of depth between the sandpapering and the water surface with the Ark.

"would show still today."

Flattening of whatever was above the Meseta is not unique. Welcome to actual geology.

"It isn't unkowable though,"

Allegation without argument.

"and the Bible is wrong."

At this level of argument, allegation without argument.

"to make the story slightly less ridiculous."

Or, other possibility, the "window" is not concerned with the ventilation at all, but only with the light. Ark Encounter had an article in 2012 to that effect.

"Those I gave are already enough."

To give me a nice little taste of the sport called "refutation" ...

Das Bus

@hglundahl The difference is one of quantity
Nope. It's a qualitative difference. One is a surface effect, the other is structural. What you're proposing wouldn't reshape the mountains, it would melt them.

Except for the mile or so of depth between the sandpapering and the water surface with the Ark
Insufficient to isolate the boat from the heat alone, even if we disregard the resulting vortices. Your version would have cooked off the oceans. It's that simple.

Flattening of whatever was above the Meseta is not unique. Welcome to actual geology.
Actual geology doesn't show flattening. It shows slow erosion, no cataclysmic reshaping of whole mountain ranges.

Allegation without argument
None needed to dismiss your unfounded bare assertion.

At this level of argument
As your entire argument is "the Bible says so", you should probably start improving yours first.

Or, other possibility, the "window" is not concerned with the ventilation at all, but only with the light
That seems likely given how it was insufficient either way. Doesn't make the problem of ventilation go away of course.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "One is a surface effect, the other is structural."

When surface is eroded, what's below it is the new surface and so on. In other words, this sooner or later becomes structural (as can be seen in old buildings collapsing after too much erosion).

"it would melt them."

Allegation. I've seen a few of that precise type before.

"Insufficient to isolate the boat from the heat alone,"

Heat? Melting allegation? I mean some heat from below may have been welcome when lots of water surface allowed heat to radiate from Earth and cool it.

"even if we disregard the resulting vortices."

Why would underwater vortices have any effect a mile up other than a pretty comfortable "out in the ocean" tsunami?

"Your version would have cooked off the oceans."

Did you read a paper by Soroka and Nelson too uncritically?

"It shows slow erosion,"

Which sometimes adds up to precisely flattening. And "slow" is guess work.

"no cataclysmic reshaping of whole mountain ranges."

You haven't read Mitchener's Centennial. Specifically not the first chapter, which is on geology.

"As your entire argument is "the Bible says so","

More like "the Bible says so" and "this is how it is possible."

"Doesn't make the problem of ventilation go away of course."

Could very well mean that the ventilation is a separate issue the preserved descriptions don't deal with and the better detailed instructions God gave Noah did deal with.

Das Bus

@hglundahl When surface is eroded, what's below it is the new surface and so on. In other words, this sooner or later becomes structural (as can be seen in old buildings collapsing after too much erosion).
Buildings aren't mountains. But I can see how that would be an appropriate description if the effect happened over many millions of years.

Allegation
Basic physics.

I mean some heat from below may have been welcome when lots of water surface allowed heat to radiate from Earth and cool it
Ocean surfaces radiate less heat than land masses. Your cooling gets worse. No good position for your unfortunate boat people to be in.

Why would underwater vortices have any effect a mile up other than a pretty comfortable "out in the ocean" tsunami?
Because vortices and tsunamis aren't the same thing.

And "slow" is guess work.
It's based on evidence.

You haven't read Mitchener's Centennial. Specifically not the first chapter, which is on geology.
Yeah no reason to waste my time with creationist drivel.

More like "the Bible says so" and "this is how it is possible."
Only it's not possible, and the Bible is still wrong.

Could very well mean that the ventilation is a separate issue the preserved descriptions don't deal with and the better detailed instructions God gave Noah did deal with.
So more fan fiction. Too bad you're still stuck with one window as per the story. So much for ventilation then.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "if the effect happened over many millions of years."

Or with loads of more water.

"Basic physics."
"Ocean surfaces radiate less heat than land masses."

I think water has a higher heat capacity, so, it takes more energy to heat up water.

"Because vortices and tsunamis aren't the same thing."

Doesn't remotely answer my question why currents sandpapering the former land surface on sea bottom would generate vortices.

"It's based on evidence."

You are not being precise on which one, and I smell uniformitarian ideology.

"to waste my time with creationist drivel."

Mitchener isn't creationist. He believes in millions and billions of years. They involve, on his view, very cataclysmic changes overall.

"Only it's not possible,"

You haven't remotely given any reason.

"and the Bible is still wrong."

And you are out of truth ...

"Too bad you're still stuck with one window as per the story."

Not necessarily for the ventilation if that isn't what it talked about.

Das Bus

@hglundahl Or with loads of more water.
Then that's no longer erosion, so it wouldn't look like erosion.

I think water has a higher heat capacity, so, it takes more energy to heat up water.
You talked about radiative properties, not heat capacity.

Doesn't remotely answer my question why currents sandpapering the former land surface on sea bottom would generate vortices.
That's not what you asked. And if you don't understand how forces strong enough to remove mountains would create vortices, then that's unfortunate.

You are not being precise on which one
Basic geology.

Mitchener isn't creationist
If his claims directly support YEC and the flood, then they're nonsense. If they don't, they're irrelevant.

You haven't remotely given any reason
Or maybe you just don't like the reasons.

And you are out of truth
I have reality. That's all the truth I need.

Not necessarily for the ventilation if that isn't what it talked about
It doesn't talk about any purpose for the window. It does talk about one window though. Anything else is still fan fiction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "Then that's no longer erosion,"

Well, yes, it is. Water taking away matter is erosion. Some looks pretty quick.

"You talked about radiative properties, not heat capacity."

I'm not a natural scientist, my bad, looked it up in the meantime.

"Basic geology."

You're not precise about what aspect.

"If his claims directly support YEC and the flood, then they're nonsense."

They are not meant to and are practically taken from geology text books.

But you show a huge display of bias here.

"If they don't, they're irrelevant."

Not if they indirectly support it.

"you just don't like"

I do like refuting specific reasons, when given.

"That's all the truth I need."

Let me rephrase. You are out of reality.

"Anything else is still fan fiction."

Any explanation about the past going beyond immediate evidence is fan fiction. Your evolution and geology does it to rocks as much as we to the Bible text.

Das Bus

@hglundahl Water taking away matter is erosion
Water melting away mountains isn't though.

You're not precise about what aspect
I was exactly as precise as necessary.

They are not meant to and are practically taken from geology text books
Then they don't support your flood story.

But you show a huge display of bias here
And it's well earned, in every way.

I do like refuting specific reasons, when given
You're not exactly doing a good job with that though.

Let me rephrase. You are out of reality.
Bad rephrasing for someone believing in the Bible nonsense.

Any explanation about the past going beyond immediate evidence is fan fiction. Your evolution and geology does it to rocks as much as we to the Bible text.
The idea that all of reality worked completely differently for some unspecified reason, only to end up looking as if it didn't, is indeed pretty weird. Probably why nobody but YECs would be desperate enough to come up with it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "Water melting away"

I said nothing about "melting away" ...

"I was exactly as precise as" ... someone lacking the specialist knowledge you claim to be on your side.

"Then they don't support your flood story."

They aren't meant to. But the overall changes on mountains are cataclysmic enough, he just pretends it took way more time.

"And it's well earned,"

You're admitting it exists.

"not exactly doing a good job"

Not right now, not with you, because you refuse specifics.

"all of reality worked completely differently for some unspecified reason, only to end up looking as if it didn't,"

But it ends up looking as things happened that really don't happen any more. Any real contact with geology or palaeontology will have this weird effect on you. Like that time a stampede of dinosaurs like diplodocus size in a river was compared to a stampede of mere bulls in Himalayas ... the river in question would have been bigger than Brahmaputra in flow, and this is in Argentina, where you don't have the place for that big rivers. Not Brahmaputra sized, let alone such that would bury stampedes of diplodocus type animals.

And unspecified reason? That's not what "miracle" means.

Das Bus

@hglundahl I said nothing about "melting away" ...
No worries. I still did.

[omitting the rest of what he wrote.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "I still did."

Showing your dishonesty. I'm blocking.

[done]

II

Rohan

@newsystembad

Any "global flood" would have eradicated ALL terrestrial plant life and left all land unfit for agriculture for the rest of time. To say nothing of the ludicrous thermodynamics that would've baked every living creature on the ark to a crisp.

Noah's flood is a myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@newsystembad "would have eradicated ALL terrestrial plant life"

Except flotsam.

"and left all land unfit for agriculture for the rest of time."

You are presuming pre-Flood seas were pretty salt, right?

"the ludicrous thermodynamics that would've baked every living creature on the ark to a crisp."

I've already adressed that allegation in the original form given by Soroka and Nelson.

19:08 Jericho was off by 300 years?

From what?

I pose the Exodus in 1511 BC which places the fall of Jericho, first year after the desert, in 1471 BC. The carbon date given is 1550 BC. The only problem is, how I account for the extra years, and my answer is, the atmospheric carbon 14 level of 98.929 pmC is the last stage of a Biblical calibration diverging from the uniformitarian one. Earlier parts have lower carbon 14 in the atmosphere and thus more extra years.

Rohan

The walls of Jericho fell from an earthquake, not from the supposed "conquest" featured in ancient Israel's school shooter fanfic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@newsystembad The conquest involved as miracle that would look in retrospect like an earthquake.

Rohan

@hglundahl Uh huh, sure it did, very convenient. This is like those creationists who claim that god conjured starlight into existence midway to Earth to make the universe appear ancient. It's cope, nothing more

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@newsystembad I'm not in the starlight created in transit camp any more, neither is Jonathan Sarfati.

He's explaining it with a stretching universe (which big bangers accept too), I'm with Geocentrism.

Now, I notice you assigned me a motive "cope" and reassured me I only had the motive, but I missed the part where you actually refuted the Creationist claim about Jericho.

20:08 What if:

• the moral atmosphere of the Amalecites was such as to make cohabitation impossible
• and the counterpart of a CPS action on part of Israelites (with relation to Amalecite children) was not in the least feasible?

The children were not being punished, they were suffering very briefly to punish their fathers. But the parents, both sexes, were punished even into the killing of their children.

23:03 Not the exact thing.

The underlying moral principle is in Exodus:

He that shall steal a man, and sell him, being convicted of guilt, shall be put to death
[Exodus 21:16]

That's why God freed Israel, and that's why (after some compromise), Catholics and Wilberforce ended up freeing slaves all over the Christian world.

However, the Chanaanean slaves were presumed guilty. Even if taken by people themselves guilty of above offense, they would probably have done a similar thing the year before they ended up in slavery. In the Catholic compromise, there was miscommunication between the Pope and Portugal, but theologians making sense of it were saying "we presume this slave was taken in a war trying to enslave others or sold by his own people for an offense against justice" (and obviously, this was the cynic part, one trusted the own kings' to have made a sufficient declaration of principle to this effect).

In Chanaan, the guilt of a slave then sold to Israelites was more probably presumable than in Black Africa, even if Black Africa prior to Brazza did lots of warmongering in order to take and sell slaves.

Obviously, a man deserving death, deserves slavery.

Responding to Dr. Taylor Marshall

Priest suspended from Catholic College for CATHOLIC INTEGRALISM - Dr. Taylor Marshall
Dr Taylor Marshall | 8 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g12IAi-Uaqo

1) Hope you had a blessed feast of Our Lady, yesterday!
2) Quibble. Heiligenkreuz is not ending in "croots" but in "croyts" ...

3) When did the Church ever condemn "Fascism"? Specifically in a wider sense than Italian Fascism, since Mussolini unfortunately for a time made what Pius XI had condemned official Fascist ideology outside schools too, so, in a wider sense, including Mussolini prior to signing the book by Gentile it's second edition or including Dollfuss and Schuschnigg.

4) In California, as far as I know, they are not giving hard narcotics to the homeless. Possible exception for narcotics less hard than someone is already hooked on. They are, by contrast, giving pure needles, which is a good thing. You don't want homeless to die in droves from AIDS because they share needles.

32:31 (5) What I was taught ... Latin has six cases, Greek has five ... Latin has five declinsions, Greek has three ... Latin has four conjugations, Greek has -o and -mi verbs, and also Aorist 1 / Aorist 2 ... Positives are either 1 and 2 Decl or 3rd, (Latin and Greek), Comparatives always 3rd, Superlatives always 1 and 2.

bonus, bona, bonum ... melior, melius ... optimus, optima, optimum
tenuis, tenue ... tenuior, tenuius ... tenuissimus, tenuissima, tenuissimum

My Greek is too rusty to give examples from that language, sorry ....

My Latin professor tried to teach me St. Bridget was schizophrenic, and he also tried to and succeeded to teach me, when she predicted someone's death, that someone died. My Latin assistant professor taught me St. Thomas can be understood once you master things like "act" vs "power", ten categories and "motus" isn't limited to "motion" from one place to another and a few more.

I have a somewhat hard time understanding how any of this is bunk, except the Atheist's view on a prophetess' mental state. Which, as said, he didn't manage to teach me.

6) What is a woman? Given government involves giving death penalty and fighting wars, is that a totally feminine thing to get involved with?

Eowyn may excuse me, but drafting all women of a nation into being shieldmaidens is overdoing it ... (a certain state called IL may take note ...)

7) What is a Pope? A man, male, baptised, Catholic elected and having accepted election and so on ...

Little Rock

@littlerock5256

He has to teach the Catholic Faith.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@littlerock5256 Yes. He first of all has to actually be a Catholic.

One Answer Involves Geocentrism, Two Involve Catholic Mariology

Apart from this, I'm pretty OK with basically everything Dr. Jonathan Sarfati says in this video:

10 Arguments Creationists Should Not Use
Creation Ministries International | 10 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlGR4ZVDb9A

27:18 Other alternative, the "cosmic distances" (beyond 1 light day and some less up to Voyager 1 and 2 and indefinitely more but not infinitely more up to the fix stars) aren't real in the first place.

Angelic movers dancing in Heaven to glorify God with their stars would be performing all of the movement our modern scientists usually analyse as aberration and parallax.

If Earth isn't moving, 2 AU is a distance between two positions of the Sun, but not necessarily two positions of the star. So, no parallax trigonometry.

38:25 The early Church however did not teach that She ever sinned, and, prior to St. Augustine, no one even suggested She contracted original sin.

St. John of Damascus clearly taught the opposite.

40:07 Pleae note, the angel had said "Blessed art thou among women" before saying "the Holy Spirit will overshadow you, so, before She was pregnant with God.

Now, if you look in a Catholic or a Protestant Bible, two or one more women had been told or said of "blessed among women" and one of them killed Sisera, the other killed Holophernes.

Now, Our Lady hadn't physically killed any man, so, who was Her "Sisera"? The only possible answer is Satan, meaning, She was without sin since forever, because if She had contracted sin, that would on the contrary have made Satan victorious.

Testify is Great on the Gospels, Here He Gets Into Why Not RC

Why I Don't Accept the Papacy
Testify | 2 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izfntr_taAk

2:41 Is the Lourdes one I cite on this one sufficiently specifically Catholic?

New blog on the kid: Two Queen Mothers Against Tuberculosis
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2026/08/two-queen-mothers-against-tuberculosis.html

I mean, at the place an apparition had told a girl "[tell him] that I am the immaculate conception" (Que soy era Immaculada councepciou ... no, "era" isn't "was" it's "the" = other romance lingos have "la").

If this is a false claim by the apparition, why does God authentify it so multiply?

4:11 John 21. Given Jesus is "the good shepherd" what kind of office is Jesus giving Peter with "feed my sheep"?

Matthew 28. Given the last words, verse 16, are adressed mainly to the eleven, whom was Jesus promising to perpetuate in verse 20, "all days"?

LegendBegins

@LegendBegins

It really looks like Jesus is restoring Peter after his denial more so than giving him any elevated office.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@LegendBegins Why would that involve "shepherding"?

---

All the following comments have disappeared:

4:40 Is St. Irenaeus early enough?

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Book III of Adversus Haereses. [and chapter 3]

4:48 The NT says his authority passes on though.

Matthew 28:20. All days to the consummation of the age means further on than just to when Peter was crucified.

Like it still isn't finished.

WHERE precisely that office passes on depends on where he died. If you think his "Babylon" means a city on the Euphrates which was great back in Daniel's day, why would he go there, when it was shrunk to the proportions of a pagan Disney land?

4:54 Whether Peter or another Cephas gets rebuked by Paul is overall dubious.

Sure, Latin, that is the most immediately Papal of the main regional traditions says it was Peter. Alexandrine says it was another Cephas (see Stromata).

But getting rebuked isn't in and of itself a mark of lacking supreme authority (under God). St. Thomas says St. Peter was setting an example to accept correction even from inferiors.

5:06 If you mean Titus and I and II Timothy, there are offices that St. Paul is pretty sketchy about in the text.

St. Paul's own and St. Timothy's for instance.

I would say "local" or "ordinary bishop" wasn't called "bishop", it was called "teacher" or in Douay Rheims "master" and is most memorably mentioned in James 3:1, exactly matching Catholic attitudes to being offered a diocese. The word "bishop" on at least one (Catholic) opinion simply meant "priest" (like 1 Timothy 3:1 matches attitudes to wanting to become a priest).

The one bishop mentioned in the two to Timothy is simply called "thou" ...

In other words, the NT doesn't pretend to be an exhaustive manual to Church offices.

[couldn't add:

There is a reason why the Bible would say less about bishops and Popes.

God knew there would be changing circumstances, so elections would be made in different ways. But also, the usual candidates would anyway have gone through the school described by Paul for presbyters ("bishops") and deacons.]

5:31 Like Timothy can be adressed "thou" (in a manual for his overseeing among other things lesser offices), or "Church in Ephesus" ...

Not sure if he was still around when Jesus adressed "the angel of the Church of Ephesus" but that would be Timothy or a successor to him.

5:40 Checking 1 Clement 44:

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

This covers St. Paul appointing St. Timothy over Ephesus. In the singular. So, the plural is for plural churches that have apostolic origin, not for a plurality of office holders in each Church.

5:50 It's actually not weird.

If everyone in Corinth knew to obey the Pope, the Pope only had to remind them to behave well to their bishop. Like St. Ignatius had done to some Churches, but not the one in Rome which didn't need instruction on that point, or from him.

6:07 Again, Rome was already submitting to the then Pope, so didn't need a reminder from St. Ignatius.

6:15 Presides in love = presides in the unity of the love that binds faithful Christians.

What does "preside" suggest to you?

6:28 That a single bishop presides over the Church doesn't stop presbyters from doing so with him.

Hermas was mentioning the cardinals, basically. Would you say cardinals have no presiding function in Rome today? I wouldn't.

[couldn't add:

For a recent example, see the skull of St. Agatha.]

6:55 Yes, the Pope is local bishop of Rome.

You sound as if every text has to supply every truth about the Pope for them to be confirmed.

What was your logic again, when John mentions Philip in chapter 6 and some other Gospeller mentions Bethsaida? Is Philip invalidated because Synoptics don't mention him or Bethsaida invalidated because John doesn't mention the place in this context?

Or do you apply one set of logic rules for the Gospels and a different set when reading the Early Church?

Are they considering "abortion" a survival for siblings of the aborted? How ghastly ... and also not always true, abortions kill and sterilise mothers too

Why Did Ancient Humans Have Kids at 12?
Noxenn / Volt / Dodoz | 11 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F63f-UivWU

3:22 "in parts of Europe"

Norway, Scotland, maybe Sweden, Denmark, England, maybe Hamburg and Berlin ....

Sure, less good nutrition, and lots of the year with no light much of the day.

5:28 No decade long time when body and hormones say "adult" and society replies "child" ...

Thank you, Old Rome (also followed by Christians).

7:21 "and your offspring will benefit from a more mature and more resourceful parent"

Well, not if teens and single life drive some to suicide or if some are socially held back from being considered mature anyway, as per psychiatry or child protective services.

Those factors don't just delay, they handicap even after the delay is over.

[tried to add:

Not to mention the clear non-benefit of being aborted since mother is considered "too young"]

8:01 Pelvis, trade off.

BEST time for first child birth is between 17 and 25. Now consider that as a point, a limit.

Before that, down to 13, the pelvis is narrower, but more malleable, after that the pelvis is wider but harder.

30 is riskier than 13, other things being equal. At least according to the Gynaecology professor of my mother.

8:25 "it cost lives"

I'm going to a study on Ethiopia, where young childbirth is pretty common.*

Result: A total of 61 studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing all Ethiopian regions. The pooled MMR was estimated at 366.6 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, showing only modest progress from previous decades.

This was between 2015 and 2015

13:21 With some modification.

Biologically ready can happen between 9 and 18, but the younger years were in fact cut off in Christendom, as in Ancient Rome, due to a legal age of 14 for the male and 12 for the female participant of a marriage.

20 secs up to 14:05

We look back at 12-year-old brides and young mothers in the ancient world, and we feel a very natural, very justified sense of unease, sometimes horror. And honestly, that reaction is appropriate given what we now know about adolescent development, about the risks of early pregnancy, about the psychological and physical toll it took.

Count me out from this "we" and I object to "justified" and ""what we now know".

That early pregnancy is a risk was always obvious. But for very long this risk has been mitigated by good medicine. Waiting to 30 is objectively speaking riskier. It works out in Sweden, and wouldn't work out in Ethiopia, for the same reason that many of the teen mothers who die in Ethiopia would have survived in Sweden.

Adolescent development is an ideal age for the bonding that needs to take place in a marriage. And the two last items, "psychological and physical toll" are simply redundant for the first two items.

In other words, you are uselessly catastrophising about it.

15:25 "Began climbing steadily across most of the world."

You frame it as a kind of very natural development.

In fact, it was more of a project starting in 1880's US, among other centres. Making early teen marriages illegal. By now, that policy is being viewed as "the natural course of things" and early pregnancies are often death sentences due to that culture and to legal abortion.

In Italy, at least, under Il Duce, a mother of 14 who aborted went to prison, as older mothers and a mother under 14 who aborted, whoever legally put her up to it (she hadn't legally consented to abortion) went even longer to prison. However, normal marital age was 18 / 18, as it had been since the Risorgimento (and somewhat earlier in Sardegna), and getting married earlier was, if at all possible, then as a derogation when a girl was already pregnant.

In Austria, under Francis Joseph II, a woman of 21 could marry without asking her parents, but a girl of 14 could marry with parental permission. AEIOU.

16:05 "how far our species has travalled" ... into brutal abortion mills, among other things.

* Maternal mortality in Ethiopia (2015-2025): a systematic review of recent evidence and determinants
Merga Abdissa Aga 1, Ding-Geng Chen 2 3
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41462176/
BMC Public Health. 2025 Dec 29;26(1):539. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-26101-w.

Skipping Some on What They Consider "Second Tier Issues" ... Or Their Relation Between Bible and Tradition

We Wish All Christians Knew THIS About the Book of Genesis
Answers in Genesis | 4 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L72rO2eoimw

St. Paul treats Melchisedec as a real person.

This means, he takes Genesis 14 as real history.

Now, in a non-inspired work, real history could include pseudo-facts, like WW-I propaganda about Germans making lamp shades of human skin. However, in an inspired work, the only reason for a non-factual statement would be "not meant as real history" ... like the lost son who came back, we cannot be sure any specific man ever ate or tried to eat the husks he gave to swine (nor that there wasn't one). But this venue is not open about Genesis 14.

It's real history, not parable. AND it's inspired, not fallible.

And they returned, and came to the fountain of Misphat, the same is Cades: and they smote all the country of the Amalecites, and the Amorrhean that dwelt in Asasonthamar
[Genesis 14:7]

And where is Asasonthamar?

And there came messengers, and told Josaphat, saying: There cometh a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea, and out of Syria, and behold they are in Asasonthamar, which is Engaddi
[2 Paralipomenon (2 Chronicles) 20:2]

Now, the archaeology for Ein Gedi shows no human habitation between the presumable Amorrhean habitation of the chalcolithic, ending 3500 BC (carbon dated) and the Iron Age which is definitely too late.

I think Osgood for all the facts except the 3500 BC carbon date, had to look that one up elsewhere.

However, Genesis 14 cannot have happened in actual 3500 BC, since Abraham was c. 5 years earlier called 430 years before the Exodus, that was 480 or 480 + years prior to the Temple of Solomon, and that was c. 390 years prior to the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.

This means, there is a discrepancy between the carbon date and the actual date. If we take Abraham as born in 2016 BC (as the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day does), and allow Abraham to be around 80 (more than the 75 in chapter 12, less than the 86 in chapter 16), this automatically involves a discrepancy of 1564 extra years.

But 1564 extra years is a carbon 14 level of 82.763 pmC * . Perfectly viable if the carbon 14 level was still rising from an initially lower level, but impossible as just a "wiggle" in the c. 100 pmC roughly speaking stable level.

* (Since .5^(1564/5730) = 0.8276258493022752)

3:49 Obviously, St. Augustine who believed at least on and off in a one moment creation was saved too.

However, if you think Adam had progenitors, you are in trouble.

Two scenarios:

a) they were fully human = he was not the first man, his sin could not be decisive, directly condemned by Trent Session V;
b) they weren't = God put a sinless human child in harm's way.

The idea of Adam having fully human parents was certainly not allowed anywhere among purported Catholics in 1950. The second idea was, by Pius XII, "left on trial" rather than directly condemned.

This had been kind of, but less officially, the case since 1941.

And some were not taking it to "we can defend in a discussion that Adam had non-human progenitors, but we can't actually believe it unless the Church first accepts our arguments", no, they were not just or even foremost defending it, they were believing it. That part of Catholic clergy started the modern child abuse crisis. Remember the 1941 date I just mentioned?

A few years ago, when people who had been big children but below puberty in the 1930's were still alive, a French commission started on the child and youth abuses. Their earliest examples were from the 1940's ... Romans 1:26 ...

7:37 Logically, if you know your science, if you accept long periods of time, you'd suppose the atmosphere was c. 100 pmC both in 3500 BC and in 1936 BC, so full and inerrant historicity of Genesis 14 is out.

Somehow those people never make that connection.

---

Let's add a closing line in response to their final question:

---

I allow the Catholic Church to define as first or at least second tier issues whatever She proclaims as dogma.

Note, a statement to the effect "let's say there is so far no dogma on the issue, you can discuss this behind closed doors" is not a dogma, and Pius XII did not define (technical term) that Adam having ancestry was even licit to hold. It isn't. He conditioned the discussions on the willingness to submit to a definite statement of the Church, but didn't say it had to be a future one. I do. Trent Session V echoes Romans Chapter V and this makes Theistic Evolutionism an absolute no go zone.

Accepting millions of years but also believing a literal Adam is simply lazy thought. You can probably be saved, as in a state of grace, but you can't be coherent as in a good philosopher if you do that.