On Sexual Sins, Rapes and Rapes and Hovind Getting Reason for Death Penalty Wrong

Dr. Kent Hovind 10-27-17 Gen 34, Rape of of Dinah, sexual sins and how to deal with them.
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_K6hAN3DQI

5:54 Don't you wish it had just been a regular shot gun wedding?

13:59 It is not all rape, only some rapes where stoning is involved.

Other ones, the rapist is obliged to marry the victim, if her father wants him to.

Note very well, there might have been some abuse of that paragraph to arrange "rapes", because an unraped virgin getting seduced, under OT, would have been stoned.

[16] If a man seduce a virgin not yet espoused, and lie with her: he shall endow her, and have her to wife. [17] If the maid's father will not give her to him, he shall give money according to the dowry, which virgins are wont to receive. (Exodus 22)

Here it says seduce, I think there is a parallel for rape.

Here is Deuteronomy 22:

[23] If a man have espoused a damsel that is a virgin, and some one find her in the city, and lie with her, [24]Thou shalt bring them both out to the gate of that city, and they shall be stoned: the damsel, because she cried not out, being in the city: the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife. And thou shalt take away the evil from the midst of thee. [25] But if a man find a damsel that is betrothed, in the field, and taking hold of her, lie with her, he alone shall die: [26] The damsel shall suffer nothing, neither is she guilty of death: for as a robber riseth against his brother, and taketh away his life, so also did the damsel suffer: [27] She was alone in the field: she cried, and there was no man to help her. [28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: [29] He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life. [30] No man shall take his father's wife, nor remove his covering.

So, the rapist who is taking a non-espoused damsel is not stoned, but bound to take her.

Biblical model for shotgun wedding.

14:56 No, I don't think it is genetics which decides who commits a crime.

Weeding out genes (other than by death penalty, which is not due for every rape), comes dangerously close to what St Paul prophecied to St Timothy.

1 Tim 4 : [1] Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, [2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, [3] Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.

Hey, one more thing.

Some women get pregnant by rape.

I guess you do NOT consider this as an excuse for abortion, at least I don't.

If a raped women forgives the rapist or if she gets a chance of killing him and does, which do you think is healthier for her relationship to the child?

An Atheist Asking Nominal Catholics to Ditch the Label (Hemant Mehta)

Why Are You Still Catholic?
The Atheist Voice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dblERAfS1HI

My comments on successive parts:

I was asking the other day why English is the language in which HOLYBIBLE adds up to 666 in ASCII.

Now you are answering why English is the language in which CATHOLICS add(s) up to 666 in ASCII.

C 67 060 7
A 65 120 12
T 84 200 16
H 72 270 18
O 79 340 27
L 76 410 33
I 73 480 36
C 67 540 43
S 83 620 46

60 % for gay marriage, 51 % for abortion? You nailed the reason!

(yes, OK, I have also heard US is number 1 country for annulments due to insufficient consent or incomplete consent)

1:06 I do, and most Catholics world wide do - are you going to give stats from US again arguing that US Catholics are mostly not such?

I also believe women cannot be priests. Not only should not, but cannot. As in, even if Sinéad O'Conor was "ordained" by a bishop, she was not ordained, the bishop sinned gravely in trying to, she is not a priest.

I do not believe "the Pope always knows best", but I do believe the Popes usually know better than their opponents, and that when they claim infallibility for a pronouncement, they are infallible.

That said, I don't think "Pope Francis" is Pope. I hope I am right Pope Michael is.

When it comes to real presence, you'd be surprised how many Catholics who are NOT Catholics who believe this and stick to Mass despite doctrinal differences on other matters - because of this, more than because of ritual.

The ritual of the New Mass (1960's, final "promulgation" 1970) could be in some cases invalid and is not beautiful, as it is often performed in US. It has driven people away from the Catholic Church, including a lady I knew to Russian Orthodox Church.

If you stick with that, despite not being doctrinally Catholic, you are arguably a strong believer in Real Presence.

2:09 Catholic schools are very often open to non-Catholic pupils.

I e, no one is becoming Catholic JUST because a Catholic school is best in the area, even if that can be the starting point for some.

2:29 I believe "progress" is a destructive organisation and that the Catholic Church or what purports to be so is not getting half as much in the way of it as it should.

The few real Catholics who know what to oppose are at present to few to make a difference by ourselves, in worldly perspective (by prayer, that is another matter).

[later:]
Are you sure a teacher who "marries" someone of the same sex is a "great teacher"?

I'm not.

As to abuse scandals, why not plea for getting out of normal schools, out of boy scouts or girl guides, boycotting PE and things like that? A few years ago, these were statistically worse offenders than Catholic or "Catholic" clergy.

... on Gil Yehuda's Attitude to YEC (quora)

Q

Is young earth creationism intellectually credible?
https://www.quora.com/Is-young-earth-creationism-intellectually-credible/answer/Gil-Yehuda

ARq

Answer requested by Giovanni Garreffa

Gil Yehuda

I often answer questions to stimulate thought, not to provide solutions.

Answered Feb 26, 2013

No, of course not. There is no credible intellectual evidence that supports this theory. But that's not the interesting question as I see it. Rather, was it ever intellectually credible? And for that question, I'd say yes.

In order to be intellectually credible, a theory has to have evidence, even weak evidence to support it. Prior to the development of carbon-14 dating, discovery of fossils, or anything like the discovery of the Chauvet Cave, people's only evidence to the history and origins of the earth was based on traditional folk tales. Most every ancient nation had some story, and almost none of them seemed to go back more than a few thousand years. So with no opposing credible evidence, it seems reasonable that a 14th century educated person would think that a 7000 year old Earth (Young Earth Created by some divine power) is perfectly plausible -- and no less plausible than a 13 Billion year old one. In fact, he'd wonder if the 13 billion year number was intellectually credible since it would seem pretty made up. Whereas everyone else seems to say otherwise.

Now of course, the evidence paints a very different picture, and thus intellectually speaking, the YEC is not credible at all. Interestingly enough, the Earth did not get older in this process. Rather, new facts became evident. Reality did not change, but our understanding of it did.

What makes this interesting to me is that much like the 14th century intellectual was quite certain of his understanding of facts, and confident that no one would come a few centuries later to prove him wrong, we too are quite confident in our understanding of facts and are quite certain that no one will prove us wrong. In this case, we may be right -- but the pattern of certainty is worth challenging.

Don Muchnick

Jun 15, 2013

What are your thoughts on this article called '101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe':

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Gil Yehuda

Jun 16, 2013

It's so difficult to say. In order for me to fully comprehend the article, I'd have to suspend my rational thinking capabilities. But then I would not be able to share my thoughts on it after I read the article, since my thinking would be suspended. A puzzle I cannot solve.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jan 2

A convenient excuse for avoiding debate.

Gil Yehuda

Jan 2

Or, simply an honest response. How can you tell which?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jan 2

Because the following seems less than candid:

“In order for me to fully comprehend the article, I'd have to suspend my rational thinking capabilities.”

When it comes to a 14th C intellectual, you seem to have a professional interest in fully understanding his position.

You do, then resume either your rational thinking or what you take to be such. How come you can’t do so with the article?

Btw, I suspect that part of what you see as resuming your rational thinking capabilities after studying 14th C intellectuals closely is really rather shutting off rational considerations which the study could have awakened - but, unlike above, that is just a suspicion, not a thought through reproach.

Gil Yehuda

7h ago

I’ll disagree with your assessment. I think that smart people make decisions based on the information they have available to them. Centuries ago, smart people did not know what we know. They were indeed smart, but we are better equipped with information. I think we honor their intelligence by recognizing that they made decisions based on the data they had.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

just now

I do not disagree on them making decisions on data they had.

The problem is, you are not making decisions on data you have.

You are blocking out data available from the Young Earth Creationist side.

Updated

next day:

Gil Yehuda

5h ago

I see. Well, so far I see the YEC sites that were listed here posing many questions about the commonly held scientific positions. That’s great. My point above was that much like we tend to be confident in our understanding of reality, so too were the smart people of the past. Yet, we now believe they were wrong. I assume that in the future, many things we believe will be proven wrong — or at least explained with far more detail than we are capable of with our current set of instruments.

So it is likely that in 600 years from now, we’ll know more about the age of the planet. For all I know, it will be proven to be young — and perhaps a computer simulation. But I don’t plan on making any decisions based on that speculation. At least not yet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

just now

The thing is, we have today not ONE but (at least) TWO understandings, and you are claiming to have less understanding of the contemporay other than your own than of a Medieval one.

Also, back then you had at least TWO understandings, like the Thomistic competing with an Averroistic one.

There never was any epoch (outside small tribal societies not traceable in the main history of civilisation) where there was only ONE understanding.

Responding to Gene Kim on Antichrist

He is wrong about the Catholic Church. He could still be right we just don't know yet.

Who are the Six Antichrists?
BBC International, 17 June 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjS8liUjLJ8

I

I think a falling away happened to Catholicism, socially, over c. 40 years from 1943 to 1994.

Whether Pius XII was a true Pope or an imposter by heresy previous to election, he very carefully opened a door with Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943.

What does it say? Nothing directly anti-Biblical. It just says, Biblical writers, Bible-Book writers, we call them hagiographers, have personal characteristics which we can study through the texts. [Own example : The woman who has paid so many doctors without finding a cure comes in Mark, not Luke - perhaps because Luke is a doctor.] There is nothing wrong in such study.

Well, the thing is, a bad type of angle already existed in Biblical scholarship, like Markan priority and a few more. Pius XII's encyclical, whether he foresaw it or not, whether he intended it or not, opened the door to this bad apostatic scholarship already existing among Protestants.

1994 Antipope "John Paul II" allows "Cardinal" Ratzinger to condemn Fundamentalist Bible reading. The Christmas liturgy is also changed.

Old Liturgy still has, even New Liturgy up to then had, in Latin rite, Our Lord born 5199 after Creation, 2957 after Flood (LXX based).

New text from 1994 on replaces "5199" with "unknown ages" and "2597" with "several thousand years". See what is happening?

Now, the Temple of God is arguably the Catholic Church and the Man of Sin could very well be an Antipope. Like ... Bergoglio.

But, the rapture you think of is arguably not happening until AFTER the tribulation, second coming, doomsday, perhaps an hour before Armageddon battle.

Actually, 9:50, some thing Bergoglio has already fulfilled Apocalypse 17 by that light show with so many animals projected on the white walls of the Vatican buildings.

The Catholic Church, however, he does not represent, since he is not Catholic.

10:24 Your Church history is faulty.

With Catholic Church not being a follow up to "Church that is in Rome" or (one of the epistles of St Peter) "Church that is in Babylon", but to Nero, where did the Church of Christ go?

For the Church persecuted by Pagan Emperors we keep records. Roman Martyrology two days ago was Pope St Evaristus, whom Emperor Hadrian's administration killed. Same with every Pope up to St Sylvester, the man who baptised Constantine or received him as Catechumen.

Now, suppose St Sylvester was a fraud or a weak pastor, the pagans were let in too easy, the Church was taken over, where did the real Church go? Where are your records, century by century, of who the real saints were, if the Catholic Church was not? You don't have any such records, because you don't have any body with realistic claims of reaching back to Apostles in unbroken succession. You have Baptists who say the Apostles were Baptists (denied validity of infant baptism, required full immersion, three times, not just a little water), well, you don't have direct back up in the Bible for that claim. What is more important, you have gaps of centuries in your Church history. If not in theory, at least in how it is recorded.

10:41 You may brag about your spiritual stature as much as you like, but you don't really have an intellectual one. You claim Constantine founded the Catholic Church.

First, it is a lie.

Second, you don't do much arguing to back up that lie, you just keep repeating it (as far as I have seen up to now, if you have resources on this, do link).

Third, it is a lie which plays into the hands of the deniers of Christian truth. If the main historically known provider of Bibles was messed up, what is to stop the Bible from being so?

Adding Charlemagne to the list is also not helping the credibility of Christianity.

Even more Bibles messed up because provider is suspect.

While Napoleon was temporarily a kind of Antichrist by attacking the Catholic Church, you are wrong on who kept Jesuits going after a weak Pope had disbanded them, namely it was Frederick II of Prussia and Catherine II of Russia, with successors.

As to Jesuits being formed again, that was Pope Pius VII, after Napoleon had already been exiled to Elba.

The Allied Powers having declared that Emperor Napoleon was the sole obstacle to the restoration of peace in Europe, Emperor Napoleon, faithful to his oath, declares that he renounces, for himself and his heirs, the thrones of France and Italy, and that there is no personal sacrifice, even that of his life, which he is not ready to do in the interests of France.
Done in the palace of Fontainebleau, 11 April 1814

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon#Exile_to_Elba

The suppression was carried out in all countries except Prussia and Russia, where Catherine the Great had forbidden its promulgation. Because millions of Catholics (including many Jesuits) lived in the Polish provinces recently annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia, the society was able to maintain its existence and carry on its work all through the period of suppression. Subsequently, Pope Pius VI would grant formal permission for the continuation of the society in Russia and Poland, with Stanislaus Czerniewicz elected superior of the society in 1782. Pope Pius VII had resolved during his captivity in France to restore the Jesuits universally, and after his return to Rome he did so with little delay. On 7 August 1814, by the bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum, he reversed the suppression of the society, and therewith another Polish Jesuit, Thaddeus Brzozowski, who had been elected in Superior in Russia in 1805, acquired universal jurisdiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus#Suppression_and_restoration

12:40 Your historical documentation on Adolph Hitler's Catholicism is faulty.

Before the takeover in 1933, German Catholic bishops - who supported Brüning, not Hitler - had excommunicated all members of the NSDAP. After this takeover, the excommunication was restricted to high ranking members - Hitler arguably was one.

If Hitler wanted to assist Holy Mass, he could not do so with a normal priest obedient to the Vatican, but there were "brown priests" (brown as in SA uniform = pro-NSDAP) who sometimes allowed him to assist Holy Mass. One of them died in 1937, it was a very old abbot who did not see him at his worst, which came after that year, and who blamed already existing moral problems of NSDAP on the Protestants in it. Like the eugenics part.

Let's see if you repeat more errors on Hitler and Catholicism ... meanwhile, Pius XII left Rome and had all Churches in Rome locked up when Hitler visited Mussolini in Rome.

The 555 connection is interesting.

I have seen another interpretation of it.

Olivet discourse is - if you will consult William Tapley - divided into three sections.

4 verses about the King of the South (444)
6 verses about THE Antichrist (666)
5 verses about what or who defeats him (555, logically : like the 5+5+5 of the Blessed Virgin's Rosary)

If Hitler was 555, perhaps some prayed the Rosary for him and he was saved (some saying he survived the Bunker).

[Note : Gene Kim said Hitler became a "Nazi" in Austria, before he went to Munich. Not true, scanned photos of Hitler's membership card certainly do mark n. 555, as Gene Kim said, but also that it is "Ortsgruppe München" of Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei. In other words, he was already in Munich, had already left Austria.]

II

KINGJAMES is nine letters.

You know that 666 is divisible by nine? It is 9*74.

I think ASCII is important to get the right numerology, and one interesting thing, in block letters, it is 8 or 9 letters (very barely 10) which will add up to 666.

KINGJAMES=665.
He was also King James I (of England - of Scotland he was James VI).

There is one language in which reverent synonyms of Bible will add up to 666.

HOLYBIBLE
SCRIPTURE

Check it out. Guess why?

My hunch is, KJV is cursed.

Less inaccurate than certain modern versions which leave out verses, but cursed as seducer of Protestants.

The Catholic Bible in English is Douay Rheims - originally translated and printed in France, because England persecuted Catholics.

1611 is a year which should make Baptists concerned about King James. The persecution of Lollards was in England not conducted on Papal lines, but an English parliament law from 1401, De heretico comburendo.

Well, it was obeyed again, against Anglicans, by Mary Tudor.

The last English monarch who applied it was however the "Anglican Pope" James I. Against whom? Catholics? No, they were considered traitors, not heretics. Guess again, it is closer to you ...

"April 11 – Edward Wightman, a radical Anabaptist, is the last person to be executed for heresy in England, by burning at the stake in Lichfield."

That is the year after 1611, it is 1612:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1612

It is still KINGJAMES.

[Note, on looking, it seems Wightman would arguably have deserved burning more than any Baptist who just apostasised into false views on Sacraments : he was perhaps as vicious as Giordano Bruno, if the charges I read are right.]

Like KINGJAMES, also VLADIMIRA adds up to 665. It can be read as genitive or accusative of VLADIMIR, like WLADIMIRA adding up to 666. It can also be read as Vladimir A = Vladimir I. Vladimir B, Vladimir II, if written VLADIMIRB, adds up to 666.

In Russia, there are fairly clear candidates for Vladimir A and B ...

The first of them made a Revolution about one hundred years ago. There is Catholic prophecy saying Satan was given a century. Look who started it in Russia.

17:59 What happened after KINGJAMES published his HOLYBIBLE or his SCRIPTURE?

Lichfield!

18:12 What you say about England is not really totally just bright.

Recall how you felt about world conquerors like Napoleon and Hitler a few minutes ago?

I love England. I love US. But I don't love what these states have been doing certain things during the centuries.

Btw, so far all my numerological matches, even exact ones, could, theoretically, just be good prospects.

I think BERGOGLIO is clinched, but I don't know it. He could still have time to repent, abdicate his false papacy, become a real Catholic. There are more than just he and Putin even on ASCII, and there is still Greek and Hebrew gematria too (Ratzinger's "papal" name, in Greek, "King Hari" in Hebrew, should Prince William's younger brother become king - God preserve him!).

Dialect and Language in Neurolinguistic Perspective

Q

Could someone tell if brain-wise/mind-wise/neurologically a language differs from a dialect?
https://www.quora.com/Could-someone-tell-if-brain-wise-mind-wise-neurologically-a-language-differs-from-a-dialect/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

ARq

Answer requested by Chrysovalantis Anastasiades

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.

Answered Wed

Absolutely not.

OK, one, the language involves a written version, which the dialect does not always do.

A dialect is a version of a language. Some languages have only one version, some have several, and in some cases you can wonder whether they belong to only one or to more than one.

Culturally it is settled by the fact that some dialects when written down for a long time are called languages - especially if you have several authors in them.

Now, the scenario in which a dialect is not written is of course the one in which a dialect is too far from a “written language” to be felt simply as one way to pronounce the writing. This is not so with all dialects, and with these, there is no difference between language and dialect. X’ Stockholm dialect and his Swedish are identical, Y’s Lund dialect and Y’s Swedish are identic, precisely as with Z’s Athens or Crete dialect and his written Dhimotiki.

Unwritten dialects are like Pontic Dhimotiki in relation to written Katharévousa, like Jamtska or Dalbymål in relation to Swedish : if you are native in those, you know your dialect and your written language are NOT the same.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1m ago

Neurologically a non-written dialect you are not imagining as written is without the acquired synaesthesia between sounds and letters.

2 Horrifying Conditions and 3 Horrifying Myths

The video

5 HORRIFYING Realities Of Daily Life In Historical Times
Beyond Science
12 July 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9QJNMRQtzI

III How unemployed were treated:

5:14 Being unemployed in 16th C. England seen as a crime?

After the Reformation, the one some guys are celebrating a little from now, I would not be surprised!

5:28 As I recall vagrancy suppression actually comes from this time, in England.

In some places begging could locally be treated as an offense before, or even on a larger scale.

Stockholm got its vagrancy laws just before Reformation. France got them twice over, once under John III a little before Hundred Years' War, one under Louis XIV, a century before the Revolution.

Vagrancy laws bode no good for Christian Europe, and in England, I think they were even a product of the Reformation.

IN other words, the Middle Ages were free from THAT plague!

II Being a woman:

6:08 Athens and Rome girls are often set out? Do you know this ends when Catholic Christianity sets in, under Constantine?

(V, IV and) I Unsanitary conditions,

a) especially in towns:

7:58 I checked the ancestry of Björn and Annifrid, Benny and Agneta ... they were in the last generation born mostly before 1800 (of each) living longer than the family of Carl Michael Bellman, a celebrity back then.

Why? One theory is, the ancestry of "ABBA" (I don't think their name choice was too lucky, considering that "knowing me, knowing you" thing) were from the countryside. They died around late sixties.

The ancestry and cousins and children and inlaws and so on of Bellman were nearly all towns people. I haven't checked it all out, but half a decade to a decade younger. Could also be "ancestry bias" : if someone is an ancestor he is not from the portion dying as young children.

b) in general:

5,4 and 1 - unsanitary conditions? *

No, I don't think so, really.

Black Death is a plague still going on on Madagascar, and when not bubonic, still killing very fast. But of course people in Madagascar are often immune - as people were in Europe AFTER the Black Death.

It was a result of international contacts getting together with a foreign disease people were not generally immune to. It cannot be blamed on bad sanitation.

Some of the common cold signs were such that other more mortal diseases could be concerned.

IF you thought of the Salerno diet, which very much limited common colds (while arguably killing you off sooner in some welfare disease, cardiac, cancerous or whatever), the problem kings and later free enterprisers as well as day wage earners had to face with colds was not death.

For kings it was replacements taking over the kingdom, for entrepreneurs, dito, and for wage earners not hired beyond the daily basis, it was getting sacked for sick leave.

A peasant or servant who lived under a lord, or a monk under his abbot, was less unhappy with having a common cold.

* Of 5, pooping, 4 travelling and 1 in general.

Genesis and Creationism Related on Quora

Q I

Creationism: Can we compromise so that young earth creationists and scientists can agree, by saying that god created the earth 6,000 years ago out of some very old parts?
https://www.quora.com/Creationism-Can-we-compromise-so-that-young-earth-creationists-and-scientists-can-agree-by-saying-that-god-created-the-earth-6-000-years-ago-out-of-some-very-old-parts/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered Oct 16

If God created Heaven and Earth 6000 or 7200 or 7500 years ago, it does not make much sense to compromise by saying some parts were very old.

I saw this has been answered so long by so many, it has an answer wiki. I’ll answer the answer wiki.

Part 1: No, because even human civilization existed far before 6000 years ago. Anything denying this fact is not science.

This relies on human civilisation being correctly dated.

Part 2: Science is factual. Individuals can interpret their faiths to match the facts, but facts cannot be altered to match any one faith.

This relies on science usually so called always being science.

I contest both : a Sumerian civilisation “6000 years ago” was really much younger.

Q II

Based on the dependency of Adam and Eve and Gilgamesh and Noah to Sumerian text, is it possible that the first five books were cobbled together by the captured and enslaved Jews in Sumer?
https://www.quora.com/Based-on-the-dependency-of-Adam-and-Eve-and-Gilgamesh-and-Noah-to-Sumerian-text-is-it-possible-that-the-first-five-books-were-cobbled-together-by-the-captured-and-enslaved-Jews-in-Sumer/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered Oct 16

The “dependency” you name is in fact neglecting that both stories, or all three (Gilgamesh is not Genesis!) could simply depend on facts which came down both ways.

Q III

How long before the Caucasian man disappears like the Neanderthal man?
https://www.quora.com/How-long-before-the-Caucasian-man-disappears-like-the-Neanderthal-man/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

See http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com

Answered Oct 19

If Neanderthal man disappeared in the Flood of Noah, except some ancestress of some Caucasians (like a daughter in law of Noah being half Neanderthal), Caucasian man will not disappear like that, because there will not be a global Flood again.

Jeremy Schoenhaar

Oct 19

This wasn’t a religious question, it’s scientific. Since Noah has never been scientifically proven to have existed, nor has the global flood you mention, your answer is obviously religiously biased.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

My dear, proof for past events are mainly historic, not scientific.

Q IV

How likely is it that some ancient people discovered "carbon dating" along with a related forgery method and they are somewhere (metaphysically) making fun on us?
https://www.quora.com/How-likely-is-it-that-some-ancient-people-discovered-carbon-dating-along-with-a-related-forgery-method-and-they-are-somewhere-metaphysically-making-fun-on-us/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

ARq

Answer requested by Chrysovalantis Anastasiades

Hans-Georg Lundahl

History buff since childhood. CSL & Eco added to Medieval lore. + Classics.

Answered Oct 16

The “forgery” is there in the carbon build up.

While carbon was building up that fast, or even if it had been a very slow and gradual build up, like previously imagined by Creationists, one could not have got a consistent half life to fit to calibratable objects, known from history.

This means that the carbon dating method could not have been invented previously, precisely because only as recently as perhaps 500 BC, perhaps rather a little earlier, did we reach present carbon level.

What is the carbon build up I am talking about? Well, if in Flood of Noah you had only 1/69 of present carbon level, the slow carbon build up, with new carbon made only as slowly as now, would have landed us by now on c. 45 % of the real present level - and rising.

But this would, with the known half life have given us Ghettysburgh dates for El Alamein. So, the calibration would need to be made according to objects, no calculating of half life purely from labs - and when I tried that, I went back to maybe 2200 years or so - being careful to use known dates for when objects would be from. Now, I got different halflives depending on what time I calibrated for - never ever the same one.

So, the carbon build up must have been faster. I e, at times real faster.

And if someone back then had been inventing carbon 14, he would have stumbled on a faster rising carbon rise even more than I on a normal one.

This means, no, carbon dating cannot have been recently invented by men.

However, angels and demons were aware in advance, or could ask God if He had not told it, where the level would land on and things, so Satan could very well have known when end of Young Dryas and beginning of Göbekli Tepe would be carbon dated to, and his influence on liars in Egypt would have meant that the fake date for Atlantis was adapted to predictable false carbon date.

Q V

Why do many religious people (creationist) believe that the simulation theory supports creationism? does it support creationism? If not, why isn’t it supporting creationism?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-religious-people-creationist-believe-that-the-simulation-theory-supports-creationism-does-it-support-creationism-If-not-why-isn%E2%80%99t-it-supporting-creationism/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered Mon

Answering: "Why do many religious people (creationist) believe that the simulation theory supports creationism? does it support creationism? If not, why isn’t it supporting creationism?"

I would say it is partly supporting and partly not supporting at all Creationism.

It is supporting insofar as it involves belief in intelligent design.

It is unsupporting insofar as it involves the belief the intelligent designer must in his turn at least be a product of evolution in an unknown, more unguided-evolution friendly, universe than the one we observe.

In other words, we have to reject it, but while doing so, see the acceptance others give it as a half hearted rejection of their older purely evolutionist belief, at least as applied to our observable reality.

Q VI

If, according to the Bible, Earth was created before the Sun and the Moon, what kept it in its orbit and what was it orbiting around?
https://www.quora.com/If-according-to-the-Bible-Earth-was-created-before-the-Sun-and-the-Moon-what-kept-it-in-its-orbit-and-what-was-it-orbiting-around/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

Answered Tue

Earth was not orbitting then and is not orbitting now.

Geocentrism is an excellent answer to this problem.

Before I was a geocentric, I used to think, however, Earth began to orbit around the Sun after it was created, and was therefore not moving, or only moving by daily rotation, until day 4. Does such a transition make very much sense? No. This is one more reason for a Young Earth Creationist to be a Geocentric.

Q VII

Can the evolutionists sue the creationists for spreading false information and propaganda?
https://www.quora.com/Can-the-evolutionists-sue-the-creationists-for-spreading-false-information-and-propaganda

[one answer:]

Jean Dieudonné

Bible believing young earth creationist

Answered Oct 20

So you want back the inquisition of the catholic church? Well I am not surprised. Truth hurts, doesnt it.

Cheers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oct 20

Just to be somewhat clear on historic matters, Inquisitors were generally Young Earth Creationist and also Geocentric.

The latter up to 1820, when an Inquisitor Anfossi was overruled for wanting to censor a Heliocentric book by Settele, and the former even up to 1905, 1909.

So, the kind of future inquisition of evolutionists you describe would not be an inquisition of the Catholic Church, not the true one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

Case in point for YEC : they sued Isaac Pereyre for promoting pre-Adamites.

He retracted, fortunately.

Carbon 14 Production (Own Q on Quora)

Own Q

Oct 16 2017

Cosmic Background radiation causes production of C14, but, what are the impact of its intensities? 1:1 - 2:2, 1:1 - 4:2 or 1:1 - 2:4?
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Cosmic-Background-radiation-causes-production-of-C14-but-what-are-the-impact-of-its-intensities-1-1-2-2-1-1-4-2-or-1-1-2-4

Comment

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oct 17

The question can be reformulated in a couple of paragraphs or less.

Here we go. The cosmic background radiation which on medium is at 0.39 milliSievert per year as to places on Earth (more exposure higher up, less further down), is producing a carbon 14 production which is keeping the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere roughly stable.

Now, any sample will in 100 years sink from 100 % of its initial value to 98.798 % of it. This involves the atmospheric sample, which at initial value 1917 had same as present level (slight variation from fossil fuels getting burned and emitting CO2 in atmosphere is unimportant), meaning that these 100 years the 0.39 milliSivert per year (or the Becquerel behind them, further up in the atmosphere, rather) is responsible for a carbon 14 production replacing 1.202 % of present atmospheric level.

Now, suppose the 0.39 milliSievert were doubled. We would be having instead as cosmic background radiation 0.78 milliSievert per year.

Would this mean a production in 100 years of:

• a) 2*1.202=2.404 pmc?
• b) 4*1.202=4.808 pmc?
• c) 1.414*1.202=1.699628 or 1.7 pmc?

Is the carbon 14 production proportional to the milliSievert as such (a), to the milliSievert level squared (b), or to the square root of the milliSievert level (c)?

Answers

None by October 26.

How was The Bible Written (Answering a Muslim on Quora)

Q

How was the Bible written (for example, the Quran was memorized word to word from Gabriel)?
https://www.quora.com/How-was-the-Bible-written-for-example-the-Quran-was-memorized-word-to-word-from-Gabriel/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Self Employed at Writer and Composer

Answered Mon

The Bible and Quran are unlike in this, the Bible is a collection of 73 books, some of which have more than one chapter, and largest number of chapters being psalms with 150 psalms and Jeremiah and Isaiah.

This means, diverse books were written in diverse manners.

Diverse parts of a book could be written in diverse manners too.

Take Exodus : what Moses wrote about his own life and about the Israelites leaving Egypt, he wrote from memory of what had happened, his own, perhaps aided by that of others, and first chapters, what he had been told.

On the other hand, the last part of Exodus and first part at least of Leviticus, we see chapter after chapter where it says “and God spoke to Moses and said”.

The chapter is short enough for Moses to remember until he has written it down, he has proper training.

Genesis was written by Moses as a single book. Chapter 1 was revealed to himself, the other 49 chapters were written down or orally memorised by the participants, and Moses could consult the tradition from different persons so as to on each story be sure to have the best version, and God would help him so he was never mistaken on what he included.

Last chapter of Deuteronomy was not written by Moses, but by Joshua, on his command. Since Joshua was not a legislator, Joshua wrote his book (also except last chapter) like Moses wrote the parts of Exodus he was witness to.

Judges were written by pieces, as it happened.

And so on.

Of the Gospels, Matthew and John were written by disciples, who had the habit of memorising the fairly short speeches of Jesus (there are only two or three of them as long as a longer Surah of the Quran) and of observing the miracles which went with them.

Luke wrote two books, his Gospel and Acts. Arguably, if he was not a disciple of Emmaus (as the Greek Church thinks he was), he met St Paul the day or a few days before the latter was so boring to a boy, he fell asleep and fell to his death from the window, Luke made sure the boy was dead, then Paul woke him up. Then he wrote the rest of Acts to the finish (i e second half of the book) while accompanying St Paul.

Then he went to the Holy Land, to the Blessed Virgin and many different disciples who were around, made research and assembled his research into the Gospel, his first complete and published book.

Then he continued the research so as to get together first part of Acts and when he had it, he had written Acts, his second book.

When he started, he was not aware that Matthew had already written a Gospel (I don’t know why) so when he found out, he took it to Rome, to the first Pope, St Peter, Chief Apostle of Our Lord to find out if he could publish the Gospel. He then got forth his copy of St Matthew’s Gospel, in one hand, the Gospel St Luke had given him in the other, started reading from both. His secretary Mark took it down without noting that he was reading aloud, and the reading of St Peter, now from one, now from other and now from his own memories, became the Gospel of St Mark.

While John, like Matthew, wrote from his memories, he wrote much later, after Ebionites had tried to twist the first three Gospels against Jesus being truly God : he therefore included words and episodes making it even clearer than the ones involved in the first three, the Synoptics. God gave him the gift of automatic writing, both hands were writing with two pens, under the miraculous work of God.

The Epistles of St Paul are different : while he had revelations and while he had instructiion, they are all his application of the learning (supernatural and humanly acquired) to specific questions, and similar epistles were also written by John and his brother James and by Peter. And by Jude, not Judas Ischariot but Jude Thaddaeus.

The Apocalypse in the NT, like certain parts of Daniel and Hezechiel in the OT, were written by God giving men visions and these writing down what they saw and heard.

Zahidul Amin

Mon

What year this incidents took place?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

This is not limited to one year, it is coherent revelation to a continuous community (as you would say “Ummah”) which goes back to Adam without any break.

Creation was 5199 BC and Abraham was born 2015 BC, the first eleven chapters, minus the very first, which was revealed to Moses were memorised or written this timespan.

Abraham received the vocation at age 75, or so, sth like 1940 BC. The rest of Genesis was taken down with the help of his tribe to the time they settled in Egypt c. 1700 BC.

Exodus happened 1510 BC, when Moses was 80 years, and he died 40 years later.

I omitted references to the Temple and King David and King Solomon, the prophets came after this up to and a little past Captivity of Babylon, starting in 593 BC.

Christ was Crucified, Rose again, Ascended, in 33 AD, St Matthew and two of the Gospels were written in decades just following, then came the Epistles between them, Apocalypse was revealed to St John on Patmos, in year 95 AD or sth, and when he is liberated by Nerva, after death of Domitian, he is asked to write the Gospel as soul surviving Apostle, at a date closer to 100 AD.

The end.

This is how the separate books were written.

Disputes, both polite and less polite about which books belong in it have gone on since then, Samaritans only believe Five books of Moses, Joshua and Judges, Jews reject a few books of the OT and all of the NT, Catholics and Orthodox do not reject anything, Protestants reject the same books of OT as the Jews do. And 1545–63 the Catholic Church assembled a Council at Trent to make a decision on many things the Protestants were wrong on, including in rejecting seven books of the OT.

This is, presumably, the end of the process of selection.

YEC Problem for Heliocentrics (quora)

Q

If, according to the Bible, Earth was created before the Sun and the Moon, what kept it in its orbit and what was it orbiting around?
https://www.quora.com/If-according-to-the-Bible-Earth-was-created-before-the-Sun-and-the-Moon-what-kept-it-in-its-orbit-and-what-was-it-orbiting-around/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

Answered 8h ago

Earth was not orbitting then and is not orbitting now.

Geocentrism is an excellent answer to this problem.

Before I was a geocentric, I used to think, however, Earth began to orbit around the Sun after it was created, and was therefore not moving, or only moving by daily rotation, until day 4. Does such a transition make very much sense? No. This is one more reason for a Young Earth Creationist to be a Geocentric.

Alternatives to my own Creationist C14 Model (quora)

Q

Relating Carbon 14 to Biblical Chronology, what detailed attempts are there out there (details in comment)?
https://www.quora.com/Relating-Carbon-14-to-Biblical-Chronology-what-detailed-attempts-are-there-out-there-details-in-comment

Comment

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Aug 28

I know of my own attempt, trying to identify archaeology moments with Biblical moments, carbon dates with Biblical dates, and where the number of extra years are used to determine a level of C14 at the time, while the extrapolated rise in C14 is used to determine Biblical = real = date for any given carbon date between the “Biblical” carbon dates.

I am doing parallel tables for different versions of Biblical chronology. For Syncellus and for St Jerome, both LXX based, but also sometimes for Ussher, even though I think his version less likely.

I am fairly consistently ignoring Libby and concentrating on Cambridge half life. Trying to find out how fast Carbon 14 is forming and what this implies for how much stronger presumably cosmic radiation was is a priority, that is indeed the question which sparked my interest into full flame.

I know of Tas Walker’s attempt, he is more interested in identifying moments of geology (like glacial maximum) with Biblical moments, and in making a kind of curve for calibration factors - very parallel to the calibration factors given in the standard curve as to format, just take Libby date and multiply with factor.

I know Setterfield, unlike me and Tas Walker, thinks speed of light and hence of radioactive decay may have slowed down. This taking care of a lot of other radioactive dates besides carbon dates.

I think Anne Habermehl - also not distinguishing carbon from other radio dates - is doing a Setterfield type of thing, but am not sure.

Answer

Jean Dieudonné

Future scientist and young earth creationist

Answered Aug 28

Everything that comes after the flood in ca. 2400 B. C. is, with a grain of salt, datable by 14C (it has to fit the requirements for the dating method of course). And that is the reason of why biblical archaeology uses this dating method. It is though not possible to verify the complete Biblical chronology by using any of the radiometric dating methods.

Cheers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Aug 28

I was not speaking of using the radiometric dating to verify the Biblical chronology, but of giving a correspondence between the uniformitarian dates and the Biblical / real ones.

I think you might want to read the details given in my comment to the question.

Precisely in Biblical archaeology, it may be of some interest to know how the carbon 14 content was rising, at least approximatively.

For instance, Genesis 14 is tied to either neolithic pre-pottery or chalcolithic of En-Geddi.

Assuming it was chalcolithic, the year when Abraham was c. 80 would match a carbon year of 3400 BC - i e before the Flood.

Assuming it was neolithic, you would even be dating a carbon date of 9600 - 8600, Göbekli Tepe, to Abraham’s lifetime. I prefer chalcolithic for Genesis 14 and GT for Genesis 11.

On the other hand, at the sacking of Jerusalem in 583 BC, the carbon date matches the historical date.

My work is about following the matches through Biblical history, with some kind of accuracy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

As I have exceeded my request limit, would you mind requesting some answers?

Thirdeaglebooks on Apocalypse 7, me giving a few disagreements

Video commented on:

What Angel Seals 144,000 Jews in Bible Prophecy?
thirdeaglebooks, added, 5.XI.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQSIkKIvlk

I

4:18 Ah, yes, I noticed what you said about this passage now.

Otherwise, I would have thought Henoch was mainly sealing Pagan converts (my favourite ones being Indians).

You know that the Mahabharata story about the hero Bharat seems to involve TWO Henochs, both the Cainite one and the Sethite who was raptured.

He founds a city (Cainite Henoch) - and he is raptured (Sethite Henoch). So, Henoch will probably have to tell Hindoos they are confusing two persons and he is one of them.

Oh, the unnumbered group is mentioned in same passage, so I could theoretically be right.

BOTH groups, not just the first, being servants of God.

9:11 in Apocalypse:

A king, the angel of the bottomless pit; whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek Apollyon; in Latin Exterminans,

Sure it was Elijah who was here?

II

7:35 There was a person suggesting "he" and I as Pope and Emperor were the two witnesses.

That I do not believe, it seems Boniface X was outed as a woman (and therefore a non-Pope).

I am however very sure I am not recalling any millennia of living in some of the heavens above earth, nor any life as either Henoch or Elijah the Thisbite.

So it is at least unlikely I would be Elijah or Henoch - in the usual scenario it is kind of impossible.

JUST in case someone was wondering. No, I am most likely not one of the two witnesses, if it turns out I am, I would be very surprised.

7:53 I also don't quite buy Henoch and Elijah will come incognito.

Sackcloth could indicate Franciscan or Carmelite apparel, and Elijah was ultimate founder of Carmelites (via Essenians).

When people say "oh they were Henoch and Elijah", I think they will have been for long accused of being a fraud.

You can imagine a LOT of groups wanting to stamp them as such, right?

III

8:13 Is dressing up as Ghost of Canterville (c/o Oscar Wilde in his better hours) a no no?

He was after all a ghost whose mission as a ghost was asking the intercession of a virgin.

On Oct 31, Irish have a good tradition of "souling" : if you give a souling bun, the party will make one indulgenced prayer for a deceased family member you name to him. This means, that kind of Halloween celebration has more to do with Nov 2 than with Nov 1. And if you look it up in Pope Gregory, Purgatory was, I will not say "discovered" or "invented", but at least strongly confirmed by ghosts asking for intercessionary prayers.

Other ghosts, whom one might have less need to dress up as, were at the same time warning of the Hell they were condemned to for this or that or sundry sin (a bit like Marley in a book by Charles Dickens).

Also, dressing up as a headless person (carrying one's head in one's arms) is obviously ambiguous as to ghost or saint.

It seems to be accepted custom for certain beheaded ghosts on which the Canterville one was based, but it is also correct of St Denis of Paris. After beheading, he took the head in his arms, went running to an image of the Blessed Virgin and placed the head under her feet before expiring.

Tolkien a Catholic : Does it Show? Yes. (quora)

Q

Is it not strange that Tolkien didn't use any Catholic (Latin) theology/history as source material? Wasn't he a devout Catholic?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-not-strange-that-Tolkien-didnt-use-any-Catholic-Latin-theology-history-as-source-material-Wasnt-he-a-devout-Catholic/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Converted to Roman Catholic Church, Novus Ordo version, then to Trad.

Answered just now

He very much did use Catholic theology as source material, for the general feeling of events : providence, free will, sin and temptation are very present all over the material.

If you get to close analysis or ask on his own opinion on things, it is very Thomistic.

However, as to Catholic history in the sense of Church history, that would be events which would have happened later than the supposed time of the legendarium (like conventional evolutionism, he provides an image with 4004 BC already having a long history before itself - but in the case of the legendarium, one in which valar, maiar, elves and men do bring back “male and female” to “the beginning of creation”.

More on Latin (quora)

Q

Why doesn’t anybody know for sure how Latin was pronounced in Late Antiquity (Veni Vidi Vici vs, Weni Widi Wiki)? The C[h]urch of Rome and later Catholic Churches always set the Mass in Latin. No gaps for spoken Latin, isn't it?
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesn%E2%80%99t-anybody-know-for-sure-how-Latin-was-pronounced-in-Late-Antiquity-Veni-Vidi-Vici-vs-Weni-Widi-Wiki-The-Curch-of-Rome-and-later-Catholic-Churches-always-set-the-Mass-in-Latin-No-gaps-for-spoken-Latin-isnt-it/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Converted to Roman Catholic Church, Novus Ordo version, then to Trad.

Answered just now

In Late Antiquity, Weni, Widi, Wiki was already past. You can guess between Veni, vidi, vichi and veni, vidi, viki.

While correct that Mass has been said in Latin since late Antiquity, minor changes of pronunciation may have escaped attention, and up to 800 adaptation between Mass Latin and spoken vernacular pronunciation of same words was not avoided. This means that up to then, you could even get Beine, Beithe, Beitse (as pronounced in liturgy). FROM then, you get Alcuin restoring pronunciation in Gaul, from a pronunciation which had in England been preserved as a foreign pronunciation, with some simplifications. So, Latin Mass in Gaul and the rest of Francia, from 800, is a restored pronunciation, which has later influenced pronunciation in both Spain and presumably also Italy.

One clear part of what is not authentic is pronouncing -um as [um] rather than as [u~]. A single pronunciation of M in all positions was more comfortable to the English foreign language learners. By the time of Alcuin’s coming to Francia, the ending was already [o], precisely as the one formerly [o:].

It is possible, but I have no clear indication, that the difference between a II declinsion sg accusative and its dative/ablative was apart from England also preserved in liturgic pronunciation, by exaggerating [u~] as [um].

The English did not have that confusion in the first place, hence their Latin was more classical by 800.

On Reality or Not of PIE - and is it "Conspiracy" or "Peer Pressure" in English? (quora)

Q

How do we know that a Proto-Indo-European language really existed? What is the evidence?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-that-a-Proto-Indo-European-language-really-existed-What-is-the-evidence/answer/Oscar-Tay-1

Oscar Tay

speaks a language

Answered Mon

Upvoted by Joe Devney, Master's in Linguistics, professional writer.

and Eric Meinhardt, PhD student in linguistics

[His answer is longer than the debate I contribute to, so read it yourself, I am not copying it here. It is excellent except for the conclusion and the kind of oversight on Sprachbund possibility I am outlining in the debate, I used to believe this, and I am not contesting the cognates, just whether they all come from one and same language.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

“The “borrowing” idea couldn't explain this – Europe hadn't had contact with India great enough or for long enough to account for all the similarities between Sanskrit and the Classical European languages.”

A French scholar - who then took it back - claimed to have found evidence Linear A on Crete involved some kind of Proto-Aryan language.

Seeing that Hittite and Mycenean Greek as well as Lykian, Lydian and Phrygian are next neighbours …

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

“French and Spanish are related because they both come from Latin. Hindi and Marathi are related because they both from from Sanskrit. Maybe, just maybe, there was a similarity between Latin and Sanskrit (and Greek) that extended beyond their roles on their respective continents.”

And Modern Greek and Romanian share traits because they are both on the Balkan … maybe, just maybe … do I need to spell it out? … Aryan and some more core IE langs coexisted around Aegean, and William Jones was unaware of it.

Oscar Tay

Mon

The Balkan languages share those traits because they’re part of a sprachbund, which is definitely something to take into consideration when comparing languages.

Sanskrit and Latin had very little connection, though, so they’re very surely not members of a sprachbund.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

If Sanskrit as suggested had remote origins on Crete and Latin was somewhere North Balkans or Alps previous to getting down, and Mycenean Greek and Proto-Balto-Slavic between them, a Sprachbund becomes more feasible.

[continued on my last answer]

Oscar Tay

Mon

That seems somewhat unlikely.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

Which part of it?

If a French linguist first came out with Linear A Cretan decoded as proto-Aryan, then retacted without explanation, perhaps there is something to it, and an interest in keeping PIE theory on status quo interfering with his discovery.

[or perhaps this is continued on my last answer]

Oscar Tay

Mon

The undeciphered Cretan systems have about as many solutions as the Voynich manuscript. This particular one is certainly possible, but so are most of the others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

Have you any example of another solution?

Online, preferrably?

Oscar Tay

Mon

What I meant was that I’m very suspicious of any decipherments of Linear A. If one person came up with a possible solution and then retracted it, it’s more likely that they realized they were wrong than anything conspiratorial.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

You are suspicious, OK, but if someone realised he was wrong, the normal way of marking this would be to make a retraction, rather than take away material already published.

In other words, you do not have other solutions offered on this, you made a kind of general guess.

And your suspicion is “conspiracy” if you like enough for certain sensitive souls to retract even honest and good work, if it is not flawless, or sometimes even if it is : not you as an individual, but you plus the guys you share it with.

Oscar Tay

Mon

I don’t think we’re going to reach an agreement on this, sorry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

I wasn’t going for agreement, I was going for where your argument leads.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[continued from above, as said, not quite sure which one]

Mon

Or, Italic (with Latin) staying North of Appenine Peninsula for a while before going down - standard.

Or Proto-Balto-Slavic starting a bit North of Greek? Well, Macedonian (Bilippos!) is at least one of the NIE (North Indo-European) languages. The Balto-Slavic for head fits Macedonian for kephalé with a metathesis.

• Common Greek Kephalé
• Dorian kaphala
• Macedonian gabala
• Balto-Slavic, oldest form attested, Lithuanian galva.

All (as far as known) accented on last syllable.

Right about Nicea not Fabricating, Wrong about Catholic Church Not Deciding

The one who is so:

Council of Nicaea Myth Debunked
VerseByVerseBT, added 29 Dec. 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3uGKp23m_g

My comments saying he is so:

I

1:20 Your claim the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy did not yet exist comes from where?

1:34 Your claim Eusebius suggested a council of "all the independent Christian churches" comes from where? Eusebius' Church history? What text, if so?

1:44 And your claim the bishops derived their legitimacy solely from their OWN see, without any interdependence of sees or subjection whatsoever, comes from where, i e prior to Nicea?

From the fact that some sorting was done, so that everything done could be claimed as invention of the council, if you like, centuries after, as you are coming?

II

2:41 That SOME Churches prior to both Nicea and - more relevant - Rome and Carthage and Laodicea were considering any given NT book as canonic does not mean there was an agreed canon.

Rome and Carthage gave canons which involve all of NT and which involve at least verbally same OT canon as Trent.

Laodicea gave a canon which supports the Protestant OT canon, but a defective NT one, books are lacking, notably Apocalypse.

Note very well, I am not into the "Nicea made the canon" spoof, I am talking about real local councils at which Bible canons were really discussed and published.

Your appeal to Church Fathers involves an appeal to men who were supporting the Hierarchy, i e St Irenaeus who said all Churches must agree with the Apostolic succession specifically in Rome, enumerating a few Popes there.

2:53 I am fairly sure, the reference in 2 Peter 3 is to Romans : St Peter was there, and some proto-Protestants had already made some twisted Romans road. It is therefore prophetic about Martin Luther.

And obviously, the verse, while not a direct refutation of "Scripture interprets other Scripture" is at least against "the Bible interprets itself (on same locus of text)".

3:17 As you may be aware, Muratorian fragment has an NT canon deviant, for some or other reason, from the currently universal one.

Yes, you said basically - omitting that it had, erroneously, included Pastor Hermas.

3:52 You are clearly right that 4 Gospels as such could be reconstructed as being canon from ante-Nicene fathers. While the most important ones, they are 4 out of 27.

III

4:15 And were universally rejected by the early Church.

Arguing, in one sense, Dan Brown was right : they were rejected by the Catholic Church. That is what "universal" means, and if you will argue that Catholic Church deciding on Gospels does not equal Catholic Church as coming out from Nicea, you will also have to argue that the canons from Carthage, Laodicea and Rome are from a spurious Church - leaving you with Four Gospels and Ante-Nicene fathers and Muratorian Fragment and a conundrum where the Church really went.

4:47 I reject the Nag Hammadi spurious "gospels" on authority of the Church.

You reject them on what authority? Only on authority of human reason?

Then, while your reasons are good, you can hardly have a real issue with someone who having other reasons takes that other option - which I, obviously, do not.

5:22 Obviously, Saint Hippolytus was rejecting Gospel of Thomas.

And obviously, since he was either Pope, or more probably a redeemed Antipope, whose writings were validated by subsequent real Popes, as a Catholic I obey this Church authority.

The early Church considered "Gospel of Thomas" as obvious heresies.

Fine. So do I. So do you.

The Church in the 16^th C considered Martin Luther's exegesis as obvious heresies.

So do I - but do you?

If not, are you dealing with two churches? Or are you claiming one and same Church had but later lost authority to decide what is heresy?

If the latter, why would the Church lose a promise of Christ? If the former, where do you set the limit in time, and where apart from Catholic Church was the "early Church" surviving?

Clashing Centennial Jubilees : 13.X vs 31.X

Something BIG Is About to Happen on OCTOBER 31, 2017 !!!
Bible Flock Box | added 10 oct. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKQlA2u1oe8

I

Today is October 13 - Fatima Day.

100 years ago, it was the last apparition of Our Lady in Fatima to three young shepherd children.

She foretold a lot of the ensuing troubles. Confer Amos 3:7.

As to Luther, Galatians 1:9 I think it was (yes, I checked) tells how Catholic authorities had to deal with him.

January 3, 1521, Pope Leo X in a bull named Decet Romanum Pontificem was obeying Paul in Galatians 1:9 - Saint Paul, of course.

II

1:34 Bergoglio on this October 31 is of course NOT obeying St Paul.

He's obeying the advice of his friend, an Anglican "bishop" with no valid orders, whom he buried with the ritual reserved for a Catholic actual bishop, actual successor of the Apostles (OK, in reality that rite involves no Novus Ordo Mass, but the Traditional Mass, which we are sure he didn't use).

That dead friend of his was Tony Palmer. He died in a biking accident.

I wonder if Pope Michael is going to re-excommunicate Bergoglio over this step ... (he is already excummunicated by saying Evangelicals proclaim same Gospel as Catholics : Evangelicals proclaim same things on items of it, but not on the whole of it).

1:57 If he is not interested in making a compromise, he sure makes a good job of pretending so.

The 1999 declaration, signed either by Antipope Wojtyla or by his then cardinal, later Antipope successor Ratzinger, was a compromise which a Catholic cannot accept. Simple as that.

It was not well received by SSPX.
It was not well recived by Sedevacantists.
It was not well received by Pope Michael.

It was received by Catholics who have some claim of caring about keeping the faith even by opposing modernism and people who promote it while clad in sheeps clothes, as a tell tale sign there is something rotten in the Vatican.

III

2:43 In fact, the Jesuits were not formed to combat Protestantism, even if that is one of their major tasks since formation.

St Ignatius of Loyola and St Francis Xaver and St Francis Borgia and St Robert Bellarmine are not considering Bergoglio a Jesuit in the full sense of the word. No way that could happen, even if Hell freezes over. Unless he converts of course, to Catholicism.

IV

3:00 Sale of indulgences is a propagandistic canard.

You get indulgences for good deeds, some of them outlined in the Bible, like forgiving enemies (indulgence for yourself), like feeding just poor men at a burial (indulgence for the dead man).

Giving alms to St Peter's Basilica was one of those good deeds.

You were not buying anything and Tetzel was not selling anything. Luther was not even saying in so many words that Tetzel was doing that, more like what Tetzel did being tantamount to doing that. BUT some things got oversimplified in Protestant historiography, and Ellen White was not exactly a historic scholar. Cardinal Newman, by contrast, was : and he converted from a position originally Eavangelical, over Anglo Catholic, to Catholic in the full and Roman sense.

3:07 But the Church rejected his efforts.

Yes, as St Paul had told her to do in Galatians 1:9.

The Roman Catholic Church guilty of heresy, you say?

Well, if so, what exact Church was NOT guilty of heresy in 1507? Not Luther's, he hadn't founded one, not the Roman Catholic Church on your view, since it didn't change between 1507 and 1517. Not Münzer's, he hadn't founded the first Anabaptists yet. So, which one?

If you say that in 1507 NO Church on earth was free from heresy, you contradict Matthew 28:16-20.

In verse 20 it says "every day" or "all days", and for what, for Christ being with His Church. Obviously, Christ is not with heresy, not with a heretical "Church". But perhaps simple souls who were not accountable for Catholics being heretics, on the level of laymen and lower clergy? No, in verse 16 it says Christ was adressing these words to His highest clergy, the eleven disciples, not to every disciple He had. So, clearly, in 1507 at least ONE Church must have existed with teaching authority untouched by heresy. And it was NOT Luther or Münzer who founded it, since they each only started dissenting ten years later. Publically, that is.

3:28 Reformation being "God's doing" as you put it is contrary to Galatians 1:9 and to Matthew 28.

V

4:08 Two historic blunders.

1) The Jesuits were not founded to LEAD the Counter-Reformation but became leading proponents after it.
2) While the Counter-Reformation was interested in bringing Protestant heretics back and Pagans in (they were missionaries to Red Indians and to Africans, when Protestants were considering "missionary efforts" like "works salvation"), the main reason for them being founded was St Ignatius of Loyola had a good concept of how to live the Catholic life, and it deserved to be tried, and Counter-Reformation was mainly about Catholics living like Catholics and not, like some Renbaissance men had done, as Pagans.

VI

4:17 Left side of photo (from our point of view) : Tony Palmer, already spoken about. Buried as "Catholic bishop" even if he wasn't, by his friend Bergoglio.

There are guys among Lutherans and - as in his case - Anglicans who do think there was something wrong about Reformation and its leading to a schism, but the coherent step to take on that light would be converting - he didn't. I did.

4:33 I don't think either Catholics (obviously) or Protestants (whom I consider rather as Leopard power) are the ones receiving the deadly wound.

Obviously, if Leopard power (or one of its four heads) is "one of the heads of the beast", Protestantism receivng a fatal head wound would qualify.

VII

4:39 No, the Catholic papacy which existed when Luther was excommunicated is not the beast.

4:51 No, Pius VI getting captive was not the deadly wound of the beast, he was a Catholic pope. I e a true successor of Sts Peter and Paul in Rome.

1929, Lateran treaty was only half of a regain, not after Berthier took Pope Pius VI, but after "Italy" took Rome from Pius IX. In 1870.

If you go by "day year principle", which is wrong, what do you get going back 1260 years from 1870?

610. It is not when Gregory the Great became or even ceased to be Pope, he died in 604.

It is not when his successor Sabinian died either, he died in 606. Sabinian's successor Boniface III was both elected and died in 607.

Boniface IV was Pope from 608 to 615. So the date you get is neither his date of accession nor of death.

He removed idols from, exorcised and made to a Church what had been Pantheon, but that was in 609 - missing your 610 date by one year.

Here are some real events from 610:

"October 4 – Heraclius arrives with a fleet from Africa at Constantinople. Assisted by an uprising in the capital, he overthrows and personally beheads Emperor Phocas. Heraclius gains the throne with help from his father Heraclius the Elder. His first major act is to change the official language of the Eastern Roman Empire from Latin to Greek (already the language of the vast majority of the population). Because of this, after AD 610, the Empire is customarily referred to as the Byzantine Empire (the term Byzantine is a modern term invented by historians in the 18th century; the people of the Empire itself always referred to themselves as "Ρωμαῖος" — tr. Rōmaios, Roman)."

Ah .... but 1870 changed nothing for Byzantine Empire, right?

"The Avars invade the Duchy of Friuli, an important buffer between the Kingdom of the Lombards in Italy and the Slavs.[1] During the fightings Gisulf II dies and his duchy is overrun (approximate date)."

Well, 1870 was not exactly encouraging Italian particularism, and Friuli was only united to Italy after WW-I.

"King Witteric is assassinated during a banquet at Toledo, by a faction of Catholic nobles. He is succeeded by Gundemar, duke of Narbonne, who becomes king of the Visigoths in Hispania."

While this prequel to Gunpowder plot was Catholic, it accomplished nothing for Catholicism. Not directly, but Gundemar's successor was at least Chalcedonian or Catholic. However, 1870 was not exactly a change in Spain.

"King Theuderic II loses Alsace, Champagne and Thurgau to his elder brother Theudebert II of Austrasia. His Burgundian army is defeated east of the Jura Mountains against the Alemanni."

Well, Austrasia preceeds in a way Charlemagne and Holy Roman Empire ... you might get some Greek Orthodox worked up by claims that Austrasia had too much power in German speaking areas up to replacement by Prussia in 1870. I'd not agree.

"Muhammad, Islamic prophet, begins secretly at 40 years old to preach a new religion that will be called Islam. According to Islamic teachings, the angel Gabriel appears to him in a cave on Mount Hira near Mecca (Saudi Arabia) and calls him: "The Prophet of Allah". Muhammad gathers followers, reciting to them the first verses of al-Alaq (surat Iqra), thus beginning the revelation of the Qur'an"

But nothing bad happened to Islam in 1870?

"Pope Boniface IV presides over a Council of Rome for the restoration of monastic discipline. Attendees include Mellitus, first bishop of London."

I don't think you can argue Western Monasticism as such is the Beast.

"Columbanus and Gallus begin their missionary work in Bregenz, near Lake Constance (Switzerland)."

Nor that going as missionary to Arians or Pagans is the work of the Beast.

"John V (the Merciful) becomes patriarch of Alexandria (approximate date)."

This is no major change in Alexandria.

But supposing the 1260 years are by a 360 day calendar?

360 : 365.25 = 0.9856262833675565
1260 * 0.9856262833675565 = 1241.88911704312119
= 1242

1870
1242
0628

"Spring – Byzantine–Sassanid War: Emperor Heraclius issues an ultimatum for peace to King Khosrow II, but he refuses his generous terms. The war-weary Persians revolt against Khosrow's regime at Ctesiphon, and install his son Kavadh II on the throne on February 25. He puts his father to death and begins negotiations with Heraclius. Kavadh is forced to return all the territories conquered during the war. The Persians must give up all of the trophies they have captured, including the relic of the True Cross. Evidently there is also a large financial indemnity. Having accepted a peace agreement on his own terms, Heraclius returns in triumph to Constantinople."

OK, but still no major change occurred in Byzantine Empire in 1870, right?

"Third Perso-Turkic War: The Western Göktürks, under their leader Tong Yabghu Qaghan, plunder Tbilisi (modern Georgia). The Persian defenders are executed or mutilated; Tong Yabghu appoints governors (tuduns) to manage various tribes under his overlordship."

Did any bad thing happen to Turkey in 1870?

"Battle of Cirencester: King Penda of Mercia defeats the West Saxons at Cirencester (south-west England), in what later will be Gloucestershire. After reaching an agreement, he takes control of the Severn Valley and the minor kingdom of the Hwicce."

I think Penda of Mercia had no successor suffering loss in 1870.

"February 25 – Khosrow II, the last great king of the Sasanian Empire, is overthrown by his son Kavadh II."
"September 6 – Ardashir III, age 7, succeeds his father Kavadh II as the twenty-fourth king of the Sasanian Empire, on the latter's death from plague."

Which hardly changed anything in Persia, very much?

"Muhammad, Islamic prophet, leads about 1,400 men on a pilgrimage to Mecca, where their passage is blocked. The Quraysh tribe and the Muslim community in Medina sign a 10-year truce (Treaty of Hudaybiyyah)."

Again, Islam hardly received a deadly head wound in 1870?

"Indian astronomer Brahmagupta writes the Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta, an early, yet very advanced, mathematics book, including rules for computing with zero."

Right, that is beastly enough, but bad mathematical philosophy also did not receive any deadly head wound in 1870.

"The Sharia enjoins women as well as men to obtain secular and religious educations. It forbids eating pork, domesticated donkey, and other flesh denied to Jews by Mosaic law (approximate date)."

Nor did school compulsion. While that too is beastly.

"Muhammad's letters to world leaders explain the principles of the new monotheistic Muslim faith, as they will be contained in his book, the Quran."

This starts making me curous : DID Islam in any sense get a deadly head wound in 1870?

No, not really. I checked.

VIII

9:16 Looking up 2 Tim 3 verses ... 15, 16 ... wait, I got 1 Tim, same chapter and verse:

[15] But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. [16] And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory.

Now, here is an indication Bible is not SOLE authority, since Church of the Living God is authorty too. Now to 2 Tim, same verses and chapter.

[15] And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

This does not say "Bible alone". It says "All scripture" or "all of the Bible". That is something different.

How long will you repeat a prooftext which does not prove what you say it proves, before discovering that?

Bible alone is not in all of the Bible!
9:43 Yes, we do rely on Apostolic Tradition.

Unlike "Bible alone", that is in the Bible:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
[2 Thessalonians 2:14]

So, St Paul continues in the Church in TWO ways : both by the 14 Epistles AND by Apostolic Tradition.

Btw, the Greek Orthodox in Thessaly, while neglecting some Apostolic Tradition, referring to Papacy (part of it also in the Bible) are at least not neglecting this principle.

9:57 You might be aware that neither Lutherans nor Anglicans have been taking a strong stance against Bible and Tradition, lately?

There are definitely Protestants who are aware Protestantism overdid certain things.

And the coherent thing for them to do would be to become Catholics. Like I did.

IX

10:26 I see your text for Ephesians 2:8-9.

I also see nothing in it which in any way contradicts justification by Baptism or by Penance.

Works in the context means good works, and we don't get right with God again by giving someone alms or by even not repeating a mortal sin, we get right with God by a sacrament of the faith - by Baptism, if not baptised before, or by Penance, if sinning after Baptism.

The good works, while not making us children of God again are however necessary once we are so.

11:50 Since your misclassification of Sacraments of the Faith as "works" is another Gospel than the one the Catholic Church has heard, that IV (?) Session of Trent (trusting you got the reference right, I thought that was the session dealing with the Bible) or whichever Session it was (subtitles could be wrong) is simply applying Galatians 1:9.

11:57 "in the Roman Catholic Church, you can't obtain salvation without the Sacraments"

OR the desire of them!

If you are a Pagan, convert, desire Baptism but die on the road to the Catholic priest who would be baptising you, or are even martyred on that road, well, you are saved without actual Baptism but not without the desire of Baptism. Since this salvation comes before you have a chance to sin after baptism, you neither need Penance, nor desire of Penance. You do need to desire the ultimate gift of God in this life, the Eucharist.

This is certain for a sacrament like penance, it is probable, though disputed, for baptism.

One can take a word in John 3 and another definition of Trent as saying, in the case of baptism, you need the sacrament itself, it is not enough to just desire it.

11:59 Sacraments are not rules of human action.

"It's not until you observe them"

No, in the sacraments you are not doing a work, God is doing a work in you.

It is very obvious in baptism of small children : they contribute nothing of very little, except the fact of being physically present, to God's work in them.

X

12:14 Catholics certainly believe all believers are in a sense priests, this does not mean all believers are equal to the special priesthood.

As a believer you get one very general kind of priesthood by Baptism and Confirmation : it allows you to fruitfully RECEIVE the Eucharist. Before you can however CELEBRATE Holy Mass, you need another special kind of priesthood.

Biblical proof : Christ had his twelve apostles at the Last Supper when He instituted this Sacrament. It is to them He said "do this", and this means not what He had just said (take and eat), but what He had just done, turned bread into His body, turned wine into His blood (for this is).

1 Peter 2:[5] Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Spiritual sacrifices are offered up even in receiving sacraments. Therefore, St Peter is NOT saying all faithful can celebrate Holy Mass, he did not say "all of the spiritual sacrifices".

He does say we should in the passive "be ... built up", this means there is someone actively building us up. And, under God, that is the clergy.

12:46 You believe you need no priest to forgive your sins?

Have you read John 20:21-3?

James 5:[16] Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

St James is adressing priests.

In verse 14, when it says to bring in priests of the Church for another need - extreme unction - James is not saying this like "are you sick, then you bring in the priests of the Church". No, in third person:

"[14] Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."
[James 5:14]

Note that the continual prayer part also makes more sense if:

• there are people who are delegated to prayer as a calling of their daily work
• they are chosen so as to be just (meaning, a priest who is a child predator or even having a romance with a teen, outside either marriage or celibacy, is degrading what he could do for the faithful by praying).

12:50 Your quasi equal (at least in theory) priesthood of all faithful would be based on 1 Tim 2:5, if Christ had not been telling the apostles they are His own extensions in the salvific work. Not all of his faithful, but specifically His apostles, the twelve, His own highest clergy (which it is, if you actually check the Gospel story). Like, "as the Father sent me, so I send you" (quoting from memory).

13:04 Yes, the priest is a successor of the eleven (or at occasion ten, St Thomas was absent) Apostles to whom Christ very specifically gave the power to forgive and to withhold sins. John 20:21-3, again.

OK, your diabolic protest against what Christ instituted is not over.

XI

13:25 sound doctrine you rejected:

The mediation of Mary

In Luke 1, Her mediation was involved in Incarnation.

In John 2, Her mediation is involved in the first public miracle.

and of the saints

The dead rich Pharisee is well aware the Poor Lazarus can mediate favours - but he momentarily forgot he was in Hell, therefore beyond receiving any, and he had not been aware that his brothers were heretics who, as long as not believing Moses and the Prophets could not benefit from a miracle made for themselves either.

transsubstantiation

Against Christ's very express words. Note, Lutherans and some Anglicans at least do not completely reject the Real Presence. Luther went against Zwingli on that one!

the Mass as a sacrifice

Hebrews "Habemus altare, de quo edere non habent potestatem, qui tabernaculo deserviunt."
[Hebrews 13:10]

In other words, we eat from the altar that we have. Note that since the tabernacle is a place of OT sacrifice (not yet destroyed in AD 70, when St Paul wrote this before his death in 64), the logical contrast makes Eucharist a sacrifice even if you translate the object of "we have" as other than "altar".

Hebrews again "Quemadmodum et in alio loco dicit: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum, secundum ordinem Melchisedech."
[Hebrews 5:6]

In other words, Christ is sacrificial priest in the same way as Melchisedch was - and in Genesis we find he offered bread and wine.

Malachi, OT prophecy other than Genesis and Psalms in relation to Hebrews:

1:[11] For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

But the sacrifice of Calvary was in one place only. Therefore we need sacrifice in another way, which is fulfilled if Eucharist is a Sacrifice.

Now, there is a place in Hebrews which says the Sacrifice of Calvary is UNIQUE, and this would mean one of two things:

1) either the Eucharist is not a sacrifice - this is false, a protestant heresy in light of previous
2) or the Eucharist is the same sacrifice as Calvary - this is not only true, but an actual dogma, reaffirmed at Trent with the usual anathema against those coming with another Gospel.

purgatory, prayers for the dead

We know Jews believed in praying for the dead (specifically Pharisees, if not Sadducees) since back in the times of the Maccabees.

Whether you consider II Macc canonic Scripture or not, the historic certainty remains : Jews believed this.

Then we ask, what did Jesus do about this belief? If it was wrong, where did Jesus take His distance?

Nowhere.

You may consider prayers for the dead are condemned as useless in Rich man and Lazarus. No.

The rich man cannot be object for such prayers, not because he is dead, but because he is damned. Note very well, the gulf between him and Lazarus is not between a dead and a living person, both were dead.

It's a gulf between saved and damned.

Also, other passages, both Gospels and Epistles, clearly hint at there being a purgatory.

13:32 "and the authority of the Pope"

To your loss.

If you claim the Pope "is not successor of Peter in Rome", where and who is anyone successor to St Peter?

If you claim "Peter had no special authority", you contradict Acts 2. You also contradict Matthew 16 and John 21:15-17.

13:38 Identifying true Catholic Popes as Antichrist is seriously wrong.

An Antipope can be Antichrist or especially False Prophet. There is even Catholic prophecy more or less about that, if you trust Mélanie Calvat's account of La Salette apparition.

It could of course refer to Kingdom of Italy as precursor of Antichrist, which is certainly the case with Leo XIII Exorcism.

But Papacy has lasted too long to have power for only 1260 DAYS. Not years, DAYS. To persecute the saints.

Your day year principle is not supported by 70 weeks meaning 490 years, since there was a year week as well as a day week in the old law.

13:46 I seriously owe Martin Luther no more obedience than I owe Antichrist, none at all.

If you had quoted an actual work of Luther instead of quoting LeRoy Froom quoting him, I could have checked some of that reformers idiocies in the work itself. If it was the letter to Bohemians (one o fthe places he said such things) he would have implied he was already damned as having taken the mark of the beast, since in that letter he identifies mark of the beast with Catholic Ordination to Priesthood : and he was ordained.

14:00 I'll say one thing more.

If Lutherans and Anglicans regret the words of Luther you just quoted as "excessive", they should in consistency ask if Luther or Reformation is any good as an authority (even under the Bible) at all.

They should, some of us did, me among them, ask if they should not become Catholics.

And if the "present Pope" pretends they don't need to as long as their "protest is over", they would be wise to ask if he can really be a real Catholic Pope.

XII

14:11 "The Protestant Reformation of the 1500's helped move Europe out of the Dark Ages"

OK, and Columbus helped prove the Earth was round to an Europe with universal Flat Earthism, too?

Is your authority for post-Biblical (OK, not post-Apocalypse, but post-Acts) history Washington Irving and similar nincompoops?

"and led to the rise of"

Tyrannic nation states, for one. Swedish and English kings were both happy to persecute Catholics, but not on the authority of a single Bible, nor any single interpretation of it. Lutherans and Anglicans are not all that similar.

But let's see what you were thinking of.

14:13-14

"true religious freedom and the separation of Church and State"

* seriously *

The Reformation of 1500's immediately led to a much closer alliance between clergy and crown. It came to involve measures against Catholics which reminded of some of the worst parts of defeating Albigensians.

It involved making Catholics take the place of Heretics, but unlike that other legislation, since Heretics had popped up out of the ground some times over through the middle ages, but the Catholics now persecuted were suffering for the Faith of their Fathers. Usually back to the day when the people became Christians.

14:17 First Amendment neither expresses "separation of church and state" (a war cry of Clémenceau before persecuting Catholics in 1905, retaken by some Supreme Court decisions after that date as a wild interpretation of First Amendment) nor is a direct result of the Reformation. You could as easily argue it was a result of Tetzel's "selling" indulgences or of Torquemada's burning Crypto-Jews : because between your "cause" and your "effect" you are anyway several layers of human conflict and reacting against what someone else did.

Also, the Supreme Court decisions have been used to persecute Christians in US. And to persecute Ten Commandments.

14:33 As it happens, Protestantism has persecuted, directly and indirectly (even more), quite a few times over Catholicism. And when Protestantism didn't do it, it was at least applauding those who did.

I saw Evangelicals in Mexico honour the persecutor Porfirio Diaz, on a video.

15:54 I wish we had more medieval religious practises.

How about monks flogging a king who persecuted the Church? That was done after killing of St Thomas Becket.

How about an Emperor having persecuted a Pope walk barefoot in the snow to be forgiven? That was done after Gregory VII had been obliged to flee to Canossa.

OK, these two instances presuppose a persecution first. But the kind of atmosphere in which the penances were done shows the true progress made through the Gospel being preached to Pagans, not by Luther, but by St Boniface, not by Olaus or Laurentius Petri, but by Ansgar and by Sigfrid and by a few more, not by Cranmer or Henry VIII, but by Augustine of Canterbury. All of them honoured as saints and hopefully perhaps even interceding for these countries.